Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[HeIsHere]

I didn't place you in a category.

I did not write "you."
But I bet you placed some "likes" here and there.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Some of the unsaved will definitely become saved; some of them definitely will not become saved, which equates to a "might" relative to all of the unsaved. So, an offer of salvation was not given contingent upon a person's actions. However, we know that the elect begin as unsaved but at some point, they must become saved, and we know that God gives only to those He saves spiritual life and with it a love of the truth and to no others. In the end, that will leave only those not elect and not saved as the ones who remain perished.

[2Th 2:13 KJV] 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

I would just encourage us to stay close to what the Scripture actually states rather than building a system around assumptions, my friend. The way you are describing it assumes the conclusion of Calvinism before you start. You take the fact that some become saved and some do not and then conclude this means the offer of salvation is not given contingent upon a person’s reception. Yet the Bible presents it very differently.

The reason some perish is not because God gives them no offer or no enablement. It is because they do not receive the love of the truth. This is exactly what 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says. They perish “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” This is a real possibility, not a predetermined impossibility. The word “might” actually communicates the real openness of the offer. God genuinely desires their salvation and they genuinely could have been saved. Their rejection is the reason for their perishing.

When you say that God gives the love of the truth only to those He already decided to save, that is simply not what the text states. Paul does not say they perish because God withheld the love of the truth. Paul says they perish because they refused it. The responsibility is placed on their response, not on an eternal decree that excluded them.

Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:13, I completely agree with what it says, but Paul is speaking to believers who have already responded to the Gospel. God chose that those who would be saved would be saved “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Both elements are included. Belief of the truth is never removed. The Spirit sanctifies and the believer receives the truth. The verse does not say that God gives belief only to a small group and withholds it from all others. It describes the means by which salvation takes place for those who accept the truth.

Even if we look at the immediate context, the contrast is between those who “received not the love of the truth” and those who did receive it. The issue in the chapter is reception, not a secret decree. If the lost “might” have been saved by receiving the truth, then the possibility was real.

This is why I see the Calvinist model as reading something into the text that the text itself does not say. The Bible’s own explanation is much simpler. God offers truth. God enlightens. God draws. God convicts. A person must receive the love of that truth. Some do, some do not.

That is the distinction Paul himself makes in this chapter.



.....

 

[rogerg]

With Christian love, I would simply encourage you to read the whole chapter. Verse 14 makes much more sense when not taken in isolation. Personally, when discussing these verses here, I like to get a refresher in reading the chapter in the KJV at Biblehub.com. Here are some contextual points to consider:

#1. Paul says the deep things of God are revealed to us by the Spirit after we believe.

Paul explains this in the verses immediately before 1 Corinthians 2:14:

1 Corinthians 2:10–13
“But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

Paul is talking about the deep things of God and
how believers understand them because they already “have received…the Spirit which is of God.”

This is after salvation, not before.

So when Paul says the natural man does not receive these things, he is not referring to the Gospel.
He is referring to the deep spiritual truths that only the indwelt believer can grasp.

The Gospel itself is the milk of the Word, and Paul expected the unsaved to respond to it.


#2. Even believers can be “carnal” and unable to receive deeper truths when they justify sin, which proves 2:14 is not teaching Calvinistic inability.

1 Corinthians 3:1–3
Paul tells believers that they are “yet carnal” and cannot receive the deeper things of the Spirit.

And the reason Paul calls them carnal is clearly stated. They were justifying the sins of envying and strife, as 1 Corinthians 3:3 says, “For ye are yet carnal. For whereas there is among you envying, and strife… are ye not carnal.” These sins placed them in danger of judgment. Paul explains in the same chapter that believers who justify such sins are like perishable materials such as hay and stubble that will be burned up, while he himself would be saved through the fire. They were defiling their temple by justifying various sins and were warned that “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.”

Paul writes, “I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat.”

This proves:
The inability in 2:14 is not a unique condition of the unregenerate. Even believers can resist spiritual truth when they walk carnally.

Therefore 2:14 cannot be describing an absolute inability to believe the Gospel.

#3. The Bible clearly teaches that the unsaved can understand the Gospel when God brings conviction and light.

John 1:9
“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”

John 16:8
The Spirit reproves “the world” of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

If the natural man had no ability under the Spirit’s conviction, this reproof would be pointless.

#4. The unsaved can receive the Word before salvation, because this is how faith comes.

Romans 10:17
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Hearing comes before saving faith.
If the natural man could not receive truth in any sense, Romans 10:17 would be impossible.

Faith in the word is how we have ACCESS to God's grace.

Romans 5:2 says,
"By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Calvinism teaches that grace comes first in Election and then regeneration (new birth) and then faith.

1 Peter 1:23 says,

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.”

You are born again by believing God's word by faith, which is the Bible. Keep reading into chapter 2 and it says that we are to desire the sincere milk of the Word (See: 1 Peter 2:1-2 KJV).

#5. The Bible shows natural people responding to God’s truth before being regenerated.

Acts 2:37
They heard the Word, were pricked in their heart, and asked what to do.
This was before regeneration.

In Acts 17, the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily before believing.
Therefore many believed.

Acts 17:10-12
"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few."

#6. 1 Corinthians 2:14 is about rejecting spiritual wisdom, not inability to believe the Gospel.

Paul is contrasting:

Spiritual wisdom ("Wisdom of God" - KJV)​

vs​

Carnal thinking ("Wisdom of Men" or the "Wisdom of the world" - KJV)​

Which applies to both unbelievers and believers.

Since Paul applies the same inability to believers in 3:1–3, the inability is clearly a moral, voluntary refusal, not divine withholding of ability.

#7. Scripture directly contradicts Calvinistic inability by describing the unsaved resisting the Spirit.

Acts 7:51
“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.”

If the natural man cannot respond, he cannot resist.

#8. God commands all men to repent, which assumes ability under God’s gracious drawing.

Acts 17:30
“God commandeth all men every where to repent.”

God does not command what is impossible for man under His gracious influence.




.....

It should go without saying that I completely disagree with your assessment above for the reasons that I stated.
I'm not going to go critique it because we're in a loop now, and one that I do not choose to prolong further, except to say the spiritually dead are wholly incapable of truly comprehending things spiritual just as the physically dead are wholly incapable of comprehending things physical.

 

[rogerg]

I would just encourage us to stay close to what the Scripture actually states rather than building a system around assumptions, my friend. The way you are describing it assumes the conclusion of Calvinism before you start. You take the fact that some become saved and some do not and then conclude this means the offer of salvation is not given contingent upon a person’s reception. Yet the Bible presents it very differently.

The reason some perish is not because God gives them no offer or no enablement. It is because they do not receive the love of the truth. This is exactly what 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says. They perish “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” This is a real possibility, not a predetermined impossibility. The word “might” actually communicates the real openness of the offer. God genuinely desires their salvation and they genuinely could have been saved. Their rejection is the reason for their perishing.

When you say that God gives the love of the truth only to those He already decided to save, that is simply not what the text states. Paul does not say they perish because God withheld the love of the truth. Paul says they perish because they refused it. The responsibility is placed on their response, not on an eternal decree that excluded them.

Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:13, I completely agree with what it says, but Paul is speaking to believers who have already responded to the Gospel. God chose that those who would be saved would be saved “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Both elements are included. Belief of the truth is never removed. The Spirit sanctifies and the believer receives the truth. The verse does not say that God gives belief only to a small group and withholds it from all others. It describes the means by which salvation takes place for those who accept the truth.

Even if we look at the immediate context, the contrast is between those who “received not the love of the truth” and those who did receive it. The issue in the chapter is reception, not a secret decree. If the lost “might” have been saved by receiving the truth, then the possibility was real.

This is why I see the Calvinist model as reading something into the text that the text itself does not say. The Bible’s own explanation is much simpler. God offers truth. God enlightens. God draws. God convicts. A person must receive the love of that truth. Some do, some do not.

That is the distinction Paul himself makes in this chapter.



.....

The assumptions are yours.
As with all of the unsaved, everyone who comes into this world comes into it without a love of the truth. To obtain
it, God must first intervene on their behalf and place that love within their minds and hearts. Until and unless given,
they will/can never have a love of the truth.

[Heb 10:16 KJV] 16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

[2Co 4:3-4 KJV]
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Regarding your reference to "Bible archaeologists ", their analysis carries no credence with me whatsoever. I regard the Bible alone
and in its entirety.

Might (modal verb)

You use might to indicate that something will possibly happen or be true in the future, but you cannot be certain.​

You use might to indicate that something could happen or be true in particular circumstances.​

​

Source:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/might

Sometimes when you look at a definition for a word, they give examples of usage.
Here are some examples of how the word "might" would be used in a sentence.

1. Rick whispered to Bob that if they slipped past the guards before the next patrol, they might reach the extraction point unseen.
The chance was real, but only if they moved at the right moment.

2. Bob said that if Rick followed the map correctly, they might find the old campsite before dark.
Success depended on Rick’s actions, not a guaranteed outcome.

3. Rick explained that if Bob applied early, he might get the scholarship.
The chance was genuine, but not automatic.

4. Bob told Rick that if they patched the boat quickly, they might make it across the lake before the storm hit.
Their safety depended on their response, not fate.

5. Rick said that if Bob spoke kindly, the argument might settle peacefully.
It could happen, but only if Bob chose to respond well.

6. Bob warned Rick that if they kept hiking without checking their compass, they might get lost.
There was a real chance, but not a certainty.

7. Detective Rick told Bob that if they traced the signal quickly enough, they might locate the stolen device before it was activated.
It was a real possibility, but only if they interpreted the data correctly and acted without delay.




....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Regarding your reference to "Bible archaeologists ", their analysis carries no credence with me whatsoever. I regard the Bible alone
and in its entirety.

Um, I am not sure if you recall the account of the Canaanite woman, but she actually expanded on Jesus’ own illustration by adding her own real-world example. She said, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” (Matthew 15:27 KJV)

Notice that Jesus did not rebuke her and say, “No, only I can make real-world examples or parables to illustrate spiritual truth.”

Instead, He commended her faith. He honored her for drawing a real-life comparison that extended His own illustration and expressed genuine trust in Him.

This is important, because when we apply that same approach to Calvinism, the doctrine collapses. You cannot produce a real-world example of Calvinistic election that doesn’t immediately reveal how troubling the idea is.

For instance:

It would be like a coast guard officer rescuing everyone from a sinking ship except for you and your family. When you cry out asking why he refuses to save you, he simply replies, “No reason. I just do not want to save you.” And then he adds, “You should be thankful that I am saving these other people.”

Yet this is essentially how Calvinism portrays God. You consider this good and just in theology — but if this happened to your own family in real life, would you comfort them by saying, “This is how God acts, and we should call it good”? Of course not. No one would.

This is why the Calvinistic view of God is not only unbiblical, but also morally inconsistent and logically impossible when translated into the real world.





.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

It should go without saying that I completely disagree with your assessment above for the reasons that I stated.
I'm not going to go critique it because we're in a loop now, and one that I do not choose to prolong further, except to say the spiritually dead are wholly incapable of truly comprehending things spiritual just as the physically dead are wholly incapable of comprehending things physical.

All I am asking you to do is read the chapter (1 Corinthians 2 in the KJV at Biblehub) and see if it actually fits the Calvinistic understanding or viewpoint of 1 Corinthians 2:14. If you did read the chapter, in context it is not talking about the unbeliever who needs to receive the gospel, which is what you falsely assumed it meant because you are reading the verse in the vacuum of space apart from the chapter.

So again, I encourage you to read the chapter and pray about it without any bias going in.




.....

 

[Magenta]

#1. Paul says the deep things of God are revealed to us by the Spirit after we believe.

Paul explains this in the verses immediately before 1 Corinthians 2:14:

1 Corinthians 2:10–13
“But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

Paul is talking about the deep things of God and
how believers understand them because they already “have received…the Spirit which is of God.”

This is after salvation, not before.

So when Paul says the natural man does not receive these things, he is not referring to the Gospel.
He is referring to the deep spiritual truths that only the indwelt believer can grasp.

The Gospel itself is the milk of the Word, and Paul expected the unsaved to respond to it.

Paul does NOT say that the deep things of God are revealed after we believe. You assume that and read it into the text but it is doubtful you will admit this. You also say the gospel is not a deep thing of God, but again you assume and read things into the text that are simply not there. In fact, Paul describes the gospel as a profound mystery that human wisdom alone cannot discover or understand; it can only be revealed through the Holy Spirit. Natural, or unspiritual, people cannot understand the gospel's truths because they are "spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians ch 2 v 14). It requires the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal and apply this truth to a person's heart and mind. The core message of the gospel—Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins, God's plan of redemption ordained before the world began—was a mystery hidden for ages but is now made known to believers through the Spirit. While the fundamental message of the gospel is simple enough for anyone to receive by faith, its theological implications, riches, and practical applications are inexhaustible, providing a lifetime of exploration for believers.

Therefore, the gospel is not a shallow or basic teaching, but is rather the profound foundation and entirety
of the Christian life, understood ever more deeply through the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Magenta]

It should go without saying that I completely disagree with your assessment above for the reasons that I stated.
I'm not going to go critique it because we're in a loop now, and one that I do not choose to prolong further, except to say the spiritually dead are wholly incapable of truly comprehending things spiritual just as the physically dead are wholly incapable of comprehending things physical.

He is reading things into the text that are simply not there and insisting others accept his faulty assumptions.

 

[rogerg]

All I am asking you to do is read the chapter (1 Corinthians 2 in the KJV at Biblehub) and see if it actually fits the Calvinistic understanding or viewpoint of 1 Corinthians 2:14. If you did read the chapter, in context it is not talking about the unbeliever who needs to receive the gospel, which is what you falsely assumed it meant because you are reading the verse in the vacuum of space apart from the chapter.

So again, I encourage you to read the chapter and pray about it without any bias going in.




.....

I am speaking from a biblical viewpoint not from a Calvinistic viewpoint. I have read it (and the whole chapter) numerous times and am extremely familiar with it.
See @Magenta's post 26,808 for an excellent detailed explanation. Hint: the verse doesn't mean what you've incorrectly stated.

 

[rogerg]

It would be like a coast guard officer rescuing everyone from a sinking ship except for you and your family. When you cry out asking why he refuses to save you, he simply replies, “No reason. I just do not want to save you.” And then he adds, “You should be thankful that I am saving these other people.”

The spiritually dead cannot cry out. They are dead and completely oblivious and therefore dependent upon God's mercy and grace alone to save them. But He does so only for His elect. Notice in the below verses, they were dead in sin, but God alone made them alive. Nothing occurred between their being dead and the receiving of life (quickened) except that God intervened to make them alive.
They contributed nothing nor was a choice given to them.

[Eph 2:1 KJV] 1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[Col 2:13 KJV] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

 

[HeIsHere]

All I am asking you to do is read the chapter (1 Corinthians 2 in the KJV at Biblehub) and see if it actually fits the Calvinistic understanding or viewpoint of 1 Corinthians 2:14. If you did read the chapter, in context it is not talking about the unbeliever who needs to receive the gospel, which is what you falsely assumed it meant because you are reading the verse in the vacuum of space apart from the chapter.

So again, I encourage you to read the chapter and pray about it without any bias going in.




.....

Paul is absolutely NOT referencing the message of the Gospel in the passage, they need that verse as a proof text.

Paul is writing to believers, they have already responded to the Good News, that is why he is NOT writing with the Good News in view and yes it is about the deep things of God after receiving the Good News, the deep things of God (not the GOOD News) cannot be understood by using the wisdom of man.

Context kills Calvinism every time.

 

[Magenta]

I am speaking from a biblical viewpoint not from a Calvinistic viewpoint. I have read it (and the whole chapter) numerous times and am extremely familiar with it.
See @Magenta's post 26,808 for an excellent detailed explanation. Hint: the verse doesn't mean what you've incorrectly stated.

CDS is a vermin infested beard free willers wear so they can pretend our beliefs are not solidly Biblically based.

Meanwhile they believe that what the Bible says is impossible for man, in the words of Jesus Christ our Lord, is possible for man.

Go figure.

They base their objections on a logical fallacy and make claims like, God
convinced me of the Truth and then I got to decide if I believed it or not.

They say salvation is open to all and then contradict themselves = those whose names were not
written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world? Yeah, them = they have no chance.

 

[rogerg]

CDS is a vermin infested beard free willers wear so they can pretend our beliefs are not solidly Biblically based.

Meanwhile they believe that what the Bible says is impossible for man, in the words of Jesus Christ our Lord, is possible for man.

Go figure.

They base their objections on a logical fallacy and make claims like, God
convinced me of the Truth and then I got to decide if I believed it or not.

They say salvation is open to all and then contradict themselves = those whose names were not
written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world? Yeah, them = they have no chance.

Yep, Magenta, they try to use CDS as a cudgel to beat up those who would disagree with them to try to shut them up.

 

[HeIsHere]

The spiritually dead cannot cry out. They are dead and completely oblivious and therefore dependent upon God's mercy and grace alone to save them. But He does so only for His elect. Notice in the below verses, they were dead in sin, but God alone made them alive. Nothing occurred between their being dead and the receiving of life (quickened) except that God intervened to make them alive.
They contributed nothing nor was a choice given to them.

[Eph 2:1 KJV] 1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[Col 2:13 KJV] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Neither does it state this happened prior to belief...... as though salvation comes to people completely unaware.

 

[Magenta]

Yep, Magenta, they try to use CDS as a cudgel to beat up those who would disagree with them to try to shut them up.

They pretend to be such great researchers and then deliberately misrepresent the man they love to hate
and associate us with, which is one of their fave logical fallacies. Even when corrected they do it again
because they really don't care for truth. However, we do know that they love to misrepresent, not only
others and the beliefs of others, but also their own selves and worst of all, Scripture, and God, with their
blasphemies, saying He does things for "no good reason," and likening salvation to a lottery, claiming
God does not act unilaterally in matters of salvation, and if He did, it would make Him an unjust tyrannical
monster kidnapping people against their free will <= free will, which is their sacrosanct idol. That is not even
the worst of what comes from the vile imaginations of those who rewrite Scripture to suit their presups.

 

[rogerg]

Neither does it state this happened prior to belief...... as though salvation comes to people completely unaware.

They were spiritually dead. Before being made alive, belief for them was impossible

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Paul is absolutely NOT referencing the message of the Gospel in the passage, they need that verse as a proof text.

Paul is writing to believers, they have already responded to the Good News, that is why he is NOT writing with the Good News in view and yes it is about the deep things of God after receiving the Good News, the deep things of God (not the GOOD News) cannot be understood by using the wisdom of man.

Context kills Calvinism every time.

Indeed. Ignorance of reading Scripture in its proper context appears to be a growing problem in these last days.
It is my hope that God will shine a fuller and more robust understanding of the Scriptures upon those who cannot presently see it.



....

 

[rogerg]

They pretend to be such great researchers and then deliberately misrepresent the man they love to hate
and associate us with, which is one of their fave logical fallacies. Even when corrected they do it again
because they really don't care for truth. However, we do know that they love to misrepresent, not only
others and the beliefs of others, but also their own selves and worst of all, Scripture, and God, with their
blasphemies, saying He does things for "no good reason," and likening salvation to a lottery, claiming
God does not act unilaterally in matters of salvation, and if He did, it would make Him an unjust tyrannical
monster kidnapping people against their free will <= free will, which is their sacrosanct idol.

Yes, and I'm growing weary of refighting the same battles with the same people. No matter how often we
explain it, they simply aren't able to grasp it.

 

[BillyBob]

That comes after belief and no initial saving faith in the Good News is not a gift according to scripture it is "through faith."

Not one person has made a good case using the original language, hermeneutics and context that saving initial faith is a gift.

Eph 2:8