Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Regeneration never precedes personal initial saving faith in scripture.

You biblical method of interpretation is one of insinuation onto passages an yet there are clear passages which show your insinuation to be false.

This being one and there are many more!!!


Ephesians 1:13

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit…”

Does not state gifted belief or given belief by God!

No regeneration prior to belief.

Your soteriology is false.

True belief is given by only God; it is not produced by man. I've also posted that to you before

[Phl 1:29 KJV] 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron143
From-Romans7-18-19.png

From Romans 7 verses 18-19 Journey from Inability to Ability I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out... I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. Praise be to God for circumcising my sinful nature, causing me to obey by putting His Holy Spirit in me, and giving me a new heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron143
from-Rom7-18Gal5-17Isa64-6-Job-14-4Mark10-18Matt7-18Luke18-27.png

I know that nothing good lives in my flesh... For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. Each of us has become like something unclean, and our iniquities carry us away like the wind. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. No one is good except God alone. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” from: Romans 7 v 18, Galatians 5 v 17, Isaiah 64 v 6, Job 14 v 4, Mark 10 v 18, Matthew 7 v 18, Luke 18 v 27
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron143
All those levels are simply a modicum of study.
Hmmm, first she admits to the sealing by the Holy Spirit as being part of the process, then she complains
about there being parts to the process. Oh! I get it. She likes her un-Biblical "POOF" version better...


Interesting to note here that she also seems to conflate the sealing with the indwelling.
 
Oops seems Paul forgot to mention regeneration preceding belief...

1 Timothy 1:16

“But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.”

The order clearly laid out is as follows:

First…those who would believe in him
Then…may receive eternal life.”

True belief is a gift given by God to His elect through regeneration. True belief cannot be produced by man.

[Phl 1:29 KJV] 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cameron143
The philosophical concept of 'free will' really doesn't have much Biblical support, though the spiritual quality of our intent and desires renders us guilty. True freedom is in obedience to God: the alternative is bondage to sin. The whole idea that 'life has no meaning without free will' strikes me as more derivative of the hyper-individualism of American liberalism than of any demonstrated logical position. In fact, that free will, so called, is even possible has not been properly demonstrated, in my opinion. I don't think it even has a coherent definition. I can accept that certain aspects of creation are unknown or unknowable to us, but from a Biblical point of view I think free will is a human invention, and one with zero empirical and very little apodictic support.
 
Anyone who denies election as she and other free willers love to do will never acknowledge the ordo salutis as given in Scripture.

They would have to give up giving themselves credit for what God has done.

They also set Christ at naught, denying the efficacy of His offering and death and of what it produced.
 
They also set Christ at naught, denying the efficacy of His offering and death and of what it produced.
To them God does things for no good reason. Then they pretend they are defending the character of God.
 
All those levels .. how complicated Reformed theology becomes in order to make itself look convincing.
Yup. Its all an hoax embellished with high sounding pseudo-philosophical bafflegab meant to dumbfound the weak-minded, lazy and vulnerable.

Then the strident exertions to keep them dumb-down and oppressed, cordoned-off mentally inside the Reformed paddock warming them pews and keeping the money train chugging along.

Pretty much a religious/pious sounding confidence scheme all the way around IMO.
The Temple franchise shareholders and bogus religious "dear leaders" of Jesus' day were quite expert at it.
 
True belief is a gift given by God to His elect through regeneration. True belief cannot be produced by man.

[Phl 1:29 KJV] 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Oh yea, the Calvinist got that interpretation wrong as well. As they do the rest.
 
The philosophical concept of 'free will' really doesn't have much Biblical support, though the spiritual quality of our intent and desires renders us guilty. True freedom is in obedience to God: the alternative is bondage to sin. The whole idea that 'life has no meaning without free will' strikes me as more derivative of the hyper-individualism of American liberalism than of any demonstrated logical position. In fact, that free will, so called, is even possible has not been properly demonstrated, in my opinion. I don't think it even has a coherent definition. I can accept that certain aspects of creation are unknown or unknowable to us, but from a Biblical point of view I think free will is a human invention, and one with zero empirical and very little apodictic support.
No doubt whatsoever that man has free will. Intentionally codified in Genesis 3 and THOUSANDS of other scenarios.

Adam made wrong choices while he was yet unfallen and perfectly holy. So did the Woman.
Subsequently, Adam made right choices after the fall had taken place. So did the Woman.

In other words,
UNFALLEN Adam and Eve had the free will to make bad/wrong decisions.
Decisions that led to their "death" aka separation from God.

FALLEN Adam and Eve had the free will to make good/right decisions.
Decisions that led to "life" aka "salvation" aka "reconciliation" aka "renewed fellowship" with God.

Now you do Cain and Abel.
 
Yes, the baby is born into sin on a physical level by Adam’s sin because it carries a sin nature,
but spiritually they would be saved by God if they died as a baby. They would be saved by Christ’s sacrifice.

Jesus says, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14).
Jesus said "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones, for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 18::10).
The baby is not aware of any law, and Scripture says, "....but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Romans 5:13).



The Calvinist interpretation is actually pretty silly. The Calvinist not only has to redefine the word “world” but they also have ot redefine the word “whosoever,” too.



2 Samuel 12:23 KJV
“But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”

David clearly expresses:

1. The child will not return to life on earth.​
2. David himself will one day “go to him,” a statement understood by believers as referring to David’s hope of seeing his child again in the afterlife, in God’s kingdom.​

However, I have ran into some Calvinists who believe babies go to hell.
This is monstrous.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.

......

Actually, it does help. You just demonstrated the utter duplicity to FWT! By claiming that all dead babies are saved, you just confessed that there are indeed at least two gospels -- one for the very little people and one for the older ones. You just admitted that Christ's work of atonement for the former deceased people was efficacious and that they were saved by that efficacy. Yet, no such efficacy exists for older people! But Paul tells us that there's only one gospel -- not multiple gospels. But many in the Reformed Tradition (myself included) do believe, as you do regarding children. But the major difference is we do believe that because we also believe that Christ's atonement was just as efficacious for the rest of God's elect, as well, since God knew in eternity and predestined his elect in Chirst! There are numerous explicit scriptures that limits the efficacy of the atonement to specific kinds of people, e.g. sheep, friends, Church, God's Old Covenant people, etc.

Moreover, the phrase "little children" is found in the NT at least 10 times, depending on translation; and each time it refers to adult believers! But you don't consider yourself to be a small, helpless, weak, vulnerable little child in God's eyes, do you? You consider yourself to be among the wise and intelligent

Even the 2Sam 12 passage you quote pertains to and is limited to God's covenant people. Clearly, David saw himself and his child as belonging to God! This is why the king was so confident that he would one day be reunited with his son and see him.

Also, you appear to be oblivious to your own argument. How was it just of God to take the life of David's son since you unwittingly claim that no sin was imputed to the child because there was no law of which he was aware? On what judicial basis, then, did God cut the "sinless" baby off from the land of the living? After all, the penalty for sin is DEATH, is not? God clearly violated his own edict!

And where in scripture does it teach that sin merely affects human beings physically!? Isa 1:5-6 makes it abundantly clear that there is no spiritual soundness in the entire human being -- body, soul, spirit, heart, mind, conscience, passions, etc. -- that man's righteousness is like filthy rags (Isa 64:6)! Or again...that a little leaven (sin) leavens (corrupts) the entire lump -- not just part of it (1Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9). Or that fresh water and salt water cannot flow from the same spring (Jas 3:11). Or again wherein Paul confessed that was no good thing in his sin nature (Rom 7:18). And for your info, babies have natures -- it's called a human nature.

And finally, you ignore the fact that Jesus said in the most unqualified terms possible that no human being is good, which means babies come into this world with sinful natures (Mk 10:18). Jesus made no exceptions for little kids!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogerg
The unconditional, unilateral New Covenant is no small fly in FWT! FWers, it seems, think the New Covenant is merely a slightly modified version of the conditional Old Covenant.

Their thoughts and understanding regarding Christ and the New Covenant are far too small. They are unable to reason outside of the box they are in, nor do they have any desire to do so.
 
No doubt whatsoever that man has free will. Intentionally codified in Genesis 3 and THOUSANDS of other scenarios.

Adam made wrong choices while he was yet unfallen and perfectly holy. So did the Woman.
Subsequently, Adam made right choices after the fall had taken place. So did the Woman.

In other words,
UNFALLEN Adam and Eve had the free will to make bad/wrong decisions.
Decisions that led to their "death" aka separation from God.

FALLEN Adam and Eve had the free will to make good/right decisions.
Decisions that led to "life" aka "salvation" aka "reconciliation" aka "renewed fellowship" with God.

Now you do Cain and Abel.

Those of the Reformed Faith have often affirmed that A&E truly had freewill since they were not encumbered with a sin nature, which is but one of the huge advantages they had over all their progeny. But after they sinned all mankind became a slave to sin and addicted to its deceitful enticements since all Adam's progeny are sinners -- no exceptions.
 
The philosophical concept of 'free will' really doesn't have much Biblical support, though the spiritual quality of our intent and desires renders us guilty. True freedom is in obedience to God: the alternative is bondage to sin. The whole idea that 'life has no meaning without free will' strikes me as more derivative of the hyper-individualism of American liberalism than of any demonstrated logical position. In fact, that free will, so called, is even possible has not been properly demonstrated, in my opinion. I don't think it even has a coherent definition. I can accept that certain aspects of creation are unknown or unknowable to us, but from a Biblical point of view I think free will is a human invention, and one with zero empirical and very little apodictic support.
Many seemingly have no concept of this, and conflate having volition and the ability to make choices with having a will that is free, against all the Scripture verses that speak against, such as man being a slave to sin, blinded by the god of this world, taken captive to do the will of the devil... there are many others, and of course Scripture should be the determiner of this and not some philosophical construct, but Scripture gets tossed, ignored, rejected, rewritten, contradicted and outright denied by the free will crowd who ascribes the the natural man -as a slave to sin and lover of darkness opposed to the Spiritual things of God refusing to come into the light because he hates the light- what is only true of the spiritual man.
 
Those of the Reformed Faith have often affirmed that A&E truly had freewill since they
were not encumbered with a sin nature, which is but one of the huge advantages they
had over all their progeny. But after they sinned all mankind became a slave to sin and
addicted to its deceitful enticements since all Adam's progeny are sinners -- no exceptions.
Adam and Eve were not enslaved to sin as those who come after are, being born after Adam in his fallen state,
but they were of the natural world, and God knew what choice they would make given the options they had.
 
The philosophical concept of 'free will' really doesn't have much Biblical support, though the spiritual quality of our intent and desires renders us guilty. True freedom is in obedience to God: the alternative is bondage to sin. The whole idea that 'life has no meaning without free will' strikes me as more derivative of the hyper-individualism of American liberalism than of any demonstrated logical position. In fact, that free will, so called, is even possible has not been properly demonstrated, in my opinion. I don't think it even has a coherent definition. I can accept that certain aspects of creation are unknown or unknowable to us, but from a Biblical point of view I think free will is a human invention, and one with zero empirical and very little apodictic support.
Prove it. Well.....don't bother.

Free will has been conclusively demonstrated on this very thread THOUSANDS of times.
By actually referring to actual Scriptural references: the parables, manifold escapades and scenarios, types and shadows, explicit doctrinal statements and so on and so forth.

Somebody showing up all of a sudden and waxing philosophical with zero Scriptural backing doesn't amount to a hill of beans by comparison.
 
Those of the Reformed Faith have often affirmed that A&E truly had freewill since they were not encumbered with a sin nature, which is but one of the huge advantages they had over all their progeny. But after they sinned all mankind became a slave to sin and addicted to its deceitful enticements since all Adam's progeny are sinners -- no exceptions.
You lose. Again. Enjoy your tough bananas.....:sneaky:

Oh, and you aren't making any sense either, the standard Calvinist calling card.
 
AI Question:
Can we believe without the spirit
AI Answer:
No, according to Christian belief, it is impossible to be a Christian without the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit is necessary for faith, conviction, and a true understanding of God. The Holy Spirit is described as the source of life for believers, guiding them and empowering them to live according to God's will. Without the Spirit, a person cannot have faith in Jesus, nor can they be considered a true believer.
  • Faith formation: The Holy Spirit is necessary to produce faith in a person; without it, believing in Jesus is impossible.
  • Understanding and conviction: The Spirit gives understanding of spiritual things and convicts people of sin, without which one cannot accept the things of God.
  • Belonging: If someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ, according to Rom 8:9.
  • Spiritual life: The Holy Spirit is considered the source of spiritual life, growth, and power for a believer, enabling them to live in obedience and have assurance of salvation.

If the above is believed to be true, would it be unfair of God to bless some with His Spirit and withhold the Spirit from others?