Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Jordon]

In order to live under God's grace, you'll have to be merciful as well. Like if someone slaps you on the face, you'll have to allow them to slap the other side. And if they take your cloak, you'll have to offer him something else to take.

The burden of the new covenant is light and easy but our pride gets i our way making it hard to do

Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

If you allow a person to slap you on the face that's upto you.

If God allows it that's upto Him to.

However being merciful has more than one meaning, and whilst you can express it, it's only means something to the son if it's his father's mercy in you tlyour showing before your saved

So whilst you can show it it doesn't mean the father sowed it, as he will know


And he will know this type of mercy to


A smack head looking to kill you can decide not to kill if you give him your money to buy some heroin

 

[HeIsHere]

I honestly do not see how the phrase οὐκ ἐδέξαντο (ouk edexanto, “not receive”) proves anything against Calvinism. This wording simply states their refusal, and it does not, by itself, indicate conditionality or real possibility. Both the 1598 Beza Greek and the NA28 contain the exact same actual words οὐκ ἐδέξαντο (ouk edexanto), meaning that both textual traditions record the same statement that they did not receive the truth. But this form alone is not where the weight of the verse rests.

The real strength of the passage is the Greek construction εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι (eis to sōthēnai), which the King James accurately translates as “that they might be saved.” This construction expresses an intended outcome that was genuinely within reach but never realized because they rejected the love of the truth. It communicates real potential, not inevitability. The English word might is therefore the proper way to capture the nuance embedded in this Greek grammar.

The Greek root δέχομαι (dechomai - shown at BlueLetterBible) can show the general meaning of the verb “to receive,” but in this passage the root alone does not settle anything. What matters is the actual form present in both textual traditions, ἐδέξαντο (edexanto), which simply reports that they did not receive. That form alone does not express conditionality. The surrounding grammar does. The construction εἰς τὸ (eis to) plus the infinitive σωθῆναι (sōthēnai) shows that salvation was truly available but was not realized because they refused the truth offered to them.

Both the 1598 Beza Greek and the NA28 contain the exact same construction εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι (eis to sōthēnai) (“that … might be saved”). This confirms that the King James wording “that they might be saved” (εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς) (eis to sōthēnai autous) reflects the grammar found in both the Received Text line (KJV) and the Critical Text line (Modern Bibles, although I strongly disagree with the Critical Text). The grammatical force of the verse demonstrates that salvation was offered to them as a genuine possibility, and they turned it away.

Beza 1598 Greek:
View attachment 282603View attachment 282600 ("that they [might] be saved")

View attachment 282604

Beza 1598 Greek for 2 Thessalonians 2:
https://archive.org/details/1598-beza-greek-latin-nt/page/n941/mode/2up

NA-28 Greek for 2 Thessalonians 2:
https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/NA28/2TH.2

Side Note:

The KJV primarily used the Beza 1598 Greek, except for 20 or so translatable differences.
The Modern Bibles currently use the Nestle and Aland 28 for the Greek New Testament.



.....
.....

I have been looking into this and your analysis and I agree you are accurate.

And yes this is correct, and for me it really helps capture what is being conveyed in the passage, at a deeper level.


"The real strength of the passage is the Greek construction εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι (eis to sōthēnai), which the King James accurately translates as “that they might be saved.” This construction expresses an intended outcome that was genuinely within reach but never realized because they rejected the love of the truth. It communicates real potential, not inevitability. The English word might is therefore the proper way to capture the nuance embedded in this Greek grammar."

It is far richer the way you have explained it.


I am not KJV only, but I think it does well in attempting to maintain the richness of Koine Greek.

 

[John146]

everyone receives Gods mercy

Romans 9:18

Every saved person shows the fathers mercy in them at the sons cross.

To a point yes, but Romans 9 is not about who receives salvation, rather, it's about what people group (Jews and Gentiles) God has determined to hear the gospel.

 

[Jordon]

To a point yes, but Romans 9 is not about who receives salvation, rather, it's about what people group (Jews and Gentiles) God has determined to hear the gospel.

err no its an inherent will for everyone

 

[BillyBob]

He was baptized though, wasn't he? Which shows us that he believed and was saved and then baptized. Refer to Acts 8:12,36-37.

Water baptism is to be an outward sign of what has taken place within. Sadly it is often misused and comes to nothing.
It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which brings the change within. And when we receive this baptism, we become His. Is is never given only to be taken away, it is always effective, and none deserve it. It is by grace and is only given to those who where chosen to receive it.
The fact that they believed was the work of the Spirit!

 

[Dino246]

the moral of this inherent will Romans 9:18 means there nothing you can do about it to change it.

What is “inherent” about this?

An internal Eternal will means it's eternal and the eternal will in the lord's eyes means forever which means his inherent will in everybody holds value to him.

That’s the best example of meaningless bafflegab I have encountered since I listened to a Liberal MP speak.

 

[BillyBob]

A command from God proves the possibility of obeying.

A command is simply a command [an order given by someone in a position of authority]. It in no way implies the possibility to succeed . You should keep a pocket dictionary handy. . . .

 

[rogerg]

Not dumb. That explanation exemplifies the point that you could not and CANNOT argue.

@Genez
Okay, just not to leave any stone unturned, and for conscience's sake, I'll try this one more time.
But It's kind of ironic that I explain to you the implications of what you believe, but okay, whatever.
Remember, I'm talking about what you think is true, not what I think is true.
Your belief is that when someone comes to believe in Christ, by that, they also became saved; that is, they became saved solely due to their believing in Him. Belief is binary. It doesn't happen in stages - one either believes that something is true or they don't - and should that change, they would go directly from one to the other. So, if someone came to believe in Christ, by that, and at the exact instant of believing (not later), they immediately became saved since believing itself causes salvation (again, your doctrine, not mine).
Therefore, given that believing alone saves someone (according to you), then there cannot be any time lag or separation between that believing and saving - both must occur simultaneously because, again, becoming saved is solely a function of believing, and if someone believes, then they must immediately receive salvation too. If believing and salvation didn't occur simultaneously, then logically speaking, there would be some factor outside of believing at play which actually causes/controls salvation. So then, with the "shall be saved" (future tense) in the verse you chose, the "saved" part cannot mean "saved" as you intend it but must represent something other than that, otherwise, the two (belief and salvation), would be separated in time and a logical impossibility. Therefore, for the verse to mean what you say it means, the two tenses would need to be the same, not different. Notice that the "shall be saved" in your verse is the same "shall be saved" tense-wise as stated below in Romans 5:9 and is representative of the same thing. In the verse, the "being NOW justified by his blood (Aorist), we SHALL BE SAVED (future tense) from wrath through him", that they are justified, and by that justification, would later be saved from God's wrath (future tense) with His ultimate wrath to be dispensed at the end of time. So, the "saved" which is in view means to be saved from that wrath, not to be given salvation. After all, the ultimate end of the gospel, is either to be saved from God's wrath or to suffer it, with everything else leading up to those ends.
The point of all of this is to demonstrate that Scripture uses the word "saved" in different contexts, and with different intents/meanings, not always of becoming saved. IOW, it can mean to become saved, or to literally be saved. I hope you can understand this distinction.
As I mentioned to you in a previous post, the phrase "shall be saved" is contained within many NT biblical verses. You should therefore consider that it is to be saved from God's wrath for the reasons stated above.

[Rom 5:9 KJV] 9 Much more then, being NOW justified by his blood, we SHALL BE SAVED FROM WRATH through him.

Notice below that Scripture identifies actually becoming saved as "are saved" when it occurs at a particular moment and not in the future, in contrast to, and different than "shall be saved", so it does make clear a distinction in usages, with that distinction validating my interpretation of "shall be saved".

[Eph 2:5 KJV] 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)
[1Co 15:2 KJV] 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

I think you therefore place salvation on the wrong side of belief - that salvation should correctly be understood as coming before belief, not after it.

 

[Jordon]

What is “inherent” about this?


That’s the best example of meaningless bafflegab I have encountered since I listened to a Liberal MP speak.

I still haven't had an answer of you from my previous question, but I'll give you a big clue it exist ls in somebody who displays an inherent character.

 

[cv5]

I honestly do not see how the phrase οὐκ ἐδέξαντο (ouk edexanto, “not receive”) proves anything against Calvinism. This wording simply states their refusal, and it does not, by itself, indicate conditionality or real possibility. Both the 1598 Beza Greek and the NA28 contain the exact same actual words οὐκ ἐδέξαντο (ouk edexanto), meaning that both textual traditions record the same statement that they did not receive the truth. But this form alone is not where the weight of the verse rests.

The real strength of the passage is the Greek construction εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι (eis to sōthēnai), which the King James accurately translates as “that they might be saved.” This construction expresses an intended outcome that was genuinely within reach but never realized because they rejected the love of the truth. It communicates real potential, not inevitability. The English word might is therefore the proper way to capture the nuance embedded in this Greek grammar.

The Greek root δέχομαι (dechomai - shown at BlueLetterBible) can show the general meaning of the verb “to receive,” but in this passage the root alone does not settle anything. What matters is the actual form present in both textual traditions, ἐδέξαντο (edexanto), which simply reports that they did not receive. That form alone does not express conditionality. The surrounding grammar does. The construction εἰς τὸ (eis to) plus the infinitive σωθῆναι (sōthēnai) shows that salvation was truly available but was not realized because they refused the truth offered to them.

Both the 1598 Beza Greek and the NA28 contain the exact same construction εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι (eis to sōthēnai) (“that … might be saved”). This confirms that the King James wording “that they might be saved” (εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς) (eis to sōthēnai autous) reflects the grammar found in both the Received Text line (KJV) and the Critical Text line (Modern Bibles, although I strongly disagree with the Critical Text). The grammatical force of the verse demonstrates that salvation was offered to them as a genuine possibility, and they turned it away.

Beza 1598 Greek:
View attachment 282603View attachment 282600 ("that they [might] be saved")

View attachment 282604

Beza 1598 Greek for 2 Thessalonians 2:
https://archive.org/details/1598-beza-greek-latin-nt/page/n941/mode/2up

NA-28 Greek for 2 Thessalonians 2:
https://www.die-bibel.de/en/bible/NA28/2TH.2

Side Note:

The KJV primarily used the Beza 1598 Greek, except for 20 or so translatable differences.
The Modern Bibles currently use the Nestle and Aland 28 for the Greek New Testament.

Quite edifying and educational thanks.

 

[Blain]

I am wondering if this thread will ever reach a solid conclusion,, The word "choose" and its variations appear over 200 times and in each instance it has to do with a choice of obeying God or not or at least in most cases it does.

So do we have a will yes is it free will no because free will would mean that he does not know the beginning from the end if our will was able to make that be different then why does God know the beginning from end?

We can choose yes but he has already seen the outcome of that choice and the bible speaks of us either being slaves to sin or slaves to Christ and we as willing slaves to Christ forfeit our will in order to carry his instead. So once you submit your will to him you no longer have free will you only have the will of the father

 

[Magenta]

The making of this everlasting covenant between God and Abraham, they cut open the sacrificed animals and let the blood spill on the ground. Then both party walks in the blood in a figure eight to make their oath that they shall keep their end of the bargain and if not, whatever happen to the sacrifice will happen to them.
But only two entities walked through it while Abraham stand from afar watching.

Abram was in a deep sleep.

 

[Jordon]

I am wondering if this thread will ever reach a solid conclusion,, The word "choose" and its variations appear over 200 times and in each instance it has to do with a choice of obeying God or not or at least in most cases it does.

So do we have a will yes is it free will no because free will would mean that he does not know the beginning from the end if our will was able to make that be different then why does God know the beginning from end?

We can choose yes but he has already seen the outcome of that choice and the bible speaks of us either being slaves to sin or slaves to Christ and we as willing slaves to Christ forfeit our will in order to carry his instead. So once you submit your will to him you no longer have free will you only have the will of the father

No to question there will never be a conclusion to those who reject his will in them until they accept his inherent will in them. Plus the fact there will be those that will have heard more than you, but then theres those who will be interested to know for not knowing.

And theres those who know more than anyone.

But the simple truth is for those who truly have Gods will there will be patience in accepting there will never be a conclusion on which we can all agree upon, well at least not straight away.

But in the run in from some there will be every attempt to offend you, rather than agree.


For the simple matters being flesh has a law of it's own called free will.

The reality of that is you will be met with blindness, folly, ignorance, rudeness, sin, disobedience, unwillingness.

The end result will be, you'll be held responsible for there actions.

Because in there free will they have the right.

The reality of that is what the lord says, eventually they will see there folly.

Pretty much what I've dealt with since I've been here

 

[Kroogz]

No to question there will never be a conclusion to those who reject his will in them until they accept his inherent will in them.

John 6:40
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.”

2 Pet 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

2 Cor 6:2
For He says: “In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Acts 16:31~~~Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved........

 

[Jordon]

John 6:40
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

John 12:32
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.”

2 Pet 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

2 Cor 6:2
For He says: “In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Acts 16:31~~~Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved........

It must be twenty times now you've just repeated scripture to me now that I've told you I believe in.

When you do this it shows you have an unwillingness to discuss, and really you would rather me question that what I believe, in the hope you can use these precious scriptures against me.

Well I'm not like you and I've posted my full belief system the lord as given me here, in the the last thread I posted here called his life and his word.

But all you want to do is be ignorant of what I believe and keep posting these scriptures on the bases I don't believe them.

Which again is not a good reason for posting them.

anyhoo feel free to repeat yourself.

 

[John146]

err no its an inherent will for everyone

And God is not willing that any should perish...

 

[Dino246]

I still haven't had an answer of you from my previous question, but I'll give you a big clue it exist ls in somebody who displays an inherent character.

A circular explanation is no explanation.

 

[Blain]

It must be twenty times now you've just repeated scripture to me now that I've told you I believe in.

When you do this it shows you have an unwillingness to discuss, and really you would rather me question that what I believe, in the hope you can use these precious scriptures against me.

Well I'm not like you and I've posted my full belief system the lord as given me here, in the the last thread I posted here called his life and his word.

But all you want to do is be ignorant of what I believe and keep posting these scriptures on the bases I don't believe them.

Which again is not a good reason for posting them.

anyhoo feel free to repeat yourself.

Some people will go after you with scripture thinking that if they post enough scripture enough times it will validate what they are saying, pay them no mind because they will continue to repeat this

 

[Jordon]

And God is not willing that any should perish...

That's true, it's also a big reason why he hardened hearts in the first place,

The reason being to live in an eternal state of sin is forbidden. In his inherent will that lives in everyone

Romans 9:18

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

A command is simply a command [an order given by someone in a position of authority]. It in no way implies the possibility to succeed . You should keep a pocket dictionary handy. . . .

Acts 17:30 says God commandeth all men everywhere to repent, but the reality that most people do not repent demonstrates that His commands are not irresistibly obeyed.

We see this in Scripture elsewhere:

Deuteronomy 1:43
So I spake unto you; and ye would not hear, but rebelled against the commandment of the Lord.

Zechariah 7:11–12
But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears...
Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law...

2 Peter 2:21
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than... turn from the holy commandment.

1 John 3:22–24
And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1 Thessalonians 4:3–4
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication.
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.

1 John 2:3–6
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected hereby know we that we are in him.
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Most Calvinists I have run into do not believe the plain reading of the above passages.



.....