Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Jordon]

I the case with theology?

A decree is God stating what is to be, is to be.

Predestination was God being directly involved and causing something to happen as He decreed it to be.

nope decree means to make an authoritive order

Predestination means to determine the outcome

 

[Genez]

not as much as you will be, your heading for having your eyes plucked out by the crows in the desert at the rate your going

Such violence harboring in your "Christian soul?"

Actually... Your low remark was meant to feed the crows who read your posts.

 

[Jordon]

Such violence harboring in your "Christian soul?"

Actually... Your low remark was meant to feed the crows who read your posts.

well I'm only stating what happens to maggots

 

[Genez]

nope decree means to make an authoritive order

You keep using secular reference sources and quoting them.

God's decree is God is taking all that He knows might and could have happened, and selecting only what is to happen.

What you gave as a definition was in accordance with human law, according our secular legal system,


........

 

[Genez]

well I'm only stating what happens to maggots

The real Jordon is shedding his disguise.

 

[Genez]

I am not asking about Calvin's definition. Why do you keep returning to
him? I am asking you. It looks like you do not believe God is sovereign.

It does seem a rather common thing for FWers to screech about.

We're such unsophisticated low-lifes, to you.
Aren't we?
Peasant class, free willers....

Actually....
Wills made free only by grace.

Not born that way.

 

[Jordon]

The real Jordon is shedding his disguise.

Nope this is what happens to the free will of flesh

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men


They get there eyes plucked out by the crows else where to.

When you see some crows remember these words

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yes, dechomai supposedly has a more passive tone in the Greek from what I am reading.
As I have been investigating the other Greek analogues for δέχομαι (dechomai) such as λαμβάνω (lambanō), dechomai seems to have by far the strongest connection to the soteriological element than the other candidates.

Maybe @Bible_Highlighter can chime in?

Dechomai (δέχομαι) does appear to be more passive in tone when compared to lambanō (λαμβάνω). After further investigation into the Greek, I can see why the point was being made about the nuance of dechomai. Reneweddaybyday does have a point here (of which he will have my apologies). As you pointed out, lambano is key, because Spiros clearly distinguishes lambano from dechomai.

Under the Dechomai (δέχομαι) 1209 Strong's reference from Spiro, he has this:



Source:
The Complete Word Study Dictionary - Spiro Zodhiates



Lambano can refer to taking or receiving something in a more mechanical or self-prompted way without necessarily implying inward approval, whereas dechomai consistently carries the meaning of welcoming, embracing, or accepting something favorably. According to Spiros, dechomai includes ideas such as making room in the mind, receiving with favor, and inward acceptance. This is important when looking at passages like 2 Thessalonians 2.10, where Scripture says they did not receive the love of the truth, meaning they did not welcome or accept it, which naturally involves the will. Although I still believe that the English expression “that they might be saved” in the KJV reflects a stronger argument for genuine possibility based on the Greek construction eis to sothenai, the lexical nuance of dechomai does strengthen the point that receiving involves a willing acceptance.


...

 

[Jordon]

We're such unsophisticated low-lifes, to you.
Aren't we?
Peasant class, free willers....

Actually....
Wills made free only by grace.

Not born that way.

this is what happens to the free will of the flesh.

The crows pluck your eyes out if you live by free will for to long


Revelation 19:17-18

New International Version



17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

 

[rogerg]

Your argument does not make sense biblically or logically. If verse 10 refers only to a small, select group of unbelievers, then you must explain from the text why these particular rejecters had a real possibility of salvation (“that they might be saved”), while all other unbelievers supposedly did not. You are now claiming that only this tiny group had a genuine opportunity to receive the love of the truth, while every other unbeliever never had such a chance. Yet Paul never presents them as a unique category, nor does the passage offer any reason why God would allow only these individuals the possibility of salvation while denying it to the rest. If their refusal makes them accountable, why are others not accountable for the same refusal. If their opportunity was real, why was no one else given a real opportunity. Scripture gives no such distinction, no exception, and no arbitrary subclass of unbelievers who alone “might be saved.”

Even if someone tries to restrict 2 Thessalonians 2:10 to unbelievers living in the future during the time of the Antichrist, this still does not help the Calvinistic argument. Paul’s reason for their perishing is not tied to a timeline, but to a universal spiritual truth: “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” Whether applied now or in the future, this remains the same principle for all unbelievers in every age. The strong delusion in verses 10-12 is global, not a description of a small subset, and the phrase “them that perish” is consistently used by Paul to describe all unbelievers, not a restricted group. Limiting the passage to the Tribulation actually creates more problems for Calvinism, because it implies that these future unbelievers genuinely “might be saved,” while unbelievers today supposedly have no such possibility. Yet Paul provides no explanation for any such distinction. Therefore the context, language, and universal terminology demonstrate that verse 10 presents a timeless principle that applies to all unbelievers, not a small group limited to a future period.

If Calvinism were actually the doctrine Paul was teaching, then the verse would have to read something like this:

“That they all might be damned who believed not the truth,​

because the Lord withheld from them the power to believe,​

and appointed them to unbelief.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10 (Calvinist Influenced Version)​

But the inspired wording says nothing of the kind. The actual text blames their perishing on their own refusal of the truth, not on God withholding power, ability, or opportunity.

Unless the context clearly provides a special reason why only this small group had the chance of “might be saved,” while all others supposedly did not, the only natural reading or conclusion is that Paul is giving a universal principle that applies to all men. Paul offers no category distinction, no hint of a special class of unbelievers, and no explanation as to why these rejecters alone had a genuine opportunity to be saved while the rest did not. He simply states the reason they perish: “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” If someone insists this applies only to a select few, then they must show from Scripture why God would give only these individuals an actual opportunity of salvation and deny that same opportunity to everyone else. Since the passage provides no such distinction, exception, or explanation, the only reasonable conclusion is that verse 10 expresses a universal truth about all men who reject the truth.



....

There was never a possibility of salvation for them, that is what verses 13 and 14 are saying. You would like to read that into the context because that would support your FW interpretation, but verses v13 and v14 clearly, beyond all dispute, say differently- it is not even arguable. The "And" of v11, the "That" of v12, and most importantly, the "But" of v13 shows that the context continues and includes those verses. The "might be saved" is contingent upon those who "receive" the "love of the truth", and that is decisively answered in/by v13 and v14. So, you would be better off to stop trying to make that argument. The "context" you speak of ends in V15, not V10.
You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You simply can't ignore v13 and v14 as though they didn't exist and complete the thought of v10 because they do and are visible for all to read - they are all one continuous thought.

 

[Magenta]

Recently I was pondering and contemplating this text in the Psalms:

Ps 10:4
4 In his pride the wicked does not seek him;
in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
NIV

This is a very profound passage because even though pride is considered to be the top offense against God (Prov 6:16-17), the human heart, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Something must fill that void! Some deity must replace God. And that god will be whatever or whoever replaces God -- what or who the sinner loves more than God. Therefore, idolatry always follows on the heels of pride. The above quoted passage, then, brought to mind Paul's initial indictment of the human race in Rom 1, and which he sums up in Rom 3.

A careful reading of Rom 1:18-22, 28-32 reveals that the pagans to whom Paul was referring most certainly had no room for God in their thoughts. They suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and they did not want to retain God in their knowledge, even though God clearly revealed himself through Natural Revelation (temporal reality as we all know it) and Intuitive Revelation (works of the Law written on men's hearts, eternity set in men's hearts, etc.). And all their thoughts (and intentions) became futile, which helps explain what was going on in Gen 6:5. Paul in Rom 1 is teaching us how the vile, moral character of mankind is inherently idolatrous! And this is due to pride that always goes before a fall!

I just love it when the bible seamlessly harmonizes itself with all its other parts, proving that God inspired the script of the prophets and apostles.

The wicked man boasts in the cravings of his heart; he blesses the greedy and reviles the LORD. In his pride the wicked man does not seek Him; in all his schemes there is no God. Psalm 10 v 3-4 Mocker is the name of the proud and arrogant man - of him who acts with excessive pride. Proverbs 21 v 24 The proud look of man will be humbled, and the loftiness of men brought low; the LORD alone will be exalted in that day. For the Day of the LORD of Hosts will come against all the proud and lofty, against all that is exalted - it will be humbled. Isaiah 2 v 11-12 No flesh may boast before God. 1 Cor 1 v 29

 

[Magenta]

There was never a possibility of salvation for them, that is what verses 13 and 14 are saying. You would like to read that into the context because that would support your FW interpretation, but verses v13 and v14 clearly, beyond all dispute, say differently- it is not even arguable. The "And" of v11, the "That" of v12, and most importantly, the "But" of v13 shows that the context continues and includes those verses. The "might be saved" is contingent upon those who "receive" the "love of the truth", and that is decisively answered in/by v13 and v14. So, you would be better off to stop trying to make that argument. The "context" you speak of ends in V15, not V10.
You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You simply can't ignore v13 and v14 as though they didn't exist and complete the thought of v10 because they do and are visible for all to read - they are all one continuous thought.

He says himself that there is no possibility of salvation for some, after claiming it is available to all..

 

[rogerg]

He says himself that there is no possibility of salvation for some, after claiming it is available to all..

Yes, his logic is both myopic and astounding.

 

[Magenta]

Yes, his logic is both myopic and astounding.

Logical fallacies is a main stay of Pelagian heretics and FWers.

 

[rogerg]

Logical fallacies is a main stay of Pelagian heretics and FWers.

Yep, and I shouldn't expect otherwise but I keep hoping.

 

[Genez]

Nope this is what happens to the free will of flesh

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men


They get there eyes plucked out by the crows else where to.

When you see some crows remember these words

You use your free will to reject truth, and to hone in on concepts that please your flesh.

No sense in trying to argue over this matter much more.
You simply want what you want, which God allows for, so God can determine how he will evaluate you when He calls you before Him.

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. ​

If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, ​

their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. ​

​

It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. ​

If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, ​

the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping ​

through the flames. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15​

​

​

.​

 

[Genez]

Logical fallacies is a main stay of Pelagian heretics and FWers.

Says the gatekeeper of the mystical unicorn...

 

[Magenta]

Yep, and I shouldn't expect otherwise but I keep hoping.

If nothing changes, nothing changes. Well, that is what I have been told, any ways. Makes sense!.

 

[cv5]

There was never a possibility of salvation for them, that is what verses 13 and 14 are saying. You would like to read that into the context because that would support your FW interpretation, but verses v13 and v14 clearly, beyond all dispute, say differently- it is not even arguable. The "And" of v11, the "That" of v12, and most importantly, the "But" of v13 shows that the context continues and includes those verses. The "might be saved" is contingent upon those who "receive" the "love of the truth", and that is decisively answered in/by v13 and v14. So, you would be better off to stop trying to make that argument. The "context" you speak of ends in V15, not V10.
You are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. You simply can't ignore v13 and v14 as though they didn't exist and complete the thought of v10 because they do and are visible for all to read - they are all one continuous thought.

Truly, in terms of legit scholarship, you are the rubber ducky to @Bible_Highlighter 's steamroller.

 

[4urenlightment]

Abram was in a deep sleep.

Yea, all the prophets had a sleeping problem in those times including John the revelator saw dreamed of the third heaven. But the only one who didn't sleep on the job was Moses. Even I had a sleeping problem when I used to attend church as a child.

Numbers 12:6
he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house.

Genesis 2:21
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.


Matthew 26:43
When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.