Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Jordon]

this guy is a legend,

Wise words my friend,


But the only trouble is where dealing with people who refuse to listen, so theres not much you can do with silence and calm words

 

[Magenta]

2 Corinthians 4 v 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

 

[Rufus]

As is the WILL of those who perish.

You see @Rufus when we WILL to do His WILL, our spirit agrees with God's Spirit,
THEN come the blessings and fellowship and eternal life.

When our spirit denies/resists/insults/blasphemes God's spirit,
THEN come the judgements and cursing's and separation.

And much to the dismay of @Magenta , all men born into the world have a spirit as an aspect of their created existence.

[Rom 8:16 KJV]
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

[Gal 6:18 KJV]
Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen.

[1Th 5:23 KJV]
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Phm 1:25 KJV]
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen.

But God could have prevented sin from entering this world in the same way He prevented Ambimech from sexually assaulting Sarah. That's my point, which obviously sailed over your head.

Look man, God created His creatures with FREE WILL.
Factoring in the obvious resolves/solves/quashes every supposed Calvinist paradox, barrier, impossibility and conflict there ever was or ever will be.

A&E's will was truly free because it was unencumbered by any sin nature. After that, their fallen progeny are called slaves and prisoners due to their immutable evil nature.

 

[Rufus]

While the term "sovereignty" itself is a later theological word, the ideas of God's supreme rule, ultimate
control, and absolute authority are presented throughout the Bible via various concepts and terms.

And if the Lord's Prayer also doesn't speak to God's supreme rule over his universe, then nothing does!

 

[Rufus]

There is not a Calvinist on the board who rightly understands WHY this scenario was intentionally codified. Twice.
Do you?

How about you @Jordon ? @Magenta ? @Cameron143 ? Anybody?

The infinitely better question would be: Do you believe that God proactively restrains evil in this dark, fallen world? It sounds like you're balking about the Gen 20 account of Ambimelch, Sarah and God and what God told the king.

 

[Rufus]

God is almighty. God is not sovereign according to Calvin's definition. God is not controlling and causing all things that occur. See my earlier post. Sovereign is a made-up term that when used, you are letting other Calvinists know that you're also a Calvinist.

So your parents gave you total free reign when you were growing up? They never imposed their will on you? They never compelled you do something against your own "sovereign" will? They just allowed you to run wild, foot-loose-free, unrestrained?

Or how about the other forms of government God has instituted other than family: No civil authority has ever imposed its will upon you?

 

[Rufus]

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.

 

[Jordon]

Sin did not have to be predestined.
No more than man will have two ears and two eyes needed to be predestined.

But rather, God decreed that there would be sin in the world.

And, as a result?
God predestined the atonement of Christ.

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed ​

from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of ​

Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was ​

revealed in these last times for your sake.​

​

1 Peter 1:18-20​

to decree means make an authoritive order, a plan to save those who would sin.

To predestination means to determine the outcome in advance of those who would sin and not repent or those who would.


But once again you twist his will to say he made and decreed n authoritive order for sin to happen. which means your saying he made an authoritive order for sin to happen.

Honestly you don't know what your saying. It's like your making it up as you go along sometimes.

You really are of your trolly, once again no doubt you making it look like sin is not evil, and twisting his very sovereignty whilst your at it.

 

[cv5]

The infinitely better question would be: Do you believe that God proactively restrains evil in this dark, fallen world? It sounds like you're balking about the Gen 20 account of Ambimelch, Sarah and God and what God told the king.

You have zero comprehension of the purposes and dynamics occurring in those passages.

 

[cv5]

So your parents gave you total free reign when you were growing up? They never imposed their will on you? They never compelled you do something against your own "sovereign" will? They just allowed you to run wild, foot-loose-free, unrestrained?

Or how about the other forms of government God has instituted other than family: No civil authority has ever imposed its will upon you?

God has annihilated entire regions and the entire planet at various times.
You see, willfully evil men were doing volition-driven evil deeds and the righteous were suffering because of them.

Satan, who is willfully (his own will none other) deceiving the entire world, is getting the same treatment eventually.
As will the anti-christ.

Evil has a will of its own and the Bible is starkly objective in saying so.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Incorrect. You stopped reading too soon. 2:13 - 14 directly explains and completes 2:10: those who receive the love of the truth (and consequently) a belief of the truth, are those who were so chosen for it by God from the beginning. It therefore does not include everyone. Only by God's mercy and grace is love of the truth given and the truth received by someone.

[2Th 2:10, 13 -14 KJV
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. ...
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:
[2Th 2:14 KJV] 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

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.



....

 

[Jordon]

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.

plsams really does clearly speak of his will in many places, which also, when you link it up everywhere in the bible you see just how inherent his will is to everyone, King david understood his will very well

Asaph a psalmist was king davids leading musician and a seer which means he had prophetic revelations from God.

King David was also a gifted musician and psalmist

the levites often praised the lord with asaphs prophetic words from God , his words where highly regarded.

I believe the sons of Koroh was the other psalmists but David was the main psalmist

 

[reneweddaybyday]

When I ask whether you believe any Bible today is the final Word of God, you do not answer directly. That is the real tension here. It is difficult to have a doctrinal discussion when one person treats Scripture as final and the other treats it as something flexible and open to correction through personal Greek interpretation.

do you read what you submit, Bible_Highlighter? you claim I "do not answer directly"??? here is how you asked "whether [ I ] believe any Bible today is the final Word of God" ...

Do you have any Bible that is your final Word authority besides the one that exists only in your own mind? Is there any Bible verse or passage that supports your "Choose Your Adventure Bible" mentality? If there is, I would like to see it.

​

is there any possibility that you can ask a simple question directly without including rhetoric intended to provoke to anger?

I checked the interpretation of the verb form usage of déxomai with Ai’s, like Perplexity and ChatGPT, and your point still does not demonstrate anything conditional with this specific verb form (Which is not the actual word used in the two popular textual traditions used today). Regardless of whether it is the verb form or the actual word in the text, it doesn't prove your case. The simple fact that someone can receive something does not establish whether that person has genuine free will or not. A brainwashed individual can receive a package handed to him. That does not prove he is not under mind control. It only shows that an act of receiving took place.

I simply read the verse and commented on what is written.

2 Thessalonians 2:5-12 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Those who receive not the truth that they might be saved are going to fall for the signs and lying wonders of the wicked one. The wicked one shall come with all deceivableness of unrighteousness and those who have pleasure in unrighteousness because they receive not the truth that they might be saved are going to perish.

The grammar of déxomai in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 is not making a theological statement about human ability or inability. It is simply describing what they refused to do. The force and meaning of the verse rests on the wording that follows. They did not receive the love of the truth, and because they rejected it, the salvation they might have had was forfeited. That is exactly what the purpose construction communicates, and the KJV captures that meaning faithfully with “that they might be saved.”

so their refusal is not based in human ability?

So yes, “received not” matters, but it is not the theological center of the verse in the way you are trying to make it. The real point is that salvation was genuinely available, yet they refused the love of the truth and therefore lost what they could have had.

This section of Scripture is speaking of the coming of the wicked one, the one who will sit in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God (2 Thes 2:4).

Those who receive not the love of the truth so that they might be saved from this horrible fiasco will embrace the wicked one whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Jesus told of the end times when He said For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be (Matt 24:21). It seems to me that the end times will be worse than what Noah faced in Gen 6.

This is why I trust the KJV translators over modern individuals who rely on their own personal readings of the Greek. Their combined mastery and understanding of Greek far surpass anything being offered today in online debate.

The KJV was translated from Greek ... do you ever study the underlying Greek words from which the KJV was translated?

As for Georgios Babiniotis, I only referenced him because he has written multiple dictionaries in the Greek language, he lives in Greece, and he is truly fluent at both a native and scholarly level. I do not know him personally, and I certainly do not have his ear. I only know of him through Textus Receptus Bible believing Christians like Nick Sayers, and I am sure he is a very busy man. My point is simply that his fluency places him in a very different category from most modern scholars today. And to be candid, nobody here with even a basic understanding of Greek or English would ever think to contact him over your unusual interpretation of a Greek verb form. He is not sitting around waiting for people to run speculative grammar theories by him. He works at a level far above this kind of debate.

This is why I take his linguistic expertise seriously. He is not guessing or assembling definitions given to him by modern scholars today. He thinks, speaks, and writes within the Greek language itself, which gives his perspective real authority compared to private interpretations built on secondhand information.

Because you brought up Georgios Babioniotis I thought you had studied what he taught concerning "they might be saved" ... so I asked if Mr. Babioniotis had taught anything concerning "received not".

Did you study anything written by Mr. Babioniotis concerning 2 Thes 2:10?

Before I close, I want to mention something in a respectful way. Throughout our exchange, I have been trying to understand your view of final authority, and I have asked you directly whether you believe there is a Bible that is the settled and final Word of God today. I noticed a few things that make it difficult for me to understand where you stand.

1. You have not once affirmed that the KJV is perfect, final, or your absolute authority.
2. When I asked whether you have any Bible that you accept as the final Word of God, the question was not answered.
3. Several times the discussion moved away from the text itself and toward comments about my tone or assumptions rather than addressing the actual issue.
4. Your “are you” and “do you” questions seemed more like rhetorical deflections than sincere attempts to clarify the subject.
5. The focus repeatedly shifted back to me instead of to Scripture or to your own stated position, which makes it hard to know what you personally believe.

I am not saying any of this to accuse you or to stir up conflict.

again, your query was cloaked in some not so nice insinuations concerning me.

as far as "are you" and "do you" seeming more like rhetorical deflections? I merely responded to your shifting the focus to me rather than to the verse under discussion.

To answer your question about which Bible I read ... for the most part, I read and study from the KJV.

I am not averse to reading from other translations, but if and when I do, I generally compare what is written in other translations to what is written in KJV. Some folks don't like the KJV because of the "old English" used, but I've been reading KJV for so long, the "old English" doesn't bother me.

I am simply trying to understand your view. When someone challenges the accuracy of the KJV wording but does not clearly affirm any Bible as their final authority, that naturally raises concern for me. My aim is not to belittle you or misjudge you. I just want to know where you stand so the conversation can move forward on solid footing.

I do not believe I "challenge[d] the accuracy of the KJV wording". I merely suggested that receiving not the love of the truth is a key element to understanding what is conveyed not only in 2 Thes 2:10, but also the context in vss 1-12.

I still hope the discussion can be profitable, but it needs to rest on the foundation that God’s Word exists today in a final form we can trust. Without that shared foundation, every verse becomes a matter of personal reconstruction based on individual Greek opinions rather than Scripture itself. If I misjudged your intent, I am willing to recognize that. But I hope you can understand why I press the issue of final authority so strongly.

a profitable discussion also rests on mutual respect for one another. All who have posted in this thread can learn from each other if we want to learn. God has placed each member of the body of Christ where it has pleased Him and we are not to conclude that we do not need others and thereby lop off a most needed body part ... just sayin'

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Indeed, this action (by an act of will) to "receive" (or not receive) is loaded with salvific/soteriological import in hundreds of instances.
From John the Baptist, this shall continue all the way to this present day and beyond.

[Mat 10:14 KJV]
And whosoever shall[G1209] not receive[G1209] you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

[Mat 10:40 KJV]
He that receiveth[G1209] you receiveth[G1209] me, and he that receiveth[G1209] me receiveth[G1209] him that sent me.

[Mat 10:41 KJV]
He that receiveth[G1209] a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth[G1209] a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

[Mat 11:14 KJV]
And if ye will receive[G1209] [it], this is Elias, which was for to come.

[Mar 6:11 KJV]
And whosoever shall[G1209] not receive[G1209] you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

[Mar 10:15 KJV]
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall[G1209] not receive[G1209] the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

[Luk 9:5 KJV]
And whosoever will[G1209] not receive[G1209] you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

[Act 8:14 KJV]
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received[G1209] the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

[Act 11:1 KJV]
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had[G1209] also received[G1209] the word of God.

[Act 17:11 KJV]
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received[G1209] the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[Act 21:17 KJV]
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received[G1209] us gladly.

[1Co 2:14 KJV]
But the natural man receiveth[G1209] not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

According to some who have posted in this thread, the only response the natural man can have to the truth of God's Word is to "not receive" (reject out of hand) ... or if God's Word is believed, that is somehow "works" ... or "saving yourself" ... or some other such nonsense ... really sad that believing God's Word and/or receiving God's precious Gift means someone has "saved himself or herself". According to Rom 4, faith ≠ works.

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

To receive is a more passive action, unlike "to pursue" .. however "to receive" one does decide to receive.

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.

yeah ... and when we study the Greek text in order to understand the word "receive" ... whether it's δέχομαι (dechomai) or λαμβάνω (lambanō) ... or any other word we want to understand clearly ... some conclude that to study the Greek is somehow rewriting Scripture or manipulating the text ... when in reality, we're trying to rightly divide God's Word as instructed.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

.

 

[Genez]

They need some pretense to try to hide the fact that they are arguing against explicitly articulated verses.

Try as they might, though, they cannot hide the fact that they contradict and deny what is written.

When they are not doing that, they rewrite Scripture.

Not arguing against what is written.

Just not agreeing with your superficial, dogmatic stated, interpretations.

 

[Genez]

Honestly Just get on with it

I'm done

Then we should take you out of the oven!

......... Ham dinner anyone?

 

[Jordon]

Not arguing against what is written.

Just not agreeing with your superficial, dogmatic stated, interpretations.

she was speaking to me about your dogma.

Which sadly is very true

 

[Jordon]

Then we should take you out of the oven!

......... Ham dinner anyone?

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

Your the little boy who cried wolf

 

[Genez]

to decree means make an authoritive order, a plan to save those who would sin.

To predestination means to determine the outcome in advance of those who would sin and not repent or those who would.


But once again you twist his will to say he made and decreed n authoritive order for sin to happen. which means your saying he made an authoritive order for sin to happen.

Honestly you don't know what your saying. It's like your making it up as you go along sometimes.

You really are of your trolly, once again no doubt you making it look like sin is not evil, and twisting his very sovereignty whilst your at it.

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.