Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[OMC]

I will take that as a "not now" answer.

 

[GWH]

?

 

[Journey_man]

Calling my reading of Hebrews “pure Arminian theology” is just a way of dodging the actual text, and I’m not going to let you turn Scripture into a system‑badge you slap on people when you don’t want to deal with what the passage actually says.
Hebrews 6 never says these people were “false professors,” never says their enlightenment was merely external, never says their participation in the Holy Spirit was superficial, and never says their sanctification in Hebrews 10 was only outward.
Those are your system’s escape hatches, not the writer’s words.
When the text says they were “enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “shared in the Holy Spirit,” and were “sanctified by the blood,”
I refuse to treat those phrases like theological props that can be redefined whenever they threaten a doctrine.
You keep appealing to John 10:28–29 as if one passage cancels another, but harmonization means letting both passages speak — not forcing one to override the other.
The warnings in Hebrews are not hypothetical; the writer never calls them hypothetical.
They are real warnings addressed to real people about a real danger.
And when you insist that every warning must be reduced to “God’s tool to keep the elect persevering,” you’re not interpreting Hebrews — you’re protecting a system.
I’m not denying eternal security;
I’m denying the right to rewrite the language of Hebrews so it fits a theological grid. The text deserves better than that.

Your interpretation of Hebrews lines up with Arminian theology. It's your way of denying the Bible doctrine of "eternally security", which affirms that Gods elect are eternally secure.

Your rejection of formal systematic theology reveals that your system is just hidden. You don't have a clear framework, so you always pull verses out of their intended context and you don't realize it. But the truth is everyone uses a system when they read the Bible, whether they admit it or not.

The Bible is a large book written over thousands of years. Systematic theology helps connect the dots so believers understand the big picture of God's plan. You rubbish systematic theology out of fear and ignorance.

Yes I keep appealing John 10:28-29 because it destroys your interpretation of Hebrews 6. The Bible does not contradict itself, but your theology does. The warnings in Hebrews are hypothetical, as they don't mention any particular individuals, much less Gods elect.

 

[Journey_man]

Exactly, and, if my understanding of Heb 6:9 is correct, the verse confirms exactly what you posted. I think by the "though we speak thus" (at the end of vs 6:9), the writer of Hebrews is informing them that the prior verses (Heb 6:4 - 6) were used in the spirit of edification - as examples - teaching that it would be wrong for them to partake in or follow-after those examples. And I believe you are also correct in that, by edification and warning, they would have no desire to do so being led by the Holy Spirit and their new heart - those being some of "the things that accompany salvation". By which, his audience- those saved - would be lead away from such. This also is confirmed by Heb 6:9

[Heb 6:9 KJV] 9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

Some believe that Hebrews 6:4–6 teaches that a saved person can lose their salvation because the text describes people who were "enlightened," "tasted the heavenly gift," and became "partakers of the Holy Spirit" before "falling away".

They view the "falling away" as a true believer completely abandoning their faith and forfeiting eternal life.
This viewpoint holds that biblical warnings are real threats meant to keep believers from walking away from grace.

Hebrews 6:7–8 compares the land that drinks in the rain but produces thorns to a worthless field. This shows a person can receive abundant divine blessings yet still fail to bear genuine fruit, proving they were never truly saved.

 

[OMC]

Your interpretation of Hebrews lines up with Arminian theology. It's your way of denying the Bible doctrine of "eternally security", which affirms that Gods elect are eternally secure.

Your rejection of formal systematic theology reveals that your system is just hidden. You don't have a clear framework, so you always pull verses out of their intended context and you don't realize it. But the truth is everyone uses a system when they read the Bible, whether they admit it or not.

The Bible is a large book written over thousands of years. Systematic theology helps connect the dots so believers understand the big picture of God's plan. You rubbish systematic theology out of fear and ignorance.

Yes I keep appealing John 10:28-29 because it destroys your interpretation of Hebrews 6. The Bible does not contradict itself, but your theology does. The warnings in Hebrews are hypothetical, as they don't mention any particular individuals, much less Gods elect.

Your claim that my reading of Hebrews “lines up with Arminian theology” is simply incorrect; I am not defending Arminius, I am defending the actual wording of Hebrews.
Eternal security is true—I affirm it without hesitation—but your system forces you to treat the warnings in Hebrews as hypothetical, even though the writer never calls them hypothetical, never frames them as imaginary, and never limits them to “non‑elect.”
You accuse me of having a hidden system, but the only system visible in this conversation is yours, because you begin with the axiom that “the elect cannot fall,” and then reinterpret every warning passage to protect that axiom.
I begin with the text itself and let John 10 stand in its full strength without using it to silence Hebrews 6.
The Bible does not contradict itself, but your system contradicts Hebrews by redefining “enlightened,” “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” and “tasted the heavenly gift” into categories the writer never uses.
Systematic theology is useful only when it bows to Scripture; when it forces Scripture to bow to it, it becomes a filter rather than a lens. John 10 secures the sheep; Hebrews warns the hearers. Both are true. Neither cancels the other. The contradiction is not in the Bible—it is in the system that insists Hebrews cannot mean what it plainly says.

 

[rogerg]

Some believe that Hebrews 6:4–6 teaches that a saved person can lose their salvation because the text describes people who were "enlightened," "tasted the heavenly gift," and became "partakers of the Holy Spirit" before "falling away".

They view the "falling away" as a true believer completely abandoning their faith and forfeiting eternal life.
This viewpoint holds that biblical warnings are real threats meant to keep believers from walking away from grace.

Hebrews 6:7–8 compares the land that drinks in the rain but produces thorns to a worthless field. This shows a person can receive abundant divine blessings yet still fail to bear genuine fruit, proving they were never truly saved.

Yes, and those who hold to that view clearly show they do not believe Jesus Christ alone is Savior—and that man is not.

 

[Journey_man]

Your claim that my reading of Hebrews “lines up with Arminian theology” is simply incorrect; I am not defending Arminius, I am defending the actual wording of Hebrews.
Eternal security is true—I affirm it without hesitation—but your system forces you to treat the warnings in Hebrews as hypothetical, even though the writer never calls them hypothetical, never frames them as imaginary, and never limits them to “non‑elect.”
You accuse me of having a hidden system, but the only system visible in this conversation is yours, because you begin with the axiom that “the elect cannot fall,” and then reinterpret every warning passage to protect that axiom.
I begin with the text itself and let John 10 stand in its full strength without using it to silence Hebrews 6.
The Bible does not contradict itself, but your system contradicts Hebrews by redefining “enlightened,” “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” and “tasted the heavenly gift” into categories the writer never uses.
Systematic theology is useful only when it bows to Scripture; when it forces Scripture to bow to it, it becomes a filter rather than a lens. John 10 secures the sheep; Hebrews warns the hearers. Both are true. Neither cancels the other. The contradiction is not in the Bible—it is in the system that insists Hebrews cannot mean what it plainly says.

You are not defending the wording of Hebrews, but you are defending your private unbiblical interpretation of Hebrews.

You claim to believe that "eternal security" is true, but then go on to deny it in the same paragraph, by claiming that the warnings of falling away (losing salvation) in Hebrews applies to Gods elect. Your theology is all messed up, it's self defeating and contradictory.

The Bible doesn't spell everything out in basic elementary terms, so you need to connect the dots and not rip verses out and consider them in isolation. A proper understanding involves considering every verse in the context of the entire Bible. If a verse appears to contradict another, it means you lack discernment.

Hebrews doesn't say anything plainly, this is where you go wrong. You can't compartmentalize any verse of the Bible, noting in the Bible is that plain. God wrote the Bible in such a way that it baffles the non elect, they simply cannot and will never understand Gods Word at all. God hides the truth from them.

 

[OMC]

You are not defending the wording of Hebrews, but you are defending your private unbiblical interpretation of Hebrews.

You claim to believe that "eternal security" is true, but then go on to deny it in the same paragraph, by claiming that the warnings of falling away (losing salvation) in Hebrews applies to Gods elect. Your theology is all messed up, it's self defeating and contradictory.

The Bible doesn't spell everything out in basic elementary terms, so you need to connect the dots and not rip verses out and consider them in isolation. A proper understanding involves considering every verse in the context of the entire Bible. If a verse appears to contradict another, it means you lack discernment.

Hebrews doesn't say anything plainly, this is where you go wrong. You can't compartmentalize any verse of the Bible, noting in the Bible is that plain. God wrote the Bible in such a way that it baffles the non elect, they simply cannot and will never understand Gods Word at all. God hides the truth from them.

Your accusation only works if you collapse eternal security into a system and refuse to let Hebrews speak in its own vocabulary, but once you let the text stand, the contradiction you’re claiming disappears entirely, because I affirm eternal security, and at the same time I refuse to pretend that the warnings in Hebrews are addressed to imaginary people; the writer addresses real believers, uses real covenant language, and describes real danger, and none of that overturns the truth that God keeps His own—it simply means you cannot protect your system by redefining the warnings into hypotheticals the author never wrote.

 

[Journey_man]

Your accusation only works if you collapse eternal security into a system and refuse to let Hebrews speak in its own vocabulary, but once you let the text stand, the contradiction you’re claiming disappears entirely, because I affirm eternal security, and at the same time I refuse to pretend that the warnings in Hebrews are addressed to imaginary people; the writer addresses real believers, uses real covenant language, and describes real danger, and none of that overturns the truth that God keeps His own—it simply means you cannot protect your system by redefining the warnings into hypotheticals the author never wrote.

You can't claim to believe that Gods elect are "eternally secure", and at the same time claim they can lose their salvation. I have previously corrected you on your interpretation of Hebrews 6 but it seems as though you never read it, so I need to repeat it.

Hebrews 6:4-6 describes hypocrites or surface-level professors within the visible church who made a profession of faith, but were never truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Their experience of spiritual blessings is likened to the rocky-ground soil in Jesus' Parable of the Sower—they spring up for a time, but ultimately fall away because they lack deep roots.

The phrase "if they fall away" (v. 6) functions as a severe hypothetical argument: If it were possible for someone who has received such high privileges to turn away, it would be impossible to renew them again to repentance. By showing the impossibility of re-conversion, the text actually highlights the horror of apostasy to drive true believers to persevere, while proving that those who completely depart were never truly born again.

The author clarifies his intent in verse 9, stating, "Though we speak in this way, yet in your case we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation." The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints—that God preserves His elect and ensures they will never fall away.

 

[OMC]

You can't claim to believe that Gods elect are "eternally secure", and at the same time claim they can lose their salvation. I have previously corrected you on your interpretation of Hebrews 6 but it seems as though you never read it, so I need to repeat it.

Hebrews 6:4-6 describes hypocrites or surface-level professors within the visible church who made a profession of faith, but were never truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Their experience of spiritual blessings is likened to the rocky-ground soil in Jesus' Parable of the Sower—they spring up for a time, but ultimately fall away because they lack deep roots.

The phrase "if they fall away" (v. 6) functions as a severe hypothetical argument: If it were possible for someone who has received such high privileges to turn away, it would be impossible to renew them again to repentance. By showing the impossibility of re-conversion, the text actually highlights the horror of apostasy to drive true believers to persevere, while proving that those who completely depart were never truly born again.

The author clarifies his intent in verse 9, stating, "Though we speak in this way, yet in your case we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation." The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints—that God preserves His elect and ensures they will never fall away.

When you say that Hebrews 6 describes “hypocrites” who were “never truly regenerated,” I must answer as one who refuses to let a system override the inspired vocabulary of the passage, because the writer does not call these people hypocrites, nor does he say they were never regenerated; instead, he describes them with terms Scripture never uses for the unregenerate—“enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “made partakers of the Holy Ghost,” “tasted the good word of God,” and “the powers of the world to come”—all of which are never used anywhere in Scripture for false professors, and all of which describe genuine spiritual experience, not surface-level soil. The phrase “if they fall away” is not hypothetical; the Greek construction is a real condition, and the impossibility is not the falling but the renewal after falling, which only makes sense if the falling is real. And when the writer says, “Though we thus speak, we are persuaded better things of you,” he does not say, “These warnings do not apply to you,” but “even though I speak this way, I am confident you will persevere,” meaning the danger is real but the expectation is hopeful. Perseverance of the saints is true, but Hebrews grounds it in continuing in faith, not in redefining warning passages to protect a system.

 

[Lanolin]

Well Hebrews was meant to be for Hebrews (i.e those who spoke Hebrew, were Jewish or Israeli) not heathen Gentiles who didn't know or understand or have any idea who God, or the God the Hebrews worshipped and His requirements was.

Letter to Romans explains what salvation is to the ROMANS i.e the people who lived in Rome.

 

[stephencritchlow]

Being free is a state of mind.

 

[Journey_man]

When you say that Hebrews 6 describes “hypocrites” who were “never truly regenerated,” I must answer as one who refuses to let a system override the inspired vocabulary of the passage, because the writer does not call these people hypocrites, nor does he say they were never regenerated; instead, he describes them with terms Scripture never uses for the unregenerate—“enlightened,” “tasted the heavenly gift,” “made partakers of the Holy Ghost,” “tasted the good word of God,” and “the powers of the world to come”—all of which are never used anywhere in Scripture for false professors, and all of which describe genuine spiritual experience, not surface-level soil. The phrase “if they fall away” is not hypothetical; the Greek construction is a real condition, and the impossibility is not the falling but the renewal after falling, which only makes sense if the falling is real. And when the writer says, “Though we thus speak, we are persuaded better things of you,” he does not say, “These warnings do not apply to you,” but “even though I speak this way, I am confident you will persevere,” meaning the danger is real but the expectation is hopeful. Perseverance of the saints is true, but Hebrews grounds it in continuing in faith, not in redefining warning passages to protect a system.

If we apply your own philosophical system to your interpretation of the Bible, it reveals that your only motivation is to promote and protect the teaching of your Denomination. You don't care if it makes God a liar, because you're not interested in defending the truth.

When you claim that Hebrews 6 describes true believers (Gods elect) who were truly regenerated and then lost their salvation. I must answer as one who refuses to let your Arminian "saved by works" version of the gospel. override the inspired vocabulary of the passage.

Hebrews 6 never describes them as being "saved" or "believers" or "Saints" or "Gods elect" or "the children of God" or anything else that would identify them as being truly saved.

You have imposed your religious denomination's view over what Gods Word clearly says. There is a serious warning in Revelation 22:18 about doing that. "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book".

 

[Journey_man]

Being free is a state of mind.

The Bible teaches that we are all born into slavery, to our sin nature and Satan. If you believe that being in a prisoner of Satan and our sin nature is a state of mind, then I have a harbour bridge to sell you

 

[OMC]

If we apply your own philosophical system to your interpretation of the Bible, it reveals that your only motivation is to promote and protect the teaching of your Denomination. You don't care if it makes God a liar, because you're not interested in defending the truth.

When you claim that Hebrews 6 describes true believers (Gods elect) who were truly regenerated and then lost their salvation. I must answer as one who refuses to let your Arminian "saved by works" version of the gospel. override the inspired vocabulary of the passage.

Hebrews 6 never describes them as being "saved" or "believers" or "Saints" or "Gods elect" or "the children of God" or anything else that would identify them as being truly saved.

You have imposed your religious denomination's view over what Gods Word clearly says. There is a serious warning in Revelation 22:18 about doing that. "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book".

When you say, “I refuse to let your Arminian ‘saved by works’ version override the inspired vocabulary,” you’re assuming the very thing you need to prove. The question is not what your system allows — the question is what the writer actually says.

And here is the problem:The writer uses four descriptions in Hebrews 6:4–5 that the New Testament never uses for false professors, hypocrites, or unregenerate people:

• “Enlightened” — used in Hebrews 10:32 for genuine believers.
• “Tasted the heavenly gift” — never used for superficial experiences.
• “Partakers of the Holy Spirit” — the Greek metochoi means participants, not spectators.
• “Tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come” — language used for real spiritual experience, not external exposure.

Your system redefines all four terms into “external influences,” but the writer never does that. You’re not protecting Scripture — you’re protecting a theological grid that cannot tolerate the plain vocabulary of the passage

 

[stephencritchlow]

Erm. Sorry mate. Your freedom lies inside yourself. You can be bound by anything if you want to be. A lot if people find they can practice free will and be as faithful as keeps them happy.

Heretics. Evil do-oers. No just normal people dealing with life and worrying too much about death.

Be good in life. You wont fear death. Youll die peacefully and go where you go

 

[OMC]

Erm. Sorry mate. Your freedom lies inside yourself. You can be bound by anything if you want to be. A lot if people find they can practice free will and be as faithful as keeps them happy.

Heretics. Evil do-oers. No just normal people dealing with life and worrying too much about death.

Be good in life. You wont fear death. Youll die peacefully and go where you go

?

 

[stephencritchlow]

If your so religious you hate anyone who isnt, or faiks to agree with your way of thinking then you have a problem and are a problem.

I live and let live.

Paramedic. Save lives. Ex military. Took them.

I judge people.as I find them based on their personalities and humour.

Can they have a laugh about serious things. Know they are serious and still make a smile from a bad situation?

Yeah id like to hang about with those lads.

 

[Journey_man]

When you say, “I refuse to let your Arminian ‘saved by works’ version override the inspired vocabulary,” you’re assuming the very thing you need to prove. The question is not what your system allows — the question is what the writer actually says.

And here is the problem:The writer uses four descriptions in Hebrews 6:4–5 that the New Testament never uses for false professors, hypocrites, or unregenerate people:

• “Enlightened” — used in Hebrews 10:32 for genuine believers.
• “Tasted the heavenly gift” — never used for superficial experiences.
• “Partakers of the Holy Spirit” — the Greek metochoi means participants, not spectators.
• “Tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come” — language used for real spiritual experience, not external exposure.

Your system redefines all four terms into “external influences,” but the writer never does that. You’re not protecting Scripture — you’re protecting a theological grid that cannot tolerate the plain vocabulary of the passage

The phrase once enlightened in Hebrews 6:4 refers to a certain level of instruction in biblical truth. Of course, understanding Scripture is not the same as being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Jesus has given light “to every man” (John 1:9), but that doesn’t mean every man is saved; rather, every man has enough light to be held responsible.

The phrase tasted the heavenly gift in Hebrews 6:4 refers to a momentary experience. They did not “imbibe” or “consume” the gift; they only “tasted” it. The tragedy of tasting the heavenly gift without embracing it could be likened to the sad experience of the thorny and stony soils in Jesus’ parable (Matthew 13:3–23). People can initially respond positively to the truth of the gospel yet not have a true change of heart.

The phrase shared in the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 6:4 indicates a proximity to and familiarity with the Spirit’s work. But it does not convey a sense of being born again. Biblical phrases such as sealed with the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Spirit would indicate salvation, but simply “sharing in” the Spirit is something different.

People can be exposed to the salvation experience yet not know Christ in a saving sense. Simon the sorcerer “believed and was baptized,” he followed Philip the evangelist, and he was “astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw” (Acts 8:13). But, for all that, Simon was unsaved (see Acts 8:20–23).

The idea of “falling away” in Hebrews 6:6 is the act of turning one’s back on the revelation given. The “tasting” of truth is not enough to keep a person from falling away from it. To behold the light, to understand the truth, and to enjoy the fringe benefits of righteousness, only to then reject the light is to treat Christ with contempt.

The writer of Hebrews is setting up a hypothetical situation: “If a Christian were to fall away.” In that case (if a Christian falls away), it would be impossible to renew salvation. That’s because Christ died once for sin (see Hebrews 9:28), and if His gift of salvation could be lost, then that’s the end. Christ is not going to sacrifice Himself twice, and so there would be no hope for the sinner at all.

The passage presents a false premise (that a true Christian might fall away) and follows it through to a logical conclusion. That conclusion (that Jesus would need to be sacrificed again and again to “resave” people) is absurd. The argument is an example of reductio ad absurdum. The weakness of this view is that the Greek text does not contain a word equivalent to the English if.

Both of these interpretations support the security of the believer in Christ. The first interpretation is that the writer of Hebrews is not describing believers but unbelievers who are “on the fence” about Christ. In that case, the warning in this passage is not that believers might lose their salvation but that unbelievers might lose their chance to be saved. The second interpretation presents the very idea of believers losing salvation as impossible.

 

[Journey_man]

Erm. Sorry mate. Your freedom lies inside yourself. You can be bound by anything if you want to be. A lot if people find they can practice free will and be as faithful as keeps them happy.

Heretics. Evil do-oers. No just normal people dealing with life and worrying too much about death.

Be good in life. You wont fear death. Youll die peacefully and go where you go

Sorry but your freedom is in the hands of your master. Humans have never been autonomous or free, we can't do what we want to do. We can only do as our nature and master dictate.

Everybody knows that things like murder, adultery, fornication, drunkenness/drug abuse, stealing, telling lies are wrong. But we still do these things, knowing they are wrong. We don't want to do them, but we can't stop doing them because the temptation is to do them is stronger than our so called "free will" is to not do them.

The Apostle Paul described the reality of human nature being in slavery to sin and Satan, in Romans 7:19-20 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

As born again believers, we still wrestle against temptation, and it overcomes us regularly. We won't conquer our sin nature in this life, but we will receive our glorified sinless body in the life to come.