Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[Journey_man]

Current murderers and adulterers can become God’s people if they repent. David admitted his sin before Nathan. God forgave David because he trusted in the grace of God. (2 Samuel 12:13, Ephesians 2:8-9).

(KJV 1 John 1:9) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Wicked murderers and adulterers are not God’s people and they will perish. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Revelation 21:8)

The Bible teaches conditional security. Many of the promises of God are conditional. It is possible for a Christian to fall away, as the scriptures demonstrate. Eternal security is a false doctrine.

Hebrews 10:10 describes these believers as being sanctified through the Lord Jesus Christ.

(KJV Hebrews 10:10) “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The sanctified believers are described as being “perfected forever.” (Hebrews 10:14) They could have “full assurance of faith” through Jesus their High Priest according to Hebrews 10:22.

(KJV Hebrews 10:23) “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)” We are instructed to “hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering.” This implies it was possible for them to let go of their profession of faith.

(KJV Hebrews 10:26-27) “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” This implies that it was possible for these believers to return to willful sin and be subject to damnation.

Hebrews 3:12 warns of the peril of unbelief. (KJV Hebrews 3:12) “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”

(KJV Hebrews 3:14) “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;” We are made partakers of Christ if we hold our original confidence firm to the end. This is a condition Christians must meet.

Saul (1 Samuel 10:10-12, 1 Samuel 28:16, 1 Samuel 31:4) Solomon, (1 Kings 11:4-10) Demas (2 Timothy 4:10) and Judas (Acts 1:25) are examples of believers who fell away from the faith.

The book of John speaks of disciples that fell away from the faith. (KJV John 6:66) "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

Jesus speaks about the conditional security of the believer in the book of Matthew. (KJV Matthew 6:14-15) "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." God will forgive the believer who has forgiven others. However, God will not forgive those who refuse to forgive others.

Other scriptures that show conditional security include Luke 12:45-46, John 15:2-6, 2 John 1:9, Romans 11:21-22, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 9:27, 1 Corinthians 10:12, 1Corinthians 15:2, Colossians 1:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 1 Timothy 3:6-7, 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Timothy 5:12,, 1 Timothy 5:15, Hebrews 3:12-14, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 12:15-17, James 5:19-20, 2 Peter 2:20-22, Revelation 2:5, Revelation 3:16, Revelation 22:19.

None of that is true, the Bible proves that your opinion is nonsense.

John 10:27–29
Jesus says His sheep will never perish and no one can snatch them out of His or the Father's hand. This shows Christ protects His own permanently.

John 6:39–40
Jesus states it is the Father's will that He loses none of those given to Him, but raises them up on the last day. Salvation rests on God's sovereign will.

Romans 8:38–39
Paul writes that nothing in all creation—including death, life, or powers—can separate believers from the love of God in Christ Jesus

Philippians 1:6
Paul is confident that God, who began a good work in the believers at Philippi, will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus

Ephesians 1:13–14
Believers are marked with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until we are redeemed

Romans 8:29–30
Paul outlines the "golden chain of redemption," showing that those God foreknew and predestined are also called, justified, and ultimately glorified without exception.

You reject Gods Word at your own peril.

 

[brightfame52]

Hebrews 10:14 says Jesus “has perfected forever” (τετελείωκεν) the people who “are being made holy” (ἁγιαζομένους, present‑tense), which means His work is totally finished, but the verse itself says the finished gift belongs to people who keep trusting Him, not people who walk away on purpose like Hebrews 10:26 warns (“if we sin willfully,” ἑκουσίως).

Them that are being sanctified in Heb 10:14 give evidence of their once and for all being made perfect. Their being sanctified is a present tense passive participle, meaning they are being acted upon, they are being made to persevere. The key is the ones being sanctified is passive voice. That's why the writer can confidently write in vs 39

But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

 

[JimiSurvivor]

@JimiSurvivor , @OMC

JimiSurvivor and OMC, I see you two have decided to team up to try and escape the literal verses of Scripture.

a). First, we made no secret decision to collaborate in some plot to ESCAPE what you call the LITERAL meaning of scripture. If we happen to come to similar conclusions about some matters it is based on the similar way we read the text.
b). You cannot claim to have the corner market on literalism. This can be seen in instances where the author of Hebrews gives warnings. Rather than accept as a real POSSIBILITY for believers [as it appears to be] you find it necessary to posit the existence of an entirely different group of false believers who are the real targets of those warnings.
c). If the author had intended some of what he wrote to indicate FALSE believers then he would have explicitly said so.

d) It is EXTREMELY COMMON in the Bible, throughout the OT and in the NT to present to present A SINGLE AUDIENCE with two possible sets of consequences that COULD happen, depending on their choices. This is the essence of what a warning is.
e). For example, Isaiah 1 says:
18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are as red as crimson, they will become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best of the land.
20 But if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.…

e). This proposition is very clear and understandable even to us simple-minded humans. There is certainly no need to DIVIDE the audience into two groups - one of which CONSISTS of true believers in YHWH and OTHERS who are only pretending.

f). In reality We ALL understand moral/spiritual propositions couched in conditional language and use them all the time when disciplining our children:
IF you CLEAN your room thoroughly, I will let you go outside to PLAY. IF YOU DO NOT you will have to remain in your room.
This is straightforward because we ordinarily assume the child is able to understand and to respond to what we have said.
If one of our children is impaired in some way we will provide SOME way for them to respond.

You claim that using basic pronouns to identify different groups is just a "theological construct," but that is a flat-out denial of how language works. When an author

No, I am not DENYING the ordinary use of pronouns. I think you have an agenda which you are attempting to shoe-horn into the text without taking into account the nuanced way language is to be understood. How an author uses pronouns depends on the literary context - whether he is speaking as an individual, a traveler, or a teacher.

Here are some different ways pronouns can be understood.

1. The Editorial or Authorial "We"

• Meaning: The writer uses the first-person plural ("we," "us," "our") while actually referring only to himself.
• Context: This stylistic choice appears often in New Testament letters (such as those by Paul, Sosthenes, or Timothy). It acts as a rhetorical device to sound less authoritarian, blend the writer's personal voice with his co-senders, or gently invite the audience into shared agreement.

2. The Eyewitness or Traveling "We"

• Meaning: The writer includes himself alongside literal traveling companions or fellow eyewitnesses.
• Context: A clear example occurs in the "we" sections of Acts (e.g., Acts 16:10–17). The author (traditionally identified as Luke) switches from writing in the third person ("he" or "they") to the first-person plural ("we") precisely at the points where he physically joins the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys, marking himself as a direct participant in the events. [1, 2, 3]

3. The Inclusive Corporate "We"

• Meaning: The writer includes himself and his readers/listeners together as a unified group of believers.
• Context: In letters like Romans or 1 John, "we" often encompasses both the apostles/authors and all Christians everywhere (e.g., "we have sinned," "we are children of God"). It emphasizes a shared human condition, collective faith, or common apostolic testimony.

inspired by God Himself uses distant third-person plural pronouns like "those" and "themselves" to describe individuals who fall away into total destruction, and then explicitly switches to first and second-person plural pronouns like "you" and "we" to state he is persuaded of "better things of you, and things that accompany salvation," he is explicitly and purposefully separating two different groups of people, otherwise, he would have explained it differently. To claim "those" and "we" are the exact same group completely violates universal grammar, human speech, and basic logic.

We must avoid being dogmatic. For instance, when the author of Hebrews wrote:
3 how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.…(Hebrews 2:3)
He was not necessarily saying he expected the consequences to fall on. Including himself in the warning was a way of acknowledging the universality of the warning,

 

[rogerg]

a). First, we made no secret decision to collaborate in some plot to ESCAPE what you call the LITERAL meaning of scripture. If we happen to come to similar conclusions about some matters it is based on the similar way we read the text.
b). You cannot claim to have the corner market on literalism. This can be seen in instances where the author of Hebrews gives warnings. Rather than accept as a real POSSIBILITY for believers [as it appears to be] you find it necessary to posit the existence of an entirely different group of false believers who are the real targets of those warnings.
c). If the author had intended some of what he wrote to indicate FALSE believers then he would have explicitly said so.

d) It is EXTREMELY COMMON in the Bible, throughout the OT and in the NT to present to present A SINGLE AUDIENCE with two possible sets of consequences that COULD happen, depending on their choices. This is the essence of what a warning is.
e). For example, Isaiah 1 says:
18 “Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be as white as snow; though they are as red as crimson, they will become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best of the land.
20 But if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.…

Jimi, to conform to posting size restrictions, I am did not quote your full post, but I will reply to it here.

Thank you for a detailed explanation of your perspective with pronoun definitions.
I understand your point about how "we" can function in a corporate or pastoral sense to include an entire audience, such as in Hebrews 2:3. However, your use of Hebrews 2:3 actually highlights the exact distinction I am pointing out. When the author wants a teaching to apply generally, he explicitly writes, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation." But when he describes individuals falling away into total perdition, he purposefully and explicitly switches to third-person groups like "those" and "them." While the author uses "we" to address the community hearing the gospel, he draws a clear distinction as in Hebrews 10:39 by explicitly declaring, "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition." This consistent pronoun precedent is woven throughout the entire book. In Hebrews 6, after describing the destruction of "those" who fall away, the author immediately shifts back to his readers in verse 9 stating, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation." When an author inspired by God, assigns specific actions and eventual destruction strictly to third-person groups like "those" and "them," and then draws a clear line stating we are "not of them," he is using basic language and logic to show that those saved belong to a completely separate and distinct category from those who perish. Your grammar definitions cannot turn a declarative like "we are not of them" and yet places them into a group that falls into perdition.
Regarding your mention of Isaiah 1 and conditional warnings, it is true that God uses warnings for instruction. But from a New Covenant perspective, true believers do not maintain their saved state through their own human willpower or performance - that could only happen under the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. With the New Covenant, God Himself assumed full responsibility to ensure and guarantee that those He places under it remain under it - nowhere in Scripture are we told of anyone being taken from under the New Covenant and being placed back under the Old Covenant - it functions only unidirectionally. This is made clear in 1 Peter 1:4-5, which states that our inheritance is incorruptible and reserved in heaven, and that true believers are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. In Hebrews 10:14, the phrase "them that are sanctified" is structured as a passive participle, meaning the elect are being acted upon by God's grace, and so it is by/through God alone that they persevere. Edifications function as God's tools to teach His children; but it is by His grace alone through Jesus Christ, Savior, that their eternal security is guaranteed and not in any way by their actions.

---

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Jimi, to conform to posting size restrictions, I am did not quote your full post, but I will reply to it here.

Thank you for a detailed explanation of your perspective with pronoun definitions.
I understand your point about how "we" can function in a corporate or pastoral sense to include an entire audience, such as in Hebrews 2:3. However, your use of Hebrews 2:3 actually highlights the exact distinction I am pointing out. When the author wants a teaching to apply generally, he explicitly writes, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation." But when he describes individuals falling away into total perdition, he purposefully and explicitly switches to third-person groups like "those" and "them."

a). The author of Hebrews presents various possible outcomes for his audience which were contingent on whether they would heed or ignore his warnings.
However, he was quick to add that: 9 Even though WE speak like this, beloved, WE are CONVINCED of better things in your case— things that accompany salvation.
(Hebrews 6:9)
The Greek word translated CONVINCED is peíthō (which is the root of 4102 /pístis, "faith") –TO BE PERSUADED OR CONVINCED (by argument, true or false) His confidence in them was based on his observations of them over time.

While the author uses "we" to address the community hearing the gospel, he draws a clear distinction as in Hebrews 10:39 by explicitly declaring, "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition." This consistent pronoun precedent is woven throughout the entire book. In Hebrews 6, after describing the destruction of "those" who fall away, the author immediately shifts back to his readers in verse 9 stating, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation."

Warnings are based on universal truths which are potentially applicable to anyone. When the Author of Hebrews gave warnings he intended them to be understood as potential realities. However, he assures them that "although he had been speaking to them in this manner he expected better things of them," that is, he expected them to persevere in the Faith and realize their inheritance.
What was the basis of his confidence in them. Given the context of the book and without importing any presuppositions his confidence in them seems to have been based on his long acquaintance with them observing them enduring suffering and deprivations and for the sake of Christ.

---

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Jimi, to conform to posting size restrictions, I am did not quote your full post, but I will reply to it here.
Thank you for a detailed explanation of your perspective with pronoun definitions.
I understand your point about how "we" can function in a corporate or pastoral sense to include an entire audience, such as in Hebrews 2:3. However, your use of Hebrews 2:3 actually highlights the exact distinction I am pointing out. When the author wants a teaching to apply generally, he explicitly writes, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation."

But when he describes individuals falling away into total perdition, he purposefully and explicitly switches to third-person groups like "those" and "them." While the author uses "we" to address the community hearing the gospel, he draws a clear distinction as in Hebrews 10:39 by explicitly declaring, "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition."

The author DOES expect better things of this specific group of Hebrew Christians. You have gone far beyond this to to say that a positive outcome is INEVITABLE in the case of every (true) individual believer. In fact, the author does not address those who living among these Messianic Jews but are merely PRETENDING to be believers. It is highly unlikely that such people would have stuck around during the days when the Church was undergoing persecution and material deprivation The Book of Hebrews never speaks of directly about a special category of so-called FALSE BELIEVERS. Had this been a problem, no doubt it would have been addressed. Your attempt to smuggle FALSE BELIEVERS into the narrative reveals a primary commitment to a theological system which did not exist at the time when Hebrews was written.

 

[rogerg]

a). The author of Hebrews presents various possible outcomes for his audience which were contingent on whether they would heed or ignore his warnings.
However, he was quick to add that: 9 Even though WE speak like this, beloved, WE are CONVINCED of better things in your case— things that accompany salvation.
(Hebrews 6:9)
The Greek word translated CONVINCED is peíthō (which is the root of 4102 /pístis, "faith") –TO BE PERSUADED OR CONVINCED (by argument, true or false) His confidence in them was based on his observations of them over time.


Warnings are based on universal truths which are potentially applicable to anyone. When the Author of Hebrews gave warnings he intended them to be understood as potential realities. However, he assures them that "although he had been speaking to them in this manner he expected better things of them," that is, he expected them to persevere in the Faith and realize their inheritance.
What was the basis of his confidence in them. Given the context of the book and without importing any presuppositions his confidence in them seems to have been based on his long acquaintance with them observing them enduring suffering and deprivations and for the sake of Christ.

---

The author DOES expect better things of this specific group of Hebrew Christians. You have gone far beyond this to to say that a positive outcome is INEVITABLE in the case of every (true) individual believer. In fact, the author does not address those who living among these Messianic Jews but are merely PRETENDING to be believers. It is highly unlikely that such people would have stuck around during the days when the Church was undergoing persecution and material deprivation The Book of Hebrews never speaks of directly about a special category of so-called FALSE BELIEVERS. Had this been a problem, no doubt it would have been addressed. Your attempt to smuggle FALSE BELIEVERS into the narrative reveals a primary commitment to a theological system which did not exist at the time when Hebrews was written.

I understand your point regarding the Greek root peíthō in Hebrews 6:9, but in the New Testament epistles, when an inspired writer is "persuaded" of something regarding the elect, it denotes absolute, divine certainty, not changeable human opinion based on familiarity. Don't forget that it was God who moved the writer of Hebrews to write specifically what He wanted written - it did not originate from/by the writer himself so there can be absolutely no possibility of it actually meaning something else. It perfectly mirrors Romans 8:38 where Paul declares, "For I am persuaded (peíthō), that neither death, nor life... shall be able to separate us from the love of God." You subtly insert that the author intended these warnings as "potential realities" for true believers who must simply persevere to realize their inheritance, but that completely alters the text. The author does not state that a positive outcome is a conditional potentiality based on human performance; he explicitly states it as a declarative fact that he is persuaded of things that "accompany salvation" in their case. The text links and bases their security to the nature of what they possess, not their human ability to avoid a potential fall. Otherwise, 1 Pe 1:4- 5 would be wrong and would therefore make Christ not THE Savior but themselves savior. Notice that the word/title of Savior is singular, meaning there is only one possible Savior and that Jesus Christ. As such, He eliminates the possibility of believers of having to contribute to or maintain that spiritual state of themselves. I believe the fundamental flaw in your belief is that you eliminate Christ as Savior and instead place it upon man.
Your claim that the book of Hebrews never addresses a category of false believers, or that non-believers would not remain during trials, is flatly refuted by the text itself. In Matthew 13:21, Christ explicitly states that stony-ground hearers can endure "for a while," but wither when tribulation or persecution arises. They outwardly act like true believers for a season, but they actually are non-believers who have no root. Further, the entire warning of Hebrews is grounded in the historical example of earthly Israel in the wilderness. Hebrews 3:12 warns against "an evil heart of unbelief," and verses 17-19 explicitly state that those carcasses fell in the wilderness that could not enter in "because of unbelief." They were part of earthly Israel and all saw/experienced the miracles, yet they were still total non-believers who completely lacked true faith, despite making an outward claim of belonging to God's covenant as those of Heb 6:4 -6 also did. The author uses this exact historical blueprint to warn against profane individuals like Esau in Hebrews 12:16, and the distant third-person group in Hebrews 10:39 who "draw back unto perdition."
Highlighting a separate category of non-believers who make a false profession isn't a new theological system as you claim it is; it is the plain and sharp literal distinction the text itself draws by separating "those" who perish from whom the author clearly and explicitly states are "not of them." True believers do not maintain their saved state through human willpower; they are passive yet full recipients of God's New Covenant power, which ensures their final perseverance and makes Jesus Christ, Savior, and not man.

---