Can We Really Exercise Free Will?
- Thread starter LifelongLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Genez, if “you must be a Calvinist” is your response, then you've changed the subject from Scripture to labels.
I don't need Joshua 24:15 to be called Calvinist or anything else. I need you to demonstrate what the verse actually proves.
Joshua says:
I have never denied that Joshua genuinely commanded the people to choose.
The question is whether a command to choose proves that fallen man possesses an autonomous libertarian ability to choose righteousness or salvation.
It doesn't.
A command establishes obligation. It does not, by itself, establish autonomous ability.
God commanded:
Does that prove fallen man possesses the autonomous ability to achieve sinless perfection?
God commanded:
Does the command itself prove that man's fallen will can independently produce that love?
Of course not.
And Joshua 24 itself doesn't establish your philosophical conclusion. In the same chapter Joshua says:
So the very passage you're appealing to contains a statement about inability.
That is precisely why I distinguish God's command from man's moral ability.
The question is not whether man makes choices.
He does.
The question is whether his choices are autonomous and self-determining in the libertarian sense you are importing into the text.
You still haven't established that.
And Scripture says:
So let's leave the labels aside.
Show me from Joshua 24:15 where “choose” means autonomous libertarian free will.
Until you establish that, calling me a Calvinist isn't an argument against what I've actually said.
We live in a place where they convinced people that to stay safe, we must shut down the world. Think about the dancing doctors and nurses did on television (Tell A Vision). Think about all the crap we have seen over the years and how much comes true. Wipe your hands, brush your teeth, clear your clothes, spray air freshener all with cancer causing ingredients. Wanna talk about the foods they feed us? Tampons with lead, arsenic, cadmium, and more. Sending your children off to be brainwashed by these elites. I am not even talking about the fact that people refuse to see the controlled opposition.
but releasing those Epstein files would be too dangerous for us? Everyday Misinformation, manipulation, and bias is all we are programed for. People are influenced every day without even realizing it. Coercive persuasion and a systematic process aimed at altering an individual's beliefs, attitudes and behaviors is BRAINWASH!!! People shoot TOXINs into their face and mutilate their temples just to “FIT IN” right? Have we not been deceived? The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Project MKUltra, Operation Sea-Spray, Operation Big Buzz, Plutonium Injections, The Fernald School Study, Hepatitis and Malaria Studies, War-era biological tests, and the list goes on..... There is a pill for everything, every behavior is justified and most of them pills lead to more server things. No one ever questions nor gets to know their doctors. What if your doctor is the devil feeding you poison? No one ever questions it, nor do they even investigate the studies done on the drugs/shots they reserve. Look into what our own government has done to “WE THE PEOPLE” time and time again.
Look at Ted Kaczynski, he was picked to participate in a Mind-Control experiment when he was at Harvard University that involved psychological torment and humiliation. followed was 18 years of Ted Kaczynski terrorizing those he saw as agents of antihuman technology before his 1996 arrest.
MK-Ultra is another CIA mind-controlling experiment started in the 50s. Controlling human behavior by remote radio transmission isn’t something new. Just read the beginning of that manifesto because you will know he was right on but did not know what to do with what he knew.
Look at the history of biological and chemical weapons being use by government on their own people. Who says that is not what is happening with these “Chemical spills”?
The term “Planned Obsolescence” refers to the practice of intentionally designing goods to fail and break after a set time period of “acceptable life” once purchased.
If we want to evolve, we must get beyond the monetary system. It has taken over absolutely everything. From our own people, and all forms of government to the clothes we wear, cars we drive, tires we use, roads we're on.... etc... etc... etc. Every single decision that matters is controlled by money.
These are facts yet everyone wants to stay blind and just live some sort of life that they want. Society has taught us how to become selfish, greedy, insecure, all the things that Jesus taught and teaches us even now, how NOT TO BE.
IF YOU DO NOT SEEK THE TRUTH, you will never find the way.
We live in a system dressed in glory but look closely and you see the devil.
Lebanon is the highest proportion of Christians in the Middle East.
Nagasaki had the highest consecration of Christians in Japan when Fat Man was dropped too. "The slow death of conscience" has happened.
Keep thinking deeply and seek everyday. Your eyes are opening.
I believe he is saying things like. "we don't get to pick where we are born. who raises us, if they have money and you are raised religions of this world or just put into a system of this world." Not to mention enormous other things that go with that. Most are blind to this beast system.
Look what we do for those who perverted society to the point that people cannot seem to grasp TRUTH if it hits them straight in the face. Thugs and whores in the music industry are promoted and those who do the promoting are clearly in charge. Everything we see and hear does matter. It shapes our society and it’s not hard to see if you are capable. They have published studies about what they have done to us yet most chose to stay blind and “PRIDFUL” than have the eyes to see how incredibly gullible humanity is. All of us. The system that everyone slaves for creates the chaos that it then deals the so-called “Justice” ($$$$)… They radicalize then use the radicals against us every time. We all die in sin and the devil wins every time. SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND yet look at how many turn away from it because their minds cannot handle the Truth. Matthew 6:26-34 I pray for the blind, for I was once too.
LET THE BLIND LOOK and THOSE WHO SEEK HAVE THE EYES TO SEE and EARS TO HEAR!!!
Man has free will to choose what he WANTS.
For example:
You want to play debater's games with the term autonomous libertarian free will.
"Genez, accusing me of playing 'debater's games' is a transparent attempt to escape the fact that Joshua 24:19 flatly contradicted your theology. You couldn't answer the verse, so you attacked the vocabulary.
But in your evasion, you just unwittingly conceded my entire point. You wrote: 'Man has free will to choose what he WANTS.'
I completely agree! Man always chooses exactly what he wants to choose. But you are missing the vital, scriptural step: What does a spiritually dead sinner actually want?
According to Scripture, the natural man wants darkness rather than light (John 3:19). He wants to fulfill the lusts of his father the devil (John 8:44). His carnal mind is enmity against God, and it wants to rebel against His law (Romans 8:7).
Because man's nature is totally corrupt, his desires are totally corrupt. And because he can only choose what he wants, he will never choose Christ, holiness, or repentance unless God changes his nature first.
As John Gill famously taught, the will is a servant to the understanding and the affections. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Man chooses according to his wants, but God sovereignly determines the wants during the Vital Phase of Regeneration by replacing the heart of stone with a heart of flesh.
So thank you for confirming my position. Man chooses what he wants. And since the natural man never wants God (Romans 3:11), your free-will system collapses, and sovereign, monergistic grace is the only hope for salvation. Now, do you have an actual exegetical response to Joshua 24:19, or are you finished?"
I am free to tell you this... "Go away."
You still think you are in your high school debaters club.
Anything can be debated.
Truth is from God.
Jimi did not accuse you of using ad hominems ...
you accused him of using ad hominem historical claims:
Jimi then asked you to identify where he had used ad hominems:
You then accused Jimi of behavior engaged in by you and insisted he identify something he did not do.
There is no way to have honest debate with you.
.
Joshua 24:15-25
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
17 For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed:
18 And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God.
19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he [is] an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.
20 If ye forsake the LORD, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good.
21 And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the LORD.
22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
23 Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel.
24 And the people said unto Joshua, The LORD our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey.
25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.
In verse 19, Joshua did not tell them they could not serve God ... Joshua warned against verbal promises devoid of true commitment to serve God.
This truth is further corroborated in verse 20 where Joshua warned of the consequence of turning from God.
Joshua 24:23 Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the LORD God of Israel.brightfame52 said:
There are two commands in verse 23:
(1) put away the strange gods and (2) incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel.
Both verbs are imperative ... meaning the command is directed to the person being spoken to.
The verse emphasizes the action required from the people, highlighting their responsibility in the covenant relationship
Your claim that "God must incline the heart" as people remain passive does not apply to Joshua 24:23.
.
a. Those who write Lexicons do not just say what a word CAN mean - as if they were offering us a buffet of POSSIBLE meanings from which we could select what we wish. In fact, I would say that, generally, they DO take into account the many nuances of a word which is why along with the primary definition of a word, they almost always include many citations of scripture to show how a word is used in different passages. They usually include historic usages of words as well.
b. Epignosis means "above knowledge" or spiritual understanding" Having an understanding of Christ beyond a mere human assessment of him . The fact that his fellow Nazarenes knew him humanly speaking did not make them disciples. In fact, they used their common knowledge of Him to deny His divine origins,
c. Howeverm let us allow the Apostle Paul to tell us what he meant when he used the word epignosis:
“And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;” (Philippians 1:9)
“And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:” (Colossians 3:10)
“That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:” (Ephesians 1:17)
I do not know how you can read these scriptures and say that Judas Iscariot had this kind of knowledge of Jesus. Judas proved what he understood about Jesus when he calculated His life to be worth 30 pieces of silver
A. Peter's second letter, as I read it, deals with two different stages in a Christian's life. The initial phase is about our being saved and brought to life by the Spirit. This first stage is mentioned early in his letter in
2 Peter 1:3-4
(1). This passage begins by focusing on a person who has ESCAPED THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD.
(2). Please observe that this individual was not struggling against his sins nor was her merely WISHING he COULD escape them.
(3) Instead, 2 Peter 1:3 presents the individual AS HAVING ESCAPED his sins ALREADY
(4). WHAT he had escaped is described as a various assortment of POLLUTIONS or DEFILEMENTS which are endemic to the society of fallen humanity who comprise the world
(5). This shows that the author's INITIAL EMPHASIS was not on the sin of Apostasy [which came later] but on the many varieties of sin that typically bind unsaved people - which these people had been delivered from
(6). APOSTASY is a sin only someone with FULL KNOWLEDGE of the faith can commit.
(7). These facts lead me to conclude that the exemplar had experienced a REAL CONVERSION and was not an example one of the (seemingly ubiquitous) company of FALSE CONVERTS
(8). SUBSEQUENT to his conversion, it appears this man received abundant teaching on the great and precious promises found in the word
(9). Having spiritual knowledge of these combined with the the inward-working of God's power made it possible for him to realize the promises and enter into a life of godlikeness.
B. It is hard for me to understand how an honest student of the word could look at this group of people and conclude that the Apostle had in mind a group of unregenerate people who had only a fleshly understanding of who Jesus Christ was.
Paul himself said in 2 Corinthians 5:6 So from now on we regard no one according to the flesh. Although we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
The phrase "we knew Jesus after the flesh" refers to understanding Jesus based on His earthly life and physical existence. However, this perspective shifts after recognizing Him as the spiritual Savior, emphasizing a deeper, spiritual understanding rather than a purely physical one
A. Escape from sin
(1). 2 Peter chapters 1 & 2 BOTH focus
on people who have ESCAPED from sin.
(2). Different words for sin are used in these two contexts
(3). In chapter 1 their life of sin is described as corruption (φθορᾶς) or decay
(4). While in chapter 2 the word that is used is pollution (μιάσματα) which conveys the idea of moral and spiritual pollution that clings to fallen humanity and the world system alienated from God.
(5). Appearing only in 2 Peter 2:20, the plural term portrays the contaminating power of sin, especially the corrupting influences (plural) that false teachers RE-INTRODUCE to those who had begun to know the Lord Jesus Christ.
B. The Topical Lexicon lists these events in sequential order
(1). 2 Peter 1:4 – initial deliverance: “Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
(2). 2 Peter 2:18 – vulnerable believers: false teachers “entice those who are just escaping from others who live in error.”
(3). 2 Peter 2:20 – tragic reversal: “If indeed they have escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ yet are again entangled in it and overcome, the latter state is worse for them than the first.”
C. In the past when I would discuss with believers Jesus parable of the thorny soil I would sometimes be asked just how MANY weeds and of what type of weeds can the "garden" tolerate before the new life dies? Obviously, there is a point of no return. it is built into the parable and I cannot determine that exactly but there is a point when God has had enough.
There is no other kind of will to exercise!
You just exercised it by posting this thread!
(Sheesh! :^)
Between me and
you are retreating right back into the foundational error I already exposed: you are confusing a preceptive command with human capability. Your entire argument rests on the claim that because 'incline' is an imperative command, the people must possess the autonomous free-will power to fulfill it. That is completely false.
Let’s test your grammatical rule against the rest of Scripture. God gives dozens of imperative commands to fallen man. In Ezekiel 18:31, God commands: 'make you a new heart and a new spirit.' By your logic, because 'make' is an imperative directed to the people, man has the free-will power to create his own clean heart! Yet God completely flatlines your theory in Ezekiel 36:26 by declaring that He is the only one who can do it: 'A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.'
The command shows man's responsibility; it never proves his ability. Man is commanded to incline his heart, but because his nature is totally depraved, he will not and cannot do it on his own.
You claim that my position of God dynamically inclining the heart 'does not apply to Joshua 24:23.' Really? Let’s let King David settle our grammatical dispute. In 1 Kings 8:57-58, David stands before the Lord and prays:
If the human heart has the autonomous free-will power to incline itself just because God commands it, why does King David beg God to incline his heart? David understood what you are missing: God commands what we ought to do, but He must sovereignly grant the grace to do it. Man’s heart does not incline itself toward holiness until God sovereignly turns it.
Finally, your attempt to soften Joshua 24:19 into a mere 'warning against empty promises' is a desperate evacuation of the text. Joshua didn't say, 'Be careful to mean what you say.' He stated a hard, absolute, categorical fact of human inability: 'Ye CANNOT serve the Lord: for he is an holy God.'
The holiness of God demands absolute perfection, a standard that fallen, unregenerate flesh cannot meet. They confidently boasted 'Nay, but we will serve the Lord' (v. 21) out of blind, arrogant self-righteousness, completely unaware of their own total depravity. Joshua's command to incline their heart was designed to expose that very blindness, driving them to realize that unless the Lord sovereignly inclines the heart, the sinner remains dead in his sins."
"Reneweddaybyday,
you are retreating right back into the foundational error I already exposed: you are confusing a preceptive command with human capability. Your entire argument rests on the claim that because 'incline' is an imperative command, the people must possess the autonomous free-will power to fulfill it. That is completely false.
Let’s test your grammatical rule against the rest of Scripture. God gives dozens of imperative commands to fallen man. In Ezekiel 18:31, God commands: 'make you a new heart and a new spirit.' By your logic, because 'make' is an imperative directed to the people, man has the free-will power to create his own clean heart! Yet God completely flatlines your theory in Ezekiel 36:26 by declaring that He is the only one who can do it: 'A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.'
The command shows man's responsibility; it never proves his ability. Man is commanded to incline his heart, but because his nature is totally depraved, he will not and cannot do it on his own.
You claim that my position of God dynamically inclining the heart 'does not apply to Joshua 24:23.' Really? Let’s let King David settle our grammatical dispute. In 1 Kings 8:57-58, David stands before the Lord and prays:
And in Psalm 119:36, David cries out: 'Incline my heart unto thy testimonies, and not to covetousness.'
If the human heart has the autonomous free-will power to incline itself just because God commands it, why does King David beg God to incline his heart? David understood what you are missing: God commands what we ought to do, but He must sovereignly grant the grace to do it. Man’s heart does not incline itself toward holiness until God sovereignly turns it.
Finally, your attempt to soften Joshua 24:19 into a mere 'warning against empty promises' is a desperate evacuation of the text. Joshua didn't say, 'Be careful to mean what you say.' He stated a hard, absolute, categorical fact of human inability: 'Ye CANNOT serve the Lord: for he is an holy God.'
The holiness of God demands absolute perfection, a standard that fallen, unregenerate flesh cannot meet. They confidently boasted 'Nay, but we will serve the Lord' (v. 21) out of blind, arrogant self-righteousness, completely unaware of their own total depravity. Joshua's command to incline their heart was designed to expose that very blindness, driving them to realize that unless the Lord sovereignly inclines the heart, the sinner remains dead in his sins."
"JimiSurvivor,
you are committing a textbook lexical error by forcing a single, uniform definition onto epignōsis across completely different contexts, and you are flatly rewriting Peter's own words to manufacture a system where a child of God can perish.
Let’s dismantle your argument piece by piece:
1. Lexicons vs. Context: The Fallacy of Uniformity
You claim that because epignōsis represents a deep, transforming knowledge in Ephesians or Colossians, it must mean vital regeneration in 2 Peter 2. This is completely false. A lexicon tells us the range of a word's meaning; the immediate context determines its actual application. A person can have a precise, accurate, 'above-human' knowledge (epignōsis) of the doctrines and commandments of Christ without ever having their heart of stone replaced.
Look at how Peter explicitly limits the scope of this knowledge in 2 Peter 2:21. He calls it a knowledge of 'the way of righteousness' and 'the holy commandment delivered unto them.' This is an external, regulatory knowledge of gospel truth and moral duty. It led to a reformation of life, but not a regeneration of the soul.
2. Reformation is Not Regeneration
You argue that because these people 'escaped the pollutions of the world,' they must have experienced a 'real conversion.' You are confusing outward moral reformation with inward spiritual quickening. A person can change their environment, drop their gross outward vices, and be completely swept up in the light of the visible church through an intellectual grasp of the gospel, while remaining entirely dead in sin. Judas Iscariot escaped the outward pollutions of the world for three years; he preached the gospel, cast out demons, and walked with the Apostles so flawlessly that none of them suspected him. Yet Jesus explicitly called him a 'devil' from the beginning (John 6:70). Judas had an advanced knowledge of Christ, but he was never a new creature.
3. Peter’s Own Analogy Explodes Your Theory
Your claim that these people were truly regenerated believers who fell into 'the sin of apostasy' is utterly crushed by the very text you are trying to defend. Look at how Peter closes the chapter in 2 Peter 2:22. He does not say, 'The sheep turned back into a goat.' He uses a scathing, precise analogy to expose their true, unregenerate nature:
A dog and a swine represent the unregenerate mass of the reprobate world. The sow was washed outwardly—meaning it underwent a thorough, moral, external reformation through the epignōsis of the gospel. But notice: washing the outside of a pig does not change its DNA. It remains a sow. Because its inner nature was never changed into a sheep, the moment it is left to itself, it returns naturally to the mire. They did not lose their salvation, JimiSurvivor; they simply manifested that despite their high intellectual knowledge and outward religious behavior, they were never anything more than washed pigs.
In John Gill's High Calvinist framework, the elect are eternally secure because their legal phase was settled at the cross, and their vital phase involves an incorruptible seed that can never die (1 Peter 1:23). Your interpretation makes the blood of Christ fail and turns the Holy Spirit's quickening into a temporary bath for swine. Scripture says otherwise: the sheep hear His voice and never perish (John 10:28)."
JimiSurvivor, you've established that 2 Peter 1 and 2 both speak of escaping corruption. You haven't established that the people in 2 Peter 2:20 were regenerated and then lost eternal life. That's the crucial step.
1. Similar words do not prove identical spiritual states
Yes, 2 Peter 1:4 speaks of escaping the corruption in the world through lust.And 2 Peter 2:20 speaks of escaping the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of Christ.
But the fact that Peter uses related language does not establish that both passages describe regeneration.
The decisive question is:
What does Peter actually say happened to the people in 2 Peter 2:20?
He says they escaped the world's pollution:
He does not say:
He does not say:
He does not say:
He does not say:
You're importing regeneration into the passage.
2. In fact, the immediate context makes your interpretation difficult
Peter compares these people to:Notice the imagery.
The sow was washed, but she still returns to the mire because she remains a sow.
Peter's point is not that a sheep became a sow again.
The nature of the creature has not changed.
That's perfectly consistent with external reformation without regeneration.
A person can escape outward corruption, acquire genuine knowledge of Christ, reform his life, and then return to the world without having undergone the inward work of regeneration.
3. Your argument actually assumes what it needs to prove
You reason:escaped pollution → therefore regenerated → returned to pollution → therefore lost salvation.
But the first arrow isn't established.
The text says:
escaped pollution through knowledge → became entangled again → overcome.
That's what Peter says.
You have to prove that “escaped pollution” = regeneration.
You can't simply assume it.
And epignōsis does not automatically mean regeneration.
It can describe full or accurate knowledge, but the word itself does not mean:
Indeed, 2 Peter 2:20 itself is the problem for making epignōsis equivalent to regeneration: these people possessed this knowledge and yet returned to corruption.
So your definition makes the passage circular:
That isn't exegesis.
4. 2 Peter 2:18 is important too
You connect verse 18 with verse 20:But notice that Peter describes the false teachers as enticing those who were “just escaped” from error.
That sounds very much like people who have recently separated themselves from false teaching and immoral conduct.
It does not require that they have been regenerated.
And Peter's description of the false teachers is severe:
The entire chapter is about false teachers, moral corruption, deception, and people being drawn into it.
Nothing in the chapter forces the conclusion that every person who temporarily escapes that corruption has been regenerated.
5. And your “point of no return” from the thorny soil doesn't prove loss of regeneration
You said:But Jesus' parable does not say:
The seed among thorns is explicitly distinguished from the good soil.
The problem is that you are treating the appearance of life as proof that saving life was actually present.
Jesus says the thorny hearers:
The good ground is the one that actually bears fruit.
So the parable does not give us a mechanism for killing regeneration.
It gives us different kinds of responses to the Word.
6. Scripture gives us a much clearer statement about God's preservation of His people
Jesus says:Notice:
My sheep → hear → follow → receive eternal life → shall never perish.
Jesus doesn't say:
And:
And:
That's the promise of preservation.
The real question
I don't deny that people can genuinely escape outward corruption and later return to it.I don't deny that false teachers can deceive people who have gained substantial knowledge of Christ.
I don't deny the warnings.
What I deny is the unsupported leap:
escape from corruption = regeneration.
Peter never says that.
And until you establish that the people in 2 Peter 2:20 were actually regenerated, justified, and eternally saved, their subsequent return to corruption cannot be used as proof that regeneration can be lost.
The sow was washed.
But she remained a sow.
That's Peter's own illustration.
The issue isn't whether people can reform and fall away.
They can.
The issue is whether a person who has actually been born of God can finally perish.
Jesus says:
That's the promise I don't see 2 Peter 2 overturning.