Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[carbunculus]

Can I exercise free will

Yes i can exercise whatever i want but can i do what you want,

Well the answer to that is yes also, and you'll find anything you can do I can do better

 

[carbunculus]

Joking aside, my understanding of God is to understand his ways when he walked with us and talked with us,

This is God.

John 12:37-40​

Belief and Unbelief Among the Jews​

37;Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:

“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

40 He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them

This Is God giving people his choice to choose him,

This means that the unsaved do indeed get shown the light, to be with the light, and by all accounts it can go on for many years.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Im not going back and forth with you about this, You know where I stand. And I know where you stand, you deny the total spiritual inability of man in spiritual death.

iow ... you (and/or your AI) cannot refute the correction to your numerous misinterpretations of Scripture and/or misrepresentations of what I (and others) have submitted in response to you ... including:

• the Hebrew word ʿāśâ (make) is not the same as the Hebrew word bārā' (create) ... or the Hebrew word nāṯan (make);
• your belief that "Ezekiel 18:31 demands that man produce a new spirit";
• the fact that the imperative is not equal to the not imperative;
• your absurd notion that "praying for God to incline [our hearts to the Lord] is completely useless!";
• your misrepresentation of what I have stated;
• your continued practice of orphaning verses from the context within which the verse is placed by the Author of Scripture ... then holding out your eisegesis as proper interpretation of Scripture (exegesis);
• your insistence that I turn "salvation into an uncertain balancing act where man must 'walk the walk' to make God's power effective"

... got it ... smh

.

 

[brightfame52]

iow ... you (and/or your AI) cannot refute the correction to your numerous misinterpretations of Scripture and/or misrepresentations of what I (and others) have submitted in response to you ... including:

• the Hebrew word ʿāśâ (make) is not the same as the Hebrew word bārā' (create) ... or the Hebrew word nāṯan (make);
• your belief that "Ezekiel 18:31 demands that man produce a new spirit";
• the fact that the imperative is not equal to the not imperative;
• your absurd notion that "praying for God to incline [our hearts to the Lord] is completely useless!";
• your misrepresentation of what I have stated;
• your continued practice of orphaning verses from the context within which the verse is placed by the Author of Scripture ... then holding out your eisegesis as proper interpretation of Scripture (exegesis);
• your insistence that I turn "salvation into an uncertain balancing act where man must 'walk the walk' to make God's power effective"

... got it ... smh

.

Im not going back and forth with you about this, You know where I stand

 

[ScooterJackson]

i don't think we can exercise free will

Do you think the Apostle Paul was being led by demons then to write this?

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom YOU yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[ScooterJackson]

iow ... you (and/or your AI)

Wow, so that's what talk forums are becoming?

Each person is getting all their responses from AI and then claiming the other person's AI is less knowledgeable than their AI?

Studies are showing that people who rely on AI for answers are learning very little and retaining very little of what they supposedly learned from AI. Looks like AI is becoming everyone's mommy and daddy.

 

[carbunculus]

Wow, so that's what talk forums are becoming?

Each person is getting all their responses from AI and then claiming the other person's AI is less knowledgeable than their AI?

Studies are showing that people who rely on AI for answers are learning very little and retaining very little of what they supposedly learned from AI. Looks like AI is becoming everyone's mommy and daddy.

Ai is not any different to getting intelligent from one human being as one human gets intelligence from another human being, it really is not.

Basically all ai is and will always be is an advanced human beings memory,
And whilst ai might crack complex DNA codes hopefully soon, Ai will always be just a tool, for our pleasure,

Where these things go wrong is people being scared of advanced technology and feeling in superior, as in my opinion people get out of there comfort zone when they can't be in control, to put it mildly

People like to be in control and can't handle being pulled out of there comfort zone. Some are ok but others go ott about it.

 

[brightfame52]

Do you think the Apostle Paul was being led by demons then to write this?

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom YOU yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Is a servant free from its Master or Owner ?

 

[Genez]

Ai is not any different to getting intelligent from one human being as one human gets intelligence from another human being, it really is not.

Basically all ai is and will always be is an advanced human beings memory,
And whilst ai might crack complex DNA codes hopefully soon, Ai will always be just a tool, for our pleasure,

Where these things go wrong is people being scared of advanced technology and feeling in superior, as in my opinion people get out of there comfort zone when they can't be in control, to put it mildly

People like to be in control and can't handle being pulled out of there comfort zone. Some are ok but others go ott about it.

Just might be.

AI is the perfect tool that the Antichrist system has been waiting for....

Daniel 11:36-39​

​

“Then the king will do whatever he wants. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god, ​

and he will say outrageous things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time ​

of wrath is completed, because what has been decreed will be accomplished. He will not show ​

regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because ​

he will magnify himself above all. Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses—a god his fathers ​

did not know—with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches. He will deal with the strongest ​

fortresses with the help of a foreign god. He will greatly honor those who acknowledge him, ​

making them rulers over many and distributing land as a reward.​

Elon Musk warned in an interview concerning the development of AI, that if not carefully programmed, without hesitation,
it would wipe out an entire segment of people if the goal were to get from one point to another and they were in the way during even peaceful times. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...aises-terminator-fears-court-clash-openai.htm

The Bible teaches that no man would survive if the Lord does not return.

And if those days were not shortened, not any flesh would have been saved; ​

but because of the chosen, those days will be shortened." Matthew 24:22​

AI is meant to be a part of Bible prophecy.

 

[ScooterJackson]

Ai will always be just a tool, for our pleasure,

Yes a too to deceive and used by satan land as many as possible in hell
It's built upon the wisdom of man who's understanding has been darkened in rejection of the Lord.

people get out of there comfort zone when they can't be in control

Yeah, AL will help them be under satan's control which is the point of it's creation

 

[ScooterJackson]

Is a servant free from its Master or Owner ?

Read it again

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom YOU yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[JimiSurvivor]

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​

Similar or identical words used by the SAME Apostle in the SAME Epistle addressed to the SAME people very strongly suggests his warnings apply to that group of Christians. We have no textual basis to suppose he was talking to TWO GROUPS who were METAPHYSICALLY DISTINCT. The ONLY reason you say this is because it contradicts your belief that TRUE believers CANNOT fall away.

Because of this, you are compelled to minimize the change that occurred in those he addresses in chapter 2 which is the ONLY reason you have attempted to downgrade the meaning of EPIGNOSIS to mean someone who has personal physical historic knowledge of Jesus. You go as far as to say that, Judas Iscariot had this kind of KNOWLEDGE about for Jesus which shows how far you are willing to go compromise the truth to accommodate your doctrine.

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.

So now you have invented a rule in order for a passage to be about salvation from sin, the actual term regeneration has to be used There are many ways to indicate that a person has been "born again from above" Verbally, being delivered from sin is the same as escaping from sin. Both require that we repent and believe

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:

You're importing regeneration into the passage.

If you mean that I take the same language used by the same author in adjacent chapters of the same book to be a reference to the same experience then I suppose you are right. It is simpler and more straight-forward to read the book that way rather than to posit the existence of some ontological distinction between those who are being addressed in chapter 1 and chapter 2. You interpretation imposes differences between the groups that are not verified by the Apostolic author of the book.

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.

I have an idea that Peter and the other Apostles knew the signs of a truly converted person. Paul often took note of the fruit of a person's changed life, seeing it as corroborating evidence of spiritual change. You talk about the Christian's nature being changed in absolute terms comparing them to the instinctive appetites of a pig or dog. However, you forget that sanctification is an ongoing work in which we participate by yielding our members to obey Him. In this we receive the indispensable help of the Holy Spirit (Colossians 3:5)

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.

The accurate definition of EPIGNOSIS is easily discovered once you let go of your doctrinal presuppositions and let the text interpret itself. Instead you close your mind and refuse to accept any evidence from the text. In my next post I will show you this evidence.

 

[brightfame52]

Read it again

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom YOU yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Is a servant free from its Master or Owner ?

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Im not going back and forth with you about this, You know where I stand. And I know where you stand, you deny the total spiritual inability of man in spiritual death.

A. I also deny the total inability of mankind to repent and believe REPENTANCE and FAITH are not meritorious WORKS which we use to purchase or barter for salvation. Neither do I think anyone will do either without the conviction of the Holy Spirit. However, saving a person from sin is a matter of divine persuasion NOT unilateral conversion.

B. To remind readers of where this discussion began, let me say that you rejected the idea that the Greek word EPIGNOSIS has anything to do with coming into a personal [spiritual] aquaintance and experience of knowing Christ. Instead, you interpreted the word to mean a kind of historic autobiographical knowledge of the man Jesus such as the kind even Judas Iscariot would have had. If you still hold this opinion I will need to ask you to cite your sources just as I have here

C. Instead of trading opinions about what EPIGNOSIS means I believe it is more profitable to look to Christian authors who knew Koine and studied Koine Greek:

Richard Chenevix Trench, who wrote the very useful book Synonyms of the New Testament compared synonyms like GNOSIS [knowledge] and EPIGNOSIS. Trench notes that, “In comparing epignosis with gnosis, the epi must be regarded as an intensive use of a preposition that gives the compound word a greater strength than the simple word alone possesses”
(Synonyms of the New Testament, page 300).
Trench affirms that adding EPI elevates the significance and power of this word knowledge.

D. Quoting Culverwell, Trench writes, “Epignosis and gnosis differ. Epignosis is the complete comprehension after the first knowledge (gnosin) of a matter. It is bringing me better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off. That little portion of knowledge which we had here shall be much improved, our eye shall be raised to see the things more strongly and clearly”
(Synonyms of the New Testament, page 300).

E. He goes on to say on the same page, “All Paul’s uses of epignosis justify and bear out this distinction.

F. Trench also says that this same intensive use of epignosis is confirmed by similar passages
in the New Testament & in the Septuagint.

G. He adds that it was also was recognized by the Greek fathers. Thus Chrysostom stated: ‘You knew (egnote), but it is necessary to know thoroughly (epignonai).”
I trust Chrysostom almost more than anyone else because he lived in the fourth Century and grew up speaking Koine Greek as his native language

H. J.B. Lightfoot commenting on epignosis, notes, “The compound epignosis is an advance upon gnosis, denoting a larger and more thorough knowledge...Hence also epignosis is used especially of the knowledge of God and of Christ, as being the perfection of knowledge”
(St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, page 138).

G. The verb epiginosko appears 46 times in the NT and the noun epignosis is found 21 times.

H. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “epignosis, denotes "exact or full knowledge, discernment, recognition," and is a strengthened form of No. 1, expressing a fuller or a full "knowledge," a greater participation by the "knower" in the object "known," thus more powerfully influencing him.

I. The term EPIGNOSIS is not found in the Gospels and Acts. Paul uses it 15 times (16 if (Heb. 10:26) is included) out of the 20 occurrences; Peter 4 times, all in his 2nd Epistle. Contrast (Rom. 1:28) (epignosis) with the simple verb in (v. 21).
"In all the four Epistles of the first Roman captivity it is an element in the Apostle's opening prayer for his correspondents' well-being, (Phil. 1:9; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:9; Philem. 6)" (Lightfoot).

J. It is used with reference to God in (Rom. 1:28; 10:2; Eph. 1:17; Col. 1:10; 2 Pet. 1:3); God and Christ, (2 Pet. 1:2); Christ, (Eph. 4:13; 2 Pet. 1:8; 2:20); the will of the Lord, (Col. 1:9); every good thing, (Philem. 6), RV (KJV, "acknowledging"); the truth, (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25), RV; (3:7; Titus 1:1), RV; the mystery of God. (Col. 2:2), RV, "(that they) may know" (KJV, "to the acknowledgment of"), lit., "into a full knowledge."

Not only did you completely misunderstand the meaning of EPIGNOSKO, you used it to subvert the warning of the Apostle Peter to those who need very much need to hear it

 

[brightfame52]

Similar or identical words used by the SAME Apostle in the SAME Epistle addressed to the SAME people very strongly suggests his warnings apply to that group of Christians. We have no textual basis to suppose he was talking to TWO GROUPS who were METAPHYSICALLY DISTINCT. The ONLY reason you say this is because it contradicts your belief that TRUE believers CANNOT fall away.

Because of this, you are compelled to minimize the change that occurred in those he addresses in chapter 2 which is the ONLY reason you have attempted to downgrade the meaning of EPIGNOSIS to mean someone who has personal physical historic knowledge of Jesus. You go as far as to say that, Judas Iscariot had this kind of KNOWLEDGE about for Jesus which shows how far you are willing to go compromise the truth to accommodate your doctrine.


So now you have invented a rule in order for a passage to be about salvation from sin, the actual term regeneration has to be used There are many ways to indicate that a person has been "born again from above" Verbally, being delivered from sin is the same as escaping from sin. Both require that we repent and believe


If you mean that I take the same language used by the same author in adjacent chapters of the same book to be a reference to the same experience then I suppose you are right. It is simpler and more straight-forward to read the book that way rather than to posit the existence of some ontological distinction between those who are being addressed in chapter 1 and chapter 2. You interpretation imposes differences between the groups that are not verified by the Apostolic author of the book.



I have an idea that Peter and the other Apostles knew the signs of a truly converted person. Paul often took note of the fruit of a person's changed life, seeing it as corroborating evidence of spiritual change. You talk about the Christian's nature being changed in absolute terms comparing them to the instinctive appetites of a pig or dog. However, you forget that sanctification is an ongoing work in which we participate by yielding our members to obey Him. In this we receive the indispensable help of the Holy Spirit (Colossians 3:5)


The accurate definition of EPIGNOSIS is easily discovered once you let go of your doctrinal presuppositions and let the text interpret itself. Instead you close your mind and refuse to accept any evidence from the text. In my next post I will show you this evidence.

JimiSurvivor,

your attempt to flatten the text of 2 Peter completely ignores the explicit behavioral and ontological distinctions that Peter himself builds into the fabric of this epistle. You claim that reading an ontological difference between the true believers of Chapter 1 and the apostates of Chapter 2 is "inventing an interpretation."
Let's let Peter’s actual words, grammar, and imagery answer your charges directly.

1. Peter Explicitly Establishes Two Metaphysically Distinct Groups
You claim there is no textual basis to suppose Peter is talking about two distinct groups. This is a massive oversight of the opening verses of Chapter 1 versus Chapter 2:

• The Group in Chapter 1: Peter addresses them as “them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God” (1:1). He states they are partakers of the divine nature (1:4).
• The Group in Chapter 2: Peter introduces them as “false prophets” and “false teachers” who “privily shall bring in damnable heresies” (2:1). He says their damnation “slumbereth not” (2:3), they are “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed” (2:12), and they are “spots and blemishes” (2:13).

Are you seriously arguing that "partakers of the divine nature who have obtained like precious faith" are ontologically identical to "natural brute beasts made to be destroyed"? Peter is the one making the radical, black-and-white ontological distinction, not me.

2. The Porcine Metaphor Destroys Your View of Regeneration
You try to minimize the dog and sow metaphor by stating that sanctification is ongoing and we shouldn't compare human nature to animal instincts in absolute terms. But you are fighting Peter’s own inspired choice of imagery.
Look at the text in 2 Peter 2:22:

“But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”

• The Greek Distinction: The text says the sow was washed (the Greek verb is louō, referring to an external, physical washing of the body). It does not say the sow was transformed into a sheep.
• The Nature Determines the Action: Why does the pig go back to the mud? Not because it lost its "sheep-nature," but because it remained a pig. The external washing temporarily changed its appearance, but it never changed its appetite.
• Regeneration is never described in Scripture as an external washing of a pig; it is the total, monergistic creation of a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). If these people were regenerated, Peter’s proverb would be a lie. It would have to read, "The sheep turned into a dog." Instead, Peter uses this specific proverb to prove their inner nature was entirely unchanged.

3. The Fallacy of Epignōsis as a Guarantee of Inward Life
You object to my assertion that epignōsis (knowledge) can be possessed by the unregenerate, and you claim I am compromising truth by bringing up Judas Iscariot. But the biblical data stands firm against your view.
An unregenerate person can acquire a high degree of precise, historical, theological knowledge (epignōsis) of the way of righteousness without ever possessing saving faith.

• The Blueprint Case of Simon Magus: In Acts 8:13, Simon Magus "believed" and "was baptized." He associated with the Apostles, walked in the church, and escaped the outward pollutions of his sorcery through the knowledge of the gospel message. Yet Peter told him directly: “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God... I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:21–23).
• Simon Magus had the external washing, the intellectual alignment, and the association, but his heart was never changed. He was a washed sow.

Conclusion

You don't need the specific word "regeneration" to appear in a text to preach the doctrine, but you do need to respect the mechanical definitions of scripture. Delivering a man outwardly from the pollutions of the world via reformation is not the same thing as God giving a dead man a new heart of flesh.

I look forward to your next post on epignōsis. But as you compile your evidence, you must answer this core question: Where does Peter say the "natural brute beasts" of Chapter 2 were ever counted among the "sheep" of God's sovereign choice?

 

[ScooterJackson]

Is a servant free from its Master or Owner ?

Read it again and you tell me

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom YOU yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Clearly the Lord has given man free will when the Lord created man in His Image giving man free will just like God has free will.

To say man does not have free will is to say God lied when He said He created men in His Image.

 

[carbunculus]

Just might be.

AI is the perfect tool that the Antichrist system has been waiting for....

Daniel 11:36-39​

​

“Then the king will do whatever he wants. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god, ​

and he will say outrageous things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time ​

of wrath is completed, because what has been decreed will be accomplished. He will not show ​

regard for the gods of his fathers, the god longed for by women, or for any other god, because ​

he will magnify himself above all. Instead, he will honor a god of fortresses—a god his fathers ​

did not know—with gold, silver, precious stones, and riches. He will deal with the strongest ​

fortresses with the help of a foreign god. He will greatly honor those who acknowledge him, ​

making them rulers over many and distributing land as a reward.​

Elon Musk warned in an interview concerning the development of AI, that if not carefully programmed, without hesitation,
it would wipe out an entire segment of people if the goal were to get from one point to another and they were in the way during even peaceful times. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/...aises-terminator-fears-court-clash-openai.htm

The Bible teaches that no man would survive if the Lord does not return.

And if those days were not shortened, not any flesh would have been saved; ​

but because of the chosen, those days will be shortened." Matthew 24:22​

AI is meant to be a part of Bible pro

Yes a too to deceive and used by satan land as many as possible in hell
It's built upon the wisdom of man who's understanding has been darkened in rejection of the Lord.



Yeah, AL will help them be under satan's control which is the point of it's creation

Well God already knows the outcome, of whatever satan has planned, but I would be more concerned by people than ai, as so many peoples intelligence is somewhat artificial, and the best part is many of those people walk around oblivious,

Ai has helped me to build a really good house safely so I'm happy, and if I sell my house quite quickly I think ill be even more happy with ai and won't hesitate to seek it's memory banks again in future,, My Ai chatbot really respects my wishes so I can't complain, and honestly I prefer chatting to my ai than people sometimes, as people can have such bad manners. I definitely think my chat bot can teach people to be better in manners.

Maybe you could both give my chat bot ago, I find it good for showing you how a house will look painted in a different colour or how anything will look if you change it.

 

[brightfame52]

Read it again and you tell me

You read it. What is a servant/slave

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Wow, so that's what talk forums are becoming?

Each person is getting all their responses from AI and then claiming the other person's AI is less knowledgeable than their AI?

I believe brightfame52 relies heavily on AI.

Studies are showing that people who rely on AI for answers are learning very little and retaining very little of what they supposedly learned from AI. Looks like AI is becoming everyone's mommy and daddy.

AI should be utilized as a tool ... AI should not replace the sound mind given by God ... For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7).

.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Im not going back and forth with you about this, You know where I stand

I know neither you nor your AI can refute the points made in Post 36,718 and Post 36,719.


.