It's just like anything else alcohol prescription drugs . is how they're used or abused but it's best not to use if you don't have to but if you need a backup to what you think you know take it with a Grain of salt
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.
JimiSurvivor,
Your appeal to Jude 3 and your quote from John Calvin’s Institutes completely backfire when subjected to historical and textual reality. You claim that because the Early Church Fathers (ECF) often used language that emphasized human choices, the doctrines of total inability and unconditional election were "Medieval Catholic additions" invented 400 years later by Augustine.
Let us dismantle this historical myth by looking directly at the difference between the progressive development of theological language and the underlying text of the unchangeable Apostolic message.
1. The Fallacy of Jude 3 and "Progressive Doctrine"
You cite Jude 3 ("contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints") to suggest that if a precise theological formulation wasn't explicitly polished in the vocabulary of the first-century apologists, it cannot be part of the original deposit of faith.
Think about the catastrophic trap you are creating for yourself:
- The Trinitarian Parallel: If we apply your exact rule to the doctrine of the Trinity, you would have to throw it out. The word Trinity (Trinitas) was not coined until Tertullian at the end of the second century. The precise, orthodox language defining the two natures of Christ in one person (the Hypostatic Union) was not formally locked down until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. [1]
- The Blueprint Form: The Apostles did not deliver a systematic dictionary of Latinized terms; they delivered the inspired, infallible Word of God. The underlying truths—that man is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1), that faith is an allotted gift (2 Peter 1:1), and that election is unconditional and pre-temporal (Romans 9:11)—were perfectly delivered once for all. The subsequent centuries did not add new bricks to the foundation; they simply coined precise terminology to defend those foundational bricks against heretics who tried to chip them away.
2. The Context of the Early Church Fathers: Fighting Gnostic Fatalism
You claim the ECF vigorously rejected unilateral divine determinism because they associated it with Stoicism and Manichaeism. You are completely ignoring the historical context of why they wrote what they wrote.
The earliest Pre-Nicene fathers were locked in a brutal theological war against Gnostic heretics (like Marcion and Valentin) who taught a strict, metaphysical fatalism. The Gnostics claimed that humans were created as inherently "spiritual" or "material" natures by cosmic accident, meaning some were physically locked into salvation while others were locked into damnation regardless of reality.
To crush this heresy, the ECF heavily emphasized human accountability, commands to obey, and voluntary choices. They were protecting the truth that man is a morally responsible agent who is justly judged by his deeds. They were not writing systematic treatises on soteriology or the internal mechanics of regeneration. Augustine did not introduce "Manichaeism" into the church; rather, when Pelagius arose and began preaching the blasphemy that man can save himself without supernatural grace, the Church was forced to look deeper into the text to explicitly define Phase III (Vital Regeneration) and total inability.
3. Exposing Your Misuse of John Calvin (Institutes II, 2:4)
You quote John Calvin noting that the ancient theologians were "confused, vacillating, and contradictory" on the human will, using it as a confession that the early church disagreed with Reformed soteriology.
You completely missed Calvin's actual point. Why were they vacillating? Because they had not yet faced a systematic heresy regarding grace! Before Pelagius denied the necessity of the Holy Spirit, the ECF used loose, unrefined language regarding free will while simultaneously making statements that completely exalted sovereign grace.
Look at what Calvin says immediately after the section you quoted. Throughout the Institutes, Calvin proceeds to cite the ECF—including Cyprian, Ambrose, and even Chrysostom—demonstrating that whenever they spoke directly about the actual source of conversion, they explicitly attributed it entirely to God. Cyprian wrote: "We ought to glory in nothing, because nothing is ours." Ambrose stated: "For the will of men is not beforehand prepared by them, but it is by God modified; for it is grace that makes the God-man to be by us received."
Conclusion: The Text Overrules the Commentary
Your historical argument boils down to this: "The early commentators didn't use the specific Calvinistic categories, therefore the Apostles didn't teach it."
We do not worship the Church Fathers, nor do we hinge our final destiny on the uninspired commentary of the second century. We go directly to the Apostolic text that was delivered once for all time.
- It is the Apostle Paul who wrote Romans 9.
- It is the Apostle John who wrote John 10.
- It is the Apostle Peter who wrote 2 Peter 1:1.
Has anybody here said anything we can actually use for our thinking with Christ?
Some say things about concepts.
Others mention names of those who made comments about them.
But?
Nothing is being said that we can actually think with while walking with Christ.
Wasted words.
Intellectual wheel spinning.
........
Some say things about concepts.
Others mention names of those who made comments about them.
But?
Nothing is being said that we can actually think with while walking with Christ.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory,
the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-2 + 14.
Wasted words.
Intellectual wheel spinning.
........
Romans 6:16 - Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Romans 8:13,14 - For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Yeah we have free will to choose to be led by the Spirit or to turn away from the Lord and walk in the flesh
2 Timothy 2:12 - If we deny Him, He also will deny us
I know the Lord and His Word so I won't be needing any Plan B since God watches over His Word to perform it.
James 1:6-8 - But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
Yeah the reformed followers refuse to think on all of the things the Lord says in His Word.
Instead they follow only a few verse here and there that agree with their eisegesis.
(polite way to say they be cherry pickers)
When you only give their conclusion?
It does not give us anything to think with to come to the same conclusion.
That is what I am getting at.
We need to see their chain of logic to make us able to THINK.
Not just parrot back.
Nonthinkers like to accept what some big name concluded without knowing the line of reasoning.
Well, I'm going to continue to believe and THINK God's Word is true and follow what He has said rather then wallowing around in the carnal minded religious teachings of men who are not going by the whole counsel of God.
That's how bible school and seminary students get tricked in to following false doctrine is because they are required to study the writings of carnal minded religious men who teach their eisegesis rather than studying God's Word.
They are told these carnal minded religious men are gerat men of God when in reality they are the wolves the Lord warned about the the Apostle Paul in Acts that would come in after Paul left and they would not spare the flock and they didn't.
You need to learn God's Word to think it.
Depending solely upon the KJV will be a major handicap.
Yes I know God and His Word and I compare anything people say with what God says in His Word.
That's why I don't follow the false doctrines of the reformers because they teach things God's Word does not.
It has it's warts but is still more accurate than the modern translations that are sin friendly, gay friendly, and lawless.
It's evident by all the people using modern translations based on minority texts and so called higher criticism who are living in sin, committing suicide and other such lawlessness representing the end times falling away.
The King James translation was intended for William Shakespeare's generation.
The English is too much of a burden for me and leaves too much for me to imagine what it is saying.
That is why I now learn from a pastor who cites the King James.
But he then translates the same passage from Hebrew or Greek.
Only then to first find out it makes sense and is not in some holy language.
Koine Greek was the language of the man in the street.
For that is whom the Bible was being communicated to at that time.
It was not some fancy, high-sounding language like the King James changed it to.
And still the old king jimmy is much more accurate than modern translations where the eisegesis of the modern translators is put in to their work causing people to stumble and believe things that are not true. A good example of this is Romans 8:1
Romans 8:1 - There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Some claim that most modern translations don't include the second part of Romans 8:1 because it's not in the oldest/original texts.
It is in the majority text which is the accurate text that was used most often until the great falling away started gaining steam and all these new translations started coming out... that use the minority text that contains all the errors. (Gnosticism)
It says the same thing if we keep reading in Romans 8...
Romans 8:4
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
*This is referring to the Law of Christ that believers live under today which is the Lord's moral law that's always been in effect that followers of antinomianism try to explain away (see Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21, James 2:12, James 1:25)
Romans 8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Romans 8:6,7
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Romans 8:13,14
For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Romans 13:14
But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Then there is...
Galatians 5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9,10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1:28-32
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Romans 6:1,2
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
1 John 2:4
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1 John 1:6
If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth
Galatians 6:8
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption
All these verses indicate condemnation and corruption for anyone walking after the flesh which is living in sin.
Explain the difference between having a choice and having free will.
A. When the Early Church Fathers [the Christian Teachers that succeed the Apostles and carried out Jesus command to preach the gospel to all nations were the ones who coined the term FREE WILL They were NOT suggesting that the HUMAN WILL is COMPLETELY FREE of all contrary influences. They were addressing the belief that was common to many religions and philosophies of that time - which taught that every thought, desire, motive and choice of every human being was determined by the unseen influence of either deities or impersonal cosmic forces
B. The E.C.F. strongly opposed these systems because if mankind had no power make choices, no one could not be held responsible for their actions. One of the earliest "Apostolic Fathers who actually knew the Apostle John
Ignatius of Antioch (AD 30-107) wrote this on the way to being martyred:
"Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us LIFE upon our observance [of God’s precepts], but DEATH as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us FLEE FROM DEATH, and make CHOICE of LIFE. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men — the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is ONE HUMANITY, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his OWN CHOICE. The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness. The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us."
(Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, V)
C. The Gnostics Ignatius was alluding to taught that there were two kinds of humans - the Enlightened Ones and the Children of Darkness. These two types were ONTOLOGICALLY distinct and had different DESTINIES. One would be shaped by the Potter to overcome their temptations and inherit a glorious place in the Potter's House. The other was shaped specifically to become a "vessel of wrath" which would be taken by the same hands that had made it what it was and shattered into a thousand pieces.
D. Notice that Ignatius differentiates between the two vessels according to their choices and the outcome of their choices:
(1) The unbelieving bear the image of the prince of wickedness.
(2) The believing possess the image of their Prince, God the Father, and Jesus Christ, through whom, if we are not in readiness to die for the truth into His passion, His life is not in us."
The Latin term for free will, liberum arbitrium, was introduced during 4th-century CE Christian philosophy, with the concept heavily developed and popularized by church fathers like Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE). Saying man's will is not free does not equate to man being incapable of making choices. To do so, one continues in the same error addressed originally while ignoring a plethora of Scriptures which detail the fallen estate of man: a slave to sin, lover of darkness, captive to the will of the devil, refusing to come into the light, oppposed to and unable to comprehend the spiritual things of God and incapable of obeying God. With the heart one believes. Not the wicked heart of the natural man. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Jesus said so.
Do you want accuracy???
God has provided.
This exegetical pastor routinely began his lessons quoting the passage to be taught from the KJV.
https://rbthieme.org/about-us
.......
The debate about free will is a distraction used by Calvinists to maintain their I am special status, I could not believe but God chose me to be "gifted" belief.
It is such nonsense.
The Bible teaches that The Gospel/The Good News of Christ Jesus is God's work in the world and every person is born with the ability to respond positively and believe.
The power of God's grace granted to a soul absolves and eliminates the problem with free will.
Grace is not simply an attitude of favor towards man. "Unmerited favor."
It is real power God provides that causes transformation as to make someone able to merit God's favor.
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses so that Christ’s power may
rest on me. 2 Corinthians 12:9
When reading that?
How many of us overlook that aspect of grace?
That is of grace being God's power.
His power at work in us to transform us into becoming someone who will think in a way that will merit His favor!
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses so that Christ’s power may
rest on me. 2 Corinthians 12:9
.....
I'll stick with the Spirit of Truth that Jesus sent to me. Thanks anyway.
Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)
These people are selling their teachings for money making merchandise of people.
That's a hard no for me anytime I see that. Jesus and His Apostles did not charge people money to hear their teachings and they did not instruct the Body of Christ to do that either.
The Holy Spirit should lead you to a good pastor-teacher.
You miss that part.
You're simply a secular psychic by nature in religious garb.
Your spirit speaks to you in religious terms to deceive only you.
It deceives you just fine.
But not me.
The Holy Spirit led me into the truth about you.