Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

[cv5]

Yet some of them as on these threads will continually allege that all other than them have a self-meritorious concept of faith.

It's an empty and dumb argument really. Fallacious argumentation.

And they do their utmost to bail out of the absurdity trap with the usual super-determinist legerdemain and parlor tricks.

 

[Magenta]

Yet some of them as on these threads will continually allege that all other than them have a self-meritorious concept of faith.

It's an empty and dumb argument really. Fallacious argumentation.

Like the empty dumb and ridiculously false allegation that anybody says men do not make choices and/or do not have a will.

Which I believe even you are guilty of doing. So... go look in a mirror. Once again.

 

[Kroogz]

Yet some of them as on these threads will continually allege that all other than them have a self-meritorious concept of faith.

It's an empty and dumb argument really. Fallacious argumentation.

I agree.

If I have faith in a chair to hold me up if I sit down it. Can I boast of helping the chair to hold me up? No, ALL the merit is in the chair.

Can we boast in breathing?

Can we boast in eating?

No, ALL the merit is in the air and food.

Can we boast in believing in the Lord Jesus Christ? NO, ALL the merit goes to the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Magenta]

I agree.

If I have faith in a chair to hold me up if I sit down it. Can I boast of helping the chair to hold me up? No, ALL the merit is in the chair.

Can we boast in breathing?

Can we boast in eating?

No, ALL the merit is in the air and food.

Can we boast in believing in the Lord Jesus Christ? NO, ALL the merit goes to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Logical fallacy alert.

A false equivalence is a logical fallacy where two (or more) things are incorrectly presented as being
equivalent, despite significant differences in their nature or significance. It often involves highlighting
a superficial similarity while ignoring crucial distinctions. This creates a misleading impression that
the two are equally valid or important.

False equivalence occurs when two things are compared as if they are equal, even though they are not.

It often involves focusing on a shared characteristic while downplaying or ignoring the differences.

False equivalences can distort the truth, mislead audiences, and create unnecessary
conflict. They are often used to manipulate or dismiss opposing viewpoints.

False equivalence is related to other fallacies like false analogy (where the comparison is not
sufficiently similar) and false dilemma (where only two options are presented when more exist).

 

[studier]

And they do their utmost to bail out of the absurdity trap with the usual super-determinist legerdemain and parlor tricks.

I've noticed that some of those parlor tricks around here include a sudden absence or ignoring when much detailed work in and from Scripture posts against them, ignoring the types of fallacious arguments being identified in their posts including and maybe especially whatever depth of ad hominem attacks they feel the need to make.

The destined end of the approach around here seems that they have to say those who disagree with them are not saved since we allegedly negate grace. elevate human choice against grace and make faith a work. That simply put is rejection of the Gospel.

 

[studier]

Can we boast in believing in the Lord Jesus Christ? NO, ALL the merit goes to the Lord Jesus Christ

Foundational no matter what is otherwise alleged.

As I and I'm sure others have said, we fully understand the merit being in the object, which is none other than Jesus Christ and our Father, again, no matter what is alleged against us.

As @cv5 has essentially said, there are simple parlor tricks being played, a practiced script, and not a very well-reasoned one. It's almost like answering the door to a JW who's been trained what to say and how to answer certain questions. At least they're trained to walk away somewhat graciously rather than to sit and do what's done round here.

 

[Rufus]

Foundational no matter what is otherwise alleged.

As I and I'm sure others have said, we fully understand the merit being in the object, which is none other than Jesus Christ and our Father, again, no matter what is alleged against us.

As @cv5 has essentially said, there are simple parlor tricks being played, a practiced script, and not a very well-reasoned one. It's almost like answering the door to a JW who's been trained what to say and how to answer certain questions. At least they're trained to walk away somewhat graciously rather than to sit and do what's done round here.

Then how come you couldn't bring yourself to boast in "Jesus Christ and our Father" on the "Understanding Election..." thread when you refused to acknowledge and confess that God alone makes the difference between sinners who reject the gospel and sinners who accept the gospel? But here you are...on this thread paying cheap, hypocritical lip service to Jesus and the Father whose grace is totally ineffectual which is precisely why you had a brief honest moment when you patted the intelligent repentant sinner on the back for making such a wise choice.

 

[cv5]

In Matthew 22:14, Jesus concludes the parable of the wedding banquet with the statement, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” To understand who does the calling and choosing in this parable, we need to consider the context, the specific words Jesus uses, and the implications of the original Greek.

1. Who Does the Calling?

The King in the parable clearly represents God, who extends the initial invitation to the wedding banquet. The verb κεκλημένους (perfect passive participle) indicates that the guests were already invited long before the banquet was ready. This implies that God had extended His invitation to His chosen people (the Israelites) throughout history. The perfect tense emphasizes a completed action with ongoing relevance — they were invited in the past, and that invitation still stands.

2. Who Does the Choosing?

The phrase “few are chosen” does not imply that God is selectively choosing a few from among the invited. Instead, it reflects the response of the invitees themselves. The Greek phrase ὀλίγοι ἐκλεκτοί (“few are chosen”) consists of two adjectives functioning as nouns, emphasizing the number of those who actually responded properly to the invitation.

Thus, the “choosing” in this context refers to those who chose to attend the banquet with the proper heart and preparation. The parable emphasizes that being called or invited by God does not automatically grant entrance to the Kingdom; it requires a willing and appropriate response from those invited.

3. Theological Implication: The Book of Life and Human Responsibility

In the context of God’s plan of redemption, the term κεκλημένους can carry a deeper significance, referring to those whose names are already written in the Book of Life—that is, those whom God has foreknown and invited into His Kingdom. Just as a wedding guest list is prepared in advance and invitations go out accordingly, God’s call goes out to those He has already known and invited.

However, having one’s name on the 'guest list' is not enough. The invitation requires a genuine response. The parable illustrates that while all are invited, not all choose to respond appropriately. Those who are ultimately considered “chosen” are those who accept the invitation and come properly prepared, symbolized by wearing the appropriate wedding garment (i.e., repentance and righteousness).

This highlights the role of human responsibility. Jesus emphasizes that, although God’s invitation is extended broadly (“many are called”), only a few accept it as required. The parable shows that many refused to come, while others came improperly dressed, symbolizing a lack of true preparation or genuine repentance.

The parable and Jesus’ concluding statement — “many are called, but few are chosen” — contextually and syntactically imply the significant role of human free will in responding to God’s call. The invitation is extended to all according to the guest list, but entry into the Kingdom ultimately depends on each person’s free-will choice to accept that invitation, repent, and follow through with the commitment required by the gospel. This underscores that while God initiates the call, it is up to individuals to respond willingly and enter into the fullness of what God has prepared for those who love Him.

 

[cv5]

Then how come you couldn't bring yourself to boast in "Jesus Christ and our Father" on the "Understanding Election..." thread when you refused to acknowledge and confess that God alone makes the difference between sinners who reject the gospel and sinners who accept the gospel? But here you are...on this thread paying cheap, hypocritical lip service to Jesus and the Father whose grace is totally ineffectual which is precisely why you had a brief honest moment when you patted the intelligent repentant sinner on the back for making such a wise choice.

You are sounding a little rough around the edges there Rufus buddy.
Take care.

 

[studier]

Then how come you couldn't bring yourself to boast in "Jesus Christ and our Father" on the "Understanding Election..." thread

See, we start discussing simple parlor tricks (cc: @cv5 @Kroogz @HeIsHere) and here they are.

The truth is we could go through the 15,000+ posts on that thread and find not one person not of the TULIP persuasion doing anything remotely like this, including me, yet here is the empty allegation.

The assertion is simply baked into the ill-reasoned script that ends up saying that anybody that disagrees with TULIP is an unbeliever. That's the depth of the garbage it takes for some to try to support the error.

 

[Magenta]

Foundational no matter what is otherwise alleged.

As I and I'm sure others have said, we fully understand the merit being in the object, which is none other than Jesus Christ and our Father, again, no matter what is alleged against us.

As @cv5 has essentially said, there are simple parlor tricks being played, a practiced script, and not a very well-reasoned one. It's almost like answering the door to a JW who's been trained what to say and how to answer certain questions. At least they're trained to walk away somewhat graciously rather than to sit and do what's done round here.

You are not making much sense here. Is this too one of your parlour tricks?

 

[Magenta]

The assertion is simply baked into the ill-reasoned script that ends up saying that anybody that disagrees
with TULIP is an unbeliever. That's the depth of the garbage it takes for some to try to support the error.

And then there is all the garbage aimed at anyone some of you disagree with. Of course you (you specifically)
trash talk for months on end while complaining about anothers' trash talk, and then concoct a cover story for it
being "to keep the other busy and entertained." Like that justifies your hypocrisy? Some are not so easily fooled.

 

[Magenta]

As @cv5 has essentially said, there are simple parlor tricks being played, a practiced script, and not a very well-reasoned one. It's almost like answering the door to a JW who's been trained what to say and how to answer certain questions. At least they're trained to walk away somewhat graciously rather than to sit and do what's done round here.

Too funny calling Scripture a practiced script. Of course NONE of you free willers have ANY Scripture supporting your view which actually repeatedly contradicts and denies what Scripture explicitly states in many ways over the vastness of the Bible content from start to finish. So all your complaints are hot air, really, just your vanity dressed up as intellectualism. Not even the the simplicity of Scripture like 1 Corinthians 2:14 can penetrate the fog created by the airs you put on. But God's Word will not return void for those with eyes to see.

What Say You? ~ When Scripture says there are none good, does it mean some are good? When Scripture says we all fall short, does it mean there are some who meet God's standards? When Scripture says, "The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned..." Does it mean the natural man can understand the spiritual things of God? Does it mean he really can understand the gospel message even though it is heard as foolishness to him as Scriptures say? Is the natural man gifted with wisdom even though he has no fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom? Will the lover of darkness come into the light even though Scripture says he will not, because he suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness and is actually defined as darkness itself, hates the light, and is a slave to sin, blinded to the truth and captive to the will of the devil, which many define as being free? Is the heart of the natural man, the stony ground which needs to be replaced, fit for receiving and growing the Seed of God's Word into faith? Will that incurably wicked heart choose of its own accord to believe? Will that bad tree bring forth the good fruit of faith even though Jesus said it was not possible?

 

[Magenta]

Here are some more of what you call "parlour tricks" for those of you who reject what Scripture says:

There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will. Romans 3 verses 11-12; Romans 8 verses 5-8; 2 Timothy 2 verses 25-26