Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

sawdust · 2025-07-18T20:09:15-0400

Faith comes by the word of God. If volition has no place in our lives for deciding what we will believe or not, why bother with it?

You said earlier that you don't see our believing and faith as the same thing yet, here you are again, speaking as if they are the same thing.

To be honest, I find your words inconsistent and therefore difficult to find follow the logic.

Whether one is aware they are making a choice or not is irrelevant. The fact remains there are two options, two paths one can take when presented with the truth and that requires a choice and we make choices with our will.

I think we have exhausted our discussion, don't you?

peace to you brother.

Rufus · 2025-07-18T20:09:37-0400

studier said:

It's simple really. Life precedes faith in the same way sanctification by the Spirit precedes precedes faith (2Thes 2:13) and precedes obedience to Christ (1Pet 1:2).

Re Christ's discourse with Nicodemus, that passage really comes alive once you understand that the "kingdom" is being personified by Jesus. He is the Kingdom! But Nicodemus has no clue at that point. He needed spiritual LIFE -- he needed to be born from above, which according to Jesus doesn't happen by the will of man. When Jesus told this Pharisee that he cannot see (understand) the kingdom of God he was really telling Nicodemus he can't understand who the Messiah is -- who Israel's King is unless he's born again. It's the new birth that dispels the darkness so that one that can comprehend the Light.

The Logos is eminently logical...unlike the sons of men, especially advocates of heresies.

Rufus · 2025-07-18T20:18:56-0400

sawdust said:

It also comes BY GRACE (Act 15:9; 18:27; Rom 12:3; 1Tim 1:14; Eph 2:8-10). Half truths are never substitutes for the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Re your question about volition: It is of great value to the living! Not so much, though, to the dead.

reneweddaybyday · 2025-07-18T20:32:55-0400

studier said:

those who received (lambanō ) ... as explained in the many, many pages in this thread, as well as above those who actively lay hold of Him.

He gave = (didōmi ) ... it is God Who gives the right to become children of God ... to those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ.

the right = (exousia ) ... (from 1537 /ek, "out from," which intensifies 1510 /eimí, "to be, being as a right or privilege") – authority, conferred power; delegated empowerment ("authorization") - HELPS Word-studies. The one who receives the Lord Jesus Christ is empowered ... God provides all that is necessary ...

to become = (ginomai ) ... Christ is the Son of God ... those who receive the Lord Jesus Christ are empowered to become sons of God ... become something they were not before they received the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ clarified that it is through faith in Him that believers become children of God ... as opposed to being of the lineage of Abraham.

sons of God = (teknon ) ... sons of God ... not servants, but a Father/child relationship ... and the next verse tells us the one who actively lays hold on the Lord Jesus Christ ... those who become sons of God ... are sons of God by birth

I would appreciate some expansion on these terms (didōmi , exousia , ginomai , teknon ) no rush ...
.

sawdust · 2025-07-18T20:33:22-0400

Rufus said:

It think it is you who needs to read again. I said "it seems like". I never declared you stated what you bolded.

1. I do believe God's grace saves us and I have said it many, many times. Eph.2:8
2. I believe God presents us with truth to which we must respond as that is what He has called us to do Jn.6:29 and He supplies the grace needed so we can respond, in spite of the sin nature that would inhibit a true response, from our soul.
3. I believe there are only two types of men in the world, believers and unbelievers. He isn't choosing to take advantage of anything. He either believes or doesn't believe the truth when shown. The choice is there before him whether he acknowledges it or not.
4. The buck stops with God's promise. He promised to Himself before time began He would endow man with eternal life. Titus 1:2 He conditioned it upon man believing His word. Jn.3:16 It is God's decision to do things that way, man's will has nothing to do with it.
5. A man's will reveals who he is, a lover of righteousness or a lover of darkness. Jn.3:20-21 and Jn.6:45 God's word determines his outcome, life or death.

Time for you to pay attention and try understanding correctly what I'm saying. Whether you still disagree at the end, that's your free will activity.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T00:35:11-0400

sawdust said:

It seems so silly to use the term free will in any other capacity while discussing whether the will of man as is before God's grace as you called it makes it possible for him to choose rightly. That people mix these terms in to what is truly germane simply confuses the matter. But it should go without saying that free will is nowhere in the Bible anyways. People conflate the ability to make choices with having a will that is free to choose God but again, silliness abounds. The colour of socks one chooses to wear has zero to do with the eternal fate of one's soul. It would be nice if people started acknowledging such. Alas, I do not see it on the horizon. Don't mind me. It's just a lament.

sawdust · 2025-07-19T02:34:38-0400

Magenta said:

You are not reading what I said correctly. At no time have I said God's grace makes it possible for a man to choose rightly. What I have said is God's grace hinders the sin nature so a man can make a choice freely from his soul rather than being bound to a decision based on his flesh. If it were not so, we could only make a decision that is anti-God because the flesh is against the Spirit. Gal.5:17

This whole "no free will but can make choices" is pure lunacy. From where do you think you make decisions if not your will?

And once again, having a free will does not guarantee one will believe the truth even after we are saved.

We agree on one thing, silliness does abound and a lot of it because statements like "The colour of socks one chooses to wear has zero to do with the eternal fate of one's soul." has absolutely nothing to do with what I have been talking about.

It would be nice if people stopped to read what is written with some effort to understand what is said instead of making inane comments.

Don't worry, I won't mind you as I normally have you on ignore. Not because I'm not interested in what you have to say, but because your pictures, while very pretty, greatly slow down my pages from loading. My time is short.

grace and peace.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T02:43:56-0400

sawdust said:

Wow. Who knew that God making it possible was not God making it possible. No worries.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T02:56:46-0400

Jackson129 said:

I don't think Calvinism is a denomination. But the fact remains that one of the things people hate about Calvinism is not exclusively taught in Calvinism, so people who have the derangement syndrome of needing to label those who believe what the Bible says about the heart and will and desires of man "Calvinist," and then make up all kinds of other garbage about them as was done earlier today, and I have experienced many times throughout the duration of my time here, just show how ignorant they are on multiple fronts, and for the most part they love their ignorance and have no desire to change. The truth does not really matter to them as much as they want us all to believe, and I see them not only misrepresenting what others believe but misrepresenting themselves as well. I just cant get behind that level of dishonesty. I was looking for post I had flagged from some time ago, but my laptop does not always save documents properly especially because I move my portable HD between devices at home and work... plus I was quite busy at work today and did not have much time for here, though I am allowed to be here otherwise. I add that because I know there are many just waiting to jump on me for anything because of their derangement syndrome.

studier · 2025-07-19T04:15:55-0400

reneweddaybyday said:

Thanks for the questions. They make me look deeper and keep me striving for accuracy.

Thus is a profoundly important piece of Scripture foundational to John at the beginning of His Gospel. I’ll attempt to explain why. IMO it shows the actual logical order of the faith & new birth process which stands opposed to the order some are pushing here.

So, some more detail and I’m going to tighten this up even a bit more in all 3 verses. Since you asked mainly about words in John1:12 I’ll elaborate there if you’d like to skip straight to that verse. I’m going to break this into separate posts so it’s not one long one. I'll flag you at each post.

I’m not going to elaborate “receive” any further since we’ve done that already as you’ve noted.

This is what I see and I’m going to translate more literally taking it through a process first mostly per the Greek word order and then in better English order so we can get the best picture of how this works. I’m also just going to first note the masculine as “men” and then as “men/people”:

John1:11 into the/His own [things] He came, and the/His own [men] him not [they] received/take/.

He came into His own [things] and His own men/people did not receive/take Him
- “came” and “receive” are both aorist indicative verbs.
  - As mentioned before, the aorist is basically timeless. Its focus is the type of action, not necessarily the time of the action. In the indicative mood past action, as these verbs are, past time is commonly included. But the aorist normally needs to be understood from context.
  - So, looking at context here and seeing both verbs as aorist indicative here’s what I see:
    - John is essentially looking at these 2 actions as completed. Jesus came. Jesus’ own men did not receive Him (this is the aspectual type of action I mentioned).
    - There is an order here that is mainly logical but can be viewed as temporal; He came > they did not receive. IOW it’s logical that He had to come before they could receive Him. So even though the aorist is timeless, we can see a logical order and apply a temporality to it.
    - The indicative mood seems simple to see here as past since John is looking back and explaining what happened. But there are times when John does some interesting things with temporality, so I try to never take such things for granted.
- The “and” can play several roles also. It can provide a concept of sequence but I’m cautious of such and don’t normally use it as a primary indicator.
- So, beside the actual information John is providing, John has me paying attention to logical order, which I will keep in mind as I proceed.

studier · 2025-07-19T07:24:08-0400

@reneweddaybyday re: John1:12-13

John1:12 and/but as many [men] as received Him, [He] gave (edōken from didōmi) [to] them authority (exousian from exousia) children (teknon from tekna) [of] God to become (ginesthai from ginomai), [to] the [men] believing into the name [of] Him.

But as many [men] as received (actively received/took/accepted) Him, He gave to them – to the men believing in His name - authority to become children of God
We’ve already looked at “received/took/accepted” and at “believing” and seen that they are active verbs, this the action is being done by these men. No one is receiving for them. No one is believing for them.
I previously mentioned received and believed as being parallel. In a sense they are but it’s better to say they are appositional. So, the men who are believing is identifying the men who received Jesus. What’s interesting here is that received is aorist tense and believe is present tense. I see this as John establishing belief not as a onetime action but a continuous one. It is a characteristic of these men that they are believing men. The men who received/took/accepted Jesus are men believing in Him.
Also, believing in His name is likely idiomatic for identity. They are believing in the identity of Jesus [as Messiah].
Didōmi
- Lexical definitions (In all of these definitions I’m using Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG) and only posting the main points without all the lexical details):
  - 1. to give as an expression of generosity, give, donate as a gen. principle
  - 2. to give someth. out, give, bestow, grant
  - 3. to express devotion, give
  - 4. to cause to happen, esp. in ref. to physical phenomena, produce, make, cause, give fig. extension of mng.
  - 5. to put someth. in care of another, entrust
  - 6. to engage in a financial transaction
  - 7. appoint to special responsibility, appoint
  - 8. to cause someth. to happen, give
  - 9.to bear as a natural product, yield, produce of a field and its crops
  - 10.to dedicate oneself for some purpose or cause, give up, sacrifice
  - 11. to cause (oneself) to go, go, venture somewhere
  - 12. to use an oracular device, draw/cast lots
  - 13. to grant by formal action, grant, allow,
  - 14. to cause to come into being, institute
  - 15. give up, someth. that has been under one’s control for a relatively long time, give up, give back
  - 16. to proffer someth., extend, offer
  - 17. In many phrases this word relates to an activity or an abstract object, and with tr. freq. determined by the noun object;
- Observations in this verse and what it’s saying knowing other verses and words:
  - To give authority means the giver has authority
  - Jesus explains in GJohn that He has been given authority by His Father – God – and that no man comes to God if not through Jesus. So this giving is in essence through Jesus as intermediary.
  - This authoritative giving of authority is potentially legal in nature but also gracious, generous, etc. Our choice of translation IMO should include such things but most attempt to keep it simple and use one word.
  - Due to the legality included here, I might use “granted” rather than “gave” or insert an adverb like “graciously” before “granted” to bring out the grace/gift and the legal grant. “Give” can include the grace. “Bestowed” is interesting. At the end of this analysis I’ll take a shot at an elaborated translation.
  - However we translate it, it should go well with exousia which is being given.
Exousia:
- Definitions:
  - 1. a state of control over someth., freedom of choice, right e*.g., the ‘right’ to act, decide, or dispose of one’s property as one wishes:
  - 2. potential or resource to command, control, or govern, capability, might, power (on capacity for someth.
  - 3. the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
  - 4. power exercised by rulers or others in high position by virtue of their office, ruling power, official power
  - 5. bearer of ruling authority
  - 6. the sphere in which power is exercised, domain
- Observations:
  - I would think #1 above would bring up some discussion!
  - This is an interesting word and concept and tie to exactly what Jesus is giving.
  - Some other Lexicons:
    - The Liddell-Scott Lexicon includes “license” in the sense of and along with “warrant” that BDAG suggests.
    - Thayer’s includes “permission”
    - Danker includes “privilege” as a possibility
  - To assist, here are all of John’s uses of exousia excluding Revelation for now:
    - (Jn. 1:12 ESV) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
    - (Jn. 5:27 ESV) And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
    - (Jn. 10:18 ESV) No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."
    - (Jn. 17:2 ESV) since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
    - (Jn. 19:10 ESV) So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?"
    - (Jn. 19:11 ESV) Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."
    - We can see that the ESV likes “authority” but chose “right” for John1:12
    - However we ultimately translate exousia here, it seems best to retain the sense of authority, or right. We might also just handle this a bit more idiomatic as Jesus authorized (verbal) or Jesus gave the authorization (to retain the noun sense). In this sense I also think “permission” is interesting.
    - Your input from HELPS seems to bring out some of these same concepts.
Ginomai:
- Definitions:
  - 1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced
  - 2. to come into existence, be made, be created, be manufactured, be performed
  - 3. come into being as an event or phenomenon from a point of origin, arise, come about, develop
  - 4. to occur as process or result, happen, turn out, take place
  - 5. to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition, become someth.
  - 6. to make a change of location in space, move
  - 7.to come into a certain state or possess certain characteristics, to be, prove to be, turn out to be
  - 8. to be present at a given time, be there
  - 9. to be closely related to someone or someth., belong to
  - 10.to be in or at a place, be in, be there
- Observations:
  - John’s use of ginomai looks to be focusing on origin (spiritual birth from God), belonging to God, even change in nature (the new man), coming into existence or being, being created.
Tekna:
- Definitions:
  - 1. an offspring of human parents, child
  - 2. descendants from a common ancestor, descendants, posterity
  - 3. one who is dear to another but without genetic relationship and without distinction in age, child
  - 4. one who has the characteristics of another being, child
  - 5. inhabitants of a city, children,
  - 6. a class of persons with a specific characteristic, children of.
- Observations:
  - I think tekna is interesting in the senses of having God as ancestor, being dear to Him without genetic relationship or distinction in age, having His characteristics, possibly being inhabitants of His Kingdom, being a class of persons with specific characteristics.
  - This is very relational and tied to ginomai makes perfect sense in regard to origin, belonging to God, a change in nature and a new race of men.
  - If John we’re to use huios (sons) it would be focusing more on legal status
So, what I see here:
- A continuing logical order as in John1:11 (leaving out those of Jesus’ own men who intensely rejected Him)
  - Jesus came into His own things
  - All of Jesus own men who actively received/took/accepted Him – those John identifies as actively believing men –
  - Jesus [generously] granted/gave to them authorization to come into being/come into existence/be changed in nature/become children/descendants/dear [spiritual] children of God with His characteristics
  - Born from God John1:13
- To simplify the logical order:
  1. Jesus came
  2. Some of Jesus’ people – men actively believing in Jesus - actively received Jesus
  3. Jesus granted them authorization to become God’s children
  4. God births them

Obviously, we can all work with the data.

As for me, I find it very difficult to say the least to see any opening for modifying this logical order in the language. In regard to man's volition, for many reasons and based in many Scriptures, I have no issue with it being involved in not only the active receiving but also the active believing of men.

Jackson129 · 2025-07-19T08:32:55-0400

I see it this way. I read English I speak it and I understand it.

I use an example. Me and you are by a river I say "I just saw a fish jump " those words dont enter your brain as some scrambled electronic message that then has to be re organized though an anchient Greek codex back into a coherent thought. You just know what I ment. So when I read John 3-16 I dont need to know about the 14 differnt meanings of the word world. I read English I know what it means. God though his infinite wisdom translated the Bible into English in the simplest ways so even the most simple can understand. That way the largest possible target audience is reached. The people who speak and read that language. God didnt translate the Bible into English then make it only understandable to people who passed it through some de coding machine.

When I see people using these various de coding methods like the Strongs thing it just screams I am inventing ways to make scripture mean what I want it to mean. To fit my naritive.

Godsgood · 2025-07-19T08:40:21-0400

LifelongLearner said:

Freewill is existed only to those who were freed by Our Lord Jesus Christ by means of Truth.
JOHN 8:30-32
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

cv5 · 2025-07-19T08:47:25-0400

studier said:

@reneweddaybyday re: John1:12-13

John1:12 and/but as many [men] as received Him, [He] gave (edōken from didōmi) [to] them authority (exousian from exousia) children (teknon from tekna) [of] God to become (ginesthai from ginomai), [to] the [men] believing into the name [of] Him.

But as many [men] as received (actively received/took/accepted) Him, He gave to them – to the men believing in His name - authority to become children of God
We’ve already looked at “received/took/accepted” and at “believing” and seen that they are active verbs, this the action is being done by these men. No one is receiving for them. No one is believing for them.
I previously mentioned received and believed as being parallel. In a sense they are but it’s better to say they are appositional. So, the men who are believing is identifying the men who received Jesus. What’s interesting here is that received is aorist tense and believe is present tense. I see this as John establishing belief not as a onetime action but a continuous one. It is a characteristic of these men that they are believing men. The men who received/took/accepted Jesus are men believing in Him.
Also, believing in His name is likely idiomatic for identity. They are believing in the identity of Jesus [as Messiah].
Didōmi
- Lexical definitions (In all of these definitions I’m using Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG) and only posting the main points without all the lexical details):
  - 1. to give as an expression of generosity, give, donate as a gen. principle
  - 2. to give someth. out, give, bestow, grant
  - 3. to express devotion, give
  - 4. to cause to happen, esp. in ref. to physical phenomena, produce, make, cause, give fig. extension of mng.
  - 5. to put someth. in care of another, entrust
  - 6. to engage in a financial transaction
  - 7. appoint to special responsibility, appoint
  - 8. to cause someth. to happen, give
  - 9.to bear as a natural product, yield, produce of a field and its crops
  - 10.to dedicate oneself for some purpose or cause, give up, sacrifice
  - 11. to cause (oneself) to go, go, venture somewhere
  - 12. to use an oracular device, draw/cast lots
  - 13. to grant by formal action, grant, allow,
  - 14. to cause to come into being, institute
  - 15. give up, someth. that has been under one’s control for a relatively long time, give up, give back
  - 16. to proffer someth., extend, offer
  - 17. In many phrases this word relates to an activity or an abstract object, and with tr. freq. determined by the noun object;
- Observations in this verse and what it’s saying knowing other verses and words:
  - To give authority means the giver has authority
  - Jesus explains in GJohn that He has been given authority by His Father – God – and that no man comes to God if not through Jesus. So this giving is in essence through Jesus as intermediary.
  - This authoritative giving of authority is potentially legal in nature but also gracious, generous, etc. Our choice of translation IMO should include such things but most attempt to keep it simple and use one word.
  - Due to the legality included here, I might use “granted” rather than “gave” or insert an adverb like “graciously” before “granted” to bring out the grace/gift and the legal grant. “Give” can include the grace. “Bestowed” is interesting. At the end of this analysis I’ll take a shot at an elaborated translation.
  - However we translate it, it should go well with exousia which is being given.
Exousia:
- Definitions:
  - 1. a state of control over someth., freedom of choice, right e*.g., the ‘right’ to act, decide, or dispose of one’s property as one wishes:
  - 2. potential or resource to command, control, or govern, capability, might, power (on capacity for someth.
  - 3. the right to control or command, authority, absolute power, warrant
  - 4. power exercised by rulers or others in high position by virtue of their office, ruling power, official power
  - 5. bearer of ruling authority
  - 6. the sphere in which power is exercised, domain
- Observations:
  - I would think #1 above would bring up some discussion!
  - This is an interesting word and concept and tie to exactly what Jesus is giving.
  - Some other Lexicons:
    - The Liddell-Scott Lexicon includes “license” in the sense of and along with “warrant” that BDAG suggests.
    - Thayer’s includes “permission”
    - Danker includes “privilege” as a possibility
  - To assist, here are all of John’s uses of exousia excluding Revelation for now:
    - (Jn. 1:12 ESV) But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
    - (Jn. 5:27 ESV) And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
    - (Jn. 10:18 ESV) No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."
    - (Jn. 17:2 ESV) since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
    - (Jn. 19:10 ESV) So Pilate said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?"
    - (Jn. 19:11 ESV) Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin."
    - We can see that the ESV likes “authority” but chose “right” for John1:12
    - However we ultimately translate exousia here, it seems best to retain the sense of authority, or right. We might also just handle this a bit more idiomatic as Jesus authorized (verbal) or Jesus gave the authorization (to retain the noun sense). In this sense I also think “permission” is interesting.
    - Your input from HELPS seems to bring out some of these same concepts.
Ginomai:
- Definitions:
  - 1. to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced
  - 2. to come into existence, be made, be created, be manufactured, be performed
  - 3. come into being as an event or phenomenon from a point of origin, arise, come about, develop
  - 4. to occur as process or result, happen, turn out, take place
  - 5. to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition, become someth.
  - 6. to make a change of location in space, move
  - 7.to come into a certain state or possess certain characteristics, to be, prove to be, turn out to be
  - 8. to be present at a given time, be there
  - 9. to be closely related to someone or someth., belong to
  - 10.to be in or at a place, be in, be there
- Observations:
  - John’s use of ginomai looks to be focusing on origin (spiritual birth from God), belonging to God, even change in nature (the new man), coming into existence or being, being created.
Tekna:
- Definitions:
  - 1. an offspring of human parents, child
  - 2. descendants from a common ancestor, descendants, posterity
  - 3. one who is dear to another but without genetic relationship and without distinction in age, child
  - 4. one who has the characteristics of another being, child
  - 5. inhabitants of a city, children,
  - 6. a class of persons with a specific characteristic, children of.
- Observations:
  - I think tekna is interesting in the senses of having God as ancestor, being dear to Him without genetic relationship or distinction in age, having His characteristics, possibly being inhabitants of His Kingdom, being a class of persons with specific characteristics.
  - This is very relational and tied to ginomai makes perfect sense in regard to origin, belonging to God, a change in nature and a new race of men.
  - If John we’re to use huios (sons) it would be focusing more on legal status
So, what I see here:
- A continuing logical order as in John1:11 (leaving out those of Jesus’ own men who intensely rejected Him)
  - Jesus came into His own things
  - All of Jesus own men who actively received/took/accepted Him – those John identifies as actively believing men –
  - Jesus [generously] granted/gave to them authorization to come into being/come into existence/be changed in nature/become children/descendants/dear [spiritual] children of God with His characteristics
  - Born from God John1:13
- To simplify the logical order:
  1. Jesus came
  2. Some of Jesus’ people – men actively believing in Jesus - actively received Jesus
  3. Jesus granted them authorization to become God’s children
  4. God births them

Obviously, we can all work with the data.

As for me, I find it very difficult to say the least to see any opening for modifying this logical order in the language. In regard to man's volition, for many reasons and based in many Scriptures, I have no issue with it being involved in not only the active receiving but also the active believing of men.

Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)

I need one of those. For sure. It is much more expansive than my references.
Are they available online? I checked and did not see much available.

cv5 · 2025-07-19T08:56:30-0400

Magenta said:

I don't think Calvinism is a denomination. But the fact remains that one of the things people hate about Calvinism is not exclusively taught in Calvinism, so people who have the derangement syndrome of needing to label those who believe what the Bible says about the heart and will and desires of man "Calvinist," and then make up all kinds of other garbage about them as was done earlier today, and I have experienced many times throughout the duration of my time here, just show how ignorant they are on multiple fronts, and for the most part they love their ignorance and have no desire to change. The truth does not really matter to them as much as they want us all to believe, and I see them not only misrepresenting what others believe but misrepresenting themselves as well. I just cant get behind that level of dishonesty. I was looking for post I had flagged from some time ago, but my laptop does not always save documents properly especially because I move my portable HD between devices at home and work... plus I was quite busy at work today and did not have much time for here, though I am allowed to be here otherwise. I add that because I know there are many just waiting to jump on me for anything because of their derangement syndrome.

No. Not really.

We are merely responding to faulty arguments, various fallacies, non-sequiturs, misapprehensions, and outright exegetical failures of TULIP.

And we are doing a darn good job at it. And winning quite decisively to boot.

Magenta · 2025-07-19T09:04:40-0400

Jackson129 said:

That is so true! Some do use that same method to demolish the main and plain meanings of
Scripture to force it to fit what they want it to say instead of accepting what it actually does say.

John 3 verse 16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

studier · 2025-07-19T09:08:18-0400

Rufus said:

Well, it's not really simple or some of us wouldn't have it wrong. Obviously, we're both finger-pointing and the work I'm doing is to detail in John1:11-13 why I think both you and @Cameron are wrong.

The order of things from belief to birth are clear in those verses. If you think my analysis is wrong, then you should be able to explain how and why in those verses not by proof-texting from other verses that you're not analyzing.

So, with that logical order laid out, I include it going forward into John3 and Nicodemus. As a reminder, here's the logical order from John1:11-13:

Jesus came
Some of His own people intensely rejected Him & some of His own people - those John identifies as actively believing in Him/His identity - actively received Him.
Jesus granted them authorization to become God's children
Meaning children born from God (passive born so God does the birthing)

RE: Nicodemus, I'm going to be brief and will have you do the real work to try to prove me wrong. But you're going to have to prove me wrong in the foundation John has laid in John1:11-13 (and actually before also because John has John the Baptist witness for the arrival of the King before John lays out John1:11-13, so step one above is really, Jesus the Christ/King came):

In John 3:1-2 and John3:10 we can see who Nicodemus is and we can see the talk was that Jesus was a teacher from God and doing signs that could only be done by someone whom God is with.

Nicodemus is wrestling with belief and receipt of Jesus as Christ/King. I think we can see some of the reasons for things like this in John12:42-43.

NET John3:3 Jesus replied, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

So, here's one of the verses you allude to, and you make the King and the Kingdom interchangeable and understandably so. But wrongly IMO.
Firstly, I note that Jesus, as He often did, immediately takes the discussion where He wants it to go.
Jesus does not go back to the basics as John has already established in John1:11-13. Jesus does not tell Nicodemus he needs to believe in Him. That's foundational and Jesus is taking this leader and teacher of Israel beyond that.
Jesus is taking Nicodemus at minimum back to Ezekial and thus to Jeremiah.
Jesus is telling Nicodemus he can't see the Kingdom because he hasn't actively received - He is not actively believing in the King - which is logical order #2 above from John1:11-13. This is contained in first clause in John3:3 above.
Jesus ties this seeing the Kingdom John3:3 together with entering the Kingdom John3:5 and both being based in rebirth.
The way I read all of this is that you're conflating and confusing seeing and entering with receiving and believing and wrongly associating believing in the King with seeing the Kingdom has arrived and entering into it.
By using the flow in GJohn I see this by adding John3 to what we know from John1
- Jesus [the Christ/King] came
- Some of His own people intensely rejected Him & some of His own people - those John identifies as actively believing in Him/His identity - actively received Him.
  - Some for various reasons were wrestling with receiving/believing Jesus (and even coming to Him privately at night to avoid being seen by other men)
- Jesus granted them (the ones actively believing in Him/His identity and actively receiving Him) authorization to become God's children
  - Jesus has not yet granted the authorization to Nicodemus
- Meaning children born from God (passive born so God does the birthing)
- Then they could see the Kingdom and enter into it

One section of Scripture at a time.

studier · 2025-07-19T09:17:29-0400

cv5 said:

It's not public domain that I know of. Some other ones like Thayer's are. I note you already use Strong's. As I understand, BDAG is the most widely used in scholarship these days.

It is available in book form which I carried around for some time. It's also available in digital form in the Logos Library system and Accordance. I have it in digital form in both and in my favorite system which is sadly no longer available.

BillyBob · 2025-07-19T09:32:37-0400

sawdust said:

Are you saying that man may be saved and never believe the truth? Please clarify...

studier · 2025-07-19T09:38:09-0400

Jackson129 said:

What do you do with all the men and women in history who did and are still doing the work to make certain we have the most precise translations we can? Or with God's people who are still to this day scouring the globe to search for more ancient manuscripts to make sure we have all there are and to try to resolve still existing issues that God has some working on? Or with other things you don't know of in the scholarly ranks who are constantly working on translations and lexical tools in an effort to resolve the multitude of interpretive conflicts?

Do you know that some of our current understandings of the Greek language of Biblical times was unearthed not long ago in Archeological work? Are you willing to say that those who say they are called by God to do this work are mistaken.

IOW, you're speaking from your own perspective, but God has many continually working at levels you can't see or don't yet know about.

There must be a reason for His doing so, no?

Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member