Observations About Free-willian Bible Interpretation And Free-willian Writings

Kermos · May 9, 2020

Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

After corresponding and speaking with free-willians about the scriptural errancy of free will, a trend emerges about interpretations.

Free-willians cry foul when I interpret free-willian's writings, yet free-willians manipulatively interpret free will into the Word of God imagining that it's acceptable.

Because of this, free-willians exhibit hypocrisy.

Free-willians express the concept to God: do as I say, not as I do.

I accurately paraphrase and restate the writings of free-willians to demonstrate their error; on the other hand, free-willians add to and subtract from scripture to fabricate their free will foundation, and this is demonstratable.

INCIDENT EXAMPLE ONE

For example, a free willian wrote that "I could refute it all, but you've shown that would be a waste of time" thus essentially writing that discussing scripture was "a waste of time", so I paraphrased the free willian by indicating the free willian called discussing scripture worthless. The free-willian later called it "complete misrepresentation", yet the free-willian not once cited scripture for the free-willian's unsupported promotion of free will for Adam in the subject thread, so hypocrisy manifests. The free-willian takes offense at my interpretation of the free-willian's writings, but the free-willian thinks that God just needs to take the free-willian's interpretation of scripture.

Discussing scripture is not "a waste of time".

The Word of God does not return void (Isaiah 55:11).

The Word of God is good for correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The Word of God will never pass away (Matthew 24:35).

The Word of God is the Power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

The free-willian fails to understand about the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

INCIDENT EXAMPLE TWO

In another incident as an example, another free-willian quoted commentary which I pointed out the superiority and importance of scripture to wit the free-willian replied "I DO NOT QUOTE COMMENTARIES", so instead of acknowledging the free-willian's use of commentary the free-willian denied using commentary in a traceable lie in the thread.

INCIDENT EXAMPLE THREE

In yet a third example, free willians rarely acknowledge correction about their misinterpreted scripture. Very frequently they disappear from a thread, go silent about the subject, or switch subjects - in some cases circling back to repeat their exposed error. A different free-willian acknowledged the free-willian's misinterpretation of scripture with "I can see that you have found room to squirm around Rev. 22:17" after the free willian misinterpretation was exposed. That free willian response sounds quite unrepentant for trying to alter Revelation 22:17.

In the pride of free-willian claimed choice toward God, they are unapologetic for their exposed errors again and again. Exposed by the Word of God, yet they are not only unapologetic to God for trying to abuse the Word of God, but they appear unrepentant in their pride. The proud will fall in the last day without the intervention of the Sovereign Lord (Proverbs 16:18, 2 Peter 2:9-10).

Free-willians exhibit more than hypocrisy that angers God, their free will foundation is shifting sand (Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 7:26-27).

Lord Jesus railed against hypocrites when the Word of God says "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25, more Matthew 23:13-36).

Many Biblical passages express the evil of man altering scripture, including Revelation 22:18-19.

The Sovereignty of God in man's salvation with no basis in man's choice is absolutely evident when taking scripture with scripture as is prudent, and it is done in this essay: Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor

SCRIPTURE CROSS REFERENCING

Cross referencing scripture functions in this manner.

Lord Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

In the same passage, Lord Jesus says "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19), so Jesus' words include salvation in the passage.

Jesus uses "you" to refer to all believers in all time for many reasons, including that after the ascension of Jesus the Apostle Peter spoke of the Gentiles when he said to the apostles and brethren "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 11:16), and Lord Jesus told the "you" at the same time as John 15:16 and John 15:19 with His words of "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; [that is] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, [but] you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you" (John 14:26-27).

The sequence, John 15:16 - John 15:19 - Acts 11:16 - John 14:26:27, ties everything together, so this is a first avenue for man's inability to choose Jesus.

Investigating a separate avenue of bringing God's exclusive choosing of man unto salvation is the passage:

"When the disciples heard [this], they were very astonished and said, 'Then who can be saved?' And looking at [them] Jesus said to them, 'With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:25-26). This exchange exposes that man cannot "do" something to be saved, and that "do" includes man "doing" a choosing of Jesus.

The correlation between John 15:16 - John 15:19 - Matthew 19:25-26 ties everything together, so this is a second avenue for man's inability to choose Jesus.

This concludes the cross referencing scripture example.

God saves (Psalm 3:8, John 15:5), and man has no say in the matter (John 15:16). God sanctifies (Leviticus 20:8, John 15:5). God gets all glory in the salvation and sanctification of man (Isaiah 42:8).

God declares Who God is by the Word of God.

Humility is contrary to free will because free will includes a person exercising a choice, so there is pride in the claim of being able to choose.

Do you think a free willian can stick to scripture and remain a free willian?

Tra Phull · May 9, 2020

Kermos believes these things of his own free will.

bling · May 10, 2020

Kermos said:
Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

After corresponding and speaking with free-willians about the scriptural errancy of free will, a trend emerges about interpretations.

Free-willians cry foul when I interpret free-willian's writings, yet free-willians manipulatively interpret free will into the Word of God imagining that it's acceptable.

Because of this, free-willians exhibit hypocrisy.

Free-willians express the concept to God: do as I say, not as I do.

I accurately paraphrase and restate the writings of free-willians to demonstrate their error; on the other hand, free-willians add to and subtract from scripture to fabricate their free will foundation, and this is demonstratable.

INCIDENT EXAMPLE ONE

For example, a free willian wrote that "I could refute it all, but you've shown that would be a waste of time" thus essentially writing that discussing scripture was "a waste of time", so I paraphrased the free willian by indicating the free willian called discussing scripture worthless. The free-willian later called it "complete misrepresentation", yet the free-willian not once cited scripture for the free-willian's unsupported promotion of free will for Adam in the subject thread, so hypocrisy manifests. The free-willian takes offense at my interpretation of the free-willian's writings, but the free-willian thinks that God just needs to take the free-willian's interpretation of scripture.

Discussing scripture is not "a waste of time".

The Word of God does not return void (Isaiah 55:11).

The Word of God is good for correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The Word of God will never pass away (Matthew 24:35).

The Word of God is the Power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

The free-willian fails to understand about the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

INCIDENT EXAMPLE TWO

In another incident as an example, another free-willian quoted commentary which I pointed out the superiority and importance of scripture to wit the free-willian replied "I DO NOT QUOTE COMMENTARIES", so instead of acknowledging the free-willian's use of commentary the free-willian denied using commentary in a traceable lie in the thread.

INCIDENT EXAMPLE THREE

In yet a third example, free willians rarely acknowledge correction about their misinterpreted scripture. Very frequently they disappear from a thread, go silent about the subject, or switch subjects - in some cases circling back to repeat their exposed error. A different free-willian acknowledged the free-willian's misinterpretation of scripture with "I can see that you have found room to squirm around Rev. 22:17" after the free willian misinterpretation was exposed. That free willian response sounds quite unrepentant for trying to alter Revelation 22:17.

In the pride of free-willian claimed choice toward God, they are unapologetic for their exposed errors again and again. Exposed by the Word of God, yet they are not only unapologetic to God for trying to abuse the Word of God, but they appear unrepentant in their pride. The proud will fall in the last day without the intervention of the Sovereign Lord (Proverbs 16:18, 2 Peter 2:9-10).

Free-willians exhibit more than hypocrisy that angers God, their free will foundation is shifting sand (Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 7:26-27).

Lord Jesus railed against hypocrites when the Word of God says "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25, more Matthew 23:13-36).

Many Biblical passages express the evil of man altering scripture, including Revelation 22:18-19.

The Sovereignty of God in man's salvation with no basis in man's choice is absolutely evident when taking scripture with scripture as is prudent, and it is done in this essay: Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor

SCRIPTURE CROSS REFERENCING

Cross referencing scripture functions in this manner.

Lord Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

In the same passage, Lord Jesus says "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19), so Jesus' words include salvation in the passage.

Jesus uses "you" to refer to all believers in all time for many reasons, including that after the ascension of Jesus the Apostle Peter spoke of the Gentiles when he said to the apostles and brethren "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 11:16), and Lord Jesus told the "you" at the same time as John 15:16 and John 15:19 with His words of "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; [that is] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, [but] you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you" (John 14:26-27).

The sequence, John 15:16 - John 15:19 - Acts 11:16 - John 14:26:27, ties everything together, so this is a first avenue for man's inability to choose Jesus.

Investigating a separate avenue of bringing God's exclusive choosing of man unto salvation is the passage:

"When the disciples heard [this], they were very astonished and said, 'Then who can be saved?' And looking at [them] Jesus said to them, 'With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:25-26). This exchange exposes that man cannot "do" something to be saved, and that "do" includes man "doing" a choosing of Jesus.

The correlation between John 15:16 - John 15:19 - Matthew 19:25-26 ties everything together, so this is a second avenue for man's inability to choose Jesus.

This concludes the cross referencing scripture example.

God saves (Psalm 3:8, John 15:5), and man has no say in the matter (John 15:16). God sanctifies (Leviticus 20:8, John 15:5). God gets all glory in the salvation and sanctification of man (Isaiah 42:8).

God declares Who God is by the Word of God.

Humility is contrary to free will because free will includes a person exercising a choice, so there is pride in the claim of being able to choose.

Do you think a free willian can stick to scripture and remain a free willian?

You create your own straw man with: “I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.” And go about defeating a straw man.

Most people see free will and the need for free will (to avoid making God out to be a monster), but do not really understand how it works.

Kermos · May 16, 2020

Tra Phull said:
Kermos believes these things of his own free will.

Tra Phull fails to discern that the Word of God indicates there is no free will throughout scripture. Here is a big one, the Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, which includes salvation because of the words "out of the world").

Kermos · May 16, 2020

bling said:
You create your own straw man with: âI use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.â And go about defeating a straw man.

Most people see free will and the need for free will (to avoid making God out to be a monster), but do not really understand how it works.

You bling fail to discern that free will carries with it "choosing", which includes "accepting", so this means people understand what "free will" is and denotes.

There is NO support for free will ability in man to choose toward God in the New Testament, so it is you that conject a "straw man" for you fail to cite any scripture. No scripture support for free will means that free will does not exist. The Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, which includes salvation because of the words "out of the world").

bling · May 16, 2020

Kermos said:
You bling fail to discern that free will carries with it "choosing", which includes "accepting", so this means people understand what "free will" is and denotes.

There is NO support for free will ability in man to choose toward God in the New Testament, so it is you that conject a "straw man" for you fail to cite any scripture. No scripture support for free will means that free will does not exist. The Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, which includes salvation because of the words "out of the world").

We have lots of “whosoever”, “everyone” and “all who” verses which suggests it is a choice made by the person.

Are you saying Adam and Eve did not make a free will choice?

How would the Jews in the Old Testament understand a freewill offering to be? Did God mislead these Jews into believing they could make a freewill offering or tell them to do something they could not do?

John 15:16 is in direct reference to the 12 and not everyone. Since, Judas was one of the 12, I do not consider Christ’s selection of the 12 in reference to salvation, but do you believe Judas was saved?

John 15:19 is just a continuation of Christ’s address to the 12, but it does have some application to all of us. No one is questioning: “Christ selected the 12”, but that does not mean Christ chooses specific people to be saved and who will be lost. Again, was Judas saved?

Taking this one verse:

John 15: 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

If they have no free will, they have an excellent excuse for sinning?

Jer. 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

What is “determining” the bless or disaster to befall God’s people?

I agree with you that the initial state of all mature adults keeps them from doing anything righteous, holy, worthy, noble, honorable and of value. Sinful humans cannot make a real moral choice to do right, but would Mr. Sproul agree: that does not keep a sinful human from choosing to do something selfish (out of self-motivation) and doing something for selfish reasons is never righteous.

The one autonomous free will choice the sinful humans is set up to make at least once in his/her life is the choice to either be macho, be a good soldier of satan, be willing to pay the piper, be willing to take the punishment they fully deserve and not bother their father with more undeserving requests or wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy while God is still their enemy, yet just being humbly willing to accept pure undeserved charity. This is like what the prodigal son went through when his own actions brought him to his senses, all mature adults are brought to their sense’s multiple times in their life to make the one choice.

Man is not here on earth to never ever sins, since we all sin, but sin for the unbeliever helps them in fulfill their objective.

Kermos · May 23, 2020

bling said:
We have lots of âwhosoeverâ, âeveryoneâ and âall whoâ verses which suggests it is a choice made by the person.

It is free-willian open ended statements like yours above that this thread is meant to expose. You make an assertion with no citation from the Bible.

Are you saying Adam and Eve did not make a free will choice?

That is correct, and it is proven scripturally and linguistically here http://JesusDelivers.Faith/cw/agacias/

How would the Jews in the Old Testament understand a freewill offering to be? Did God mislead these Jews into believing they could make a freewill offering or tell them to do something they could not do?

First, "freewill offering" is in the Old Testament, so this is not the New Testament. There are differences.

Second, as God's chosen people, the Israelites had instruction about the "freewill offering" in the Old Covenant.

Third, the definition behind "freewill offering" must be examined according the source word נְדָבָ֖ה in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. This word נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) has a Strong's number of 5071.

DEFINITION: from H5068; properly (abstractly) spontaneity, or (adjectively) spontaneous; also (concretely) a spontaneous or (by inference, in plural) abundant gift:-free(-will) offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary(-ily, offering), willing(-ly), offering) (this Strong's defintion obtained from BlueLetterBible.org 5071).

Fourth, the definition behind "freewill offering" must be examined according the source word αφαίρεμα in the Greek of the Old Testament in the Septuagint. This word αφαίρεμα does not appear in the New Testament, so it does not have a Strong's number, but it has been assigned a number of "850.4" in the Apostolic Bible Polyglot.

DEFINITION: That which is cut off as a choice part; a choice portion; a cut-away portion.

Fifth, it is written in the Old Testament "The Israelites, all the men and women, whose heart moved them to bring [material] for all the work, which YHWH had commanded through Moses to be done, brought a freewill offering to YHWH" (Exodus 35:29).

AND there is a Hebrew word for "choose", but it is not here, so it does not state "who chose to bring", yet it does state "whose heart moved them to bring"
AND this offering is for material for the work as opposed to choosing toward God
AND this is the first occurrence of "freewill offering" in the NASB
AND the people brought abundant offerings for it is written "They received from Moses all the contributions which the sons of Israel had brought to perform the work in the construction of the sanctuary. And they still [continued] bringing to him freewill offerings every morning. And all the skillful men who were performing all the work of the sanctuary came, each from the work which he was performing, and they said to Moses, 'The people are bringing much more than enough for the construction work which the LORD commanded [us] to perform.' So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, 'Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary.' Thus the people were restrained from bringing [any more]" (Exodus 36:3-6)
SO it is clear that the synonyms נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew and αφαίρεμα in Greek denote a heartfelt gratuitous offering.

Sixth, based upon Biblical usage neither of these words translate to "freewill" as in "freewill choice toward God":

נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew
αφαίρεμα in Greek

Seventh, based upon definitions, neither of these words translate to "freewill" as in "freewill choice toward God":

נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew
αφαίρεμα in Greek

Eighth, "freewill" is an inappropriate translation of נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew.

Nineth, based upon both Scriptural usage and definitions, both of these words translate to spontaneous heartfelt gratuitous premier portion offering:

נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew
αφαίρεμα in Greek

Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of the Septuagint as recorded in the New Testament.

The Septuagint uses the word αφαίρεμα which translates to "the choice portion" which references an offering.

The Brenton Septuagint Translation version of Exodus 35:29 reads as "And every man and woman whose mind inclined them to come in and do all the works as many as the Lord appointed them to do by Moses- they the children of Israel brought an offering to the Lord".

The Brenton Septuagint Translation version contains "an offering" with no mention of "freewill".

Kermos · May 23, 2020

bling said:
John 15:16 is in direct reference to the 12 and not everyone. Since, Judas was one of the 12, I do not consider Christâs selection of the 12 in reference to salvation, but do you believe Judas was saved?

John 15:19 is just a continuation of Christâs address to the 12, but it does have some application to all of us. No one is questioning: âChrist selected the 12â, but that does not mean Christ chooses specific people to be saved and who will be lost. Again, was Judas saved?

You are dead wrong, bling.

Six entirely scripturally separate avenues exist to arrive at the audience being all believers in all time for the supper in John chapters 13 to 17 are enumerated below.

Both Matthias as well as Joseph were present when Lord Jesus declares that God chooses people not people choosing God occur in the self-same supper encounter described by the Apostle John in chapters 13 - 17.
Both the promise of the Holy Spirit and the declaration by Lord Jesus that God chooses people not people choosing God occur in the self-same supper encounter described by the Apostle John in chapters 13 - 17.
Both the prayer of Lord Jesus that incorporates all believers in all time and the declaration by Lord Jesus that God chooses people not people choosing God occur in the self-same supper encounter described by the Apostle John in chapters 13 - 17.
Jesus employed many open sentences during the supper encounter described by the Apostle John in chapters 13 - 17.
Near the conclusion of the Gospel of John, the Apostle John's own writing, He wrote "these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31) which applies to the supper encounter described by the Apostle John in chapters 13 - 17.
Just prior to the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, He commanded us to go and teach and proclaim which applies to the supper encounter described by the Apostle John in chapters 13 - 17.

BACKGROUD AND EVENTS AROUND THE SUPPER
EXHIBIT 1:

Luke discloses that there were more than twelve disciples at the time that Jesus named as apostles.

"And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles:" (Luke 6:13)

EXHIBIT 2:

This passage establishes Jesus' "disciples" present from the beginning of the supper for John chapters 13-17, this says "disciples" not "apostles":

"Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded." (John 13:5)

EXHIBIT 3:

There is record of a single person leaving the supper prior to the supper's conclusion, and that person is Judas Iscariot in the John 13:21-30 passage.

EXHIBIT 4:

Jesus says "but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here" (John 14:31).

After that, Jesus with the disciples may have been in the room where they had supper during the words of Jesus recorded in chapters 15 to 17 OR preparing to leave the room OR departing the room OR outside the room OR some combination of these - the Apostle John did not record that specifically. The way that John presents Jesus' discourse is that Jesus continued one way or the other at that time. John's manner presented Jesus' discourse as one contiguous discourse; in other words, the way that John presents Jesus' discourse is that Jesus continued one way or the other at that time. EXHIBIT 5 bears the appearance that they remained in the room.

EXHIBIT 5:

At the supper's conclusion, the next indication of movement of Jesus and the disciples is when Jesus and His disciples went forth over the ravine of the Kidron.

"When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples." (John 18:1)

EXPOSITION OF THE EXHIBITS
The chronology of these events is very important and crucial. The exhibits are provided in chronological order.

After EXHIBIT 3 (Judas departed) and before EXHIBIT 5 (supper concludes) the promises of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:7-14) and Jesus declaring God exclusively chooses men not men choosing God (John 15:16, John 15:19) occurs.

Lord Jesus said "you" in John 14:16-17 (as well as every one of the listed references to the promise of the Holy Spirit) and He said "you" in John 15:16 as recorded by the Apostle John.

The word "you" that Jesus uses throughout the supper is powerfully important!

A BENEFICIAL NOTE ABOUT EXHIBIT 5

Lord Jesus said "Get up, let us go from here" (John 14:31) during the supper recorded in John chapters 13-17, the very next verse continues the discourse unabated with "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser" (John 15:1).

There is no indication of movement of Jesus and the disciples until "When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples" (John 18:1) which is after John chapters 13-17.

It could be asserted that John chapters 13-14 are the supper proper discourse while this discourse flowed into after supper discourse recorded in John chapters 15-17, yet John chapters 15-17 cannot be disassociated from the supper room because John did not record movement until John 18:1.

It could be asserted that John chapters 13-17 are the supper proper which includes Jesus concluding the supper with John chapters 15-17.

The supper activities include the discourse of John chapters 13-17.

DISCIPLES IN THE SUPPER ROOM WITH JESUS

The disciples specifically identified Matthias and Joseph as two men who "accompanied us all the time" - see that it is all the time they were with Jesus as described here:

"'Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us - beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us - one of these [must] become a witness with us of His resurrection.' So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias." (Acts 1:21-23)

In the room occupied by Jesus' disciples who put forward Matthias and Joseph were Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James (Acts 1:13).

Joanna, Susanna, Salome, Mary, and Cleopas and his traveling companion to Emmaus - every one of these individuals are mentioned in close temporal proximity to the time of supper in John chapters 13-17. These names of disciples are close enough in time to potentially be included as the "disciples" mentioned by John in EXHIBIT 1 and EXHIBIT 5.

Thus, Matthias and Joseph are at least two more people beyond the twelve who are specifically identified at the supper covered in John chapters 13-17.

LORD JESUS' PROMISE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FULFILLING

In John chapter 14, John chapter 15, and John chapter 16 Jesus explicitly promises the Holy Spirit. For example, He said "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17).

When the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples of Jesus at Pentecost, there were about 120 persons present according to the next two sets of passages:

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said" (Acts 1:12-15)

"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance." (Acts 2:1-4)

One hundred twenty people is more than eleven Apostles; therefore, the Lord Jesus was talking to all His disciples of all time when Jesus said "you" with reference to the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17) and He said "you" with reference to God's exclusive ability to choose men and men's inability to choose God (John 15:16) as recorded by the Apostle John.

Continued to Post #9

Kermos · May 23, 2020

Continued from Post #8

CRUCIAL POINT: The Holy Spirit, The Apostle Peter, The Gentiles Cornelius And All His Household, And Lord Jesus Saying "You"

Cornelius is of crucial import to this topic for among the places that we find fulfillment of the Word of God's promise of the Holy Spirit is when Gentiles at Cornelius' place were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44).

At a time after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), Peter recounted to the apostles and brethren about the Gentiles Cornelius with his relatives and his close friends, and the account Peter shared of the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit with being saved illuminated that not just Jews would be saved but also Gentiles would be saved (Acts 11:1-18).

At that time, Peter said to the apostles and brethren "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 11:16).

Prior to the time of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), Lord Jesus said "John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5) to the apostles whom Jesus gathered togather (Acts 1:4) which included Peter, and Jesus says "you" right here - with the apostles present right there, Jesus says "you".

Later after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), Peter remembered Lord Jesus saying "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" and there is the word "you" (Acts 11:16) which Peter tied to the Gentiles Cornelius with all his household (Acts 11:14); furthermore, Peter tied when Lord Jesus says "you" to all believers in all time (Acts 11:17)!

Thus, the fulfillment of the Word of God's promise of the Holy Spirit is more than the 11 Apostles, and includes not just the Jews but also the Gentiles because of Cornelius, and our Lord Jesus saying "you" to the disciples includes all disciples in all time.

THE SUPPER IN JOHN CHAPTERS 13 TO 17

Both the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:7-14) as well as God's exclusive role in choosing man (John 15:16) occur in the self-same supper recorded in John chapters 13 - 17.

Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." (Acts 2:38-39, see also Repentance Properly Defined)

LORD JESUS' PRAYER FOR US BELIEVERS

Part of the prayer of Lord Jesus during the supper is thus "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20).

Jesus said "through their word" (John 17:20) which means that "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) are words that the Apostle John recorded. John recorded the Word of God, and the Word of God says "for those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20), and He preceded these words with "I do not ask on behalf of these alone" (John 17:20), so the Word of God during the supper is not just for the people in the room, but the Word of God during the supper is for all believers in all time.

In another part of the prayer, Jesus, Lord and God (John 20:28), says "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours" (John 17:9).

Jesus said "I do not ask on behalf of the world" (John 17:9), so Jesus uses "the world" to mean different things. Such a difference exists in His use of "the world" in (John 17:9) compared to His use of "the world" in (John 3:16).

Thus, belief in Jesus through the Apostle John's words includes the Lord Jesus' words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 which are all part of the "through" John's "word" (John 17:20) which Jesus referred to in His prayer.

JOHN'S WRITINGS FOR US BELIEVERS

The Apostle John wrote "these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).

Among the writings of John includes the statements of Jesus "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19). These sayings of Jesus Christ, Lord and God (John 20:28), are part and parcel of the exclusive attribute of Jesus with respect to choice in the salvation of all His sheep in all time.

John's writings are for us believers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing we have life in His Name; therefore, belief in Jesus about whom John wrote includes the exclusive centrality of choice reserved to Jesus by Jesus through Jesus in the salvation of all His sheep in all time.

JESUS COMMANDS US BELIEVERS TO GO AND TEACH AND PROCLAIM

The Apostle Matthew recorded the command of Jesus Christ, the Word of God (John 1:14), for all His sheep (John 10:27-30) with His words of "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19-20) and Mark recorded "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15). This teaching, this proclamation includes the exclusive role of God choosing man not man choosing God (John 15:16, John 15:19) for these words are a statement of the sovereignty of God according to Jesus Christ, Lord and God (John 20:28).

One of the teachings, one of the commands of Jesus is for we sheep of His to be entirely dependent on Jesus alone for salvation! We are to go and teach and proclaim this Truth (John 14:6).

THE WORD OF GOD IS TRUE

Based on the above stated facts, as an independent first aveneue, the Apostles were not the only disciples in the supper room, so the Word of God, Lord Jesus "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19) is binding upon all believers in all time.

As an independent second aveneue, just as the promise of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17) is binding upon all believers in all time also binding are the Word of God, Lord Jesus "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19) (and see the CRUCIAL POINT above).

Furthermore, as an independent third aveneue, since Lord Jesus said "through their word" (John 17:20) with "their word" including John's messages a.k.a. the Book of John a.k.a. the Good Message of John a.k.a. the Gospel of John a.k.a. the supper recorded in John chapters thirteen to seventeen a.k.a. the word of John, this also makes "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) as well as "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19) binding on all believers in all time.

As an independent fourth aveneue, Jesus employed an open sentence when He spoke the words "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19) resulting in the inclusion of all believers in all time being subject to His sovereign control of man's salvation. He did not use a closed sentence such as "you apostles" rather He used an open sentence with "you".

Moreover, John's writings as an independent fifth aveneue express Jesus' inherent quality of choice reserved to Jesus alone in Jesus by Jesus through Jesus in the salvation of all His sheep in all time (John 4:6-42 [Living Water], John 6:35-40 [Bread of Life], John 7:37-39 [Living Water], John 15:13-19 [die for friends and God chooses exclusively], John 6:29 [God defines faith/belief in we believers as the work of God], John 3:21 [God wrings fruit in we believers], John 3:3-8 [God births we believers], John 6:44 [God draws the people of God and we people of God come to God], John 12:32 [God draws the people of God], John 20:28 [Jesus is God]).

Additionally, Lord Jesus' command for we believers to go and teach and proclaim as an independent sixth aveneue includes revealing the salvation of the Lord is of and by and through the Lord Jesus Christ exclusively (John 15:13-19, Matthew 19:25-26, and Exodus 14:13-18 as instruction from the Old Testament).

Kermos · May 23, 2020

bling said:
Taking this one verse:

John 15: 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

If they have no free will, they have an excellent excuse for sinning?

There is no mention of "free will' in John 15:22.

Jesus is the Light of men, and the Light pierces the darkness; in other words, since Jesus the Messiah came and fulfilled prophecy this proves the Word of God is true, and Jesus explains that they are without excuse.

Jer. 18:7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

What is âdeterminingâ the bless or disaster to befall Godâs people?

Commands Embedded In Conditional Logic Statements

Scripture contains many conditional logic statements. A conditional logic statement is normally an IF/THEN construct.

In linguistics, logic, semantics, and reality the established fact is that an IF/THEN construct follows this pattern:

IF condition THEN predicate

The condition results in a true state or false state. If, and only if, the condition results in a true state does the predicate get executed.

An IF-THEN construct merely exposes whether a condition is true or false; consequently, an if/then statement does not inherently convey ability to produce a true state for the condition.

An IF/THEN construct exposes a potential, current, or previously taken PATH along with the PATH's resultant IMPACT.

So, an IF-THEN construct imposes a conditionl expression and a predicate, for example,

IF ACTION THEN RESULT

Moreover, no conveyance of ability exists intrinsically within the if-then construct.

In scripture, an ACTION represents fruit for the the Word of God says "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn [bushes] nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-20) and "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

In language, an IF/THEN statement requires a qualifier to indicate choice, for example, "if you choose chocolate then you eat chocolate" thus the qualifier in the conditional is "choose", but the conditional still does not convey ability to "choose" which such conveyance of ability to "choose" necessitates additional language connected with the IF-THEN statement, such as "you have the ability to choose" since the predicate cannot be executed in the absence of a supply of chocolate.

In Scripture, "you have the ability to choose God" is never expressed nor implied, yet, on the contrary to such a statement of "choose", the Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) with no exceptions to the stated choosing while applying to all believers in all time (John 17:20).

These facts of IF/THEN statements do not disappear in scripture.

An IF/THEN can be expressed likewise as:

IF you_do_this that_will_happen

Thus, the conditional expresses an action/fruit in the condition (you_do_this), and the effectual result in the predicate (that_will_happen).

A conditional does not convey ability to the recipient of the conditional.

The same goes for a command, that is, a command does not convey ability to carry out the command.

For example, the command "do not do this" does not inherently grant the capability to comply with the command.

Neither a conditional nor a command convey choice unless specifically stated.

Commandment Exposes Righteousness and Wickedness - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance

This all relates as to why Paul didn't write that he'd just choose to stop coveting, instead Paul indicates that he became aware of his sinfulness through the commandment. Here is that which Paul wrote:

"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Romans 7:7).

"sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind" (Romans 7:8).

"where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).

"the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation" (Romans 1:16).

"How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14).

Behold, the Word of God is conveyed via communication AND the gospel, the good news, the Word of God is the power of God for salvation!

A practical example from Scripture is the account of Cain and Abel.

"Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)

God did not say that Cain "could" do anything.

The conditional logic statement does not indicate ability for Cain, rather the conditional logic statement indicates an action.

We know that Cain's action was to "not do well" because it is written "Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him" (Genesis 4:8).

Action. Not choice. Not decision. But action is written.

With respect to the Law, the commandments, the Apostle Peter said "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10), so people are incapable of keeping the commandments to God's satisfaction (James 2:10).

The apostles tell us that the Law is for our instruction, and that we know what sin is because of the Law, and we are guilty before God apart from our Savior.

A Biblical Declaration Of Ability And Inability - Capability Examined

Lord Jesus declares "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

The first clause decisively declares that men cannot choose Jesus; in other words, men do not have the ability to accept Jesus. The first clause is "you did not choose Me".

The second clause absolutely declares that God chooses men. The second clause is "but I chose you", and this unto salvation as well for Jesus also said "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19); in other words, God has the exclusive ability to accept men.

Commands Expose Good And Evil - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance - A Hypothetical Example

A hypothetical example, on Monday evening you take your lovely wife a hot bowl of delicious oatmeal while she's sitting on the couch, and she places the bowl on a pillow on her lap. Then your talking and toddling son sees the bowl of delicous oatmeal, and he wants some, so he shoots across the floor to the couch, and he excitedly grabs the rim of the hot bowl letting out a shrieking scream of pain from the hot bowl.

After applying soothing cream to the wound, both you and your wife explain the difference between hot and cold. You explain that hot can cause burns and pain. "Do not touch hot things" you command your son.

You continue by declaring "Your mommy and I can work around hot things to prepare and serve food, but you cannot, my love". The sobbing stops, and you all eat your dinner.

On Tuesday morning, you have the iron skillet on the stove, the gas fire keeping the iron skillet sizzling hot for a family pancake breakfast. The top of the stove radiates very HOT too, so you are sensitive to your son's current absence from the kitchen.

Your son toddles into the kitchen. You say "honey, the stove is hot, hotter than the bowl of oatmeal last night. If you touch the stove, then you'll get burned again. If you stay over there, then you'll be just fine." Then you smell that the pancake is about to burn unless you flip it, so you scrape the pancake, raise it, flip it, and you watch it drop - but as it drops, you see your precious son's hand grasp the extremely hot stove iron grill flame cover. In a flash, you dunk your excruciatingly pained and screaming child's hand in a glass of cold water, add ice, turn off the stove, examine the wound through the glass, and ...

The morals of the story:

Monday night's command did not convey ability. The command expressed safe action - or said another way safe inaction.
Monday night's declaration conveyed capabilities being that you could work around hot items while your son could not work around hot items. It is crucial to discern the exclusive nature of the declarative; one party can do something while the other party cannot do the same thing.
Tuesday morning's IF/THEN logic conditionals did not convey ability. Each conditional expressed the results of actions.
You cared deeply enough to help.
Your son was driven by his desires - his lusts, and he disregarded your instruction; in other words, his lusts were manifest by his action.
Your son's nature was to defy you despite (1) the command, (2) the declaration, and (3) the conditionals; in other words, the fruit of his nature were visible.
Your son was in rebellion against you.

Point 2 is a parallel - a remote shadow at best, to when the Lord Jesus' says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16, also John 15:13-15 about love and friends). It is crucial to discern the exclusive nature of the declarative; one party can do something while the other party cannot do the same thing; in other words, men cannot choose God while God chooses men.

Point 4 is analagous, a shadow at best, to how the Father in heaven causes the "sun to rise on [the] evil and [the] good, and sends rain on [the] righteous and [the] unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Points 5 and 6 are analagous to the sin nature as default nature (the main document of this essay contains more detail about the nature of man).

The example is concluded.

Commands do not convey ability; rather, commands expose the desires of the person, more specifically the heart of the person.

I agree with you that the initial state of all mature adults keeps them from doing anything righteous, holy, worthy, noble, honorable and of value. Sinful humans cannot make a real moral choice to do right, but would Mr. Sproul agree: that does not keep a sinful human from choosing to do something selfish (out of self-motivation) and doing something for selfish reasons is never righteous.

Where does Mr. Sproul occur in Scripture?

The one autonomous free will choice the sinful humans is set up to make at least once in his/her life is the choice to either be macho, be a good soldier of satan, be willing to pay the piper, be willing to take the punishment they fully deserve and not bother their father with more undeserving requests or wimp out, give up and surrender to their hated enemy while God is still their enemy, yet just being humbly willing to accept pure undeserved charity. This is like what the prodigal son went through when his own actions brought him to his senses, all mature adults are brought to their senseâs multiple times in their life to make the one choice.

You wrote "autonomous free will choice" which fails to appear in scripture.

Man is not here on earth to never ever sins, since we all sin, but sin for the unbeliever helps them in fulfill their objective.

Back to Adam, since Adam was not endowed with free will, then the argument for free will has no legs to stand upon, and this scriptural essay here http://JesusDelivers.Faith/cw/agacias/ bears truth (John 14:6).

bling · May 23, 2020

Kermos said:
It is free-willian open ended statements like yours above that this thread is meant to expose. You make an assertion with no citation from the Bible.

Here are 100 verses used in the discussion on free will, It just takes to many posts to list all the ones in support of free will. Some are verses you might use but most are the like I said:

What Does the Bible Say About Free Will?

Kermos said:
That is correct, and it is proven scripturally and linguistically here http://JesusDelivers.Faith/cw/agacias/

The author says a lot of words, trying to say: “Since it does not specifically say he does have free will, Adam and Eve must not have free will”, but lack of clear support is not support for the opposite.

The author says: since it was in God’s plan from the beginning for Christ to redeem man, then Adam could not have the free will not to sin or it would mess God’s plans up, but that is silly reasoning. With my simple human knowledge, I can tell you, given enough time man under his own power will disobey. God can certainly figure out what Adam will do in the Garden Scenario, besides God is outside of time so God knows what Adam did do in the Garden from the beginning of human time.

The author tries to tell us what being “made in God’s image”, means and does not mean, but for the most part we just do not know, so just because again it does not say: “Adam and Eve have some limited God given autonomous free will does not mean they do not have it.

Since Christ yielded His will to the Father’s will does not mean Christ did not have free will?

Do you believe Christ has free will?

Kermos said:
First, "freewill offering" is in the Old Testament, so this is not the New Testament. There are differences.

Second, as God's chosen people, the Israelites had instruction about the "freewill offering" in the Old Covenant.

Third, the definition behind "freewill offering" must be examined according the source word נְדָבָ֖ה in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. This word נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) has a Strong's number of 5071.

DEFINITION: from H5068; properly (abstractly) spontaneity, or (adjectively) spontaneous; also (concretely) a spontaneous or (by inference, in plural) abundant gift:-free(-will) offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary(-ily, offering), willing(-ly), offering) (this Strong's defintion obtained from BlueLetterBible.org 5071).

Fourth, the definition behind "freewill offering" must be examined according the source word αφαίρεμα in the Greek of the Old Testament in the Septuagint. This word αφαίρεμα does not appear in the New Testament, so it does not have a Strong's number, but it has been assigned a number of "850.4" in the Apostolic Bible Polyglot.

DEFINITION: That which is cut off as a choice part; a choice portion; a cut-away portion.

Fifth, it is written in the Old Testament "The Israelites, all the men and women, whose heart moved them to bring [material] for all the work, which YHWH had commanded through Moses to be done, brought a freewill offering to YHWH" (Exodus 35:29).

AND there is a Hebrew word for "choose", but it is not here, so it does not state "who chose to bring", yet it does state "whose heart moved them to bring"
AND this offering is for material for the work as opposed to choosing toward God
AND this is the first occurrence of "freewill offering" in the NASB
AND the people brought abundant offerings for it is written "They received from Moses all the contributions which the sons of Israel had brought to perform the work in the construction of the sanctuary. And they still [continued] bringing to him freewill offerings every morning. And all the skillful men who were performing all the work of the sanctuary came, each from the work which he was performing, and they said to Moses, 'The people are bringing much more than enough for the construction work which the LORD commanded [us] to perform.' So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, 'Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary.' Thus the people were restrained from bringing [any more]" (Exodus 36:3-6)
SO it is clear that the synonyms נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew and αφαίρεμα in Greek denote a heartfelt gratuitous offering.

Sixth, based upon Biblical usage neither of these words translate to "freewill" as in "freewill choice toward God":

נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew

αφαίρεμα in Greek

Seventh, based upon definitions, neither of these words translate to "freewill" as in "freewill choice toward God":

נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew

αφαίρεμα in Greek

Eighth, "freewill" is an inappropriate translation of נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew.

Nineth, based upon both Scriptural usage and definitions, both of these words translate to spontaneous heartfelt gratuitous premier portion offering:

נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew

αφαίρεμα in Greek

Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of the Septuagint as recorded in the New Testament.

The Septuagint uses the word αφαίρεμα which translates to "the choice portion" which references an offering.

The Brenton Septuagint Translation version of Exodus 35:29 reads as "And every man and woman whose mind inclined them to come in and do all the works as many as the Lord appointed them to do by Moses- they the children of Israel brought an offering to the Lord".

The Brenton Septuagint Translation version contains "an offering" with no mention of "freewill".

Two things: I am not trying to show: man to be a complete autonomous free will agent, but just that man can be given by God the ability to make some really autonomous free ill choices.

The “mind inclined them” is what I am calling free will it is not “God made them”.

Hazelelponi · May 23, 2020

Kermos said:
Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

After corresponding and speaking with free-willians about the scriptural errancy of free will, a trend emerges about interpretations.

Free-willians cry foul when I interpret free-willian's writings, yet free-willians manipulatively interpret free will into the Word of God imagining that it's acceptable.

Because of this, free-willians exhibit hypocrisy.

Free-willians express the concept to God: do as I say, not as I do.

I accurately paraphrase and restate the writings of free-willians to demonstrate their error; on the other hand, free-willians add to and subtract from scripture to fabricate their free will foundation, and this is demonstratable.

INCIDENT EXAMPLE ONE

For example, a free willian wrote that "I could refute it all, but you've shown that would be a waste of time" thus essentially writing that discussing scripture was "a waste of time", so I paraphrased the free willian by indicating the free willian called discussing scripture worthless. The free-willian later called it "complete misrepresentation", yet the free-willian not once cited scripture for the free-willian's unsupported promotion of free will for Adam in the subject thread, so hypocrisy manifests. The free-willian takes offense at my interpretation of the free-willian's writings, but the free-willian thinks that God just needs to take the free-willian's interpretation of scripture.

Discussing scripture is not "a waste of time".

The Word of God does not return void (Isaiah 55:11).

The Word of God is good for correction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The Word of God will never pass away (Matthew 24:35).

The Word of God is the Power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

The free-willian fails to understand about the Power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

INCIDENT EXAMPLE TWO

In another incident as an example, another free-willian quoted commentary which I pointed out the superiority and importance of scripture to wit the free-willian replied "I DO NOT QUOTE COMMENTARIES", so instead of acknowledging the free-willian's use of commentary the free-willian denied using commentary in a traceable lie in the thread.

INCIDENT EXAMPLE THREE

In yet a third example, free willians rarely acknowledge correction about their misinterpreted scripture. Very frequently they disappear from a thread, go silent about the subject, or switch subjects - in some cases circling back to repeat their exposed error. A different free-willian acknowledged the free-willian's misinterpretation of scripture with "I can see that you have found room to squirm around Rev. 22:17" after the free willian misinterpretation was exposed. That free willian response sounds quite unrepentant for trying to alter Revelation 22:17.

In the pride of free-willian claimed choice toward God, they are unapologetic for their exposed errors again and again. Exposed by the Word of God, yet they are not only unapologetic to God for trying to abuse the Word of God, but they appear unrepentant in their pride. The proud will fall in the last day without the intervention of the Sovereign Lord (Proverbs 16:18, 2 Peter 2:9-10).

Free-willians exhibit more than hypocrisy that angers God, their free will foundation is shifting sand (Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 7:26-27).

Lord Jesus railed against hypocrites when the Word of God says "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25, more Matthew 23:13-36).

Many Biblical passages express the evil of man altering scripture, including Revelation 22:18-19.

The Sovereignty of God in man's salvation with no basis in man's choice is absolutely evident when taking scripture with scripture as is prudent, and it is done in this essay: Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor

SCRIPTURE CROSS REFERENCING

Cross referencing scripture functions in this manner.

Lord Jesus says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

In the same passage, Lord Jesus says "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19), so Jesus' words include salvation in the passage.

Jesus uses "you" to refer to all believers in all time for many reasons, including that after the ascension of Jesus the Apostle Peter spoke of the Gentiles when he said to the apostles and brethren "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 11:16), and Lord Jesus told the "you" at the same time as John 15:16 and John 15:19 with His words of "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; [that is] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, [but] you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you" (John 14:26-27).

The sequence, John 15:16 - John 15:19 - Acts 11:16 - John 14:26:27, ties everything together, so this is a first avenue for man's inability to choose Jesus.

Investigating a separate avenue of bringing God's exclusive choosing of man unto salvation is the passage:

"When the disciples heard [this], they were very astonished and said, 'Then who can be saved?' And looking at [them] Jesus said to them, 'With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:25-26). This exchange exposes that man cannot "do" something to be saved, and that "do" includes man "doing" a choosing of Jesus.

The correlation between John 15:16 - John 15:19 - Matthew 19:25-26 ties everything together, so this is a second avenue for man's inability to choose Jesus.

This concludes the cross referencing scripture example.

God saves (Psalm 3:8, John 15:5), and man has no say in the matter (John 15:16). God sanctifies (Leviticus 20:8, John 15:5). God gets all glory in the salvation and sanctification of man (Isaiah 42:8).

God declares Who God is by the Word of God.

Humility is contrary to free will because free will includes a person exercising a choice, so there is pride in the claim of being able to choose.

Do you think a free willian can stick to scripture and remain a free willian?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in a libertarian free will and find your post condescending.

While Christians may be in some disagreement with others on the topic, there's no need to become condescending toward those of different opinions. Especially in an OP where you desire people to engage with you for edifying discussion.

FreeGrace2 · May 28, 2020

Kermos said:
Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

After corresponding and speaking with free-willians about the scriptural errancy of free will, a trend emerges about interpretations.

Free-willians cry foul when I interpret free-willian's writings, yet free-willians manipulatively interpret free will into the Word of God imagining that it's acceptable.

Because of this, free-willians exhibit hypocrisy.

Speaking of hypocrisy, I've asked Calvinists over and over to provide a verse that tells us that God causes people to believe. Because that is the underlying premise for their doctrine of election. And yet, none can provide any.

So, to believe a doctrine that can't be found in Scripture is hypocrisy.

Rom 2:14,15 tells us that even the Gentiles have a conscience. It is God given. What is it for?

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The conscience was put into man so that man understands the basics of right and wrong. Good and evil. etc. Therefore, man IS ABLE to detect these things. From the conscience.

Even Jesus' human conscience was noted in Isaiah 7-
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

So, the presence of a conscience shows that man is free to think for himself. And believe what he wants to believe. This is free will. Nothing more.

Free will is freedom to think. And decide.

If you can provide any verse that clearly states that God causes belief in humans, I'll repent of my view on the subject.

Otherwise, you might want to consider repenting of yours.

Kermos · May 30, 2020

bling said:
Here are 100 verses used in the discussion on free will, It just takes to many posts to list all the ones in support of free will. Some are verses you might use but most are the like I said:

What Does the Bible Say About Free Will?

"Free Will" occurs twice on the What Does the Bible Say About Free Will? linked page you provided. The first occurrence of "free will" is in the "What does the Bible say about" search data entry box, and the second occurrence of "free will" on the page is the title of the page "100 Bible Verses about Free Will". Bling, by referencing that page you made the page your source for Biblical citation, and your page does not contain a single citation mentioning "free will"; in other words, you provided no Scriptural citation that indicates "free will".

The author says a lot of words, trying to say: “Since it does not specifically say he does have free will, Adam and Eve must not have free will”, but lack of clear support is not support for the opposite.

The author says: since it was in God’s plan from the beginning for Christ to redeem man, then Adam could not have the free will not to sin or it would mess God’s plans up, but that is silly reasoning. With my simple human knowledge, I can tell you, given enough time man under his own power will disobey. God can certainly figure out what Adam will do in the Garden Scenario, besides God is outside of time so God knows what Adam did do in the Garden from the beginning of human time.

The author tries to tell us what being “made in God’s image”, means and does not mean, but for the most part we just do not know, so just because again it does not say: “Adam and Eve have some limited God given autonomous free will does not mean they do not have it.

Since Christ yielded His will to the Father’s will does not mean Christ did not have free will?

Do you believe Christ has free will?

For a person to claim that Adam and Eve had "free will", then that is adding to the Word of God. I encourage diligent care to avoid claiming things unwritten into the Word of God, for it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6) as well as of the new Jerusalem "nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Revelation 21:27).

You wrote "that is silly reasoning", so it sounds to me like you believe Adam was not part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world" (which has scripture references in the essay).

NONETHELESS, BLING, YOU PLUCKED A SINGLE POINT, WHICH WAS GOD'S PLAN OF REDEMPTION, THEN YOU OVERARCHINGLY AVOIDED THE COLLATERAL POINTS WHICH BRING TOGETHER A HOMOGENOUS MEANING ENTIRELY BASED ON SCRIPTURE. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE ORIGINAL POST (OP) IS REFERRING TO ABOUT FREE-WILLIANS.

You referred to the first nature when you wrote "given enough time man under his own power will disobey", but I tell you man starts off in a state of disobedience, and this is covered in this section of the link I already provided Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor

Knowledge does not equal "figure out". You wrote "God can certainly figure out what Adam will do in the Garden Scenario". The words "figure out" is an attempt to strip God of knowing all things.

God knows all things (John 16:30, John 21:17, Psalm 139:1-18, Psalm 94:11, Hebrews 4:13, Matthew 6:8)

This means that nothing less than what God knows "will happen" will come to pass
Simultaneously, this also means that nothing more than what God knows "will happen." will come to pass

This includes the meaning that man is subject to God's knowing all things

Contraints on happenings include:

That which God knows "will happen" cannot be avoided
That which God knows "will happen" absolutely must come to pass

God's foreknowledge is not dependent on man.

With the children of God, God's foreknowledge is an intimate affair extended by God to man (Romans 8:29-30, 1 Peter 1:1-2)

The word "foreknowledge" defines as:

prior knowledge
knowledge that precedes something
knowing before an event

God knows temporal events before the events occur. The word "foreknowledge" brings a temporal sense to God's knowledge that elmininates an "out of time" scope of all things happening simultaneously.

Written another way, the word "foreknowledge" makes reference to events and things in "time" because of the prefix "fore" means "before" thus "time" reference is included, yet "timelessness" is NOT included because of the "before" context of "foreknowledge".

The essay at Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor points out precisely those attributes which the Word of God indicates that God either endowed to man or withheld from man. God provided clear indication about SOME attributes of man, and the essay clearly points out the Scripture.

Christ epxressed His will and the Father's will.

Two things: I am not trying to show: man to be a complete autonomous free will agent, but just that man can be given by God the ability to make some really autonomous free ill choices.

The “mind inclined them” is what I am calling free will it is not “God made them”.

You wrote "man can be given by God the ability to make some really autonomous free ill choices", and there is an element worth pointing out based on what you wrote which is that Joshua 24:15 mentions only "ill choices" in Joshua 24:15 (a verse mentioned in your What Does the Bible Say About Free Will? linked page).

Your final sentence contains no scripture reference for "mind inclined them", so that can be disregared as your thought.

It is clear, since the Word of God provides no indication that Adam was endowed with "free will", then Adam was not endowed with "free will"; furthermore, based on Scripture, man does not have a free will.

Albion · May 30, 2020

Kermos said:
After corresponding and speaking with free-willians about the scriptural errancy of free will, a trend emerges about interpretations.

Free-willians cry foul when I interpret free-willian's writings, yet free-willians manipulatively interpret free will into the Word of God imagining that it's acceptable.

Because of this, free-willians exhibit hypocrisy.

Free-willians express the concept to God: do as I say, not as I do.

Maybe they were just tired of being called "free-willians."

Seriously, the willingness of people to extend debates on controversial topics often depends on whether their opponents use respectful language or not. It's not always because there is something defective in their arguments.

Kermos · May 30, 2020

Hazelelponi said:
I'm sorry, but I don't believe in a libertarian free will and find your post condescending.

While Christians may be in some disagreement with others on the topic, there's no need to become condescending toward those of different opinions. Especially in an OP where you desire people to engage with you for edifying discussion.

Hi Hazelelponi,

I made a point in the original post, and it is valid. Again and again, free-willians post scriptureless assertions that represent a God made up in their minds, and other times the free-willians post scripture that they add or subtract concept thus words. For a free-willian to engage in edifying discussion, then such a person would need NOT to disappear from a thread. It would be nice if they stayed on in discussions in the thread.

Since I don't know what you mean by libertarian free will, then I think definitions are necessary.

Crucial definitions of "will" with it's variants and "desire" and "joy" must be established for proper communication

"Willpower" is:
1. the inherent ability to be the source of a cause to an effect
  1. cause = will
  2. effect = power
2. sheer power of will to bring about a result, supernatural
3. the ability to control
FOR example, God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so (Genesis 1:9)
"Will" must be examined in both it's forms, that is, as a noun and as a verb
1. Will's definition is the median definition between freewill's definition and bondwill's definition
2. "Will" as a noun is:
  1. cognitive determination to achieve or ignore
  2. manifested as thoughts leading to a motivating factor of preference (possibly resulting in action or inaction)
  3. a state of being
  4. potentially expressed in the statements "I will do this" and "I will not to do that"
  5. existential
  6. consciously aware by the agent
3. "Will" as a verb is:
  1. "Will" is, as a verb:
    1. expresses future tense
    2. an authoritative decree, i.e. governmental
  2. "Will", as a verb, is relevant but refers to prophecy due to future events (fulfilled foretelling versus unfulfilled foretelling)
FOR example of "will" as a noun, God chose Jesus Christ to be savior (Isaiah 42:1-9, Philippians 2:6-11, John 15:13-15, John 8:28)
"Freewill" is:
1. autonomous inherent human agency capable of making human choices
2. a free thought agent with the ability to choose
  1. good
  2. evil
3. self-determined choices which can alternately choose good and evil
4. human directed ability to choose good one minute then choose evil another minute then choose good the next minute then evil then good and so on
5. human freedom of choice undetermined by divine intervention or prior causes
6. unbonded independent choosing
7. separate agent with the capacity of choice
FOR example, "but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).
"Bondwill" is:
1. a dependent agent on a power capable of choices
2. clay in the hand of the Potter with the power of selection, where the clay can be one, and only one of:
  1. a vessel of mercy capable of good
  2. a vessel of destruction capable of evil
3. dependent for choice
4. bond as in bound to another
5. adhesion to another influncer
6. tied to another controller
7. an agent united with a powerful agent with the capacity of determination
FOR example, "when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13)

bling · May 30, 2020

Kermos said:
"Free Will" occurs twice on the What Does the Bible Say About Free Will? linked page you provided. The first occurrence of "free will" is in the "What does the Bible say about" search data entry box, and the second occurrence of "free will" on the page is the title of the page "100 Bible Verses about Free Will". Bling, by referencing that page you made the page your source for Biblical citation, and your page does not contain a single citation mentioning "free will"; in other words, you provided no Scriptural citation that indicates "free will".

For a person to claim that Adam and Eve had "free will", then that is adding to the Word of God. I encourage diligent care to avoid claiming things unwritten into the Word of God, for it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6) as well as of the new Jerusalem "nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life" (Revelation 21:27).

You wrote "that is silly reasoning", so it sounds to me like you believe Adam was not part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world" (which has scripture references in the essay).

NONETHELESS, BLING, YOU PLUCKED A SINGLE POINT, WHICH WAS GOD'S PLAN OF REDEMPTION, THEN YOU OVERARCHINGLY AVOIDED THE COLLATERAL POINTS WHICH BRING TOGETHER A HOMOGENOUS MEANING ENTIRELY BASED ON SCRIPTURE. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT THE ORIGINAL POST (OP) IS REFERRING TO ABOUT FREE-WILLIANS.

You referred to the first nature when you wrote "given enough time man under his own power will disobey", but I tell you man starts off in a state of disobedience, and this is covered in this section of the link I already provided Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor

Knowledge does not equal "figure out". You wrote "God can certainly figure out what Adam will do in the Garden Scenario". The words "figure out" is an attempt to strip God of knowing all things.

God knows all things (John 16:30, John 21:17, Psalm 139:1-18, Psalm 94:11, Hebrews 4:13, Matthew 6:8)

This means that nothing less than what God knows "will happen" will come to pass

Simultaneously, this also means that nothing more than what God knows "will happen." will come to pass

This includes the meaning that man is subject to God's knowing all things

Contraints on happenings include:

That which God knows "will happen" cannot be avoided

That which God knows "will happen" absolutely must come to pass

God's foreknowledge is not dependent on man.

With the children of God, God's foreknowledge is an intimate affair extended by God to man (Romans 8:29-30, 1 Peter 1:1-2)

The word "foreknowledge" defines as:

prior knowledge

knowledge that precedes something

knowing before an event

God knows temporal events before the events occur. The word "foreknowledge" brings a temporal sense to God's knowledge that elmininates an "out of time" scope of all things happening simultaneously.

Written another way, the word "foreknowledge" makes reference to events and things in "time" because of the prefix "fore" means "before" thus "time" reference is included, yet "timelessness" is NOT included because of the "before" context of "foreknowledge".

The essay at Almighty God's Awesome Creation In Amazing Splendor points out precisely those attributes which the Word of God indicates that God either endowed to man or withheld from man. God provided clear indication about SOME attributes of man, and the essay clearly points out the Scripture.

Christ epxressed His will and the Father's will.

You wrote "man can be given by God the ability to make some really autonomous free ill choices", and there is an element worth pointing out based on what you wrote which is that Joshua 24:15 mentions only "ill choices" in Joshua 24:15 (a verse mentioned in your What Does the Bible Say About Free Will? linked page).

Your final sentence contains no scripture reference for "mind inclined them", so that can be disregared as your thought.

It is clear, since the Word of God provides no indication that Adam was endowed with "free will", then Adam was not endowed with "free will"; furthermore, based on Scripture, man does not have a free will.

Just because the Bible does not state specifically: "Man has free will" does not mean man does not have free will, just as the Bible does not specifically say: "Man does not have free will" does not mean man has free will.
Just showing insentiences where man does not exercise free will does not mean man in some insentiences does not exercise free will. To proof "man does not have free will" requires either the bible specifically saying: "Under all situations man does not have free will" or you have to show there are no examples in scripture which might suggest man did exercise free will.

Kermos · May 30, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Speaking of hypocrisy, I've asked Calvinists over and over to provide a verse that tells us that God causes people to believe. Because that is the underlying premise for their doctrine of election. And yet, none can provide any.

So, to believe a doctrine that can't be found in Scripture is hypocrisy.

Rom 2:14,15 tells us that even the Gentiles have a conscience. It is God given. What is it for?

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

The conscience was put into man so that man understands the basics of right and wrong. Good and evil. etc. Therefore, man IS ABLE to detect these things. From the conscience.

Even Jesus' human conscience was noted in Isaiah 7-
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

So, the presence of a conscience shows that man is free to think for himself. And believe what he wants to believe. This is free will. Nothing more.

Free will is freedom to think. And decide.

If you can provide any verse that clearly states that God causes belief in humans, I'll repent of my view on the subject.

Otherwise, you might want to consider repenting of yours.

I surprised that you claim Calvinists do not answer you. I've noticed Calvinists quote scripture again and again. In fact, I've noticed Calvinists address this againa and again, but the Arminians come back with the precepts of men (Matthew 15:9).

I'm not a Calvinist, but I'll address your "Because that is the underlying premise for their doctrine of election" sentence.

First, "elect" menans "chosen".

Our gracious Benefactor produces

divine choice of we beneficiaries unto salvation, for the Christ of us Christians says

"you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19)

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 state God exclusively chooses us believers by/of/through God
beneficiaries' faith/belief in Lord Jesus, for the Christ of us Christians says (see also a word about belief/faith (Greek πίστις pistis) and believe (Greek πιστεύω pisteuó))
"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29)

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 6:29 state for us believers to believe in Jesus whom the Father has sent is by/of/through God
beneficiaries' fruit of the Spirit/righteous actions/good works, for the Christ of us Christians says
"he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21)

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 3:21 state fruit in we believers is by/of/through God
beneficiaries' birth by the Holy Spirit, for the Christ of us Christians says
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:5-8)

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 3:5-8 state we believers being born again is by/of/through God

FreeGrace2 · May 30, 2020

Kermos said:
I surprised that you claim Calvinists do not answer you.

Oh, they do answer. But not with actual Scripture that supports their claims. That's what I meant. They simply think their verses mean what they claim. They don't.

I've noticed Calvinists quote scripture again and again. In fact, I've noticed Calvinists address this againa and again, but the Arminians come back with the precepts of men (Matthew 15:9).

Well, I have issues with Arminians as well. They believe salvation be lost, all without any verse saying that.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I'll address your "Because that is the underlying premise for their doctrine of election" sentence.

First, "elect" menans "chosen".

Our gracious Benefactor produces
divine choice of we beneficiaries unto salvation, for the Christ of us Christians says

"you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19)

This verse was spoken to 11 saved disciples. It wasn't referring to salvation.

SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 state God exclusively chooses us believers by/of/through God

The only issue in election is "to be chosen for WHAT". And salvation is NEVER the subject of election.

Yes, salvation is by God's choice alone. And the Bible tells us clearly whom God chooses to save.

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

It couldn't be more clear.

God's choice for salvation is believers only.

Kermos · May 30, 2020

Albion said:
Maybe they were just tired of being called "free-willians."

Seriously, the willingness of people to extend debates on controversial topics often depends on whether their opponents use respectful language or not. It's not always because there is something defective in their arguments.

Free willians think they can choose Jesus in direct contradiction to the His words of "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19).

People who believe in "free will" are free willians, and that is apt.

Observations About Free-willian Bible Interpretation And Free-willian Writings

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Regular Member

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Regular Member

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Regular Member

:sighing:

Senior Veteran

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Facilitator

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Regular Member

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Senior Veteran

God is the Potter, and we are the clay.

Similar threads