Free will. What is it?

[prism]

Nah, it was just appreciation for the time to clarify somewhat.

I am just being nice. But it's okay, not upset. Glad we could clarify that.

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Hazelelponi]

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Certainly nothing to be sorry for. I was not clear in that moment.

 

[makesends]

then is it sensical to say we must continue to believe

Who is saying we must continue to believe? What is being said is the simple Greek tense, which means "those believing", and implies continuous action, as opposed to the aorist (point-in-time) or the perfect (completed) tenses, or any of several others. The Greek is pretty doggone particular that way. In other words, those believing DO believe—"must", or obligation, is not the point.

or is it better to say the person who reads, if they are believing, then they have received what God said he would give to all who believe (in this case they are born again, and will never perish.

That is logical, though it is not how the verse is written. (It would not be translating, but paraphrasing, to say it like that.)

I do not take either of those passages as saying we must continue to believe, I take them as saying if we are believing, we have those things, if we on the other hand have not believed, we have not recieved what is given.

1 John 5:1
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

The term believes their is present tense active.. The point was that it is continue was the argument.

 

[makesends]

Let's make sure I'm understanding you.

Your saying here that the sin of the fallen angels was worshipping God and teaching humanity to do the same?

I hope you're kidding.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I hope you're kidding.

It was a legitimate question, that's how the post came across to me. But I got clarification on that...

 

[Arial]

Salvation is having the curse removed. if the curse is still in effect. we are still in need of salvation

the curse is death

Please address the post you are responding to. The above is entirely irrelevant to it.

No. it is because God helps us understand

Understand what?

He baptizes us in christ after we hear the word of truth and believe, not before.

You completely hide what I was saying by answering one half of my sentence and then the second half. Here is the whole sentence and its context.

It means that we have to be given the ability to understand and believe by God taking us spiritually out of Adam (the natural man who is an enmity with God) and placing us in Christ. He has to remove the stony heart and replace it with a heart that is soft and malleable in his hands.

First of all it is not clear what you mean by baptizes as it has more than one usage. Are you referring to water baptism? If you are the statement is irrelevant to the conversation. If you mean "being placed in Christ" which is what I said,----I also said that is what the rebirth is. God, placing us in Christ. We cannot believe until we have been born again, because it is believing that gives eternal life. Not choosing. All the things necessary for salvation---being born again from above, belief (faith) and justification, happen together, but in an order of distinction. The reason it is called "born again of God" is because our natural birth was in Adam. That is why it is out of Adam and into Christ.

Yes, He can do that to anyone and everyone.

He doesn't do it for everyone. It is a supernatural act of God alone and that is what the rebirth is. Do you not believe in original sin? Is that the problem we are having here? Do you not believe in effectual grace? Is that the problem? Do you think that Jesus dying on the cross dispensed enough grace to everyone so that they can understand and believe or understand and reject (getting mighty close to another oxymoron with that last part)? If the answer to that last question is "yes", then you have man having a power greater than God's grace and God's grace not grace at all.

But he will not force it on you

It isn't about forcing. It is about giving. No one is saved against their will. They were first born again. Now they are not at enmity with God in their heart but love him. Who would say to God, "Don't you dare force me against my will to be forgiven of my sins and give me eternal life?" Who would say to God, "If you do not give me the free will to make up my own mind and come to you because I want to, while I am dead in my sins, then you are an unjust God."

 

[makesends]

I can not agree.

to say God caused evil is to take away the true cause of evil.

But he did not cause it, he allowed it

To cause it would mean he overruled Nebuchadnezzar's will. and forced him to attack Babylon. this did not happen.

God used another mans free will to do punish his people, But he did not stop it. he removed his protecting hand and allowed it.


yes, But he did not cause it.

We can't blame God for all the murders and rapes and all the evil committed by Babylon, Babylon gets the blame. and also would get the punishment for their sin.

Again, God did not force adam to sin.

when we say someone caused something, we say that the reason that that happened was because of that person.

The blame goes not only to the person who did it, but the person who caused it.

God gave Adam the ability to turn from him, But he did not cause it. If he did, God is just as Guilty as Adam was.

I would look at it a different way.

If I cause someone's death. I am guilty of that persons death. whether it was on purpose, or on accident. I still must pay for that crime. (murder or manslaughter)

If God caused all these sins, and all this evil. he is as guilty as those who did it.

God allowed it. He gave his creation free will (the topic) He could have made them all robots. and Lucifer would have never sinned, Adam would have never sinned. The fall of mankind would never have happened. Hitler would have never be in the record books, because he would not have perpetrated such evil. he would have done everything God wanted. because he has no other option.

Instead he gave us a will. to chose to receive his love, or chose to not receive it.

Lucifer, who really had no excuse. because he saw God. Decided to go against Gods will And took 1/3 of the angels with him.

Adam, Who did not see God. but had everything created for him and had no need of anything. Chose to go with his Wife and eat of a fruit that he was told not to eat.

His sin was passed to all mankind (In Adam all Die)

God did that so life could be given to all mankind (the possibility)

in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


No. I think It was to show his love

He created mankind. They rebelled. He knew that even after Adam, he saw most if not all, if left on their own, would rebel in some fashion.

but he loved his creation. so he had the perfect plan.

1. Put all mankind under the preview of being in Adam (hence all died when Adam died)

2. He would come. Pay for everyone personal sins, so that all would have the ability to be saved or made alive (in Christ)

its the perfect plan. A plan no one would think of. and was part of the hidden mystery Paul spoke of.

First: I think, it is important to understand a couple of facts that follow logically —that God is omnipotent and is the uncaused causer, (or "logical-first cause", since there was no other before him, and since all things that are not God, were his creation(s).

To then proceed to say that there is something that he did not cause, is to imply that somehow there is another 'first cause', be it a person, mechanical fact, or mere chance. There is no logical basis for claiming that there can be more than one first cause, nor can I abide the claim, since the notion of more than one first cause makes neither of the two (or more) supposedly first causes, first. It is, in my opinion, simply blasphemous. Now I am not accusing you of blasphemy. I'm saying that what is (perhaps unwittingly) logically implied by saying that there is something that God did not cause, is blasphemous.

Second: Nothing can happen by accident. God did not make something come about that he did not intend to come about.

Third: That he caused something does not deny that somebody else did too. It only makes it sure that the other person did too.

I'll stop there, since the other things you claim seem to to me logically descend from those 3 misconceptions.

 

[makesends]

I had a family to take care of. I preferred to stay in bed. or at the least. Not have to go to work until much later in the morning.

Again, I have a family to take care of. if it was just me, I may just stay in bed.. or found a different job and started over. in which I could sat in bed longer

again, I am not a morning person

So, ALL you wanted was to stay in bed? You did not prefer to do what was necessary? What made you get up and do it? I'm not asking what you felt like, or how you assess what you felt like doing. I'm asking if you did not, in the end, prefer to do what was necessary. I assert that you did prefer that, because you well knew that if you had not, things would be worse for all concerned. You love, and feel responsible for, your family.

Even God does what he most wants.

 

[His clay]

In another thread, @makesends, @ElectedbyHim and myself started to get into a discussion about free will and it was suggested we open another thread. So here is a thread.

I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. IE, ADAM had to chose between following God or following his wife. And chose to follow his wife.

Abraham had to chose between believing God and doing what God asked him to do. Or not believing God and staying where he was at his fathers house.

I look forward to other views and what they think free will means. I believe strongly it is essential to understand a persons view to be able to understand what they are saying. I am sure not everyone sees it as i do. So if I interpret what they say as per my defenition. I will not be able to understand what they are saying, and the discussion will go downhill fast.

My Approach
I've read about a page or two of the 22. So obviously, I have no idea how the thread has progressed. Instead, I'm just going to address the opening post, as if it were posted a few minutes ago.

Paragraph Two
The opening post is arranged into, roughly, four paragraphs. I'll be making a few observations about your second paragraph. A critical portion of this paragraph is a statement about free will. "free will is the ability to choose between two or more options." Unfortunately, this is a poor definition. The libertarian free will advocate would be ok with this, and the compatibilist view of choice-making would also be ok with this.

The main difference between the two different views, just mentioned, is a causal reason for the choice. For the libertarian free will advocate, there is no causal reason why the choice was thus and not otherwise, since they have to maintain an ability to do either of the options. Thusly, if something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in thier view.

The compatibilist view of choice is obviously different. This view holds that a choice takes place because of causal reasons within the person (as such, the ability to do otherwise is denied. However, there are different views of compatibilism, and some do hold to this view. I do not hold to the ability to do otherwise.) A person considers the various futuer objections of choice (i.e. options), and the person considers (deliberation) the various pros and cons of each future object of choice. Eventually, the mind arrives at one option, which is preferred. The preponderance of consideration goes to one in particular, and thusly, the person chooses as he/she most prefers. As Jonathan Edwards said . . . to choose is to prefer.

Hence, I see a significant conflation the libertarian free will advocate makes. Yes, a person does consider two or more future objects of choice; however, one ought not conflate these options with the equal ability to choose either. This is where the lib definition makes a fatal error. Options are future objects of choice present to the mind. The ability to do otherwise, is the ability to make an undetermined/uncaused choice. Way too often, the two are conflated when they should be separated.

Paragraph Three
Yes, Abraham made a choice, but the kind of choice is important to clarify. All are agreed that Abraham made a choice, so that point is moot.

Paragraph Four
I agree that seeing other people's definitions is crucial. This discussion topic is loaded with mountains of equivocation. People often talk past one another precisely because they have different views of choice-making and what constitutes human freedom. I'm fine with a person being able to do has he/she most prefers. I'm absolutely opposed to any form of libertarian freedom. If you would like to see a small critique I did of libertarian freedom, then you can check out the following link.

H

Thread 'Libertarian Freedom, A Critique'

Oct 2, 2024

This post is meant as a critique of the pagan idol, libertarian freedom. In many conversations between Calvinists and Arminians this issue comes up. The non-technical wording for libertarian freedom is "free will." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate). The second point speaks toward the assumption of the undetermined nature of the agent or the will. The first point speaks toward the idea that the person could potentially have chosen in a way...

• His clay
• Replies: 73
• Forum: Arminianism & Calvinism

• 

 

[makesends]

I do not agree grace is irresistible

"Irresistible Grace" only refers to God's Grace in regenerating. Transforming one 'from death to life' is done without consulting the person upon whom God chose to show mercy, nor is their permission requested.

 

[Eleanor]

its about them seeing and believing
John 6: 38 ;For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

both go hand in hand. You can not have one without the other. because they both are part of Gods will

That refers to genuine faith, not counterfeit faith.

 

[ReverendRV]

In another thread, @makesends, @ElectedbyHim and myself started to get into a discussion about free will and it was suggested we open another thread. So here is a thread.

I will start by saying in my view, free will is the ability to choose between two or more options. IE, ADAM had to chose between following God or following his wife. And chose to follow his wife.

Abraham had to chose between believing God and doing what God asked him to do. Or not believing God and staying where he was at his fathers house.

I look forward to other views and what they think free will means. I believe strongly it is essential to understand a persons view to be able to understand what they are saying. I am sure not everyone sees it as i do. So if I interpret what they say as per my defenition. I will not be able to understand what they are saying, and the discussion will go downhill fast.

@Eternally-Grateful , Free Will is our Liberty as a Secondary Causation...

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree. ~ 2nd LBCF

Our Will is not Free as a Primary Causation; only God's Will is Free in that sense...

 

[makesends]

Eternally-Grateful said:
It fits.
Does god have to make me alive first.
makesends said:
Do you mean, do you have to be made alive first. Yes, you do. (Edit: "[yes, you do have to be made alive first.]")

says who?

Says Ephesians 2, Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2:14

Again, how can God take away the curse of sin to make me alive, before I am justified from the curse of sin?

Not sure how you came up with that sequence. God determined to save some, and not all, from their [deserved] curse. To those he determined to save, he at some point in time 'implanted' (if you will), His Holy Spirit to dwell within them, which indwelling transforms them from death to life. They are become a 'new person'. They are thus no longer in sin. They have thus been given faith. They have thus been justified. No temporal sequence necessary, unless, that the regeneration is necessary to all the other virtues and effects.

Gods justice would not allow it. this makes no sense

Doesn't make sense (makesends! snortsnort) to me either. Not sure how you came up with it. I'm not saying that's the way it goes.

makesends said:
According to 1 Corinthians 2:14, until you are no longer the "natural man" you cannot understand what he may (or may not) have convinced you of.

Yes. without Gods influence.

I guess by that, you are saying that without "God's influence" (whatever that means), you cannot understand the things that should otherwise be understandable.

Produce faith? What does this even mean? I can not produce faith in anything. The person produces the ability for me to trust them, whoever it is..

makesends said:
You have said elsewhere that the faith is 'from God', in that God can convince you of his reliability, and so you have faith in him, just like you do in your wife (or in a chair, I say). That is not salvific faith

says who?

Do I trust God in what he says and what he promised. or do I not?

Do I trust my wife in what she says and what she promised or do i not?

The devil also believes that what God says is true.

Yes. and those who claim they trust God. but in reality trust that as long as they meet some standard. do not commit certain sins, Keep on believing or trusting under their own power. or do some Christian works of obedience. they are saved.

they are trusting self not God.

The tax collector trusted God. The Pharisee said he trusted and loved God. but he trusted self (he may have believed in god. but he had no faith in God)

Yes.. Salvic faith is just faith.

It is not mere belief.. I can say I have faith, it does not mean I have faith.

again, I can not produce faith, unless that faith is in myself. why would you say we produce faith, we can not. in anyone..

The unregenerate cannot understand the things in which they must trust. The fact and depth of sin, the greatness and aseity and purity of God combined with the fact that HE made a way for us to be with him —all these and more are in the knowledge the Spirit of God has—not in a man, in whom the Spirit dwells. Further, the repentance, the commitment, the obedience, the faithfulness, the love —all these are the work of the Spirit, effects of the same faith by which a man continues In Christ. They are not something a man can generate, or make real, apart from the Spirit of God.

 

[makesends]

The main difference between the two different views, just mentioned, is a causal reason for the choice. For the libertarian free will advocate, there is no causal reason why the choice was thus and not otherwise, since they have to maintain an ability to do either of the options. Thusly, if something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in thier view.

The compatibilist view of choice is obviously different. This view holds that a choice takes place because of causal reasons within the person (as such, the ability to do otherwise is denied. However, there are different views of compatibilism, and some do hold to this view. I do not hold to the ability to do otherwise.) A person considers the various futuer objections of choice (i.e. options), and the person considers (deliberation) the various pros and cons of each future object of choice. Eventually, the mind arrives at one option, which is preferred. The preponderance of consideration goes to one in particular, and thusly, the person chooses as he/she most prefers. As Jonathan Edwards said . . . to choose is to prefer.

Hence, I see a significant conflation the libertarian free will advocate makes. Yes, a person does consider two or more future objects of choice; however, one ought not conflate these options with the equal ability to choose either. This is where the lib definition makes a fatal error. Options are future objects of choice present to the mind. The ability to do otherwise, is the ability to make an undetermined/uncaused choice. Way too often, the two are conflated when they should be separated.

Good afternoon, His Clay. Good to see you back. The first paragraph and the last, of this portion of your post #429 appear to contradict each other.

In the first, you say that in the view of the libertarian free will advocate, only one option was possible (and I disagree with that statement). Then in the last, (which I agree with), the implication is that the libertarian free will advocate considers both options possible.

I'm guessing you don't mean, in the first paragraph in the quote above, that the libertarian free will advocate believes that only one option was possible, but, rather, that if someone is claiming that the will is caused to do this or that, it implies that only one option was possible. But it's unclear, there.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

But if it was decreed, Hitler had no choice.

Scripture indicates otherwise. For example, the siege of Jerusalem by the king of Assyria

• was ordained and brought about by God (2 Kings 19:25)
• and a choice made by the king, about which he boasted (2 Kings 19; Isa. 36)
• and for which God held him responsible (Isa 10:7-12).

Unregenerate humans are not free—they are enslaved to sin and under God's control—but they certainly have and make choices. A human choice ordained by God is still a human choice.

Can God overrule a persons free will?

The only valid answer to my question (which you reworded here) is yes, for scripture both implies and outright states that he can.

However, pay close attention to what that means. If God can control or overrule a person's will—and he can, for he has—then the human will is not free, by definition.

Now, I noticed a curious thing happen in your answer. For some reason, you shifted the language from God stopping someone from committing a sin to God TRYING to stop someone ("I could see the way God tries to stop me"). My question did not ask if God can influence or persuade someone to not sin, which would be a pointless question since all Christians believe he can, including Open Theists. Rather, my question asked if God can control or overrule a person's will. Since I doubt that you could perceive it when he does it to you—it would probably feel like a perfectly natural course of events—what I am looking for is biblical testimony that answers my question.

• Is there anything in scripture that says God can't or won't control or overrule a person's will?

If not, then:

• Is there anything in scripture that says God can control or overrule a person's will?

The answer to the second question, of course, is yes—which has significant implications for this discussion:

• If God can control or overrule the human will, is it free? (No.)

(The rest of your response to me is addressed in a separate thread because it is not sufficiently connected to the topic of this one.)

 

[Eleanor]

it was directed to me.

Only if you are "the fool who would reject that which God is his grace has given him a longing for?"

Are you saying you are that fool?
'Cause I'm not saying you are.

But I am saying that anyone who does such a thing is a fool.

Another person saw the same thing I did (i see his post is gone now) so it is not just me.

Wonder why it's gone. . .

we need to take accountability for our actions.

We also need to take accountability for our misunderstanding.

Time to get off this merry-go-round. . .

 

[His clay]

Good afternoon, His Clay. Good to see you back. The first paragraph and the last, of this portion of your post #429 appear to contradict each other.

In the first, you say that in the view of the libertarian free will advocate, only one option was possible (and I disagree with that statement). Then in the last, (which I agree with), the implication is that the libertarian free will advocate considers both options possible.

I'm guessing you don't mean, in the first paragraph in the quote above, that the libertarian free will advocate believes that only one option was possible, but, rather, that if someone is claiming that the will is caused to do this or that, it implies that only one option was possible. But it's unclear, there.

Thanks for the good feedback. I'll take your critique in good faith. I can always polish my clarity.

My basic outline (in what you quoted) was

1. Libertarian Freedom understood
2. Compatibilist choice-making understood
3. Critical conflation of the lib position

So my first clarification was that I had different focuses in the first portion and the last portion.

You stated, "In the first, you say that in the view of the libertarian free will advocate, only one option was possible (and I disagree with that statement)." My second clarification concerns your sentence here. I did not communicate that the lib free will position holds to only one option possible. However, I need to consider the words that led you that direction. I will quote myself, and then I'll try to explain what I was trying to say.

"For the libertarian free will advocate, there is no causal reason why the choice was thus and not otherwise, since they have to maintain an ability to do either of the options. Thusly, if something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in their view."

As seen above, the libertarian free will advocate holds to some sort of human ultimacy either with respect to the will or the agent. This means that "there is no causal reason" given that would lead toward the ability to do otherwise being lost. Again, that advocate is trying to keep the idea that one can choose either option (with respect to moral choices in particular). Note my use of the word "if". IF something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in their view. This is a hypothetical situation they are seeking to avoid, and this can be seen by all of their opposition toward the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty. They are avoiding it because they need to preserve the ability to do otherwise, which is characteristic of their position.

My third clarification is that I completely agree with your last section/paragraph. Hopefully, my explanation in the paragraph above explains what I was trying to say with a bit more clarity.

 

[makesends]

Thanks for the good feedback. I'll take your critique in good faith. I can always polish my clarity.

My basic outline (in what you quoted) was

1. Libertarian Freedom understood
2. Compatibilist choice-making understood
3. Critical conflation of the lib position

So my first clarification was that I had different focuses in the first portion and the last portion.

You stated, "In the first, you say that in the view of the libertarian free will advocate, only one option was possible (and I disagree with that statement)." My second clarification concerns your sentence here. I did not communicate that the lib free will position holds to only one option possible. However, I need to consider the words that led you that direction. I will quote myself, and then I'll try to explain what I was trying to say.

"For the libertarian free will advocate, there is no causal reason why the choice was thus and not otherwise, since they have to maintain an ability to do either of the options. Thusly, if something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in their view."

As seen above, the libertarian free will advocate holds to some sort of human ultimacy either with respect to the will or the agent. This means that "there is no causal reason" given that would lead toward the ability to do otherwise being lost. Again, that advocate is trying to keep the idea that one can choose either option (with respect to moral choices in particular). Note my use of the word "if". IF something causes the will to be thus, and not otherwise, then only one option was possible, in their view. This is a hypothetical situation they are seeking to avoid, and this can be seen by all of their opposition toward the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty. They are avoiding it because they need to preserve the ability to do otherwise, which is characteristic of their position.

My third clarification is that I completely agree with your last section/paragraph. Hopefully, my explanation in the paragraph above explains what I was trying to say with a bit more clarity.

Lol, ok. What you are saying is what I agree with.

Back to the subject of the OP, and not to continue this little tangent as to what you meant to say: The libertarian free will advocate must, in the end of his reasoning,

A. See that he is implying one of two things — 1) that the human agent (moral agent) is endowed to choose apart from causation (which I can easily enough translate to "The agent is caused to do something uncaused"); and 2) that as that person so endowed, the moral agent is somehow given absolute spontaneity—either by causation by mere chance, or by 'first causal' ability.

That they don't see any incongruity there is telling; they actually think this is reasonable, and not self-contradictory. They make no attempt —in my experience., anyway— to rectify the self-contradictory statements, but only bring in the usual protests that to say otherwise "implies that God is unjust—'monstrous', really!"

B. That in the structure of their thinking, 'moral agent' is the same as 'human agent' (except in certain contexts where their superior view of reality endows them with the right to become incensed with righteous indignation at the implication that God is not fair to force people to do what he holds them responsible for doing). Well, if human agent is no different from moral agent, then what really is the logical difference between responsibility of the sentient and the instinctive animal?

C. That God operates in the same arena humans do.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Good morning,

Hope everyone had a great weekend. I will slowly get to all the comments. Thank you all.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yes, but you fail to recognize or address how he made us alive? Which is what I posted those scriptures and the sequence, to do.

I do not need to address how he made us alive. I think we both agree.

I also already stated that John 3: 1 - 9 is Jesus stating

1. What must be done (we must be born again)
2. What It means (that which is born of flesh is flesh. that which is born again spiritually is spirit
3. How it is done.

It does not matter if we do not understand WHEN it is done and WHY it is done.

First, new life so we can hear and believe.

Not seeing it

First hear and believe, then new life. and this new life is eternal

This new life comes with faith in what we hear---- the person and work of Jesus to save us because we believe what we hear----

It comes BECAUSE of this faith in what we heard.. the spirit gives life. the words I speak are spirit and they are life

the gospel. Faith is a work if one thinks it was generated from within themselves instead of given to them by God.

Thank you for proving my point earlier when I said people claim faith is a work trying to earn salvation. I was told no one said this

But the "works"that save oneself, technically is the choosing to believe that is part and parcel of the "free will" belief.

This makes no sense. forgive me. I do not know what you mean here

"And we cannot boast because we trusted God and received his gift of salvation" is boasting if one says they were saved because they chose to accept the gift.

I can't boast because I became like the tax collector. You can not boast of the fact you accepted a gift. You boast because you earned the gift. or merited the gift.

Because I was doing a sequence and showing what must be done first in order for us to be saved. John 3:3 can stand alone in doing that as a quote. (Even though it is not alone for the full counsel of God tells us the same thing.)

John 3 is a command

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." is not explaining what it means to be born again.

I never said it did

Jesus is explaining who he is and what he came to do. So why do I need to include it in my post of sequence? Nicodemus should have understood how a man can be born again and who Jesus is, and what that means, since he was a teacher of the OT. Being born of water and the Spirit is a reference to Is 32:15; 44:3; Ez 36:25-27.

Yes he should have, But as Jesus told him, he did not. Nor did he understand when a person is born again, what must I do

But you moved on to this set of verse before ever addressing John 3:3 and the reason I posted it. That is bad forum etiquette. From rule 2.2

WHAT???

John 3 is a standalone passage with multiple facets.

John 3: 3 is Jesus giving us a command one must be born again, we already agree on that.. so what else must I do?

When quoting or summarizing another member’s position, do so honestly, in context, and preferably with a citation to ensure that their views are represented accurately and fairly.

do please tell where I misrepresented your view or misunderstood it about what being born again is, or the command?

Of course it is grace. God owes no one anything. Of course it is through faith. But that ignores that we are talking about the order of salvation. It ignores the issue of being born again and the necessity of it before anyone can believe.

The order of salvation is simple

Believe in the name of the lord Jesus christ and you will be saved, you and your household.

I didn't "stop them short". I did it in the way I did as a means of emphasis of what the passage is saying in relation to what God does first in salvation and that is God who does it. Quoting the entire passage does not change that. Eph 2 tells us that no one is saved but by grace and through faith. What comes before that tells us that we were dead in trespasses and sin and we had to be made alive. It is not telling us that grace and faith made us alive, but that we have salvation by grace through faith BECAUSE he made us alive. So how does he make us alive?

You did stop it short. Because you explain WHAT it is. You explain HOW it is, But you do not explant WHEN it is.

We agree what and how. we do not agree when.

You think it is before I think it is after (faith)

This is your response to John 1:12-13 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God,"

1. "Receive" and "believe" in that passage are the same thing. When we believe him, we receive him.
2.The passage says nothing about our power. Nothing. You have changed the scripture and read a presupposition into it. It says he gives us the RIGHT to become children of God. If we believe, we can rightly call him Father, and we are his children.
3 &4. No. The trusting comes after the person was reborn by the will of God. It is a direct connection to what Jesus said about having to be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God. That is the same as being given (by God) the right to be his children.

Please tell me where I got it wrong

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

1. Who are them? Those who have reci9eved him (but as many)
2. To THEM, he gave the right (power) to become children of God
3. Even to those who believe in his name (which is why they received him

I will gladly change my view if you show my mistake.