Your claim:
“No Word of God states man was imparted free will” — Refuted by Direct Scriptural Witnesses
Your assertion collapses under the weight of multiple verses that directly affirm the reality of human choice, often placed within divine warnings and commands.
To say the phrase "free will" is not used, is a category error akin to denying the Trinity because the term is not explicitly stated—while the concept is everywhere present.
Deuteronomy 30:19
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
→ The imperative “choose” (בָּחַר) cannot be read as rhetorical or empty, for it lies at the very heart of covenantal responsibility.
Joshua 24:15
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve…”
→ This classic appeal presupposes the moral agency of man. If men could not choose, this would be deceitful rhetoric.
Proverbs 1:29
“For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD.”
→ Their condemnation lies not in inability but refusal—a voluntary rejection of God’s offer.
Isaiah 1:19–20
“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel…”
→ “If ye be willing” (תֹּאב֔וּ) affirms volitional responsiveness. God's call is not manipulative coercion.
John 5:40
“And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.”
→ Not “cannot” in this verse, but “will not”—the problem lies in refusal, not total incapacity.
→ Cf. Luke 13:34, Romans 2:4–5, Revelation 22:17
Conflating Spiritual Inability with Deterministic Fatalism—An Unwarranted Leap
It is true that man cannot save himself (John 6:44), but that is not the same as saying man is incapable of responding to grace. Grace is not irresistible by nature; it is resistible as seen in:
Acts 7:51 – “
Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost...”
Matthew 23:37 –
“...and ye would not!”
The biblical picture is not one of an automaton being forced into salvation, but of a responsive relationship—God initiates, convicts, draws, enlightens, but man must not harden his heart (Hebrews 3:7–8).
Justice Presupposes Moral Agency
A deterministic scheme that denies real human volition renders God unjust, for how can God righteously judge actions that man had no control over?
Romans 2:6–7
“Who will render to every man according to his deeds…”
→ There can be no rendering “according to deeds” if those deeds were pre-programmed and unavoidable.
Ezekiel 18:20–24
The entire logic of this chapter depends upon moral responsibility and the ability of the wicked to turn. “If the wicked will turn from all his sins... he shall surely live.” (v.21)
→ God explicitly says “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die... and not that he should return and live?” (v.23)
The fatalistic interpretation misrepresents God's justice by making men passive instruments rather than volitional responders.
Free Will Is Not a Rejection of the Spirit's Work but an Affirmation of Grace-Enabled Response
The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23) comes after one has believed. But the Scriptures are clear that the gospel must first be believed:
Acts 16:31
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…”
Faith is the condition, not the consequence, of salvation. It is not a fruit of the Spirit; it is a response to the Spirit's convicting and illuminating work.
→ See Romans 10:9–10, John 3:16, 1 John 5:1
→ “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…” – Note the present participle and perfect tense interaction in Greek, indicating that faith precedes regeneration grammatically and logically (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, GGBB, pp. 568–572).
Maimonides Quoted Not as a “Pillar” but as Historical Witness to Human Volition in Jewish Thought -The appeal to Maimonides (Rambam) is not to supplant Scripture with human tradition, but to demonstrate that the belief in human moral agency was not invented by 12th-century theologians—it was anchored in the Jewish understanding of Torah and covenant.
→ Jesus Himself appealed to the reasonableness of God’s justice (Matt 23:37, John 5:40)—just as Maimonides echoed in Hilkhot Teshuvah.
→
Your protest against “tradition” falls flat when the tradition in question reflects the very moral reasoning used by prophets, apostles, and the Messiah Himself.
Mischaracterizing the Scope of Christ’s Atonement
Your argument made here follows a limited atonement logic: that if Christ died for all, yet not all are saved, then His atonement failed.
But Scripture is replete with statements affirming that:
Christ died for all (2 Cor 5:14–15)
Christ is the propitiation for the whole world (1 John 2:2)
Christ tasted death for every man (Heb 2:9)
The distinction lies not in efficacy, but application—His atonement is sufficient for all but only effective for those who believe (John 3:16–18, Acts 13:46).
→ As John Wesley said: “God's sovereignty is not His tyranny. He offers grace to all, but forces grace on none.”
Summary of Errors in the Original Post
Misstatement Correction
Free will is absent from Scripture Scripture repeatedly commands choice and condemns refusal (Deut 30:19, John 5:40)
Citing Maimonides is trusting man, not God Maimonides is cited historically, not as final authority
Salvation “failing” proves free will false Salvation is offered universally, applied conditionally upon faith (Acts 10:43)
Fruit of the Spirit proves no man can choose good Fruit comes after belief, not before. Belief is not a “fruit” (Acts 16:31, John 1:12)
No one is good (Mark 10:18), so none can believe But God commands belief—thus He must expect a response (John 3:16, Acts 17:30)
You stand refuted @Kermos and try not to shun the Pauline epistles.
J.
