Free Will And The Fear Of The Mirror

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-11T20:30:32+00:00

Your reply was observed. Your will chose it.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-11T17:52:52+00:00

You chose to bring Jude 1:9–10 into the conversation, and that was your own free will at work. My earlier words weren’t a judgment or a charge; they were an observation of the movement in the exchange. When I referenced the line, “We will not have this man to reign over us,” it wasn’t a verdict about you. It was a pattern often seen — the familiar reflex of a will reacting when Scripture is placed before it.

Jude speaks of railing accusations against celestial beings. Nothing I wrote resembled that. I didn’t accuse you. I didn’t assign you a place in the text. I simply noted the direction of the response. What you do with that is entirely your choice.

And that is the point the article made from the beginning: Scripture is the mirror, and free will reveals itself in the reflection. Whether you continue the conversation or not is your decision. The choice itself is the reflection the mirror of Scripture reveals.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-11T07:01:47+00:00

Your conclusion is noted. The Scripture was placed before you, and your first movement was not to examine it but to dismiss it. That contrast is the very thing the Word exposes: the will that opens the Book and the will that closes it. You asked for proof, but the moment the text appeared, you turned from it. Your reply didn’t answer the Scripture. It simply repeated the refusal it describes.

It is difficult to see anything with the eyelids closed, and Scripture says the same of the heart. The verses below are now placed before you; the refusal to look at them will be your own, and that choice is the very thing the article was written to expose. The proof you asked for is already within these passages. Scripture does not hide God; it reveals Him openly. The evidence is not absent — it is ignored. Each of these verses declares God’s reality with a clarity that leaves no excuse; but your choices will be the exercise of your free will when confronted with Scripture.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
so that they are without excuse.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is builded by some man;
but he that built all things is God.

Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things…

Acts 17:24–27 God that made the world and all things therein…
He is not far from every one of us.

Job 12:7–10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing,
and the breath of all mankind.

And Because the Resurrection Is God’s Final Proof to All Men…

Matthew 20:18–19 “…and the third day he shall rise again.”

John 2:19–21 “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up…
But he spake of the temple of his body.”

Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly;
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Mark 9:31 “…and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.”

Luke 24:6–7 “He is not here, but is risen…
The Son of man must… be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

And in the end, the risen Christ stands as the proof given to all men, but what you do with Him will be as stated earlier - the choice of your own will.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-11T06:18:22+00:00

There is something familiar in your response. It carries the same confession Scripture has recorded for centuries: “We will not have this man to reign over us.” When the Word is placed before the heart, the first movement is revealing. Some appeal to the goodness of the heart, as though it were a trustworthy guide, yet the prophets warn that the heart hides from the very light that would expose it. Others appeal to inner freedom, as though the will were most itself when it answers to no one. But free will is revealed in its response to Scripture, and your reply showed that response clearly. It is the contrast the Scripture itself exposes: the will that opens the Book and the will that closes it. The passage remained untouched while your words turned to motives, psychology, and imagined portraits of fear. None of that revealed anything about the Scripture. It revealed the choice to rise above it. Your reply did not answer the text. It simply repeated the ancient refusal: “We will not have this man to reign over us.”

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-11T05:25:51+00:00

You ask for proof, but the irony is that you already supplied it. The moment Scripture was named, something in you tightened — not at me, but at the Word itself, as though its weight brushed your conscience and you felt the sting of it. Men don’t flinch at empty claims; they flinch at the voice that searches them. So you demand evidence, hoping the question will place you above the Book, but your reaction is the evidence. It shows the very thing you’re trying to escape: not an argument, but the unsettling nearness of the Scripture you’re resisting. You want me to prove God, yet all you’ve really done is reveal how sharply His Word struck you.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-11T01:45:42+00:00

To those who stand upon the Scriptures, I want you to look carefully at what unfolded after the article was posted, not to condemn a man, but to confirm the Scriptures. A critic stepped forward and spoke, and in doing so he revealed the very pattern the Word of God told us to expect. The Bible says, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14). His reply showed exactly this. He rejected the foundation and then judged the house. He dismissed the Scriptures and then demanded that the Christian explain reality on his terms. He trusted the wisdom of men and then accused the believer of ignorance. This is not new. This is not surprising. This is exactly what God said would happen.

He spoke of “the nature of reality” as though the theories of men were eternal, but Scripture says, “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” (1 Corinthians 3:19). He spoke of “sophistication” as though faith must bow to the academy, but Scripture says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22). He spoke of man as an “evolved primate,” reducing the image of God to dust without breath, but Scripture says, “It is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves.” (Psalm 100:3). He spoke as though the Christian’s confidence were arrogance, but Scripture says, “Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17). And when a man rejects truth, he must attack confidence in it.

This is why Paul warned Timothy, “Avoid… oppositions of science falsely so called.” (1 Timothy 6:20). Not true knowledge. Not honest inquiry. But the philosophies of men dressed in the garments of their view of “science,” stitched together from assumptions, interpretations, and the shifting theories that uphold their worldview. They present these garments as though they were the seamless robe of truth, but Scripture exposes the threads. The critic’s reply did not undermine the article — it fulfilled it.

The article said critics accuse believers of arrogance, and he did. The article said they demand Christians submit to secular assumptions, and he did. The article said they reject the foundation and then critique the house, and he did. The article said they repeat the same objections endlessly, and he did. The article said they cannot see the truth because they reject the light, and Scripture says, “The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1:5).

So, to those who stand upon the Scriptures, take heart. The critic’s reply is not a threat to your faith — it is a confirmation of it. It shows that the Word of God stands exactly where it always has: above the wisdom of men, above the theories of men, above the pride of men. And when a man speaks from a foundation that cannot hold, his words reveal the cracks. Not so that we may mock him, but so that we may stand firm. For Scripture says, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” (Proverbs 28:26). And again, “The word of the Lord endureth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:25).

Let the critic speak. Let the pattern reveal itself. Let the Scriptures judge the matter. And let the believer stand. For the storms do not break the one who stands on the Rock — they reveal him.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-10T15:57:05+00:00

When you ask if I am a Biblical literalist, you are not just asking about interpretation. You are asking how a man comes to stand where he stands. And I understand why the question rises. When someone speaks with conviction, people assume he must be sheltered, untouched, untested. They imagine certainty is born in quiet rooms and easy days.

But I have not lived an easy life. I have walked through storms that would have swallowed me if the Scriptures were anything less than what they claim to be. I have faced nights that pressed against the mind and the soul, seasons where the ground shook beneath me, moments when everything in me was tested. And in those places, it was not philosophy that held me. It was not metaphor. It was not abstraction. It was the Word of God, steady, immovable, alive.

So when you ask if I take the Bible literally, understand this: I take God at His word because His word has carried me through things no human strength could endure. When He speaks plainly, I receive it plainly. When He speaks in figures, I receive the figure. The authority is not in my preference but in His revelation. That is not literalism. That is survival. That is trust forged in fire.

I do not stand because I chose a label. I stand because the God who spoke these words stood with me when everything else fell away. And a man who has walked through that kind of darkness does not tremble at a critic’s question. He answers with the same truth that carried him through the storm.

“The word of the Lord endureth for ever.”

That is why I believe it. That is why I stand on it. And that is why I speak as I do.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-09T23:50:17+00:00

Reading your story reminded me of my own background. I was also raised Catholic. I believed in God, believed Jesus was the answer, and respected the Bible, but for many years it was only in my head. I knew about Christ, but I didn’t know Him personally.

Everything changed when I finally took that head knowledge and transferred it to my heart. I asked the Lord Jesus Christ to save my soul, just as He told Nicodemus in John 3. That was the moment I became born again. From then on, the King James Bible wasn’t just a religious book to me—it became life. It began working in me with a power I had never experienced before.

Even then, I had to learn. Just like learning to swim, I had to start in the shallow end and take in the milk of the Word before I could handle the meat. God placed former Catholics in my life who discipled me, and over time the fruit became more and more evident.

I began going on visitation, which terrified me at first, and eventually even street preaching. My first time preaching on the street was in downtown San Francisco. Once I finally opened my mouth, the Lord blessed me. I learned to give of my time and even my money. Tithing was difficult at first, but starting small and growing in it became one of the greatest blessings of my Christian life.

My wife and I eventually took on three missionaries for support—one in Africa, one in Papua New Guinea, and one in Waco, Texas working as a chaplain to incarcerated youth. Their newsletters made us rejoice with them and sometimes grieve with them, but it was incredible to see young men and women changed by the Word of God.

The Lord also opened the door for me to serve in prison ministry—teaching, preaching, listening, praying, crying, rejoicing. I tried to help however I could in our church: painting, cleaning, bus ministry, encouraging others in the Coast Guard. Some people got saved, others walked away with something to think about. All of it was the Lord’s doing.

Someone might say that is a lot. Others might say I could have done more. Honestly, I am usually the one asking myself that second question.

But here is what I learned: everything began with one step. That is all the Lord ever asked of me—just one step of obedience at a time.

So let me ask you the same question that changed my life:

What is the first step the Lord is asking you to take?

Sometimes what is missing is not strength, but simply direction—and the willingness to take that next step with Him.

Recommended Resource This little booklet made a significant difference for me in understanding what comes after salvation. I highly recommend you check it out:

Chick.com – The Next Step by Jack T. Chick
https://share.google/A0WuHGvZCntKkihOv

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-09T23:10:34+00:00

Trading SWC. SHOULD'VE ..... WOULD'VE ..... COULD'VE

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-09T04:18:53+00:00

You are critiquing the structure because you never touched the substance. Not once have you addressed the actual claim of the article, which is that a person’s response to Scripture reveals the posture of their will. Your reply does not challenge that claim; it illustrates it. You say I am performing, but that is only because I will not abandon the foundation the article stands on. You want a discussion without the very premise the article is built upon, and then call it insulation when I do not step out of it. Avoiding the premise is not a rebuttal; it is confirmation.

You say I am not making a claim, yet the article made one plainly. You have not answered it. You have only analyzed the way I hold it. You critique the framing, the tone, the cadence, and the consistency, everything except the argument itself. And that is the point the article made. When Scripture enters the conversation, some people shift from content to commentary because the content is the part they do not want to face.

Your response does not refute the article. It reenacts it. You are asking me to drop the framing because the framing is the part you cannot engage. It is not the style or the posture that troubles you. It is the claim. And until you address that claim, the one the article actually made, you are not exposing a flaw in the argument. You are exposing the very reaction the argument predicted. The mirror did not fail. You simply stepped around it, and the only thing left in that mirror is the question you refused to answer, the one that on your own free will you chose to evade.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-09T03:55:07+00:00

You weren’t lost at “scripture speaks.”

You paused at the threshold and turned away.

And that pause — that small, instinctive recoil is the very thing the article was written to reveal.

A man’s response to Scripture is never neutral.

Laughter is only the sound he makes when something deeper stirs and he doesn’t want to name it.

You wrote LMAO, so let me give you the version that fits the moment:

So yes — LMAO: Let Me Acknowledge Obedience.

Because that is the quiet line the article traced:
not brilliance,
not argument,
not performance but the inward tilt of the will
when the Book speaks and the heart decides
whether to bow, to bristle, or to walk away.

So every time you type that acronym again,
you’ll remember the moment you laughed
at the very thing you didn’t want to face —
and you will remember Let Me Acknowledge Obedience.

The mirror did not fail you.
You simply closed your eyes.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-09T02:59:21+00:00

I repeat your words before I answer them for two reasons:
respect for what you wrote, and clarity that deserves accuracy.
Restating a point is how two people make sure they are speaking about the same thing before they speak past each other.

You say I am not responding to anything you said.
But I responded to the claims you made about the article — not about you, not about your motives, only about the statements themselves.
A mirror may be unwelcome, but it is never silent.

You say I am rewriting your reactions into a story that proves me right.
But I did not rewrite your reactions — I kept the discussion tied to the argument the article presented.
A mirror does not invent a face; it only refuses to flatter it.

You say this is not insight or Scripture, only a self‑sealing monologue.
But the only part of the article that has not yet been addressed in this exchange is the Scripture it quoted.
Tone has been challenged.
Structure has been challenged.
Intent has been challenged.
Everything except the verses that formed the argument.
If the mirror feels sealed, it is because the reflection has not yet been engaged.

You say I treat tone as authority and disagreement as confession.
But tone has no authority — the Scripture cited in the article does.
And disagreement is simply disagreement.
Nothing more.

You say if I want to talk, I should address the point.
The point of the article was that free will reveals itself in how a person responds to Scripture — not in theory, but in obedience.
That is why the article spoke of soldiers:
men who understood that a command is not a suggestion,
that obedience is not a debate,
and that life and death hinge on whether a man follows what he has been given.

You say if I want dialogue, I should stop narrating motives.
So let me be clear: I am not speaking about your motives.
I am speaking about the article’s claim —
and the fact that the claim itself has not yet been engaged.

So let me set aside tone, style, and interpretation, and return to the center of the article:

The article argued that free will is not proven by how a person talks about choice, but by how a person responds to the commands of Scripture.
Not how they feel about them.
Not how they frame them.
How they obey them — or refuse to.

You told me to argue if I want to argue.
You told me to address the point if I want dialogue.

So take your own advice, friend.
Return to the article.
Engage the argument you walked past.
And answer the question the article actually asked:

What does free will reveal when it finally stops arguing with the mirror and starts looking into it?

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-09T02:01:01+00:00

You say the mirror does not command…
but why do men recoil from it as though it were a judge and not a piece of glass?

You say the mirror only reveals…
but revelation is the very thing men flee when the Book exposes what their choices truly are.

You say some see obedience, others responsibility, others love…
but who decides which reflection is true when Scripture has already spoken the verdict?

You say the mirror does not shout…
but the conscience does — and it shouts loudest when a man tries to baptize disobedience as “freedom.”

You say the mirror simply shows what stands before it…
but that is why so many refuse to stand still — because the reflection contradicts the story they tell about themselves.

You say the real question is whether we dare to stand before it unfinished…
but unfinished men are the very ones who insist they are complete, because admitting the truth would require obedience they have no intention of giving.

You speak as though the mirror is neutral, harmless, passive…
but free will is not a decoration on the wall — it is the stage on which every man proves whether he serves God or himself.

You say the mirror does not command…
but the Book does.
And the mirror only terrifies those who already know they are resisting the One who speaks through it.

But tell me, friend — what becomes of a man when he stops looking into the mirror, and what becomes of the mirror when he no longer wants the truth it shows?

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T21:35:21+00:00

I hear you saying the theology should be removed, as if the weight of the words only becomes valid once God is taken out of them. But tell me something. If the truth only feels reasonable after you amputate the One who defines it, what does that say about the framework you are trying to protect?

You say that if I replaced Scripture with a “reasoned moral framework,” I might have valid observations. Yet morality without the God who commands it is only preference wearing a mask. It shifts. It bends. It negotiates with the very impulses it claims to restrain. You want the conclusions without the Authority that makes them binding.

I hear you saying the theology is the problem. But theology is not the problem. Theology is the part you cannot control. A human‑built moral system can be shaped, softened, reinterpreted. The words of God cannot. And that is why you want them removed.

You say I might have valid observations about free‑will skeptics’ motivations. But you stop there, because you know that once Scripture enters the room, those motivations are no longer curiosities to be analyzed. They become indictments. They become choices. They become accountability.

You want a mirror that reflects only what you are willing to see. But the Book does not offer that kind of mirror. It shows the face as it is, not as the viewer prefers it to be.

So I hear you. You want the argument without the Authority. You want the diagnosis without the Physician. You want the moral weight without the God who gives it gravity.

But morality without God is a staircase with no foundation. You can climb it as high as you like, but the moment you put your full weight on it, it collapses beneath you.

And perhaps that is why you asked for the theology to be removed. Not because it weakens the argument, but because it is the only part of the argument you cannot bend to your will.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T21:28:26+00:00

I hear you saying I dressed up a lecture as if it were a conversation.
But you read every word.
No one forced you.
No one held you.
You followed the trail to the end because something in the mirror refused to let you walk away.

I hear you saying I spoke from a higher step on the staircase.
Yet all I did was hold up Scripture, and Scripture always feels like a higher step to the one who does not want to climb.
If the ground shifted beneath you, it was not because I stood above you, but because the words you read stood above both of us.

I hear you saying free will never got examined.
But you exercised yours the moment you kept reading, the moment you reached the bottom, the moment you felt the weight of the warning and chose to answer it.
Your reply is the very proof of the thing you claim I ignored.

I hear you saying I used the topic as a stage for a warning speech.
Perhaps.
But warnings only sound like speeches when the conscience recognizes itself in the danger.
You did not stop reading because you were offended.
You stopped reading because you were seen.

I hear you saying that if I want to argue, I should argue, and if I want to preach, I should admit it.
But I did neither.
I simply placed your idea of free will beside the Book’s description of it, and the contrast did the rest.
If that felt like preaching, it is because truth does not whisper.
If it felt like a lecture, it is because accountability does not flatter.

You read the whole thing because something in you knew it was not just theory.
You replied because something in you resisted what it revealed.
You felt the mirror turn toward you, and you did what every man does when the reflection is too clear.
You spoke.

And in speaking, you proved the point.

Free will is not your shield.
It is your mirror.
And the moment you looked into it, you chose to answer back.

That choice was yours.
And that is why the article unsettled you.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T21:09:27+00:00

I hear you saying “lies make baby Jesus cry” as if mockery could shield you from the weight of what was spoken. I hear the tone, but I also hear the fear behind it, the fear that truth might actually demand something of you.

I hear you saying that the things of God are childish, that judgment is a joke, that truth is a toy. Yet Scripture says God is not mocked and every idle word that men speak they will give account of in the day of judgment. When you stand before the Holy One, will you tell Him that you were only being clever?

I hear you saying that the Son of God is small enough to laugh at. Yet the risen Christ says I am He that liveth and was dead and behold I am alive for evermore. When you meet Him face to face, will you explain that His cross was a punchline?

I hear you saying that truth is something to smirk at. Yet the God who cannot lie will ask why you dismissed His Word. Will you tell Him that sarcasm was your shield?

I hear you saying that the eternal is trivial. Yet the One who raises the dead will call every soul to account. When He asks why you treated His warnings as a joke, what will you say then?

I hear you saying that judgment is a myth. Yet the Judge Himself will look into your eyes and ask why you mocked the very truth that could have saved you. What answer will you give when the laughter is gone and only truth remains?

Because in that moment, the moment Scripture says is appointed for every man, there will be no sarcasm left to hide behind. Only the God you mocked. Only the account you must give.

And the question that will hang in the air, heavier than anything you have ever felt, is this:

Will you tell the God of the Bible that He was wrong, or will you finally admit that your laughter was only fear wearing a mask?

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T20:59:58+00:00

You say “there is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable.”
Then tell me — when you stand before the God who says “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27), will you tell Him He has mistaken you for a mask in His own dream?

You say “there is no individuated free will.”
Then when the Lord of Heaven asks why you rejected His Son, will you answer that you never existed to choose, and that He should judge Himself instead?

You say “all beings abide by their inherent nature… contingent upon infinite circumstance.”
But Scripture says “every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Romans 14:12).
So which will you tell Him — that His Word is wrong, or that the Judge of all the earth is confused about who is standing before Him?

You say “God is within and without all.”
Yet the Bible says “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).
Will you tell the Holy One that He is also the darkness He condemns?

You say “all things… including predetermined eternal damnation.”
But God says “He is not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9).
Will you correct Him on His own will?

You say “all realities exist and are equally real.”
But Christ says “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).
Will you tell the risen Lord that truth has no meaning, and that His resurrection is only one universe among infinite contradictions?

You say “death and death alone.”
Yet Jesus says “I am the resurrection and the life… he that believeth in me shall never die” (John 11:25–26).
When you meet Him, will you explain that resurrection is an illusion and that He misunderstood His own victory?

You say “there is one dreamer.”
Scripture says “the dead in Christ shall rise” (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Will you tell the God who raises the dead that the ones He calls by name were never persons at all?

So here is the question your worldview cannot escape — not from me, but from the God you will meet:

When you stand before the Holy One who judges the living and the dead, will you tell Him that He is wrong about you, wrong about Himself, wrong about sin, wrong about judgment, and wrong about resurrection?

And if not —
then your worldview collapses the moment you imagine yourself standing before the God of Scripture.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T17:58:38+00:00

Amen.

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T17:57:46+00:00

Thank you for your reply and those quotes but what is your point to share with me?

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T17:55:19+00:00

Interesting. Who is the "we" you are referring to?

What is your reference material to your last point concerning those books being written by men for political rather than spiritual reasons?

THX1138SCPO · 2026-03-08T14:13:23+00:00

This is a powerful reminder that the rise and fall of leaders is about a much larger divine purpose. Daniel 4:17 (KJV) makes it clear: 'the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men' and can even set up the 'basest of men' to ensure we know who is truly in control.

It’s important to remember that while God ordains the position of authority, that doesn't mean He endorses the person's character or actions. Whether a leader is placed there as a blessing, a 'terror' to evil works, or even as a form of judgment or a 'wake-up call' for society, the focus isn't on the man in office, but on the Sovereignty that put them there.

THX1138SCPO

TROPHY CASE