I didn't?
Perhaps you are trying to redefine free will, and therefore, in your mind, the true meaning is not coherent.
Keeping in mind that I'm speaking strictly in the moral/immoral context, I said this in my first post--> "The only coherent meaning of the term free will as a noun, that I can see in scripture, is a will qualified as free from sin". "Free" standing alone without will carries a positive connotation. When paired with a subjective neutral
will, it can mask bondage with the illusion of empowerment. In that way I can see how a neutral free will, would be a foundational lie. The power to choose as a neutral isn't really a power of impetus, it's a subjective scenario.
The distinction that free from sin in scripture brings, is a positive connotation of a carnal minded will that has been transformed by the will of God through the power of the Holy Spirit to the mind of Christ, not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God. It shows that there are wills that are free so as to show there are wills that are not free without equivocation. That’s why I see the carnal free will as a foundational lie: it takes a word of liberation and uses it to cover over dependence upon God as the positive power.
Jesus told Paul, "I am sending you to them to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”....., The entire plan of salvation rests upon believing mankind cannot save themselves by the power of the will. All of scripture testifies to our dependence upon God.
The early church was persecuted for their testimony of Christ. I don't see a free will volunteering to persecute the messengers of the Gospel. I see an orchestrated attempt by powers of darkness..
How can I testify to the Spirit of God that opens blind eyes, turns people from darkness to Light and from the power of Satan to God and at the same time say we choose to do that of our own volition?
What does the evidence show?
From
post #1.
Starting with God's heavenly children - the spirit creation, called angels, the Bible says of the one called Devil and Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
Agreed. Everyone has
THEIR OWN WILL qualified as
OUR OWN way. <-- NOT GOD"S WAY-->
Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Scriptures generally describe a self-willed person as acting out of the carnal will, and the carnal will is subject to the flesh.
Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
Jesus further states in the same verse, John 8:44... "your will is to do your father’s desires".
Humans too, have their own will, which is in opposition to the father.
This is articulated well because here the will denotes a negative desire, NOT just the general ability to choose a course of action accordingly. To rephrase: The mechanism that weighs pros and cons is not a will (A "want" precedes an "action" according to the "want"). So, I think we can agree that the desire/will/want of the self-willed is inclined to servitude to sin when it is not aligned with Will of the Father.
this was a deliberate opposing of the truth. Hence, the name Satan.
John 8:44 does not actually use the term deliberate to explain the devil's opposing the truth. However, it makes sense that the devil deliberates upon a false image of god, and this is the reason why Jesus says "
there is no Truth in him", NOT because he has a free will capacity to speak the truth which is The ONE WAY <--singular.
Matthew 6:22-23
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and
narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will. Nor can it be claimed that they have to give in to wrong desires.
The angels make their own decisions to do what the want. Genesis 6:2
Proof that the angels - God's heavenly children, do have free will.
The Satan means the accuser/adversary. How are you defining free will here? We agree each person
has their own way,
their own will that involves making their own decisions and performing their own actions pursuant to what their want/will/way is. Why is Free now being added without any qualifier? You're introducing an unknown premise.
Leaving the "free" out because I don't know what you intend to infer with it; I'm going to make this statement --> I can claim definitively that sin is a hinderance to someone's own will/way/want when it's done to them, because when someone else's will/way/want steals from me or interferes with me fulfilling my will/way/want, then my own will/want/way is hindered. My point is that inevitably one person's own way will clash with someone else's own way, and the occasion for confrontation, war and sin will be present.
Having said that, I want to know why you are interjecting Free and how you are applying it. It looks to me like it could be that age old assertion sometimes accusation of the accuser, that at any given moment, they could have chosen to want differently than they did because there exist other better wants, they could have wanted. --->
option to choose otherwise. So, I'm wondering if you are implying free will in this mode is the ability to choose between wants and decide what we want to want?
Are you reasoning upon an equivocation hidden in this statement -->"Nor can it be claimed that they have to give in to WRONG desires"...? Notice that an equivocation mode of free will also claims the contrary --> "Nor can it be claimed they have to give in to RIGHT desires". <-- This is equivocating between two masters.
NOT giving in to wrong desires requires knowing they are wrong desires. So now knowledge comes into play, not subjectively but objectively true information. And it's true that knowledge makes us more responsible in the sense we know better. But wouldn't it be better said that we make our own decisions to NOT DO what is wrong because we Love others? Wouldn't it be better to thank God for the brotherly love that causes us to act responsibly without deliberating <-- Here is where the will/way/want is not manifested by the ability to choose otherwise, but through brotherly Love <--God's Way.
Regarding humans, the same apply.
In saying that their will is to do Satan's desire, what was Jesus pointing out? They were acting on their own will. Not anyone else's.
That humans have free will is made clear in other scriptures.
I've already agreed we have our own will in my first post. But the question of whether we have autonomy also invites the question of whether there exists a false sense of autonomy and a true sense of autonomy <-- negative and positive connotations. So just because we put free in front of a will that is born of the devil does not mean it's not the negative connotation of free, --> the carnal self-serving will. So, when Jesus tells these people they are of their father the devil, it implies the devil begat them and his Character is living in them, and that's why they will do his lusts even though they say or think they're free. <-- A false sense of autonomy.
Ye are of
your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. <-- This implies there is no choice to do otherwise. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
First off, when Paul says Adam was not deceived, I don't think Paul is meaning to point out that Adam knew what he was doing
because Adam knew God told him not to eat because
he would surely die. I say that because Paul would have known that the woman also knew that too because she said, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die".
So some theologians tend to take it out of context and think Paul is saying Adam deliberately, willfully disobeyed of his own initiative (which is a different sentiment than Adam knew God told him not to eat or he would surely die), in other words
they suggest that Paul is inferring rebellion by saying Adam was not deceived.
I have already shown how that mischaracterization of Paul's intended sentiments ends in a contradiction of reasoning. Here it is-> It would mean that Paul is saying that the woman,
who was deceived/tricked into disobeying God, should follow the lead of the man who knowingly and deliberately rebelled against God. That would be like saying we should follow those leaders who knowingly and willfully rebel against God.
Given that the Genesis account does not depict the serpent talking to Adam, Paul is probably simply inferring that the woman was the one deceived by the serpent, not the man. It is remarkable that nowhere else in scripture that I know of, is it mentioned or implied that Adam was not deceived or not misled in some way by the woman and that he willfully rebelled against God.
On the other hand, it's possible that Adam knew what he was doing and was NOT deceived, because he could have wanted to die with Eve rather than live without her which would not mean he had a rebellious spirit against God.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.
It's possible he could have decided to die with Eve rather than live without her. Assuming he wouldn't choose to eat and die had she not eaten in the first place, the circumstances would qualify as an antecedent event, wherein he might have felt forced to volunteer to die with her,
Adam and Eve were free willed agents... not driven by sin, but making free willed decisions.
Proof that humans... God's earthly children were created with free will.
"The only coherent meaning of the term free will as a noun that I can see in scripture is a will qualified as
free from sin".
Yes, I agree; when they were first created, they were
without sin and had wills
free from sin and made decisions free from questioning Gods trustworthiness, but then they were walking in God's Way of faith. I'm not sure what you mean by free willed agents. Does agency here mean to imply a capacity to affect the course of events only positively, or is it more complicated as seen below?
Psychology today: Our brains carry predispositions from genes, but
experiences and learning further shape desires and choices. Neurogeneticists, like Kevin Mitchell argue
this leaves room for agency, while biologists like Robert Sapolsky see it as evidence of determinism.
Did sin somehow cancel out free will.
If we define free will as free from sin, yes of course. Logically, when sin entered in, they were no longer free from sin.
In the imagination of many, that is the case.
Paul gave thanks to God for being set free from sin in scripture. It wasn't imaginary. Jesus also teaches that the truth will set people free from the slavery of sin. Here is what Aquinas said, --> "Freedom, then, is not absolute autonomy (doing whatever one wants), but the capacity to choose rationally among perceived goods".
Here I must ask, do you not believe in a will without sin? Do you think sin will exist eternal?
However, the Bible does not say that after sin came into the world through one man, that free will became obsolete.
The Bible never speaks of “having a free will” as a faculty or a thing; it speaks of voluntary acts (like offerings) or willing hearts
. I'm not sure how you're defining free will here, but scripture does show that the carnal will is in discord with God's will. If you're saying this discord is freedom, then this free will freedom carries a negative connotation, and it is sin.
The Greek word
hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from
hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) –
properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).
This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur like in
Hebrews 6:4-6 and
10:26. I would note that these scriptures are speaking more rhetorical, as warnings. I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin, a free will because I want to show free as objectively positive in God's Way. The bible also shows actions that occur NOT of one's own accord. Primarily through believing things that are untrue and reasoning upon them as if they were true.
it was this
