• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is engineering a ‘super’ human being a good idea?

Vaccines don't "morph."
we will invent new ways to do what we're already doing, to fix the problems we already know about.
you'll easily have several options 100 years from now, take 200+immunizations over the first 15 years of your life, or a genetic upgrade for example. and it won't be the child making that choice.

there will be unforeseen consequences.

the covid vaccine was a big experiment and they had to make everyone get it so there wouldn't be a control group. we're now finding out the full extent of it and the current propaganda we're hearing is reduced cancer risk for people that got it.
well, what about the significantly increased misscarriage rate?

so there's a cost benifit trade off to everything.
Upvote 0

The ANE perspective on creation & am I fence sitting?

That kettle is diverse and has far more fish in it than the average modern Christian stomach can digest, I'm afraid. This is probably why only a few folks like you and me, and several others here, have much interest in ANE studies at all.

For some folks, what is found in the kettle can be .... scary.
Mhm...and sadly that attitude gives ammunition to skeptics who portray the most simplistic understanding as the normative one.

The scary element and discomfort that comes with the uncertainty involved in examining these questions with academic distance requires too much faith when faced with simple alternatives that just require playing Ostrich.
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

No Mayor - you cannot control privately owned businesses - if they want to leave, they can.

The problem is similar in other large U.S. cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco. The common denominator is progressive leadership.
So petty crime isn't a problem in conservatively led cities? They're crimeless utopias?
Upvote 0

Matthew 1:21 - He will save His people

I've answered; you're not responding to what I answered. The issue isn't what the name means in isolation. The issue is how the angel explains the name:

"You shall call His name Jesus, for he will save His people from their sins"​

The future indicative σώσει is declarative and effectual. It is not probabilistic, partial, or tentative. Whoever falls under "His people" is guaranteed salvation. You're trying to separate the kind of salvation from its scope, but nothing in the text allows that. The angel's words present a definitive promise.


Again, γὰρ σώσει defines the essence and scope of His salvific mission. The angel's explanation of the name is itself a complete statement of the mission.


You're not understanding what you're quoting. The plural αὐτῶν refers to the sins of the group, not the people themselves. Notice what you quoted: "The “sins of the people” are considered collectively." (My emphasis)

So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to sins, not to the scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.


As I already argued, what is relevant is how the author himself uses the language in context. And in Matt. 1:21, it is defined by redemptive belonging, not ethnicity.


Again, already answered. You are still making an unwarranted distinction between lexical precedent and authorial redefinition. It does not matter how the specific phrase is used in other contexts; what matters is how it is used here. Even if the phrase historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context. Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.

In other words, even if you view Matt. 1:21 as a partial disclosure of Jesus' mission, the kind of salvation described necessarily individualizes the referent. A corporate, ethnic category simply cannot receive forgiveness from sin in the sense Matthew uses here. Only those personally redeemed can fulfill that description. Hence, "His people" must refer to the redeemed community, not the Jewish nation as such.

Paul explicitly defines "Israel" not in ethnic but in redemptive terms ("not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" - Rom. 9:6). Matthew is working from that same covenantal reality: Jesus' "people" are those whom He truly saves from their sins. And since Matt. 1:21 ties that saving mission directly to Jesus' name and incarnational purpose, the redefinition of God's people is already implicit in the angel's announcement.


"From" does not mean "limited to." John 4:22 speaks of historical origin, not covenantal scope. The Messiah arises from Israel according to promise, yet His saving work immediately transcends that boundary. Matt. 1:21 is describing the effectual scope of salvation itself, not the ethnic channel through which it comes.


Your interpretation divorces the "nature" of the salvation from its object, which the text itself does not permit. You're splitting the angel's statement into two unrelated halves, as if the angel were saying, "Jesus will bring a kind of salvation from sins, but I'm not specifying for whom." That's not a reading of what's there in the text. You're looking for a way to make the text read how you want it to.

Grammatically, there are two ideas joined in a single purpose clause: σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The object ("His people") and the nature ("from their sins") are bound together by the same verb (σώσει). You can't separate what kind of salvation it is from who actually receives it. The act of saving defines both simultaneously: the redemptive efficacy and the identity of the people for whom it is effective. If the salvation described is effectual and redemptive ("He will save," not "He will offer salvation"), then "His people" must be those who actually experience that redemption. To reduce it to a general announcement to ethnic Israel ignores both the verbal aspect and the theological intent. The mission defines the people; the people do not define the mission.


No, it doesn't. That's pure conjecture, not argument. As I've already pointed out, literary audience and referential scope are entirely distinct categories. The fact that Matthew's readership was Jewish in no way proves that every instance of "His people" must denote national Israel. In fact, as I already argued, the opposite is more plausible. It is precisely because the audience is Jewish that Matthew labors to dismantle ethnic exclusivism and to redefine covenant membership around Christ. That gives him every reason to immediately recast the term "His people" in redemptive, not national, terms.
"The angel’s declaration is that Jesus will bring about the promised salvation of His people Israel, by delivering them from sin, thus fulfilling God’s covenant purpose. The verse isn’t addressing the individual scope of application."

It is a covenantal announcement, not a statement of who the specific persons are who will experience salvation. This actually works perfectly fine grammatically.

The Bible often use this kind of corporate language, saying all people, without implying that every single individual in that body experiences the stated action.

Semantically we do understand Jesus will save the faithful Jews from their sins, but those details are not in Matthew 1:21.

Compare with:

And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they implored Him to leave their region.
— Matthew 8:34


The whole city does not mean everyone in the city. The verse is not telling us who they were who came out to meet Jesus. In this way the Bible use coporate language.

Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms. They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.
— Ezekiel 37:21-23


This is a declaration God will bring together the people of Israel into one nation. God will cleanse the people and save them. Semantically we do understand not every indvidual Israelite God gathered from among the nations will be saved, but only the faithful. This is a corporate promise addressed to Israel as a people
Upvote 0

Trump promises $2000 tariff dividend to all Americans

Trump should reduce the tariffs. They're causing food prices to rise.

MAGA: Reducing them is a terrible idea. Just listen to Trump.

Donald Trump moved to lower tariffs on food imports, including beef, tomatoes, coffee and bananas, in an executive order on Friday as the White House fights off growing concerns about rising costs. Trump reverses course and cuts tariffs on US food imports

MAGA: Reducing them is a great idea. Just listen to Trump.

It's like filling a pool with a garden hose, but the rules to filling it are such that it has to be filled using only a specified amount of water per day, and has to be filled within 90 days, and the water cannot be shut off until completion, and the dimensions of the pool walls are mathematically unattainable (randomly lumpy).

So you turn the valve a little higher, then a little lower, and adjust it accordingly as you see fit, so as to not overflow it, or have it too shallow.
Upvote 0

Wes Huff Responds to Claim the Bible Was ‘Compiled Hundreds of Years’ After Jesus by a ‘Pagan Emperor for Political Reasons’

It matters not about the new testament being politically motivated. After all, it all as we have it was taken OT scripture, and that was considered sound. If anything the only major problem at the time was that the new religion sold out the Kingdom in favour of partnering itself with the Kingdom's opposition, the world of man. Squabbling over the NT compilation seems rather irrelevant by comparison.
Upvote 0

James 5:16 - What does confess your sins to one another mean?

James was writing to the faithful remnant of Israel waiting to see if the nation of Israel would finally accept Jesus as king and receive the earthly kingdom. The verses around 16 deal with how they should conduct themselves while they were waiting. The word translated "confess" is not the same word in 1 John 1:9. Instead it carries more of the idea of acknowledgement. The word for faults carries with it the idea of a lapse of uprightness.

The idea I get fro the verse is that those awaiting the kingdom should be transparent, honest, and humble with each other to avoid contention and maintain good will.
Upvote 0

The Reality of Free Will

I don't know what you find incoherent about that. It's pretty clear, what free will is, from there.
In this case it's incoherent in the sense that the question of WHY we volunteer is not being answered by --> because we have a free will. This is a circular reasoning --> I do it because I can.

Like I said, it's an adjective meaning voluntary/willing, not a noun. So, for example, a voluntary will (noun) would not make sense since it implies that we will to will. Since logically we reason for a reason, there has to be an origin of a desire or a thing we want to do whether it's in response to someone or something or an intention we wish to accomplish. There are two ways to get rid of lusts and desires, (1) we fulfill them (2) we realize they are vain imaginings.

Are choices autonomous? Where is the origin of the will/ desire? Who am I and why do I choose as I do? Is each person a different definition of a free will?

So When I say incoherent, I'm talking about the problem of the terms will and free morphing in meaning subjectively. There's our own self will, which implies a false autonomy, the carnal will which cannot be subject to God, is in servitude to the flesh and even can be hostile to God. And there are voluntary choices and involuntary choices, autonomy, false autonomy, freedom to choose and freedom to not choose. Freedom to do the other that you didn't do. freedom of action (see I can move my finger). Freedom to not act (see I didn't move my finger).

Again, I'm not saying that we don't do anything willingly or voluntarily. I'm saying that in the moral/immoral context True freedom is being who God made me to be, restored in Christ to reflect His Image.

Free will is generally understood as the capacity or ability of people to (a) choose between different possible courses of action, (b) exercise control over their actions in a way that is necessary for moral responsibility, or (c) be the ultimate source or originator of their actions. There are different theories as to its nature, and these aspects are often emphasized differently depending on philosophical tradition, with debates focusing on whether and how such freedom can coexist with physical determinism, divine foreknowledge and other constraints.

We can see the definitions you post above are typical:

Core Definitions​

  • Ability to choose otherwise: Free will means that at any given moment, you could have acted differently than you did.
  • Self-determined action: It’s the capacity to make choices that originate from your own reasoning, desires, or values, rather than being entirely dictated by external forces.
  • Moral responsibility: Free will is often defined in terms of accountability—if you have free will, you can be held responsible for your actions.
  • Compatibilist definition: Even if the universe is deterministic, free will exists when your actions align with your internal motivations, without coercion.
What the world calls free will is a lie, because apart from God we are slaves to sin. That’s not freedom—it’s blindness and false freedom. The only true free will is a will freed from sin by Christ, so that our choices originate from love and truth rather than deception. Calling our choices ‘voluntary’ twists the narrative. Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Voluntary good is still God’s work in us. The word ‘volunteer’ hides the truth; that apart from God, our will is blind and bound. Only when freed from sin by Christ does responsibility and freedom become real.”

So, in all honesty I don't see how the blind people leading the blind that Jesus talked about fall into any free will category defined above --> .... they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Exodus 4:11
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?

Jesus’ words in John 9:39: After healing the man born blind, Jesus says, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

  • Blind seeing: Those who humbly acknowledge their need (spiritual blindness) are given true sight—faith, understanding, salvation.
  • Seeing blind: Those who claim to already “see” (self-righteous, proud, relying on their own wisdom) are exposed as blind to God’s truth.

What is being saved by grace through faith? Faith implies believing God, providing God allows we hear His Word, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by His Word. So being saved by grace through faith isn't about a free will that chooses voluntarily, it's about transforming wills from the power of Satan to the power of God. That is what scripture teaches. The scriptures do not acknowledge that mankind can choose to be righteous apart from God's Holy Spirit.

1 John 3.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Acts 26
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.


Can you please define your terms corrupt and in a state of innocence, and elaborate on them. Thanks.
A state of innocence and not having the Knowledge of good and evil are synonymous. In that respect, innocence is ignorance operating out of trust/faith. It is also a virgin territory for sowing a seed (seed defined as an image of God that is corrupted through other images of gods, Satan's seed). To me when I read scriptures like through one man's disobedience sin entered in unto all men and so did death through sin, I view this as the beginning of corruption and Satan's seed is a corrupt image.
Also, is having a free moral choice "innocence"? Is choosing one over the other, which may be wrong, "corrupt"?
I would see this question as loaded because I don't think the innocent deliberate between moral and immoral choices, they operate out of faith.

Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” --> Faith is the foundation of moral reality.
Romans 1:17 “The righteous shall live by faith.” --> Innocence is not about deliberation but about trust.
Imperfect to whom.
Imperfect according to the True Image of God.
Why can't free will be perfect in relation to God, and why can free will not be exercised without holy spirit?
Another loaded question since the will is perfect and imperfect relative to God. The true free will depends on the Holy Spirit because He testifies to the Character of both the Father and the son.
Why is holy spirit needed for one to make a free willed decision, either, or?
It's a loaded question. Either/or doesn't denote a will at all. It only denotes that options exist. Options existing doesn't mean autonomy; it means determinism. The will is either bound to lies in sin or freed by the Spirit of Truth. Without the Spirit either/or will inevitably fall into sin. With The Spirit, then either/or becomes the true freedom: righteousness.

It's not true freedom, I can agree, but the ability to choose true freedom or not, is still a choice we are freely given.
Again, the existence of options does not denote a will, it denotes determinism. In pragmatics the Truth came first and the lie afterward, so as to usurp power through undermining the truth that first existed. Hence The true freedom came first through faith and the only one who suggested there was an alternative freedom was the serpent.
God did make his intelligent creatures capable of disobeying him, did he not?
The proper way to articulate this is that God knew vanity would arise in the creature as a circumstance of being created, and He even knew it would first begin in the highest angels who were the most gifted. Do you see the difference? The way you say it sounds like God made us corrupted to begin with.
Are you saying, you don't think Adam and Eve had freedom?
I said I don't see the capacity to sin as freedom. I therefore do believe Adam and Eve had freedom from sin when they were operating out of faith. I'm saying I don't believe evil was present when they went to do good. They couldn't deliberate in that sense so long as they had no knowledge of good and evil.
Are you saying Jesus does not choose to to God's will.... that he has no choice?
I'm saying he operates out of faith. I'm answering this way because he knows there's only One Way, God's Way.
Does one choose whether or not to listen to God?
The Word of God is the light and the Life of every man. If they're led by Satan's imagined image of god, they would not esteem any high plae and they would be thinking they choose to listen or not at their discretion.
Were Adam and Eve sinful, before disobeying God?
Of course not. That would be like saying God's breath that he breathed into the dirt was sinful.
Why then are you referring to "free will you are describing allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or with sinful desires."?
Because I'm responding to your definition of free will here --> CoreyD said: "Free will allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or to choose one course or the other... whether sinful - that is, prone to sin, or not."
Upvote 0

The Reality of Free Will

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 that 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.
...let's start with John 8:44
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.
Upvote 0

No Mayor - you cannot control privately owned businesses - if they want to leave, they can.

And how does this compare to typical big cities, crime wise? Why do you suppose Seattle is different in this regard?
The problem is similar in other large U.S. cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco. The common denominator is progressive leadership.
Upvote 0

Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

1763244429608.png



The "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM" is the continued support of the Trump Administration by American Evangelicals - a Presidency that beyond "lip service" has made little attempt to reflect Christian values!

One constant throughout the Bible is that God's people should never allow its message to become co-opted by aligning themselves with secular powers - access to government leaders has always come at a high price, with the Church invariably finding itself and its message compromised!

History will not be kind when it comes to examining the words and actions of the Trump Administration - its close association with the Evangelicals will cast a "DARK SHADOW" over American Christianity for decades to come!
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,878,244
Messages
65,414,347
Members
276,370
Latest member
GaëlleR.