That's not what I mean. The OP gave contradictory meanings of free will; I wanted on record which one you meant. You went with the freedom to choose between options. In the moral/immoral context those two options are a subjective right and wrong. I always qualify what free will means according to what the Christ and Paul taught. --> a will free from sin. <-- this meaning is also in the moral/immoral context.
There was no contradiction... unless you mean they contradicted your wrong premises. That I would agree with.
All the terms used agreed in the proper context.
Oh yes, absolutely. Objectively speaking the choice/option to obey God or disobey God is the same as choosing between right/wrong because its right to obey God and it's wrong to disobey God --> so long as a person has a Trustworthy Image of God in their heart.
Why does it depend on the person?
Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of what a person knows, or has, isn't it.
For example, If I had a subjective wicked image of god in my reasoning, then I could rationalize that it would be wrong to serve that god. Just like Joshua showed below:
It does not matter what subjective view you have.
If God gives you a command, and you disobey, you have done wrong... made the wrong choice.... regardless of what you think.
Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord,
choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
The sentiment in bold and underscored above indicates to me that a person who finds it evil to serve God has a subjective wicked image of god.
On the contrary. I said a will free from innocence. The contradiction is counting it freedom to have the disability of sin. That would be a negative connotation of freedom. There are negative and positive connotations of free will in scripture, in the moral/immoral context.
I understand that many persons, like yourself, have this idea.
Some people even believe that a perfect person cannot sin, and that is simply because they have the wrong concept of perfection.
Perfection is simply relative to the perfector.
In other words, it's perfect to the one who designed it, because it is made how he wants it.
You would hear a craftsman exclaim. "Perfect!" at one of his designs, and this is because it is just how he wanted it.
It does not mean it cannot break, or anything like that.
Similarly, the idea that free will means freedom from sin, dictates that free will is absolute perfection.
This is a mistaken view, since free will is relative to the one who requires an exercising of that will. It's not a freedom from.
This is your mistake, which I an trying to get you to see.
Here, take my $800.00 Van Heusen jacket. You are free to wear it.
Here are the keys to my brand new Mercedes Benz. You are free to drive it.
All of us are free to go jump off the highest cliff.
In all those cases, what are you free
from?
When we limit word to one context, we can misunderstand their meaning.
Free will is not free
from. It's free
to. The God given gift to exercise one's freedom of choice without being forced.
Maybe that's what it's free from. force.
Morality <-- This carries a positive connotation
Immorality <-- This carries a negative connotation
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. <-- This is a positive connotation of free will
For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. <-- This is a negative connotation of free will
This is why counting it freedom to choose to sin is a contradiction. Jesus called it servitude to sin not freedom to choose sin
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
There you go.
You misplaced free will because of misunderstanding.
I don't know what you mean by that. All I'm saying is that scripture shows that the will God gave mankind was without sin and without irreverence to God.
Please explain how you arrived at that being a will. Are you redefining will?
To see what I mean by without sin, you need to know that sin is both an action and a condition. That's why there are levels of sinfulness in Romans 1, and that's why Jesus said the sick need a doctor referring to sinners as sick and sin as a sickness, not a choice/decision.
Okay, but that does not explain what you are saying.
If you are talking about perfection, I can see what you are saying, but free will is not perfection.
The two what are far from equal? Are you talking about the freedom to choose or the free will that is free from sin?
Perfection, and free will, or freedom of choice are far from equal.
Scripture says they began in innocence, not knowing good and evil, and they trusted in God. So, I don't think they knew anything about wickedness and righteousness.
Knowing good and evil was explained, to a degree, in the scriptures.
I'll return to this.
I think God had mankind experience hardship to learn how good we had it.
Many people think that as well.
Would you agree, what we think, is not really important, but what the scriptures teach, is?
I don't think this qualifies as a working analogy. Your analogy has no serpent, no death if you eat. No false image of god.
How does knowing if something is wrong or right, depend on a serpent, death, and a false image of god?
That's not true. The scripture shows that Eve was believing she would die if she ate. Adam and Eve both believed it was wrong to eat because they would die.
???
Eve repeated what God said.
She, nor the scriptures do not say the reason both believed it was wrong to eat was because they would die.
That's something you think as well, isn't it?
It's a contradiction in reasoning to claim they both confessed their guilt and blamed someone else. If they were blaming each other, don't you think God would have said they were lying.
Why did they hide?
Genesis 3:8 Now they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
I hope you know that we will be judged by what measure we use to judge others. You talk as if disobeying God is something people want to do.
I'm only going by what the scriptures reveal, or teach.
Did the angel that became Satan the Devil want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: John 8:44 Yes, he did.
Did Adam want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: 1 Timothy 2:14 Yes, he did.
Do many people today want to disobey God?
The Bible's answer: Romans 1:28-32 Yes, they do.
Something I hope you will eventually come to learn about me, is that I go by what the Bible says. Not by what I think.
What I think, is not important, because "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death". Proverbs 14:12
I don't think you realize that the desire to sin is based on first believing a lie. Inordinate lusts of the flesh are the product of vain imaginings.
I do not realize that, because it's not what the scriptures reveal.
While that's what you think, the disciple James says this:
"...a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire." James 1:13
One of the things the scriptures reveal, is that God knows what's in the heart, and a thought, or desire that lingers there, is what develops into action.
Jesus said this, in agreement with his brother. Matthew 15:18-20
God knew what was in Eve's heart, before she went near the tree.
To think About...
Why did Eve not tell Adam anything, if she did not want to act on her own desires?
Adam was her head... was he not?
If she is so innocent, why is she not submissive to her head, but listens to a serpent who tells her to disobey something that her husband told her, or that God repeated in their presence?
Questions we can ask ourselves, lest we forget that unless we have all the facts, forming opinions can lead to wrong conclusions.
The serpent did not give Eve life. She came from Adam's rib, and Adam knew this, and no doubt, like we would, told her about this and the other magnificent things her maker did.
Why did she disobey God - her creator (not a serpent), if she did not want to?
Rebellion started in heaven, and continued on earth.
Psalm 78:17, 18
17 Yet they still continued to sin against Him, To rebel against the Most High in the desert.
18 And
in their heart they put God to the test By asking food according to their desire.
You still are leaving out the serpent who caused Eve to have vain imaginings with his lies.
He caused her... Do you mean, as in, "The Devil made me do it"?
The serpent introduced an adulterated image of god that corrupted the mind and beguiled the woman. And Paul has a fear that we might be corrupted in the same way.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice in the matter, and could not exercise her freedom of choice... she had none.
Is that what you are saying?
I believe that the knowledge of good and evil gave the ability to see good and bad, as in judge and find fault, and subsequently experience pride and shame. For example, I see carnal vanity as comparing oneself with others and either feeling lifted up or put down in the process.
Are you saying the knowledge of good and evil was in the fruit, and when they ate it, that knowledge gave them an ability?
Let me say it this way: The Satan is the one that conveyed we have the choice/option to disobey God and not die. The Satan conveyed we could choose to eat. The Satan coveted God was lying to mankind. I don't believe the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom because it's based on a corrupt image of god.
So, when God said, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”
You are saying Adam did not have a choice to eat from all the other trees instead of that one God commanded him not to. Is that correct?
There is a premise that the serpent subconsciously introduces a false image of God to Eve through his subtilty. I'm saying Eve is not consciously aware that she is accepting a false premise. That hidden premise is (1) that God is a liar because he said you will die if you eat (2) God is keeping the man and woman down by forbidding them from knowledge that would elevate their status (3) They could be free from their blind servitude to God and become like gods themselves if they ate.
Cool.
That sounds like something I can agree with.
In other words, Satan introduce the idea of independence from God... sort of like the kids will tells someone they want to join them, 'You don't have o listen to your dad. I do what I want. You can too." Peer pressure. ..and what does the wise kid do? Give in? No, he chooses to do otherwise.
Could Eve had decided otherwise?
Therefore, I don't believe the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom because it's based on a corrupt image of god that the serpent/the devil corrupted the mind with.
"the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom"?
Could you please rephrase that. I'm not making sense of it.
Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord,
choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
There's only one God. There is no choice in monotheism. I think one has to have a corrupt image of god, to think it's evil to serve God. Just like the serpent beguiled Eve through introducing a corrupt image of god through subtlty.
Paul like wise feared someone would preach a different Christ
11 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the
god of this world hath blinded the minds
of them which believe not, lest the light
of the glorious gospel
of Christ, who is the image
of God, should shine unto them.
No. I don't think they were blind. The way I interpret it is I think they found no fault in being naked before they ate and then found fault in being naked after they ate.
I think their eyes being opened implies a realization. I think their feeling ashamed and wanting to cover their privates implies a carnal vanity.
A realization. Thank you.
A realization of what?