If you mean by this, I am saying you don't understand free will as explained in the OP, yes, that is what I am saying.
No that's not what I mean. The OP gave contradictory meanings of free will; A voluntary choice, a carnal will to sin, the will God gave mankind which was free from sin, and the freedom to choose. I wanted it on record which one you meant. You went with the freedom to choose. I always qualify what free will means according to what the Christ and Paul taught. --> a will free from sin. <-- this meaning is in the moral/immoral context.
If a decision to serve God or not, or obey God or not, is in that category, then that's okay.
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 Holy Image of God in their heart. For example, If subjectively I had a wicked image of god in my heart, then I could rationalize that it would be right to not serve god and wrong to serve god.
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 is indicating that a person with a subjective wicked image of god, has the freedom to choose from other gods.
Thank you.
Your question then was a contradiction of reasoning, based on a false premise, because like freedom of choice, free will is not free from anything.
You had a false premise about free will due to not understanding it.
On the contrary. I said a will
free from innocence. That would mean a will where sin had entered in through the knowledge of good and evil in an adulterated image of God. It's a negative connotation of free will. There are negative and positive connotations of free will in scripture, in the moral/immoral context.
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
Just as I thought.
Some people equate free will with perfection.
I don't know what you mean by that. All I'm saying is that scripture says the will God gave mankind was without sin and without irreverence to God.
childeye 2 said:
I believe that mankind started out with a free will, as in "free" from sin, --> no knowledge of good and evil, and therefore no choice/option between right/wrong and subsequently no freedom of choice/decision in amoral/immoral context.
The two are far from equal.
The two
what are far from equal?
Did Adam not know right from wrong, and had the choice of choosing one or the other?
Scripture says they were innocent, not knowing good and evil, and they trusted in God. I think everything seemed right as rain and I don't think they found anything wrong.
How then could they be judged
I think God had mankind experience hardship to learn how good we had it.
Here is what the Bible says...
Genesis 2:15-17
15 Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”
Genesis 3:2,
3
2 The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden,
3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”
So, your mom baked a cake; slice it in half; gave you a quarter of the half, and the other quarter to your sister, and told you, you can eat those, but don't touch the half on the table.
Will you cut or break off piece of that cake, and say you did not know right from wrong?
Or, would you take your dad's wallet, and take money from it, and say you did not know right from wrong.
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.
Both Adam and Eve knew it was wring to disobey God, and they both confessed to their guilt, after hiding... though they tried to pass blame from themselves.
Genesis 3:12,
13
This is what free will is about - God allowing humans to make their own decisions to act on their own accord, according to their own desire.
You still are leaving out the serpent. The serpent introduced an adulterated image of god that corrupted the mind and beguiled the woman.
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.
I don't understand what you mean by "I believe the freedom of choice in the moral/immoral context is the knowledge of good/evil.", and you did not explain why you believe that.
I believe that the knowledge of good and evil gave the ability to see good and bad, as in judge and find fault, experience pride and shame. I see carnal vanity as comparing oneself with others and either feeling lifted up or put down.
I don't understand this statement - the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??
What do you mean? Can you explain.
Let me say it this way:
I don't believe the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom because it's based on a corrupt image of god.
There is a premise that the serpent subconsciously introduces a false image of God 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.
I don't believe the capacity to disobey God is a valid freedom because it's based on a corrupt image of god.
You lost me.
I do not have a clue what you are trying to say, and unless I do, I cannot respond to it.
However, I believe the Bible is what substantiates truth, rather than people's ideas, or what they believe.
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.
You believe the tree gave knowledge of good and evil.
So, you believe by eating a fruit, man got knowledge of good and evil.
May I ask, do you believe Adam and Eve could not see... they being blind... but after eating the fruit, they could then see?
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.
The Bible says... And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves.
Genesis 3:7
Do you believe they did not see each other's nakedness, and know of it?
I think their eyes being opened implies a realization. I think their feeling ashamed and wanting to cover their privates implies a carnal vanity.