Adam and Free-will, an Adjacent Thread

[Mr GLee]

A person chooses willingly, whether willing obedience or willing disobedience; in other words, a person's will drives the person's choice, and this fact is crucial to this discourse about Adam's action.

Two possibilities. Two powerful spirits. Light and darkness.

The Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit of God .Or the spirit of the antichrist. Satan who works in false prophets, false apostles

Satan snatched the gospel seed and made it all about the dying flesh of mankind.

A person is moved by whosoevers spirit is working in them. Like with our brother in the Lord Peter .he was moved by God to believe it was Christ not seen. Peter deceived by the will of Satan. Again two opposing spirits

Mathew 16: 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men

Behold that your:
Not willing is a choice to disobeyis a woefully invalid statement which disassociates the "will" from the "choice" as demonstrated by the crucial fact:
Willing is a choice to disobey.
Was your purpose in bringing up 1 Corinthians 14:33 to indicate that you believe I am confused for my God-given knowledge that "'Not willingly' indicates 'not choice'"?

Rather than disassociate I think it connects the will of Him who is of one mind .He always does whatsoever His eternal soul desires . Who could turn him to repent?. He turns (repents) us working in us to both hear his will and empower us to do it to his good pleasure (Philipian 2:13 .He alone can make a hard heart soft

Its the daily bread or hidden manna our Father gives us. The food the apostles knew not of at first . The power that works in dying mankind to hear and do the will of eternal God.

Job 23:12-16 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

 

[Mr GLee]

You wrote "What Paul writes in Rom 8:20 is post fall and has nothing to do with pre fal" which is entirely false.

Despite the Creation account in Genesis 1-3 being silent about man's "will", there exists Apostolic teaching on the matter of man's "will" with regard to the creation account.

Mankind's was created with a will. . the power to hear do the will of the invisible Creator. Mankind failed to keep it. The letter of the law "death" came into view. sufferings began.

Yoked with Christ that daily sufferings body soul and mind is made lighter.

Apostolic (whatsoever) is a blasphemy, a teaching as a false dichotomy. It elevates puffs up dying mankind above sola scriptura .

The apostles are sent messengers. Christ alone not seen is the infalible teacher. They preach. He does all the teaching and bringing to our memory the previous things taught (John14)

Puffing up men simply robs God of his unsen glory. . . giving it over to dying mankind .

The called , venerable ones lord it over the faith or understanding of the non venerable. The Catholic foundational fingerprint "venerate those sent "and not what they are sent with the living abiding word. . gospel

1 Corinthians 4: 6-7 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure (parable) transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

That makes the idea that Catholics are the canon assemblers . . .false pride .

Again some offer the idea that the born again prophet Abel is not the first mentioned martyr that make up the bride of Christ, the church.

The church began in the Genesis in the beginning. Beginning with the second born Abel to represent all born again

No apostolical anything. . . people, time place. Catholicism has simply changed the meaning of the word apostle and violates the warning not to add or subtract from the integrity of the author eternal God .No adding new meaning to one word (Deuteronomy 4:2

Blasphemy to teach we we receive the reward of thier labor dying mankind . Every man received their own reward . Jesus the Son of man did it with delight in doing the will of the F ather.

1 Corinthian 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

A easy way to remember. It is like my wife the prophet declaring a grocery list sending me her little apostle to fulfil the loving commandment. . . to both will. . go out in the wilderness to the store on a mission . . and to do. . bring all on the list no adding or subtracting.Her little old apostle gets a gold star on the calendar . the word apostle should of been translated in English . Messenger not highly venerable dying mankind.

 

[makesends]

Based on the Apostle Paul's declaration:

​

the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God for we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now​

(Romans 8:20-22).​

​

The first clause of "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20) can have word substitution applied for subtypes. Adam is a subtype for "the creation; therefore, "Adam was subjected to futility, not willingly" is a valid statement. Adam was not willingly subjected to futility, so Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus conveys the Apostle Paul.

No scripture states that Adam was imparted free will; therefore, it is blasphemy for a human being to say that Adam was imparted a free will.

You won't hear me saying that Adam was imparted free will, of the sort commonly called libertarian (uncaused) free will. Only God has that.

But your word substitutions produce a result the verse does not say. Further, your 'logical step' to go from "Adam was not willingly subjected to futility," to, "so Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a logical leap (i.e. not logical).

Then you claim it is blasphemy for a human being to say that Adam was imparted a free will, simply because the Bible does not say that? —Then to say that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree is blasphemy, by your own standard of measure, because the Bible does not say that either.

 

[Kermos]

Two possibilities. Two powerful spirits. Light and darkness.

The Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirit of God .Or the spirit of the antichrist. Satan who works in false prophets, false apostles

Satan snatched the gospel seed and made it all about the dying flesh of mankind.

A person is moved by whosoevers spirit is working in them. Like with our brother in the Lord Peter .he was moved by God to believe it was Christ not seen. Peter deceived by the will of Satan. Again two opposing spirits

Mathew 16: 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men

Rather than disassociate I think it connects the will of Him who is of one mind .He always does whatsoever His eternal soul desires . Who could turn him to repent?. He turns (repents) us working in us to both hear his will and empower us to do it to his good pleasure (Philipian 2:13 .He alone can make a hard heart soft

Its the daily bread or hidden manna our Father gives us. The food the apostles knew not of at first . The power that works in dying mankind to hear and do the will of eternal God.

Job 23:12-16 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

Mankind's was created with a will. . the power to hear do the will of the invisible Creator. Mankind failed to keep it. The letter of the law "death" came into view. sufferings began.

Yoked with Christ that daily sufferings body soul and mind is made lighter.

Apostolic (whatsoever) is a blasphemy, a teaching as a false dichotomy. It elevates puffs up dying mankind above sola scriptura .

The apostles are sent messengers. Christ alone not seen is the infalible teacher. They preach. He does all the teaching and bringing to our memory the previous things taught (John14)

Puffing up men simply robs God of his unsen glory. . . giving it over to dying mankind .

The called , venerable ones lord it over the faith or understanding of the non venerable. The Catholic foundational fingerprint "venerate those sent "and not what they are sent with the living abiding word. . gospel

1 Corinthians 4: 6-7 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure (parable) transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

That makes the idea that Catholics are the canon assemblers . . .false pride .

Again some offer the idea that the born again prophet Abel is not the first mentioned martyr that make up the bride of Christ, the church.

The church began in the Genesis in the beginning. Beginning with the second born Abel to represent all born again

No apostolical anything. . . people, time place. Catholicism has simply changed the meaning of the word apostle and violates the warning not to add or subtract from the integrity of the author eternal God .No adding new meaning to one word (Deuteronomy 4:2

Blasphemy to teach we we receive the reward of thier labor dying mankind . Every man received their own reward . Jesus the Son of man did it with delight in doing the will of the F ather.

1 Corinthian 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

A easy way to remember. It is like my wife the prophet declaring a grocery list sending me her little apostle to fulfil the loving commandment. . . to both will. . go out in the wilderness to the store on a mission . . and to do. . bring all on the list no adding or subtracting.Her little old apostle gets a gold star on the calendar . the word apostle should of been translated in English . Messenger not highly venerable dying mankind.

Nothing you preach presents one instance of Scripture that states Adam was created with a free-will.

You fail to quote the Word of God declaring that Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the reason that you fail is because the Word of God is not recorded as saying Adam chose.

In fact, the Apostle Paul clearly eliminated Adam's free-will choosing to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when Paul wrote:

the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God for we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now
(Romans 8:20-22).
​

The first clause of "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20) can have word substitution applied for subtypes. Adam is a subtype for "the creation; therefore, "Adam was subjected to futility, not willingly" is a valid statement. Adam was not willingly subjected to futility, so Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus conveys the Apostle Paul.

No scripture states that Adam was imparted free will.

 

[Kermos]

You won't hear me saying that Adam was imparted free will, of the sort commonly called libertarian (uncaused) free will. Only God has that.

Yet, you dispute Paul's writing in Romans 8:20-21.

But your word substitutions produce a result the verse does not say. Further, your 'logical step' to go from "Adam was not willingly subjected to futility," to, "so Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is a logical leap (i.e. not logical).

You obliterate grammar, subvert semantics, and ellicit illogic because the following is Truth (John 14:6).

Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope" (Romans 8:20).
See, the conjunction "but" splits the Romans 8:20 complex sentence into two clauses.

The first clause is the independent clause capable of standing alone as a sentence, such that "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly",

Paul's use of Greek grammar specifically associates the Greek inflective noun "creation" with the Greek inflective word "willingly"! Both "willingly" (Strong's 1635 - ἑκοῦσα - willingly) and "creation" (Strong's 2937 - κτίσις - creation) are Nominative/Feminine/Singular, so herein lies the absolute binding of "willingly" with "creation", not God bound to "not willingly" as per actual free-willian's word of "God did not will it" regarding Romans 8:20, but in Truth (John 14:6) "the creation" is concretely adhered to "not willingly" by Paul's language.

The result is that we find that Paul modifies the verb phrase "was subjected" with the adverbial phrase "not willingly", so the full verb phrase is "was not willingly subjected".

The sentence subject of "the creation" performed the action (verb) of the sentence "was not willingly subjected" then comes the sentence prepositional phrase containing the direct object "to futility" associated with the sentence subject object.

We know the sentence subject of "the creation" (Romans 8:20) refers to man, including Adam, because in the next verse "that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:21).

So, "the creation" in Romans 8:20 refers to the same "the creation" in Romans 8:21; therefore, since man exclusively becomes the "children of God" (Romans 8:21) (beasts and birds do not become children of God), then "the creation" in Romans 8:20 includes Adam and his wife.

Now, it is permissible to perform word substitution with Paul's writing in Romans 8:20, such that:

• "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).
• "Adam was not willingly subjected to futility" (accurate English translation of Romans 8:20).

If Adam chose "out of his own free will" (actual free-willian's word) to eat of the tree forbidden as food, then the result is "Adam was willingly subjected to futility" which contradicts Paul's writing.

The Apostle Paul eliminates Adam's will in relation to Adam eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; therefore, Adam did not use a purported free-will to eat of that tree.

Adam is not a proof of man having a free-will to choose toward God, after all, Adam, the man of flesh, disobeyed God by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - that disobedience of Adam was Adam moving away from God.

Then you claim it is blasphemy for a human being to say that Adam was imparted a free will, simply because the Bible does not say that? —Then to say that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree is blasphemy, by your own standard of measure, because the Bible does not say that either.

To say that Adam was imparted free-will has no basis in Scripture.

To say that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is founded in Scripture, specifically Romans 8:20-21.

 

[Mr GLee]

Nothing you preach presents one instance of Scripture that states Adam was created with a free-will.

He was created with a free will a will that desired the will of God .He gave that over to that which has form the most beautiful creature in garden Cut off its legs

 

[Mr GLee]

To say that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is founded in Scripture, specifically Romans 8:20-21.

Yes he did the will of the serpent and not the free will he was created with . He chose a will in bondage to sin not a freed will.

 

[Kermos]

He was created with a free will a will that desired the will of God .He gave that over to that which has form the most beautiful creature in garden Cut off its legs

Yes he did the will of the serpent and not the free will he was created with . He chose a will in bondage to sin not a freed will.

Again, nothing you preach presents one iota of Scripture stating Adam was imparted free-will choosing ability; furthermore, the word choose does not occur in Genesis chapters 1 through 5, so you have added to scripture!

You wrote "he did the will of the serpent" which is quite a divergence from the Word of God as shown below.

The Word of God pronounced something very interesting to Adam, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife" (Genesis 3:17) as evidentiary motivation of Adam for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
In advance of this pronouncement, we find Adam "with her" (Genesis 3:6), Adam's wife, when she uttered her only recorded words in the Bible prior to eating of the tree forbidden as food. She added "or touch it" (Genesis 3:3) to the Word of God "Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die" (Genesis 2:16-17, YLT).

So, Adam listened to hia wife's saying to the serpent "God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:3).

And, Adam was right there when she touched the tree, yet he did not see her die right there on the spot (Genesis 3:6).

Additionally, Adam was right there after she touched the tree when she proceeded to eat of the tree, yet he did not see her die, drop dead, there on the spot (Genesis 3:6).

Adam was with the Woman when she said "you will die" (Genesis 3:3) at the time that she subtracted "in the day" (Genesis 2:16-17) from the Word of God.

Instead of reciting the Word of God, the Woman adulterated the Word of God such that her word (recorded in Genesis 3:2-3) appeared to fail to come to pass with Adam witnessing her disobedience of God's command, then, after witnessing her action of eating, it is written of Adam "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

In the creation account, God reveals that Eve's adulteration resulted in deadly consequences, yet her word appears to be innocuous to so very many people.

In a manner similar to Adam's wife, Free-will Philosophers adulterate the Word of God, even in the creation account - in the image and likeness of Eve.

For example, free-willians convey that Adam "chose" to listen to his wife, so, in effect, they preach "Because you chose to listen to the voice of your wife", despite the Truth (John 14:6) that the Hebrew word בָּחר (Strong's 977 - bachar - choose and it's conjugates) is absent from the entirety of the creation account throughout Genesis chapters 1-5.

No free-will, no "choose" in Genesis 2:16-17.

No free-will "choose" in Genesis 3:3.

No free-will in Genesis 3:6.

No "chose" in Genesis 3:17.

No Scripture states man was imparted free-will.

The consequence for free-willians adding "choose" to the Word of God are the same as Adam with Eve.