Adam and Free-will, an Adjacent Thread

[Kermos]

Hello @Mr GLee,

I am saddened by this divergence from your former posts that I enjoyed. I am specifically referring to your post quoted in full here:

Not willing is a choice to disobey.

What kind of will did Adam have that made him choose to obey the voice as a stranger a creature seen and not that of the voice of the unseen God?. Did he even have a will . Did he hunger?. . Who told him to eat or multiply or ladies first. The spirit of anarchy? the spirit of confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints

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.

Bearing in mind this crucial fact while we examine your writing, all of these statements are valid:

• A choice to disobey is a willing to disobey.
• A choice to not obey is a choice to disobey (an equivalent of "A choice to disobey is a choice to disobey", essentially, the first bullet item).
• A choice to disobey willingly.
• Willingly is a choice to disobey.
• Not willingly is not a choice to disobey.
• Willing is a choice to disobey.
• Not willing is not a choice to disobey.

Behold that your:

​

Not willing is a choice to disobey​

​

is 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'"?

The type of will that Adam had is irrelevant because the Apostle Paul dismissed Adam's type of will with regard to Adam's action of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

​

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).​

​

See that Adam acted per this Scripture "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6), no mention of "choose" per your quoted thoughts resulting in "and he did choose to eat", but strictly action is recorded for Adam.

Your belief that Adam's will "made him choose to obey the voice" results in "Because you did choose to listen to the voice of your wife, and did choose to eat from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’"; in contrast, the pure Word of God pronounces "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’" (Genesis 3:17) with absolutely no reference to your "choose" by Adam's will.

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" before your thoughts existed by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Mr GLee]

Behold that your:

Not willing is a choice to disobey
is a woefully invalid statement which disassociates the "will" from the "choice" as demonstrated by the crucial fact:

Willing is a choice to disobey.

Willing to chose to disobey rather than obey . In that way God is watching to see if his word is performed. What He prophesied comes to pass

 

[Kermos]

Willing to chose to disobey rather than obey . In that way God is watching to see if his word is performed. What He prophesied comes to pass

Except that the Apostle Paul eliminated any role of Adam's will with regard to Adam eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because 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).
​

See that Adam acted per this Scripture "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6), no mention of "choose" per your quoted thoughts resulting in "and he did choose to eat", but strictly action is recorded for Adam. That is not free-will choosing to disobey recorded in the Word of God. That is acting in disobedience in the Word of God.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Except that the Apostle Paul eliminated any role of Adam's will with regard to Adam eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because 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).​

​

See that Adam acted per this Scripture "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6), no mention of "choose" per your quoted thoughts resulting in "and he did choose to eat", but strictly action is recorded for Adam. That is not free-will choosing to disobey recorded in the Word of God. That is acting in disobedience in the Word of God.

How did you find this website?

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Except that the Apostle Paul eliminated any role of Adam's will with regard to Adam eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because 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).​

​

See that Adam acted per this Scripture "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6), no mention of "choose" per your quoted thoughts resulting in "and he did choose to eat", but strictly action is recorded for Adam. That is not free-will choosing to disobey recorded in the Word of God. That is acting in disobedience in the Word of God.

Romans 8:20-22 does not say that Adam didn't have free will. It says, without your overlaid first sentence, that the creation was subjected to futility (that is, the mistake Adam made out of his own free will was a product of futility), not willingly (that is, God did not will it to occur because His original plan didn't involve it), but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption (that is, God reversed the bad effects of Adam's free will to sin by offering salvation to every person who would willingly take it, and if they refuse and resist it, they will enter into a "hell" of their own making that is based on their works and thoughts or cause and effect or sowing and reaping, deeds, and God is perfectly just).

 

[Kermos]

How did you find this website?

@Carbon, but does that really matter?

 

[Kermos]

Romans 8:20-22 does not say that Adam didn't have free will. It says, without your overlaid first sentence, that the creation was subjected to futility (that is, the mistake Adam made out of his own free will was a product of futility), not willingly (that is, God did not will it to occur because His original plan didn't involve it), but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption (that is, God reversed the bad effects of Adam's free will to sin by offering salvation to every person who would willingly take it, and if they refuse and resist it, they will enter into a "hell" of their own making that is based on their works and thoughts or cause and effect or sowing and reaping, deeds, and God is perfectly just).

Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope" (Romans 8:20).

Do you 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",

Did you know that Paul's use of Greek grammar specifically associates the Greek inflective noun "willingly" with the Greek inflective noun "creation"? Both "willingly" and "creation" are Nominative/Feminine/Singular, so herein lies the absolute tie of "creation" to "willingly", not God to "willingly" as per your "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".

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" (English translation of Romans 8:20).

If Adam chose "out of his own free will" to eat of the tree forbidden as food, then the result is "Adam was willingly subjected to futility" which is not 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.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope" (Romans 8:20).

Do you 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",

Did you know that Paul's use of Greek grammar specifically associates the Greek inflective noun "willingly" with the Greek inflective noun "creation"? Both "willingly" and "creation" are Nominative/Feminine/Singular, so herein lies the absolute tie of "creation" to "willingly", not God to "willingly" as per your "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".

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" (English translation of Romans 8:20).

If Adam chose "out of his own free will" to eat of the tree forbidden as food, then the result is "Adam was willingly subjected to futility" which is not 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.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

HO HO. No, I don't see any of the things you asked. Nor is is apparent that Adam had no choice. But thanks anyway!

 

[Kermos]

HO HO. No, I don't see any of the things you asked. Nor is is apparent that Adam had no choice. But thanks anyway!

I see, so your "I don't see any of the things you asked" conveys that you do not see the word "[b[but[/b]" in this Holy Scripture "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope" (Romans 8:20).

Regardless of your Scripture absent assertion about a purported Adam's free-will ability to choose, God reveals through Paul (Romans 8:20-22) that Adam's will did not cause Adam's action of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:17).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

 

[makesends]

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'"?

Yes, this was not addressed to me, but my goodness! Are you serious in calling your knowledge "God-given"? Even if I agreed with your conclusions, your claim to the source (and thereby, the implied veracity and unassailability) of your conclusion is enough to make me look for a different conclusion? Are you a prophet? What gives, here, man?

I can only hope it was tongue-in-cheek or something as though your opponent had mentioned something of that nature.

 

[Kermos]

Yes, this was not addressed to me, but my goodness! Are you serious in calling your knowledge "God-given"? Even if I agreed with your conclusions, your claim to the source (and thereby, the implied veracity and unassailability) of your conclusion is enough to make me look for a different conclusion? Are you a prophet? What gives, here, man?

I can only hope it was tongue-in-cheek or something as though your opponent had mentioned something of that nature.

Paul is God's apostle, and Paul wrote "until now" (Romans 8:20-22) with an absolute cumulative effect that Paul includes Adam "not willingly" subjecting the creation to futility when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6).

Your modus operandi is to reformer-like ridicule me the messenger instead of addressing the message; nonetheless, your dispute is against Paul, the Apostle of God!

 

[makesends]

Paul is God's apostle, and Paul wrote "until now" (Romans 8:20-22) with an absolute cumulative effect that Paul includes Adam "not willingly" subjecting the creation to futility when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6).

Your modus operandi is to reformer-like ridicule me the messenger instead of addressing the message; nonetheless, your dispute is against Paul, the Apostle of God!

Amazing. I didn't know God gave you perfect understanding of everything God had Paul write. My bad. None of the rest of us have it.

Really? Ok, the message: Already you get one thing wrong —"not willingly" is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness, but is only a reference to the fact that creation was subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin, and not as a result of the will of creatures.

Don't blame God for your mistakes.

 

[Kermos]

Amazing. I didn't know God gave you perfect understanding of everything God had Paul write. My bad. None of the rest of us have it.

Really? Ok, the message: Already you get one thing wrong —"not willingly" is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness, but is only a reference to the fact that creation was subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin, and not as a result of the will of creatures.

Don't blame God for your mistakes.

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.

Your statement of "'not willingly' is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness, but is only a reference to the fact that creation was subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin, and not as a result of the will of creatures" is in error because the Apostle Paul specifically attached Adam's will to the fact that creation was not willingly subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin.

 

[makesends]

Duplication

 

[makesends]

Kermos said:
"Paul is God's apostle, and Paul wrote "until now" (Romans 8:20-22) with an absolute cumulative effect that Paul includes Adam "not willingly" subjecting the creation to futility when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6).

Your modus operandi is to reformer-like ridicule me the messenger instead of addressing the message; nonetheless, your dispute is against Paul, the Apostle of God!"

makesends said:
"Amazing. I didn't know God gave you perfect understanding of everything God had Paul write. My bad. None of the rest of us have it.

Really? Ok, the message: Already you get one thing wrong —"not willingly" is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness, but is only a reference to the fact that creation was subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin, and not as a result of the will of creatures.

Don't blame God for your mistakes."

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.

Your statement of "'not willingly' is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness, but is only a reference to the fact that creation was subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin, and not as a result of the will of creatures" is in error because the Apostle Paul specifically attached Adam's will to the fact that creation was not willingly subjected to futility as a result of Adam's sin.

You went to a fair bit of trouble to provide rigorous-sounding background for your slight-of-hand use of the passage. You could much more easily, and just as logically, said that Adam is part of Creation, and therefore it IS attached to Adam's not being willing.

The first one: "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"." Here you try to introduce a small sloughing of meaning by rearranging what had been an obvious emphasis of the fact that it was not done by creation's willing it to be so. You then proceed to use THAT rearrangement in your progression of reasoning, since it is more conducive to accepting your subsequent sloughings, though you do pay lip service to the text, that it is creation that had been subjected to futility, and not by its own willing it to be so.

The second: "The first clause is the independent clause capable of standing alone as a sentence..." The fact that it is grammatically capable of standing alone as a sentence is no indication that it is meant to. So there's no warrant to proceed with your reasoning on that basis. At this point, you should be operating within a hypothetical, and not predicating actual meaning and logical extractions.

The third: "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)." Now, you somehow introduce the logic that since Adam is part of creation, that this refers to Adam, though, granted, at this point it is "Adam, too". Now, not that it is necessarily directly relevant to this little disagreement between us, but all truth impacts all truth: You make it sound like "the creation" is only man, to include Adam, when that is only an assumption. We don't know that, and there is a LOT we don't know. It is poor reasoning to show 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" logically implies that man is now the subject and not "creation itself". There is plenty of reason to think that all creation has been rendered subject to corruption.

(Your continuing extractions from there are mostly just the predictable results of your distortions and not the distortions themselves —eg, that the fact that birds and beasts do not become the children of God, then 'creation' can only mean humanity, to include Adam and Eve.)

The fourth: "Now, it is permissible to perform word substitution with Paul's writing in Romans 8:20" It IS? Who said so? If you do so you should at least admit to paraphrasing rather than to claim the fifth:

The fifth: "Adam was not willingly subjected to futility" (accurate English translation of Romans 8:20)." Here you claim outright that your rendering is an accurate translation and not a paraphrase. Not only that, but you compare it directly with what IS written, as though yours is more accurate. I can only say I am glad you don't represent Calvinism. Or did you get that from some version of the Bible that I have so far been unable to find? There is no mention of Adam in that verse —not in Greek nor in English.

—and it goes on...

Somehow, you then wander off-argument, that Adam is (or is not) who willed what is referred to by Romans 8:20, as though you have now proven that Adam had no free will. You have not done so. You've proven nothing by this argument. Whether Adam willed it or not is irrelevant to whether Adam had free will.

 

[Kermos]

You went to a fair bit of trouble to provide rigorous-sounding background for your slight-of-hand use of the passage. You could much more easily, and just as logically, said that Adam is part of Creation, and therefore it IS attached to Adam's not being willing.

The first one: "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"." Here you try to introduce a small sloughing of meaning by rearranging what had been an obvious emphasis of the fact that it was not done by creation's willing it to be so. You then proceed to use THAT rearrangement in your progression of reasoning, since it is more conducive to accepting your subsequent sloughings, though you do pay lip service to the text, that it is creation that had been subjected to futility, and not by its own willing it to be so.

The second: "The first clause is the independent clause capable of standing alone as a sentence..." The fact that it is grammatically capable of standing alone as a sentence is no indication that it is meant to. So there's no warrant to proceed with your reasoning on that basis. At this point, you should be operating within a hypothetical, and not predicating actual meaning and logical extractions.

The third: "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)." Now, you somehow introduce the logic that since Adam is part of creation, that this refers to Adam, though, granted, at this point it is "Adam, too". Now, not that it is necessarily directly relevant to this little disagreement between us, but all truth impacts all truth: You make it sound like "the creation" is only man, to include Adam, when that is only an assumption. We don't know that, and there is a LOT we don't know. It is poor reasoning to show 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" logically implies that man is now the subject and not "creation itself". There is plenty of reason to think that all creation has been rendered subject to corruption.

(Your continuing extractions from there are mostly just the predictable results of your distortions and not the distortions themselves —eg, that the fact that birds and beasts do not become the children of God, then 'creation' can only mean humanity, to include Adam and Eve.)

The fourth: "Now, it is permissible to perform word substitution with Paul's writing in Romans 8:20" It IS? Who said so? If you do so you should at least admit to paraphrasing rather than to claim the fifth:

The fifth: "Adam was not willingly subjected to futility" (accurate English translation of Romans 8:20)." Here you claim outright that your rendering is an accurate translation and not a paraphrase. Not only that, but you compare it directly with what IS written, as though yours is more accurate. I can only say I am glad you don't represent Calvinism. Or did you get that from some version of the Bible that I have so far been unable to find? There is no mention of Adam in that verse —not in Greek nor in English.

—and it goes on...

Somehow, you then wander off-argument, that Adam is (or is not) who willed what is referred to by Romans 8:20, as though you have now proven that Adam had no free will. You have not done so. You've proven nothing by this argument. Whether Adam willed it or not is irrelevant to whether Adam had free will.

You wrote "You could much more easily, and just as logically, said that Adam is part of Creation, and therefore it IS attached to Adam's not being willing" in your post, above, regarding Romans 8:20-22.

Your quotation exposed your reversal from your earlier writing "'not willingly' is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness" (recorded in post #13 of this thread) regarding Romans 8:20-22.

Lord Jesus caused me to proclaim legal grammar and proper semantics which reveals His Truth (John 14:6) regarding Romans 8:20-22.

Here is more Truth (John 14:6):

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.
​

 

[makesends]

You wrote "You could much more easily, and just as logically, said that Adam is part of Creation, and therefore it IS attached to Adam's not being willing" in your post, above, regarding Romans 8:20-22.

Your quotation exposed your reversal from your earlier writing "'not willingly' is not attached to Adam's willingness or unwillingness" (recorded in post #13 of this thread) regarding Romans 8:20-22.

I wrote the first that you appear to be quoting me as claiming, to show what your claim is, that you went to a lot of trouble to make sound intellectually rigorous. And I wrote it on purpose that way, to simplify what you were claiming, so that I could demonstrate it to be bogus. Of course it goes against what I have said earlier —it is what YOU are trying to claim.

Lord Jesus caused me to proclaim legal grammar and proper semantics which reveals His Truth (John 14:6) regarding Romans 8:20-22.

Are you claiming plenary verbal inspiration for YOUR words????

Here is more Truth (John 14:6):

​

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.​

​

You may be right. I'm not saying you are wrong in your conclusion. But man! you are skating real close to the edge blasphemy to claim it as truth, and to attach what IS the truth (John 14:6) to it!

 

[Kermos]

I wrote the first that you appear to be quoting me as claiming, to show what your claim is, that you went to a lot of trouble to make sound intellectually rigorous. And I wrote it on purpose that way, to simplify what you were claiming, so that I could demonstrate it to be bogus. Of course it goes against what I have said earlier —it is what YOU are trying to claim.

Are you claiming plenary verbal inspiration for YOUR words????

You may be right. I'm not saying you are wrong in your conclusion. But man! you are skating real close to the edge blasphemy to claim it as truth, and to attach what IS the truth (John 14:6) to it!

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.

 

[Arial]

Your belief that Adam's will "made him choose to obey the voice" results in "Because you did choose to listen to the voice of your wife, and did choose to eat from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’"; in contrast, the pure Word of God pronounces "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’" (Genesis 3:17) with absolutely no reference to your "choose" by Adam's will.

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" before your thoughts existed by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

Adam before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had a choice. There were two trees planted in the garden. One gave life, the other brought death. The first was available as long as the second was not eaten of. Once that happened, access to the tree of life was forbidden and death entered, not just to mankind but to everything in creation. Look around. You will see that.

What Paul writes in Rom 8:20 is post fall and has nothing to do with pre fall. The futility God subjected the creation to was not because of anything creation had done, or because of any fault in creation, but was a direct result of God's subjecting it to futility because of what Adam had done. Using those scriptures in Rom 8 the way you do, and as a proof text for whatever it is you are trying to prove, is bad theology, bad exegesis, bad doctrinal base, and invalid.

If you are trying to say that man has no free will and never did, that is not the way to do it. Adam obviously had a choice set before him that he could make and did. God could have never planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But He did, and He had a purpose in it, one which we can only speculate about as He does not tell us what was in His mind when He did so. As a result of that, all are born as Adam became---a sinful creature who sins. That is what put us in bondage to sin. Sin is unavoidable to us and puts us at enmity with God. We sin because we want to and as long as we want to we will not fully submit to God and never truly seek Him. It makes us unwilling, therefore unable to choose Christ.

 

[Kermos]

Adam before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had a choice. There were two trees planted in the garden. One gave life, the other brought death. The first was available as long as the second was not eaten of. Once that happened, access to the tree of life was forbidden and death entered, not just to mankind but to everything in creation. Look around. You will see that.

What Paul writes in Rom 8:20 is post fall and has nothing to do with pre fall. The futility God subjected the creation to was not because of anything creation had done, or because of any fault in creation, but was a direct result of God's subjecting it to futility because of what Adam had done. Using those scriptures in Rom 8 the way you do, and as a proof text for whatever it is you are trying to prove, is bad theology, bad exegesis, bad doctrinal base, and invalid.

If you are trying to say that man has no free will and never did, that is not the way to do it. Adam obviously had a choice set before him that he could make and did. God could have never planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But He did, and He had a purpose in it, one which we can only speculate about as He does not tell us what was in His mind when He did so. As a result of that, all are born as Adam became---a sinful creature who sins. That is what put us in bondage to sin. Sin is unavoidable to us and puts us at enmity with God. We sin because we want to and as long as we want to we will not fully submit to God and never truly seek Him. It makes us unwilling, therefore unable to choose Christ.

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.
Adam did not exercise willpower to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) for Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, NASB); therefore, Adam did not make a choice, not a willing choice, to eat.

A "choice" by Adam is explicitly excluded by using scripture with scripture referencing, in fact, "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, KJV), so Adam acted not willingly but rather acted subject to vanity in his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"Not willingly" indicates "not choice".

Some people may claim that Paul was referring to a timeframe exclusively after what they call "the fall" (after Adam ate of the tree [Genesis 3:6]), but the continuity of the passage of Romans 8:20-22 must be taken as a whole.

Paul left no room for disputing to the timeframe for which "not willingly" applies, for Paul also wrote "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22), and the phrase "until now" is the timeframe's most recent limiting factor which means that all times prior to "now" are included, so "the whole creation" includes the moment after God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) until Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6); therefore, we can be certain that Paul includes the timeframe that Adam ate of the tree in the travailing/groaning because Paul wrote of all of this in the same passage, i.e. Romans 8:20-22.