Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[Josh II]

Being alive or not, yes. But not necessarily dependent on God for how we live.

No one can decide how they live if they are not alive. That is one of the conditions that shows we are not autonomous. Furthermore, none of us have any idea how the circumstances and influence of any given moment came to their existence and we have very little knowledge concerning all of our options and even less knowledge of all the effects of any one option we might ever choose and that ignorance is compounded when it comes to considering all the possible effects on all others we may or may not even know exist.

There are a huge plethora of conditions influencing, controlling, and confining the human will, but that does not mean we lack the liberty and ability to make choices within those confines.

All are dependent on God for how long we live on earth, but only those trusting in Him are dependent on Him to live well as Jesus.

Think that through.

You are implying the saved person is MORE dependent and less free than the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer who has only his or her finite flesh with which to make choices...... and that the sinless person - the one who has never ever sinned - is also more dependent than the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer who has only his flesh with which to make choices.

Physically yes. Spiritually no.

The two are not mutually exclusive conditions.

That's what being separated from God by our iniquities is all about.

No, it is not.

Ok, sorry. I did not read down far enough.

Next time please do better.

 

[Josh II]

.

You wouldn't suggest free will choosing and actions can never be indepenet of God and His will.

But only dependent on the longsuffering mercy of God and will to repent and be saved, before the grave.


True. And with all such ops, the goal is not the truth of the Bible, but justifying oneself in the choice of life they live.

It's just the old classic childishness: "It's not my fault God made me this way."


Now this is unique, and I like it very much. I wondered what wall of text means, and you seem to say that people come up with their own doctrinal wall of words, that they hide behind and shield themselves with. And then within their own little walled-off doctrinal world, they write a whole bunch of stuff corrupting the Bible to justify it??

That's a great way of putting it. Thanks much. I'll remember it. An addendum to that policy, is how division is made in the churches of God. Once church gets some special little doctrine and/or rule for themselves, that separates them from the common body of Christ. Some are benign enough, while others become cults that condemn all others not believing and obeying their own little cult doctrine and rule.

Zealot holiness Pentecostals come to mind. Sabbath commanders too.

Adam.

Adam before Genesis 3:6-7.


This op is specifically and explicitly about Adam "from the beginning of creation," NOT Adam after Genesis 3:6 and NOT about Lucifer, and NOT about anyone else but Adam.

Ok, sorry. I did not read down far enough.

It does not appear the op was read, either. Please do better before "interjecting."

 

[Ghada]

YET a command does not convey ability

Nonsensical. A command made by a just leader is made only to them he knows are able to obey it or not.

None of God's commandments are even given to anyone that cannot keep them.

BUT the language contains a prophetic construct indicating assurance of occurrence - "when in the day that you eat" - the "when" is promissory
NOT a conditional logic construct such as "if in the day that you eat"

And so we see how personal prophecy and doctrine is inserted into the Bible, in order to preach what someone personally wants to hear, not what God commands to hear.

'When' is not there, except by personal interpretation. In like manner, 'If' can be just as easily inserted.

And we have in the Bible the fact of if, not when:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

The commandment is to sin not, and the doctrine is if we sin. And so we only see an accusation of false prophesy against God, in order to preach the false doctrine of 'when' men sin, not 'if'.

Simple.

 

[Ghada]

1. God issued prophecy about man eating the fruit (Genesis 2:17)

God only speaks of in such a day, without prophesying when or if that day should come. God is teaching doctrine, not making prophecy.

God's teaches the doctrine of relationship with Himself: Only if and when we are obeying God to do His will, are we alive with God. And only if and when we are not obeying God to not do His will, are we dead without God.

The devil quotes is with the air of prophecy, so as to entice the hearers to believe it is 'inevitable'. But first of course he ensures the hearer he surly shall not die, when he certainly does disobey God.

The devil turns doctrine into prophecy for the sole purpose of making the doctrine against disobeying God, into a prophecy of God to disobey Him.

Such is the mystery of iniquity learned from the subtlety of the serpent:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

And what's the great light of changing doctrine to prophecy? The same old tired lie of the serpent, that ye shall not surely die by works of unrighteousness.

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!

Afterall, every apostle preaching this lie, believes in the next lie of Satan in the Bible, that sons of God shall surely be upheld with salvation, even while doing unrighteous works of the flesh.

Right? Am I right? Anyone not believing in free will of man to choose to do good or evil, every preach all men die to God while doing evil??

This is nothing but prophecy for the non-responsible children of disobedience: "It's not my fault God made me this way..."

 

[Josh II]

Nonsensical. A command made by a just leader is made only to them he knows are able to obey it or not.

I think this op is egregiously misguided and incorrect BUT on this matter I side with @Kermos. Sometimes God commands knowing a person cannot and will not obey and He does so to highlight that fact. Doing so makes the individual aware of his need and, by extension, communicates the same to those in future generations reading the account of the one commanded to make known is sin, to make known his inability.

Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet."

The Law served many purposes. One of its many purposes was to make sin known. It made a behavior that had been committed known to be a sinful behavior and after committed it made known the sinfulness f the sinful behavior.

The problem with this op is that something sinful is assumed: bondage. That word is not used but that is what we would otherwise normally call what is described in this op. It flies in direct conflict with the statements Adam was good, unashamed, and sinless. There's a huge difference between God commanding Adam not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden and God telling Cain not to murder his brother. Adam was good and sinless. Cain was neither. This op would have us conflate the two all because Adam was part of God's plan for redemption.

 

[Ghada]

That is incorrect.

God is the Creator of all that was made. We are the creature, we are that which was made. God is almighty; we are not. God created time and space and is therefore not limited by either but we humans live solely within time and space and cannot do anything to escape those limitations. Furthermore, the only reason we draw breath sufficient to write and read these posts is solely because God permits it. The moment God decides to remove that grace you'll find out exactly how dependent and how not autonomous you are. There are many, many limitations on human volition and that is all the more so on the sin-enslaved human volition.

We are NOT as autonomous as God.

Whatever. I mistook you for someone else. You appeared to be one of the rare birds that actually take time to know the specifics of a point someone is making, before responding to it accurately. You're just another one reshaping the argument into something else in order to condemn it.

No, I'll not repeat the details of difference I make between spiritual relationship of the creature and physical dominion of the Creator.

I would say your blindness to the point is your carnal mindedness. Like all natural man, you apparently only the see than natural relationship of the Creator and the creature.

In any case, whether to deaf ears or not, teaching these things accurately is good practice for me.

 

[Ghada]

Lucifer is irrelevant. This op is about Adam, not anyone else.

So, that old serpent the devil had nothing to do with Adam's transgression, nor man's transgressions today?

My opinion about your natural mindedness is more spot on than I thought.

 

[Josh II]

The attribute of man being created in the image according to the likeness of God WITH a targeted result of logical deductive reasoning leveraging compare and contrast of attributes/facilities SINCE Adam was made in the image according to the likeness of God...........

Meaningless word salad.

 

[Josh II]

So, that old serpent the devil had nothing to do with Adam's transgression, nor man's transgressions today?

The op is not about Adam's transgression, or those occurring today. This op is about whether or not Adam was imparted with free will. This op denies he was.

My opinion about your natural mindedness is more spot on than I thought.

That too is irrelevant. I am not the topic of discussion.




Is it the natural man or the spiritual man who repents when he errs?

Ok, sorry. I did not read down far enough.....

Whatever. I mistook you for someone else.

My opinion about your natural mindedness is more spot on than I thought.

Do you have anything to contribute specifically about this op's belief Adam was not created with free will or not?

 

[Ghada]

No one can decide how they live if they are not alive.

Deep.

That is one of the conditions that shows we are not autonomous. Furthermore, none of us have any idea how the circumstances and influence of any given moment came to their existence and we have very little knowledge concerning all of our options and even less knowledge of all the effects of any one option we might ever choose and that ignorance is compounded when it comes to considering all the possible effects on all others we may or may not even know exist.

Ah, now the social-environmental doctrine of natural man too.

It's not their fault society made them that way.

There are a huge plethora of conditions influencing, controlling, and confining the human will, but that does not mean we lack the liberty and ability to make choices within those confines.

Pagan naturalism: The environment decides the boundaries of man's will.

That's why some men were made to be natural rulers, and others were naturally made to be slaves. At least in Rome, they didn't do it based on race as in the old south.

 

[Arial]

That is incorrect.

God is the Creator of all that was made. We are the creature, we are that which was made. God is almighty; we are not. God created time and space and is therefore not limited by either but we humans live solely within time and space and cannot do anything to escape those limitations. Furthermore, the only reason we draw breath sufficient to write and read these posts is solely because God permits it. The moment God decides to remove that grace you'll find out exactly how dependent and how not autonomous you are. There are many, many limitations on human volition and that is all the more so on the sin-enslaved human volition.

We are NOT as autonomous as God.

In addition, we have no idea, none, how often God lays a restraining hand on us or others and our wills. Or how He does it.

I remember sitting at a traffic light one day at rush hour, where two extremely busy four lane (each direction) intersected traffic light and turn lane controlled, and speed limits of 45-50mph. It was like watching the comings and goings of a red ant hill. I thought, humans only navigate that mess because God is watching over us.

 

[Ghada]

You are implying the saved person is MORE dependent and less free than the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer who has only his or her finite flesh with which to make choices......

Let's unravel this a bit with the Bible.

You are implying the saved person is MORE dependent and less free

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

There is no 'less free' in Christ Jesus. (Nor less fat milk of the word.)

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

There is no freedom at all in Christ to sin with the world. The repented saints in Christ have rejected that liberty, that we used to walk in the flesh with.

than the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer who has only his or her finite flesh with which to make choices......

If the guilty were truly enslaved without will to repent of the sinning, then God would never be so foolish as to command all men everywhere to repent of the sinning.

and that the sinless person - the one who has never ever sinned - is also more dependent

True. Jesus was most dependent on the will of the Father than any man that ever sinned.

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Depending on God's power to sin not, is not depending on the Creator to keep the body alive on earth.

than the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer who has only his flesh with which to make choices.

Natural mindedness on steroids. This not only rejects man's soul being made in the image of God, with spiritual power to rule the flesh, but it also appears to make the soul only natural flesh and blood.

The JWs teach the soul is the body, solely to reject everlasting punishment from God.

No, it is not.

Nah-ah to you too.

Next time please do better.

You mean agree with you? Not possible.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

You could please do better, by at least first understanding exactly what I am saying, before disagreeing with something else in your own mind.

I accept any and all accurate corrections of what I teach. I have no patience for people correcting something they make u

 

[Ghada]

.




This op is specifically and explicitly about Adam "from the beginning of creation," NOT Adam after Genesis 3:6 and NOT about Lucifer, and NOT about anyone else but Adam.

My mistake, I thought we were teaching the Adam of the Bible. That's not possible without talking about God and Lucifer.

it's not possible to talk about any man on earth in the Bible, independent of God and the devil.

Only natural man talks about man apart from God and the devil.

 

[Kermos]

Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?​

Unfortunately, the thread does not define "free will" so the thread will go off on all sorts of tangents.

"Free Will" is that which can do and does, in relation to God and others, whatever it pleases, uninhibited by any law or any authority.

It is logically impossible for a creature (created being) to "program" his own will. Thus, the “will” is never a cause; it is the effect as all created things are the effect of the Almighty First Cause. So Adam's propensity to do "X" or "Y" was programmed so to speak by his Creator as a computer runs per the specifications of a programmer.

Again, "Free Will" is logically impossible; it is a circular answer. If there is not a determining cause for the thought process, making a choice would be impossible. To be self-determined, one must be eternal and therefore uncaused; otherwise, the determinative cause cannot be self-determined, without influence of past experience, state of mind or knowledge. Freewill contradicts this; it says you can reach up into the eternal realm and grab self-determination (uninfluenced); but this is not possible. (human author unknown)

back to chewing my

Hello fastfredy0,

You wrote "the thread does not define 'free will'", but a working definition of freewill can be found in item 2.1.3. of the original post:

I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.
​

You wrote some fascinating things after that, but not quite on topic for this current thread, so it seems prudent to start this new thread "The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of 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.

 

[Kermos]

You have not established what you mean by free will.
Your thesis assumes, and does not demonstrate, that free will and the intent of God are mutually exclusive.

We meet again, makesends.

You wrote "You have not established what you mean by free will", but a working definition of freewill can be found in item 2.1.3. of the original post:

Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.
​

You continued with "Your thesis assumes, and does not demonstrate, that free will and the intent of God are mutually exclusive", yet the question is very specifically "Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation", so the point is that Adam was not created with a free will according to the scriptures.

That continuation of yours is related to this new thread "The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of 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.

 

[makesends]

We meet again, makesends.

You wrote "You have not established what you mean by free will", but a working definition of freewill can be found in item 2.1.3. of the original post:

​

Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.​

Maybe I, and not only you, should have been more precise. I meant that encompasses an awful lot of things; it is too general for use in debate. I need to know if you mean by free will that man is able to choose, uncaused to do so, entirely autonomous, spontaneous.

You continued with "Your thesis assumes, and does not demonstrate, that free will and the intent of God are mutually exclusive", yet the question is very specifically "Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation", so the point is that Adam was not created with a free will according to the scriptures.

That continuation of yours is related to this new thread "The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of 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.

 

[fastfredy0]

I need to know if you mean by free will that man is able to choose, uncaused to do so, entirely autonomous, spontaneous.

B.I.N.G.O.

Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

Ambiguous definition. How do you define the adjective "FREE" in the term FREE WILL. All sides say one chooses God or not but what is the cause of one choosing which relates to the "FREE" part of FREE WILL.
You can't create your own will. God is the only creator. Your will is His creation.

 

[Josheb]

Let's unravel this a bit with the Bible.



And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

There is no 'less free' in Christ Jesus. (Nor less fat milk of the word.)

While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

There is no freedom at all in Christ to sin with the world. The repented saints in Christ have rejected that liberty, that we used to walk in the flesh with.


If the guilty were truly enslaved without will to repent of the sinning, then God would never be so foolish as to command all men everywhere to repent of the sinning.



True. Jesus was most dependent on the will of the Father than any man that ever sinned.

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

Depending on God's power to sin not, is not depending on the Creator to keep the body alive on earth.


Natural mindedness on steroids. This not only rejects man's soul being made in the image of God, with spiritual power to rule the flesh, but it also appears to make the soul only natural flesh and blood.

The JWs teach the soul is the body, solely to reject everlasting punishment from God.



Nah-ah to you too.


You mean agree with you? Not possible.

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

You could please do better, by at least first understanding exactly what I am saying, before disagreeing with something else in your own mind.

I accept any and all accurate corrections of what I teach. I have no patience for people correcting something they make u

Simple yeses and noes will do. We do not need to examine scripture every time we agree. It wastes time and it wastes space in the post(s). Let your "yes" be yes, and your "no," be no.

We agree: those in Christ are freer than anyone and everyone else. Therefore, Post 18 should be corrected and clarified accordingly, and future posts more accurately reflect whole scripture. Yes, we agree, Jesus was dependent on the Father more than any other ever BUT that warrants clarification because prior to the incarnation he was not thusly dependent, and it is more accurate to use the word "rely" than dependent because it is not possible for God to exist apart from His word and power.

If the guilty were truly enslaved without will to repent of the sinning, then God would never be so foolish as to command all men everywhere to repent of the sinning.

I disagree and I notice there is no scripture used to justify that appeal to intellect. The argument posted boils down to God would never command without the possibility of obedience. Not only does that bind God to the sinner's ability, it also asserts an appeal to ridicule, a false cause, a false dichotomy, and perhaps worst of all a false equivalence. God can command whatever He likes whenever He likes regardless of anyone's ability. The ridicule occurs labeling God as foolish dependent upon a reductionist view of His ability, His ability to command. Humanity is the limited one, not God. Human compliance or lack thereof does not make God anything. It does not make Him wise or foolish. The notion that an expectation of obedience is a false cause because the expectation does not cause the command. The false dichotomy exists because there may be many reasons for God to command. The New Testament tells us the Law of Moses (commands) were given, in part, to reveal sin. God commands to reveal sin (Rom. 7:7). The NT also tells us God's laws provide an account of sin (Rom. 5:13). God commands to provide an accounting for sin - whether or not obedience ensues or not. The false equivalence occurs because this op is about Adam, and prior to Genesis 3:6-7 Adam was not guilty of anything. By couching the argument in the "if" of "If the guilty...." an argument that does not apply to the pre-disobedient Adam has been asserted. The created Adam was good and sinless (Gen. 1:31; Rom. 5:12). That is the way he was created.

Therefore, the "If the guilty were truly enslaved...." argument fails AND it fails for multiple reasons.

You should take that response out of your repertoire, erase that line of thought, and not make those fallacy laden arguments again.

 

[Josheb]

Natural mindedness on steroids. This not only rejects man's soul being made in the image of God, with spiritual power to rule the flesh........

No, it is NOT "natural mindedness." It is the word of God.

Adam was created when God formed a pile of the dust of the earth into the shape of a man and then breathed His life-giving breath (NOT Spirit) into it and formed a living being (nephesh).

Genesis 2:7
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

There is no Spirit there. You may be working from the "tripartite" view of man (humans are body, soul, and spirit), the one popularized by Watchman Nee and others. Part of the problem with that rendering of the verse is that God's life-giving breath was also breathed into animals and animals are not made in the image of God.

Genesis 7:15
So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which there was the breath of life.

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host.

It should not be assumed Adam was the only one given the breath of life. Neither should the breath of life be conflated with the Spirit of God. The two are not identical. Man has a spirit, but it is not God's.

Zechariah 12:1
The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him...

God formed a spirit in Adam, but that Spirit is not identical with the Holy Spirit. When it comes to sinful man, he is in need of being born anew from above by the Holy Spirit. He does not understand the things of the Spirit, nor can he. He considers them foolish because they can be understood only by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14).

The human soul being made in God's image does not necessitate or cause him to have the "spiritual power to rule the flesh." That is a false cause argument and a position you have yet to prove. I will completely agree with you the pre-disobedient Adam had the ability to say no to Eve when she offered him the forbidden fruit but that does not require him to have a special spiritual power over his flesh. You should be careful here and think through your position because the op argues Adam had no free will but here it is being argued Adam had a "spiritual power" to rule over the flesh. What if he chose not to use that power?

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Did the Spirit force him to eat when both the Spirit and Adam knew Adam should NOT eat? Did the Spirit disobey God? Did the God-given, God-imaged spiritual power disobey God? You're going to end up with huge internal contradictions if that is the argument.

....it also appears to make the soul only natural flesh and blood.

Adam was natural. He was not divine. He was creature, not Creator. The difference between the pre-disobedient Adam and the post-disobedient Adam is that his pre-disobedient natural constitution was good, unashamed, and sinless, and his post-disobedient constitution was not-good, ashamed, and sinful. HUG difference!!! This is why it is very important NOT to take what scripture states about the post-disobedient nature and assign it to the pre-disobedient Adam. That is also why it is inappropriate to take attributes of the post-disobedient regenerate man and apply it to Adam. Adam did not know Jesus. He know of Jesus, but he did not know Jesus.

This is also why the noumenous or unified view is more biblical. Man's body, soul and spirit are so integral to the whole that to remove any one part is to lose the whole. That is why we never see a bodiless soul or a bodiless spirit in the Bible. They always have some form of observable mass or tactile faculty. It is not the same kind of body, but it is nonetheless a body.

The JWs teach the soul is the body, solely to reject everlasting punishment from God.

Are you Jehovah's Witness? If not, then why bring that up? It is not relevant to anything I have posted.

 

[Mr GLee]

There is no Spirit there. You may be working from the "tripartite" view of man (humans are body, soul, and spirit), the one popularized by Watchman Nee and others. Part of the problem with that rendering of the verse is that God's life-giving breath was also breathed into animals and animals are not made in the image of God.

Breath of life (spirit of life) A body without a spirit is dead

Mankind was given a temporal spirit subject to the letter of the law Death . When mankind performed the will of a creature seen, mankind died the appointment all of mankind makes

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.