Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[Josheb]

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.

No.

There is no "ruah" (Spirit) in Genesis 2:7.

 

[Mr GLee]

No.

There is no "ruah" (Spirit) in Genesis 2:7.

Yes. . breath as in spirit of life. His living word is Spirit as life .

The breath of life from the spirit of life the unseen things of God

James26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

 

[Josheb]

Yes. . breath as in spirit of life. His living word is Spirit as life .

The breath of life from the spirit of life the unseen things of God

James26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

Did Adam have any liberty to choose good or not good when he was created?

 

[Mr GLee]

Did Adam have any liberty to choose good or not good when he was created?

Adan was not created without a will by which he can make decisions .

Yes he gave the will of God in order to know God not seen . When he violated the letter of the law "death" Then he did the will of a creature seen and ate the fruit from the tree in the center the garden.

God is not served by the dying things seen the temporal .

God can just as Satan put his words in the mouth of a creature seen as a apostle (sent one)

In that way Christ uses a Ass a unclean animal ( not redeemed) redeemed by a lamb clean .(the gospel)

Exodus 13:13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Exodus 34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?

God is not served by the dying hands of mankind as a will He can use a unbeliever to preach the gospel as easily as one that does believe .
It is how the word Ass, Beast of burden is used throughout .

A picture or parable of our redeemer.

John 12:13-15King James Version13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

In that way God is not served by the dying hands of mankind in any way shape or form. Many will say they were sent as apostles. But Christ says they never Him

John 12:13-15King James Version13 Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

 

[Kermos]

Whenever I see someone talking about 'carefully' presenting something as though it were Bible, then the red flag is it isn't Bible.

The following was an oh-so carefully crafted scholarship in sophistry, to try and make the Bible say something, that God never says.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

If it's Bible, the only care we need is to quote it accurately. And that is from one or two verses saying the same thing.

That in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

We always know unbiblical teaching by the exhausting amount of words used to try and make one simple point. Afterall, if it were bible, then we just simply quote it.

Bible teaching is only made hard by changing the Bible into something confusing that makes no sense. Bible teaching is simple: just read enough of the Bible to quote it, so that the Bible teaches itself.

There is no verse in the Bible saying man does not have free will, hence the necessity of much bogus study to direct people's attention from that one simple fact.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Many people ever learn how to change the Bible, because they don't want to know the truth of the Bible in the first place.

You wrote "There is no verse in the Bible saying man does not have free will, hence the necessity of much bogus study to direct people's attention from that one simple fact", 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.
​

With this being established, let us examine your spirit (1 John 4:1) based upon your writings contrasting against the Holy Word.

The Word of God declares:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people to be friends (John 15:15, the prior verse) and to believe (John 6:29) and to be born again (John 3:3-8) and for righteous works (John 3:21, John 15:5) and to repent (Matthew 11:25) and to love (John 13:34) and unto salvation (John 15:19 the same passage).
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

The only way for free-willian philosophers to acheive free-will is for them to add to the Word of God, and it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

Every person has a will, but a person's will is either one of but not both of (1) a self-will against God in evil for the natural flesh person (2 Peter 2:9-10) or (2) a will in Christ doing God's good by the Holy Spirit for the Born of God (Romans 8:29, Philippians 2:13, John 3:3-8).

Apparently, you in your writing above failed to meet your own standard of measure because you wrote "Bible teaching is simple: just read enough of the Bible to quote it, so that the Bible teaches itself" (Matthew 7:2).

Part 1 of 5 examining the first unedited section of the entirety of your post #7.

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]

I just thank God I've learned I don't have to go through such exhaustion, and just go straight to the very beginning.

There is no verse saying man does not have free will, but there are verses saying we may do things freely, just like God:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Eating freely is according to one's own free will. It's the same freedom of God given to them created in His image.

You use a corrupted translation of Genesis 2:16.

Translation Accuracy - Words Matter to Context - The Word of God Is Specific​

We are talking about accurate translation from a known and understood language (Hebrew - vastly the original written language of the Old Testament - in this case, but the concept applies equally to Greek - vastly the original written language of the New Testament) into another known and understood language (English in this case).

Let us step aside for a moment and consider a hypothetical meal recipe for a scrumptious dish according to people near the Aegean Sea, but the plate was developed in antiquity. Say that the dish first appeared around 15 BC.

The first ingredient for the delicacy is:

κυνάριον γλῶσσα

in Greek, the language for this particular cookbook.

Now, let's further postulate a contemporary local church music leader is a connoisseur of culinary delights with an interest in ancient cuisine.

The leader recently discovered the recipe, and his chef has prepared it twice for him.

That first ingredient accurately translates to English as "dog tongue"

• κυνάριον = dog = biblehub.com/greek/2952.htm
• γλῶσσα = tongue = biblehub.com/greek/1100.htm

But his chef inexplicably translated the first ingredient as "dog dung".

Then, along comes another multilingual chef, and she says to him "your chef mistranslated the recipe, and you are eating dog dung instead of dog tongue. That could lead to some debilitating disease for you even leading to an agonizing death, and I shudder to think of the crushing injury that you and your chef, in whom your heart trusts so deeply - even your family's well-being, the poison that you two are feeding your baby girl and toddler boy whom you hold in your arms to spoon feed that dish. You need to stop using that false recipe and start using the true recipe, which is safe for human consumption! Here's a copy of the recipe that I accurately translated with bibliography, my friend."

That concludes the parable.

Before returning to Genesis 2:16-17, let's take a look at where those two Greek words are used in the New Testament.

"The tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell" (James 3:6).

"Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table" (Matthew 15:27).

Relatedly, "I am the Bread of Life" (John 6:48) says the Christ of us Christians.

It is the Bread of Life, the Word of God, Lord Jesus Christ, in whom we Christians have the pure, non-GMO, unadulterated, true eternal sustenance! And this fact includes the Word of God recorded in Genesis 2:16-17.

Now, back to Genesis 2:16-17.

As this essay section shows with detailed linguistic bibliographic references, here's a popular representation from the English Bible translations of Genesis 2:16-17:

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
​

In reality, the word "freely" does not appear in the Hebrew of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage. The Hebrew source word for "freely" is truly "to eat" in English for Genesis 2:16 thus any representation of the word "free" is absent from the passage.

Also, the word "may" does not appear in the Hebrew of the passage. The Hebrew source word for "may" is truly "you will be eating" in English for Genesis 2:16, so the permissive sense of "may" is absent from the passage thus the "option" to eat is absent.

So, based upon the true linguistics of Genesis 2:16-17, the Word of God reveals in Truth (John 14:6):

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"
​

The translator(s) mistranslated the passage, and people are eating the precepts of men (Matthew 15:9) instead of ingesting the Word of God that we Christians eat (John 6:47-65). That leads to eternal punishment (Matthew 25:45-46), and I shudder to think of the crushing injury that results from those people, and the translator(s) in whom those people's heart trusts so very deeply, are feeding those around them. They need to stop using that faulty translation of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage, and start using the true translation of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage, which together with other passages shows who God is (Sovereign Ruler) and shows who man is (entirely dependent upon God for salvation)! Here's a copy of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage that is accurately translated with bibliographical references.

Not to be neglected, "freely" means "abundantly" or "without cost" in the context of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage, not impartation of free-will ability as God did not say "freely choose" (the translator(s) didn't even represent the passage with "freely choose" neither), but in Truth (John 14:6), "freely" conveys "abundantly" or "without cost". I am not endorsing the use of the word "freely" in the place where "to eat" is the accurate translation for the Hebrew word אכל (Strong's 398 - eat) in Genesis 2:16, but, rather, God has me righting a wrong.

When people say that "freely" means "free-will choosing by man", then their hearts adulterate the passage into "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely choose to eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" (the word of man) thus resulting in the fact that said word is no longer founded on the Rock of the Christian's salvation but instead that word is founded on shifting sand of man (Matthew 7:21-27).

In Truth (John 14:6), God split the overall statement in Genesis 2:16-17 into three clauses:

the first clause	command	Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating,
the second clause	command	but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from,
the third clause	prophecy and punishment	when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying

See, the first clause is command, and the second clause is command, and the third clause is both prophecy and punishment pronunciation. Adam could not overcome his flesh on his own, and the evidence is that he failed to obey the command. This fits snuggly into the goodness of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:1-14, Ephesians 2:13) for that which the whole creation groaned and suffered the pains of childbirth together until the Christ's first advent (coming) (Romans 8:22) so that for we children of God, we overcome the flesh in Christ (1 John 2:14), our Savior is manifest in Jesus the Christ (John 1:14), our Redeemer, our Righteousness, our King, our Salvation, our Friend, our One True God, YHWH (Jeremiah 23:5-6)!

Do not be deceived, God said "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying" (Genesis 2:16-17).

Unlike the food serving example above, God's Word causes the new birth - a new eternal Life in Christ that the creature is separated from the former everlasting death as far as the east is from the west!

Praise God for mercifully and unilaterally saving us miserable wretches from the wrath of God, by God's grace for God's glory! Praise Lord Jesus!

Part 2 of 5 examining the second unedited section of the entirety of your post #7.

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]

And of course, as if that were not enough, the Bible plainly says man has free will:

Beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD.

Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments.

Again, your phrase "freewill offering" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew language.

Freewill is not a part of the Hebrew word נְדָבָ֖ה (Strong's 5071 - nedabah) of which the English Bible translators/linguists moved from "freely" (plentiful, heave, abundant) over the centuries into "freewill", and the following demonstrates this fact.

The Meaning Of The Words "Freewill Offering" As Used In The Old Testament

First, as translated, "freewill offering" is in the Old Testament, so this is not the New Testament. There are differences.

Second, as God's chosen people, the Israelites had instruction about the "freewill offering" in the Old Covenant.

Third, the definition behind "freewill offering" must be examined according the source word נְדָבָ֖ה in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. This word נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) has a Strong's number of 5071.

DEFINITION: from H5068; properly (abstractly) spontaneity, or (adjectively) spontaneous; also (concretely) a spontaneous or (by inference, in plural) abundant gift:-free(-will) offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary(-ily, offering), willing(-ly), offering) (this Strong's defintion obtained from BlueLetterBible.org 5071).

Fourth, the definition behind "freewill offering" must be examined according the source word αφαίρεμα in the Greek of the Old Testament in the Septuagint. This word αφαίρεμα does not appear in the New Testament, so it does not have a Strong's number, but it has been assigned a number of "850.4" in the Apostolic Bible Polyglot.

DEFINITION: That which is cut off as a choice part; a choice portion; a cut-away portion.

Fifth, it is written in the Old Testament "The Israelites, all the men and women, whose heart moved them to bring [material] for all the work, which YHWH had commanded through Moses to be done, brought a freewill offering to YHWH" (Exodus 35:29).
AND there is a Hebrew word for "choose", but it is not here, so it does not state "who chose to bring", yet it does state "whose heart moved them to bring"
AND this offering is for material for the work as opposed to choosing toward God
AND this is the first occurrence of "freewill offering" in the NASB
AND the people brought abundant offerings for it is written "They received from Moses all the contributions which the sons of Israel had brought to perform the work in the construction of the sanctuary. And they still [continued] bringing to him freewill offerings every morning. And all the skillful men who were performing all the work of the sanctuary came, each from the work which he was performing, and they said to Moses, 'The people are bringing much more than enough for the construction work which the LORD commanded [us] to perform.' So Moses issued a command, and a proclamation was circulated throughout the camp, saying, 'Let no man or woman any longer perform work for the contributions of the sanctuary.' Thus the people were restrained from bringing [any more]" (Exodus 36:3-6)
SO it is clear that the synonyms נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew and αφαίρεμα in Greek denote a heartfelt gratuitous offering.

Sixth, based upon Biblical usage neither of these words translate to "freewill" as in "freewill choice toward God":

• נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew
• αφαίρεμα in Greek

Seventh, based upon definitions, neither of these words translate to "freewill" as in "freewill choice toward God":

• נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew
• αφαίρεμα in Greek

Eighth, "freewill" is an inappropriate translation of נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew.

Nineth, going back to the 14th century, the Tyndale et al translation uses "heave offering" in Exodus 36:3-6, and "heave" (old English "hebban") means "raise" - not the word "freewill" - but the word "heave".

Tenth, based upon both Scriptural usage and definitions, both of these words translate to spontaneous heartfelt gratuitous premier portion offering:

• נְדָבָ֖ה (nedabah) in Hebrew
• αφαίρεμα in Greek

Jesus and the Apostles quoted out of the Septuagint as recorded in the New Testament.

The Septuagint uses the word αφαίρεμα which translates to "the choice portion" which references an offering.

The Brenton Septuagint Translation version of Exodus 35:29 reads as "And every man and woman whose mind inclined them to come in and do all the works as many as the Lord appointed them to do by Moses- they the children of Israel brought an offering to the Lord".

The Brenton Septuagint Translation version contains "an offering" with no mention of "freewill".

Freewill is not a part of the Hebrew word נְדָבָ֖ה (Strong's 5071 - nedabah) of which the English Bible translators/linguists moved from "freely" (plentiful, heave, abundant) over the centuries into "freewill", and the above demonstrates this fact.

Part 3 of 5 examining the third unedited section of the entirety of your post #7.

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]

God did not create man without a will A free will is a will that is subject to his will the Faithful Creator the designer of wills

A will in bondage after the god of this world, the the father of lies

God's will rescues us from a will in bondage to sin.

 

[Kermos]

As in all false teachings of unbelievers in the Bible, it helps to determine the cause for the obvious lie. In this case, rejecting personal free will is to reject personal responsibility for what we willingly do. It's just another excuse for willingly sinning against God, as though no man willingly does anything of his own choice.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

As in all false teachings of unbelievers in the Bible, it helps to determine the cause for the obvious lie. In this case, promoting the unbiblical support for freewill shows your self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) in action.

No Scripture states man has freewill, yet you spend your post #7 adding free-will to Scripture where free-will is non-existent, so this verse applies to you "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

My God, the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14), reveals that a man is accountable for his own sin, and the following demonstrates this in Scripture!

The Tradition Man Created Teaching That Man Is Good - An Open Conspiracy​

Free-willian philosophers base their "man is inherently good" philosophy on Bible passages such as:

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. (James 1:13)
​

In the following, it is imperative to remember that Jesus Christ is truly Man (Luke 1:26-33) - the Son of Man, and Jesus Christ is truly God (Luke 1:34-35, John 8:58, John 20:28, John 5:18, John 10:30-31) - the Son of God. This means Jesus is good because He says "No one is good except God alone" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 10:18), so Christ alone is the exception to when I write all people and such.

Man starts initially as evil, self-willed for the Apostle gives no exception for a person starting otherwise in life with "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority, daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Here are the relevant spiritual points about James 1:13 that are together a cohesive unit proving the deception of the free-willian way:

• free-will is not contained therein, so James 1:13 is not a proof text for free-will.
• self-will is not mentioned therein. James 1:13 does not indicate "God does not given any man self-will".
• the audience for James' letter is people who are in Christ; in other words, people that are saved (James 1:1-2, James 2:1). The audience constrains the meaning of "anyone" in James 1:13 to exclusively the people of the faith, so James is not addressing the faithless in James 1:13.
• it is written "YHWH tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates" (Psalm 11:5), so God does not tempt people, but God does test people.
• it is written "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5), so all, and I mean every person except Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21), all people start off as evil, fleshly, self-willed persons for there is no exception indicated anywhere in Scripture.
• it is written "The wicked are estranged from the womb; these who speak lies go astray from birth" (Psalm 58:3), so all, and I mean every person except Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21), all people start off as evil, fleshly, self-willed persons for there is no exception indicated anywhere in Scripture.
• it is written "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9), so man is evil and self-willed in his deceitful heart from birth without exception - man is created in the flesh, evil, and self-willed.
• the Apostle Paul wrote
  
  
  you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved (Ephesians 2:1-5)
  ​
  So, everyone in the Assembly of God formerly were self-willed people; therefore, everyone starts out in life with a self-will because all of the unsaved people are self-willed.
• thus says Adonai YHWH (Lord GOD) "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20), so every self-willed person goes to hell for practicing lawlessness because of the person's own doing of sin (crimes against God) - their sin is accounted to them yet no self-willed person can escape being self-willed of their own initiative for the Word of God says "And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?" (Luke 12:57).

Your writing fails to support that free-will exists! No Scripture states man has freewill, yet you spend your post #7 adding free-will to Scripture where free-will is non-existent, so this verse applies to you "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

Part 4 of 5 examining the fourth unedited section of the entirety of your post #7.

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]

No Scripture states man has freewill, yet you spend your post #7 adding free-will to Scripture where free-will is non-existent, so this verse applies to you "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

yes we have a freed or liberated will calling his bride the freewoman

Galatians 4 :30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
She is free to seek the daily bread of the will of God .The spiritual food the disciples knew not of .

John 4:33-34King James Version Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

The same food spoken of in Philippians 2:12 The foods to both (the key) hear the will and finish it to the good pleasure of the Creator
Philippians 2: 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure..

 

[Kermos]

Afterall, if we have no free will nor say in the matter of our deeds, then who is God to judge and condemn us? That would be unjust. It would also be malicious to also make man without free will, and then condemn us for only doing what we were made to do in the first place.

The saying, "It's not my fault, because God made me that way..." Would be true without being made with freewill to choose what to do or not to do. (The worst sort are those who take so headachingly long to say it, without just saying it already)

The only one making people without free will to choose what to do or not, is the god of this world, that allows no free will whatsoever for his slaves to sin.

Those who preach the god of no free will, are obviously not teaching the true God of the Bible, since He desires man to offer up freewill worship and service freely by love, and not just by law of commandment.

Now it's certainly true that no man has freedom of will to disobey God, and also remain alive to God forever. That's the false promise and hope of abusing free will to become as gods in our own right, power, and will.

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.

It's also a primer for predeterminism of puffed up little lambs, thinking they were with the Lamb and chosen before the world ever began.

Man with no free will is just another pagan ideology inserted into Christianity. It's the pagan deterministic fate of the gods.

The beginning purpose of God's revelation to all men in the Bible, is that the true God and Creator, creates all men and women in His image with freedom of will to choose for themselves, what they will do nor not do in this life. It destroys the whole pagan lie that some are born to rule and others are born to be slaves.

(Possibly worse yet, it's also unamerican. )

Your writing exposed you as the "you" answering back to God in the Apostle Paul's writing:

(19) You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (20) On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (21) Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (22) What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (23) And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory
(Romans 9:19-23)
​

You wrote "The beginning purpose of God's revelation to all men in the Bible, is that the true God and Creator, creates all men and women in His image with freedom of will to choose for themselves" as if you failed to read item 2.1. of the original post which states:

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 (Genesis 1:26)
THEN some persons of the creation (creatures) argue that specific facility was given to Adam
IN particular God willpowering purported "free will" into man, specifically a free will into man in the likeness God's will, during the creation of Adam
THEN Adam could not have used free-will to perform evil against God
BECAUSE God will not use willpower in order to perform evil against God's self (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 92:15, Deuteronomy 32:4)
THEREFORE it follows that Man could not use freewill in order to perform evil against God
COMPARITIVELY this point's basis conveys that Adam who was made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) could not use an Adam's will created by God inside Adam which is a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will) because God's will won't work against God so then Adam's will could not work against God and since Adam disobeyed God, it is with certainty that the attribute of Adam's will was not made a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will).

1. The logical extension of free will on this basis results in man possessing expanded facilities beyond God's facilities
2. God is Creator; on the other hand, man is creature
3. Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.
4. Scripture does not include the mention of God endowing Adam with free will.
5. Man's free will is a precept of man (Matthew 15:9)

Adam was not imparted free will according to Scripture, in fact, freewill is a nonsense concept as proven in the "The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of God" thread.

Essentially, your thoughts are out of accord with the Word of God as just now logically demonstrated in Truth (John 14:6).

Part 5 of 5 examining the fifth unedited section of the entirety of your post #7.

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]

Your writing exposed you as the "you" answering back to God in the Apostle Paul's writing:

Not Paul writing rather the finger of God The apostles are a nothing they are non-venerable.

IN particular God willpowering purported "free will" into man, specifically a free will into man in the likeness God's will, during the creation of Adam
THEN Adam could not have used free-will to perform evil against God

Not purported ( appearing or stated to be true, though not necessarily so) But absolutely true . Adam was under the letter of the law "death" (thou shall not or you are dead) The earthen body returns to dust and the Holy Spirit of the law returns to the Holy Father who gave it under the letter temporal (thou shall not)

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

Romans 7:6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.


From my experience many disregard the letter of the law ( the Bible) To them is not regarded as the instrument of death called the second death the death of death tossed into the fiery judgement .

The letter it will not rise up and condemn through corruption, dying, a entire creation .The old thing of this world will not be remembered or ever come to mind

One appointment die once. No digging up the dead

The Cadaver Synod: Putting a Dead Pope on Trial​

Some teach God will resurrect the dead and give them a retrial (double jeopardy).

 

[Josheb]

Not Paul writing rather the finger of God The apostles are a nothing they are non-venerable.

Scripture appears to say otherwise, more than once and pretty plainly.



Acts 5:12-13
At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon's portico. But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem.

Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding in the view of the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

1 Corinthians 4:1
Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

2 Corinthians 11:5
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

Galatians 2:9
...and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

1 Thessalonians 5:12-13
But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another.


Perhaps something else was intended but the word "venerable" means to accord a great deal of respect, typically because of age, wisdom, accomplishment or character but not limited to only those attributes. The divine commission is sufficient, but the fact is they did possess knowledge, understanding and wisdom and not just an office of authority worthy of according them respect. The apostles were not worshiped, but they were accorded a great deal of respect.

 

[Ghada]

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.

Ok. If you don't want reasons why, then no problem.

We agree: those in Christ are freer than anyone and everyone else.

No.

Therefore, Post 18 should be corrected and clarified accordingly, and future posts more accurately reflect whole scripture.

No.

Yes, we agree, Jesus was dependent on the Father more than any other ever

No

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

No

because it is not possible for God to exist apart from His word and power.

Yes

The argument posted boils down to God would never command without the possibility of obedience.

Yes.

Not only does that bind God to the sinner's ability,

No

it also asserts an appeal to ridicule, a false cause, a false dichotomy, and perhaps worst of all a false equivalence.

No

God can command whatever He likes whenever He likes regardless of anyone's ability.

No.

The ridicule occurs labeling God as foolish dependent upon a reductionist view of His ability, His ability to command.

No

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.

It's not consistent to argue with intellect, after rebuking others for arguing normal intelligence. Especially when yours takes so much longer than mine.

(Exception to your rule)

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).

Yes.

God commands to provide an accounting for sin - whether or not obedience ensues or not.

Command to repent of transgressions, is not commandment defining transgressions.

(Yes or no doesn't apply here, because you change the dispute into something else.)

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.

No.

The created Adam was good and sinless (Gen. 1:31; Rom. 5:12). That is the way he was created.

Yes.

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

No

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

No.

You're right. This is so much simpler and less wordy.

 

[Ghada]

No, it is NOT "natural mindedness."

Yes. It is.

(Extra words just to clarify)

It is the word of God.

No

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

Yes.

(NOT Spirit)

Yes. Spirit. Born son of God.

(Sorry for being so wordy. Just clarifying again.)

into it and formed a living being (nephesh).

No.

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.

Yes.

There is no Spirit there.

Yes. There is.

(Clarifying again and again)

You may be working from the "tripartite" view of man (humans are body, soul, and spirit),

Yes.

the one popularized by Watchman Nee and others.

No. By Bible.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

(There I go again)

Part of the problem with that rendering of the verse

No. Bible verse no problem.

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.

Yes.

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

Yes, and no.

Only man is made a living soul. Not angels in heaven nor other creatures on earth.

(Clarification for context of argument)

It should not be assumed Adam was the only one given the breath of life.

Yes.

Neither should the breath of life be conflated with the Spirit of God.

Yes. With man only, and created in His image.

Man has a spirit, but it is not God's.

Yes and no. Sinful man's spirit is not God's. Born sons have spirit and body that are God's.

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

(Getting chatty)

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.

No.

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).

Yes

The human soul being made in God's image does not necessitate or cause him to have the "spiritual power to rule the flesh."

Yes. He does.

(Clarifying)

That is a false cause argument and a position you have yet to prove.

No.

(Note: My rule is not the same as yours. If someone says it's false, I demand to see any error in the reasoning I give. Just repeating one's own argument doesn't apply as a correction.)

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

Yes.

but that does not require him to have a special spiritual power over his flesh.

Yes. It does.

You should be careful here and think through your position

Yes.

because the op argues Adam had no free will

Yes. As in right.

but here it is being argued Adam had a "spiritual power" to rule over the flesh.

Yes.

What if he chose not to use that power?

Yes. He did.

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?

No.

Did the Spirit disobey God?

No.

Did the God-given, God-imaged spiritual power disobey God?

Yes. Adam disobeyed.

You're going to end up with huge internal contradictions if that is the argument.

No. Adam obeyed not the Spirit of God.

Adam was natural.

Yes. Bodily.

He was not divine.

Yes. Spiritually.

He was creature, not Creator.

Yes

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!!!

Yes.

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.

No. Freewill yes, nature no.

(Just to let you know, I now see your point about pre-post Adam. It does not apply to free will, only to nature from divine to corrupt.)

That is also why it is inappropriate to take attributes of the post-disobedient regenerate man and apply it to Adam.

Yes. To pre-disobedient Adam.

All men that sin are applied to post-obedient Adam.

Adam did not know Jesus.

No. Just not by the name given the LORD coming in the flesh.

He know of Jesus,

No. That prophecy was not given until Matthew 1.

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.

No. Natural theology of soul and body being same and never apart may be noumenous but not Bible.

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

If not, then why bring that up? It is not relevant to anything I have posted.

Yes. Your natural theology to make the natural body and spiritual soul separate, is the JW means of doing away with everlasting torment for the wicked dead.

 

[Ghada]

​

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

Thanks for the clarification. Still wrong.

Freewill offerings unto the Lord or free choices toward God.

let us examine your spirit (1 John 4:1) based upon your writings contrasting against the Holy Word.

Please do.

The Word of God declares:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you"

No man chooses Jesus Christ to be their christ, nor their favorite personal god.

Jesus was denouncing the pagan worship of the day for local deities, and chooses patron gods.

He is the only true God and Christ, whether anyone chooses to believe it or not.

Man now chooses to repent for Jesus' sake, or not.

• 
  
• "I chose you out of the world"

For those choosing to repent from the world of iniquity.

The only way for free-willian philosophers to acheive free-will

Free will is not achieved, but given freely when made in the image of God.

Every person has a will,

Yes.

but a person's will is either one of but not both of

No. Man can be double hearted, but God does not accept it.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in Scripture that Adam was not imparted free will

Yes. All men and women are.

, so no man thereafter was imparted free will.

Yes. We all are by right of creation in God's image.

You've yet to show justification for rejecting Scripture stating our freewill to give to God or not.

But of course, the only way is to ignore it, as you continue to do. Show how freewill in the Bible is not freewill. I'd be glad to see that one. Take your time.

 

[Ghada]

You use a corrupted translation of Genesis 2:16.

Not grammatically.

Only doctrinally corrupt to your own doctrine, which is why you translate it grammatically corrupt.

Let us step aside for a moment and consider a hypothetical meal recipe for a scrumptious dish according to people near the Aegean Sea, but the plate was developed in antiquity. Say that the dish first appeared around 15 BC.

No. God's words are all inspired by God the same today as yesterday.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Changes of language, does not change His words spoken today, the same as yesterday.

The first ingredient for the delicacy is:

κυνάριον γλῶσσα

in Greek, the language for this particular cookbook.

Now, let's further postulate a contemporary local church music leader is a connoisseur of culinary delights with an interest in ancient cuisine.

The leader recently discovered the recipe, and his chef has prepared it twice for him.

That first ingredient accurately translates to English as "dog tongue"

• κυνάριον = dog = biblehub.com/greek/2952.htm
• γλῶσσα = tongue = biblehub.com/greek/1100.htm

But his chef inexplicably translated the first ingredient as "dog dung".

Then, along comes another multilingual chef, and she says to him "your chef mistranslated the recipe, and you are eating dog dung instead of dog tongue. That could lead to some debilitating disease for you even leading to an agonizing death, and I shudder to think of the crushing injury that you and your chef, in whom your heart trusts so deeply - even your family's well-being, the poison that you two are feeding your baby girl and toddler boy whom you hold in your arms to spoon feed that dish. You need to stop using that false recipe and start using the true recipe, which is safe for human consumption! Here's a copy of the recipe that I accurately translated with bibliography, my friend."

That concludes the parable.

Impressive. If I wanted to learn more Greek, I'd be interested.

​

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."​

True.
http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-17.htm

​

In reality, the word "freely" does not appear in the Hebrew of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage. The Hebrew source word for "freely" is truly "to eat" in English for Genesis 2:16 thus any representation of the word "free" is absent from the passage.

You may freely eat is better understood than eat and eat.

It's also doctrinally correct, since man is given freewill to offer freely.

Also, the word "may" does not appear in the Hebrew of the passage. The Hebrew source word for "may" is truly "you will be eating"

You forbid may as adding to eat and eat, and add will to eat and eat.

The Bible can always be translated accurately in several ways, as well as doctrinally according to one's own will. Freely.

in English for Genesis 2:16, so the permissive sense of "may" is absent from the passage thus the "option" to eat is absent.

Man has free will to starve himself to death, but no one suggests God's liberty of freewill in the garden was not to eat at all.

The freewill is manifest in choosing which tree to eat of and when.

So, based upon the true linguistics of Genesis 2:16-17, the Word of God reveals in Truth (John 14:6):

​

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating,​

Slanted. He does not command them to eat, nor of every tree.

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from​

Corrupt. Taking away the commandment not to eat of it. It's the first thing the serpent does, is to disannul commandments of God. He also turns liberty into law, to take away freewill.

, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"​

False accusation. God does not command any angel nor man to disobey Him. He is not the Author nor the tempter to sin.

It's done by changing grammar. There is no when nor if.

It also takes away the penalty of disobedience to God's commandment, by prolonged stay of execution.

In the day you eat of it, you shall die. Death at once. Nothing ongoing about the word.

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

​

That leads to eternal punishment (Matthew 25:45-46),

Obeying God's commandments at once is life, not punished with death at once.

and I shudder

Right. Shudder. Got it.

Not to be neglected, "freely" means "abundantly" or "without cost" in the context of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage, not impartation of free-will ability as God did not say "freely choose"

The Bible interprets itself. Freely with freewill is confirmed by free offerings with freewill.

(the translator(s) didn't even represent the passage with "freely choose" neither), but in Truth (John 14:6), "freely" conveys "abundantly" or "without cost".

True. Freewill choices from God cost us nothing with God.

But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

I am not endorsing the use of the word "freely" in the place where "to eat"

I am.

is the accurate translation for the Hebrew word אכל (Strong's 398 - eat) in Genesis 2:16, but, rather, God has me righting a wrong.

Your god, not mine.

When people say that "freely" means "free-will choosing by man", then their hearts adulterate the passage into "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely choose to eat;

A bit redundant, but the implication is clear enough.

In Truth (John 14:6), God split the overall statement in Genesis 2:16-17 into three clauses:

​

​

the first clause	command	Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating,
the second clause	command	but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from,
the third clause	prophecy and punishment	when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying

See, the first clause is command, and the second clause is command, and the third clause is both prophecy and punishment pronunciation. Adam could not overcome his flesh on his own, and the evidence is that he failed to obey the command. This fits snuggly into the goodness of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:1-14, Ephesians 2:13) for that which the whole creation groaned and suffered the pains of childbirth together until the Christ's first advent (coming) (Romans 8:22) so that for we children of God, we overcome the flesh in Christ (1 John 2:14), our Savior is manifest in Jesus the Christ (John 1:14), our Redeemer, our Righteousness, our King, our Salvation, our Friend, our One True God, YHWH (Jeremiah 23:5-6)!

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Still waiting to see how freewill offering is not with freewill.

I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

Especially using one's own freewill to travel, when freely allowed.

Which are minded of their own freewill to freely go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

The Bible interprets and teaches itself.

 

[Ghada]

As in all false teachings of unbelievers in the Bible, it helps to determine the cause for the obvious lie.

Very true. Not having free will is used to justify continued sinning against God.

Your zealous manner of it goes on to accuse God as the One tempting and making and ordaining you to keep sinning.

That's of course the god of this world you preach.

In this case, promoting the unbiblical support for freewill shows your self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) in action.

As with all doctrine of Christ, once a core decision has been made about what to believe the Bible says, then all subsequent verses will be interpreted in that light.

Your doctrine is for no free will, and so you interpret 2 Peter 2 self-will against God, as being free will itself.

My doctrine is free will, and so I interpret 2 Peter as abusing free will to be self-willed against God.

And as with all such down-the-line differences of interpretation, there are always one or two verses God has written to end the debate, and get started on the right foot for all other verses.

Since God gives freewill for offerings and travel and worship, then free will given to man created in His image, is the true starting point.

As I've said, until you try to make freewill in the Bible, not freewill in life, then this is just an ongoing exercise in disagreements.

No Scripture states man has freewill, yet you spend your post #7 adding free-will to Scripture where free-will is non-existent,

So, rather than try to continue your song-and-dance 'scholarship' routine to make freewill not freewill, you just say it isn't there.

When someone says what is written, is not written, then there is no more argument.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

I've quoted the verses several times for you to respond to, and you just tell yourself it's not there.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

so this verse applies to you "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

My God, the Word of God (John 1:1-5, John 1:14), reveals that a man is accountable for his own sin, and the following demonstrates this in Scripture!

The Tradition Man Created Teaching That Man Is Good - An Open Conspiracy​

A debate ends also when someone just starts copy and pasting his long-learned trash.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

You're just another tired old unrepented sinner, seeking to justify yourself by your own doctrine of having no free will nor say in how you live.

All such doctrinal-only justifications end in the grave, and then God just goes right ahead and judges us all by our works, not by our doctrines.

No man will be able to play a get out of hell free doctrine-card in the judgment.

 

[Josheb]

You're right. This is so much simpler and less wordy.

It is less wordy, but it is simpler.

You still haven't proven God's image is sufficient to spiritually rule the flesh, and if it were that would not eradicate free will. We're three pages into this op and the thesis has not been proven.

(Note: My rule is not the same as yours. If someone says it's false, I demand to see any error in the reasoning I give. Just repeating one's own argument doesn't apply as a correction.)

You are not following your own rule AND you're trying to shift the onus of this op onto me AND that isn't "my" rule. Logic is not subjective or personal. You say you demand to see any error and that is exactly what has been provided. When you deny that then there are only two options: either you're blind or you do not follow your own rules. When you say repeating one's argument (argumentum ad nauseam) isn't correct that is true but you cannot simply repeat what is stated in the op without being guilty of your own standards. The onus is not on me to prove or disprove the op. The onus is on you and you alone to prove it.

And you have not.

The op assumes something not in evidence: God's grace necessarily necessitates spiritual power to rule over the flesh. The entire thread begs that premise. The thread has not proved it; the thread begs it. That which has been asserted as a given warrants evidence and proof and it is completely inappropriate to treat what needs proving as a given and the problem is multiplied when you hold out the standard not to argue ad nauseam.

Furthermore, aside from this unproven premise God's image is sufficiently necessary to overrule the flesh in a sinless person, even if that were accepted as a given it would not prove Adam did not have free will (as the term is used in scripture).

Again, I remind you: we're three pages into this thread and you're arguing with everyone but not proving the op correct. Instead, various attempts to shift the onus onto others have occurred. I do not see any evidence the uniform disagreement by all respondents has been recognized (everyone is wrong but me, @Ghada). It appears you think absolutely no error could possibly exist and every reader should instantly bow to the op and applaud it without question or inquiry. If that is not your intent, then show up for the conversation with something more than "You're right. This is so much simpler and less wordy" and double standards.

Because this op is so lengthy, there is A LOT that warrants clarification and proof in this op. The title, presumably, is the thesis you intend to prove: Adam was NOT created with free will. No one here so far agrees. That op is characterized as a "careful proof" but the op is sloppy. There is nothing "careful" about it and it does not prove anything other than you possess the ability to use scripture selectively.

For example, the first sentence of the "proof" is, "God issued prophecy about man eating the fruit (Genesis 2:17)," but the verse itself does not state God's word are a prophecy or prophetic and nothing in the op proves that claim. God could have been making a simple prediction. The difference between a prediction and a prophecy is important and the onus is on you not anyone else to prove Genesis 2:17 is not a simple prediction but, instead, a prophecy. Genesis 2:17 could also be a simple statement of fact void of any prophetic import or substance. God designed the world such that if anyone disobeyed him by eating the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden they would then die. That is a simple statement of cause-and-effect. It is comparable to "If you jump off a 2,000-foot cliff you will splatter on the ground below and die." That's just a statement of cause-and-effect that does not involve any prophetic aspect at all.

In other words, from the very first statement in this "careful proof" you have assumed things not in evidence AND you've not bothered to justify any of them. Furthermore, the assumption of prophetic nature is built on an unstated assumption: if it is prophetic then it is deterministic but not only is that nowhere stated it has not been justified or proven. If Genesis 2:17 is not prophetic then that proves fatal to the entire op.

This op is NOT a "careful proof."


If you would like to use the discussion board to refine your argument, then do so because that is one of the purposes of the forum. However, by offering this op up to the examination of others you also expose it to diverse avenues of critique and therefore diverse avenues of criticism or correction (not the same things). If there was never any openness to the possibility of correction, then the op should never have been posted. This is a discussion board, not a bow-down-to Ghada's-views board.

So, let's start over and let's start at the beginning (see y next post).

 

[Josheb]

The Word of God indicates no based upon both scriptural text and context.

The following is carefully presented proof establishing Adam was formed with intent not endowed with free will.

1. God issued prophecy about man eating the fruit (Genesis 2:17)
   AT the time God commanded the man, Adam, not to eat of the tree
   AND the consequence of disobedience is declared - that is that death of the man would result in eating from the tree

Prove Genesis 2:17 is prophecy and not just a mere statement of fact based on God's design or a simple factual statement of cause-and-effect.

Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Do you think the word "you," is specifically and solely limited to Adam? If Adam had not eaten the forbidden fruit prior to having children and one of his offspring ate from the forbidden tree would Genesis 2:17 apply? Would anyone disobeying God by eating the fruit from the forbidden tree have died?