Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[Arial]

You claim to have read nearly the first quarter of the original post. This includes item 2.1. examining Genesis 1:26-27, but you prematurely ceased reading, and you make a faulty condemnation against me, so let's just see your error.

If the premise is wrong, and it was, what follows is going to get more wrong the father it is carried out. Like being off 1/4 inch in a measurement at the beginning of a 20' board. At the far end of that board you are going to be off way more than a 1/4". And 1/4 of your post was just a guesstimate which evidently took literally. It was way too long and unorganized to actually follow.

Summarizing OP item 2.1., the will of God works for the glory of God; therefore, when "God created man in His own image" (Genesis 1:27), the will of Adam works for the glory of Adam. Under these circumstances, Adam's will fails to glorify God in obedience, and this is proven out in that "he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

You wrote "You do not even know what Scripture means that we are made in the image and likeness of God", and the above illumines your error because God causes me to proclaim Truth (John 14:6).

That is not what being created in the image and likeness (which are the same thing) of God means, though in a convoluted sense it is partially true, but only a small part of the whole.

As His creatures, made in His image and likeness there is an unspoken command that we are similar to Him in many ways, as to the way in which we function (we have life, movement, thought, creativity but not from nothing, decision making capabilities etc.)but in all of this we live, and move and have our being in Him. We are not independent of Him in any way. And in our conduct in and with the world, in our social lives

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

That happened after the fall of Adam and because of it.

Adam's "will", or "ability" as you put it, had nothing to do with "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

When you wrote "Adam and Eve had the ability to obey or disobey. They disobeyed" then your heart adds to Genesis 3:6 resulting in "and he chose to eat" - that is evil - evil that is compounded by your writing contradicting the Apostle Paul's writing as shown in the following.

How does one eat something without choosing to. Are you saying God made Him eat of the forbidden fruit?

The Way (John 14:6) lovingly controls precisely who comes to Him, for He pronounces:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16), so God exclusively chooses people.
• "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (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.

Right. God regenerates a hard heart born in Adam, and at enmity with God, and gives in its place a heart moldable and pliable in His hands. ANd He does this as He pleases. Those were meant to belong to Christ before they were ever born. But this must be done by God before any can approach Him, born anew, washed clean in the blood of Jesus. Jesus is the tree of life. Always has been, always will be.

I find it very sad that you Admin/Staff Members/Church Leaders fail to show the courtesy of reading a post to which you reply; at the same time, you berate and disparage me, a guest who was invited here by @Carbon. One person here on this site, @jeremiah1five, has shown even a modicum of kindness toward me. Others here make an opening belligerent post in response to a polite post (just follow the history back from @Josheb's post #146 in this site's thread "GOD CREATED MAN (ADAM) SINFUL") - that link back from Josheb's post was my very first post on this site, and one of you Church Leaders ruthlessly removed my reply to Josheb's post from public view.

Sorry you feel sad. We all encounter hostility from time to time. It is part and parcel of forums. People sometimes come in a bad mood, or get in one from spending too much time in back and forths that are frustrating, accomplish nothing and go nowhere. Reach the end of the rope so to speak.

And I will give you grace, that part of the problem with your posts may be nothing more than a personal way of expressing yourself that leaves me, anyway, wondering what it is you are saying, and they are way too long and go in too many directions for my patience. People have trouble understanding me more than sometimes.

If someone deleted one of your posts it is highly unlikely that it was ruthless. I have no knowledge of the post, but usually posts are deleted because of personal insults being made, improper language, or denigration of Christ . I have not even been back to the thread since my first post and scrolling through it now, your long posts, make all the others even longer if all things are to be addressed, and then the response even longer, and it takes up too much of a person's time, brain, and interest to have a whole thread like that. I am not saying long posts are a bad thing, just saying more precise and focused posts are more pleasant and accomplish more.

 

[Josheb]

Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of creation?

This is the question to be answered.

There is, however, a minor problem with the question because Adam was not created at the beginning of creation. Adam was not created until the sixth day. Adam was not created until the end of creation.

The Word of God indicates [the answer to that question is] no based upon both scriptural text and context.

This is the thesis, the position to be proved.

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
   YET a command does not convey ability
   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"
   SO this confirms the promissory nature, the prophecy of man eating of the tree, with the word "when"/"for"/"that" in Genesis 2:17
   AND this imposes contextual certainty indicating God's foreknowledge over the matter described in Genesis 2:17
   SO there is no free will indicated for Adam
   AND the firm fact is established
   THAT God reigns in the affairs of man (Daniel 4:34-35)

Let's see how "carefully" the proof is presented.

God issued a 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 [was] declared - that is that death of the man would result in eating from the tree.

God did issue a command and God declare the consequence of the command not being obeyed. That does not make the command prophetic. As I have already stated in an earlier post, the command being accompanied by a declaration of consequences if disobeyed is not particularly prophetic. Occam's Razor would dictate the consequences are a mere statement of fact based on already established and known cause-and-effect. If someone holds a rock in front of them at arm's length and then releases the rock, the rock will fall to the ground because of gravity. There is nothing prophetic about my saying so.

This is the first error in the op. It assumes something not yet proven. It assumes prophecy unnecessarily and without evidence (I'll cover the subsequent attempt to prove prophecy later). This "carefully presented proof," presented an error in its first premise. Proofs built on flawed premises end up being flawed proofs.

YET a command does not convey ability.

A command does not convey inability, either. Logically speaking this is non sequitur because its relevance was not justified or explained. Sometimes a command does convey ability because it would be senseless of God to command things He knows to be impossible, and God is not senseless. However, as I have also previously explained, later scripture provides us several reasons for God's commands, some of which convey ability, and some of which do not. Was that prior post engaged?

No.

BUT the language contains a prophetic construct indicating assurance of occurrence - "when in the day that you eat" - the "when" is promissory.

The determinism of "when.... then.... is not inherently prophetic. Assurance of occurrence is not inherently prophetic, either. The word "when" is not inherently promissory.

In other words, three errors in that statement. Keeping a cumulative count, that makes five errors in the "carefully present proof." A proof with five errors in its first premise is NOT carefully presented. Five errors in the opening premise makes for a haphazard, sloppy, irrational case.

Again: If someone holds a rock in front of them at arm's length and someone else comes along and says, "In the day that your hand releases that rock it will fall to the ground," that does not mean the second person is speaking prophetically. It does not mean his words are a prophecy or promissory, and the second person can be assured his words are correct without being prophetic or promissory. He is correct simply because he knows the laws of physics; he knows how gravity works.

NOT a conditional logic construct such as "if in the day that you eat." SO this confirms the promissory nature, the prophecy of man eating of the tree, with the word "when"/"for"/"that" in Genesis 2:17.

This starts out with another non sequitur because no one reads an "if" into the verse unless they are reading the Good News paraphrase or the formal dynamic NLT and CEV translations. All the other translations say "for" or "for when." The Hebrew "ki" is a word indicating a causal relationship, therefore it is appropriate to read the command to say the consequential death ensues because of the eating. Since a command does not indicate inevitability (any more than it indicates ability), the prospective nature of the ki cannot be dismissed. More importantly, however, the existence of "for" or "when" does not necessitate a promise. It can, as has already been submitted, indicate a mere knowledge of cause and effect. That is exactly how the word is used in Genesis 2:3 and 2:5.

When a person releases a rock they are holding it will fall to the earth. I promise .
When a person disobeys God s/he dies.

So....

Error number six in this "carefully present proof," that is increasingly no so carefully presented. The Hebrew "ki" does imply a condition, and typically a causal condition.

AND this imposes contextual certainty indicating God's foreknowledge over the matter described in Genesis 2:17

This is a bait and switch.

This op is not about God's foreknowledge; it is about the existence of Adam's volition and its attributes. This op is about whether or not Adam was imparted with free will from the beginning. Furthermore, God's foreknowledge of existing cause-and-effect does not preclude any foreknowledge on His part of Adam's imparted free will (if such a thing existed). In other words, that point switches from Adam's will to God's foreknowledge) and assumes God's foreknowledge of a temporally future evet to preclude His knowledge of other conditions. Apples are not oranges, but both are fruit. Furthermore, divine foreknowledge need not be causal. This op argues the foreknowledge "imposed" certainty. Not only is this not logically necessary, but it does not preclude volitional agency on Adam's part. God can know Adam will disobey God without God imposing certainty on the matter. In point of fact, a God who knows stuff about the future is a much greater God than a god who knows what will happen because he made it happen. The statement also confuses correlation with causation. God's foreknowledge and human volitional agency can co-occur. Logically speaking, Adam can obey God or disobey God without God causing Adam to do either. The Hebrew "ki" does not "impose contextual certainty."

So, here again, we have a single statement that is loaded with multiple logical errors and exegetically asserts factual errors ("ki" is conditional), and assumes positions not inherently evident in the text. By my count there are four new errors in this statement. That brings the cumulative total to 10 errors in the first premise in this supposedly "carefully presented proof."

 

[Josheb]

.

SO there is no free will indicated for Adam

LOL! This is a particularly curious assertion because most people take the exact same information and conclude the exact opposite position. Because God stated His command and declared the consequences and imposed a causal relationship on Adam whereby Adam would die when Adam disobeyed God this indicates Adam had some volitional and physical ability to obey or disobey. God did not create an action figure to be manipulated and forced to do what the action figure dd not want to do. Action figures, afterall, do not have a will. They do not have any will, free, enslaved, meager, mighty, or otherwise.

Since the premises on which the conclusion is built are all flawed, so too is the conclusion. There is no "So...." because all the premises are wrong.

A is wrong
B is wrong
C is wrong
D is wrong
E is wrong
F is wrong
G is wrong
H is wrong
I is wrong
J is wrong
The conclusion is therefore correct.

No, it is not.

AND the firm fact is established THAT God reigns in the affairs of man (Daniel 4:34-35).

Another red herring. That God reigns is not in dispute. It is not even the topic of discussion! God reigning does not preclude Adam being imparted with free will at creation. Not only are divine foreknowledge, divine reigning, and human volitional agency three completely different categories (apples, oranges, and kiwis), but the existence of divine reign does also not preclude God from imparting free will when He made Adam. God can do both! Correlation is not causation. The op has read causation into the text where no one is stated and ignored causation where it is necessarily implied.

Let's look at the Daniel 4 text because it's been abused to say something it does not state and then further abused by misguidedly imposing it on the Genesis 2:17 Adam.

Daniel 4:34-35
"But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'"

First of all, this is said by a former mad man that has been humiliated by God against his (supposedly non-existent) will to prove God is in charge, even over pagan kings who think they can do and say anything they want. The words are not spoken by a good, sinless, unashamed man like the Genesis 2:17 Adam. That is the first error in the abuse of this text. This humiliated former mad man has sad God has no concern for earth's inhabitants. They are worthless, "accounted for nothing."

So much for being made in God's image.

So much for being so valuable that God would spend His own Son's life in bloody, violent, torturous death to redeem us.

That idiot Nebuchadnezzar's foolish comment betray his ignorance of God's reign!!! In other words, the very text this op seeks to show Human worthlessness and divine reign is a particularly and paradoxically contradictory text for doing so! Furthermore, the passage does not actually state "God reigns over the affairs of men," and the use of "affairs of men" is curious because if Adam has not volitional agency then neither does he have any "affairs." Anything that happens is not Adam's affairs; it is God's affairs. God reigns in God's affairs isn't just circular, it's not particularly noteworthy.

That makes four more errors that can be added to the cumulative total. That adds up to fourteen errors in the first pint in this op's "carefully presented proof."

It is NOT carefully presented, and it is not proof of anything but an ability and willingness to abuse both scripture and reason for one's one purposes. If we were to accept the position of this op, however, we could not blame its author because God reigns in his affairs and he does not have free will. God has imposed His command without indicating ability to form a reasonable and rational case of well-rendered scripture in any carefully presented proof. We can and should, therefore, blame God, not @Kermos.

 

[Josheb]

If the premise is wrong, and it was, what follows is going to get more wrong the [farther] it is carried out.

It's not rocket science.


If the saw keeps the blade on the line, the cut will be straight. Therefore, the wood must have a choice.

 

[Mr GLee]

You wrote "You do not even know what Scripture means that we are made in the image and likeness of God", and the above illumines your error because God causes me to proclaim Truth (John 14:6).

It is clear that you do not know the difference between likeness of God and likeness of men. Therefore making God a man .

 

[Mr GLee]

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

Apostolic teaching is to commit blasphemy having another god before our unseen Holy Father The teaching is of the father not dying mankind the apostles .

Adam's "will", or "ability" as you put it, had nothing to do with "and he ate" (Genesis 3:6).

It has everything to do with what he ate if we remove the food of God's will sola scriptura. it removes the authority of eternal God.

Eating is described as doing the will of another . Adam did the will of the lying father and ate . It's the kind of food that apostles knew not of .

John 4:33-35King James Version33 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.

We pray give us this day our daily bread or called hidden manna.

.1 Corinthians 9:3-5King James Version Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

 

[Kermos]

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.

God's Commands Distinguished From Man's Ability​

A Command Does Not Convey Ability To Obey Or Disobey Unless Explicitly Stated In The Command​

The command issued by the Creator reveals fruit of the creature; in other words, God's commands exposes man's obedience or man's disobedience.

The command of God states God's rule for man, and God's command may include reward or punishment, blessing or curse.

The command of God does not confer an ability to obey for man, and the command of God does not confer an ability to disobey for man; unless, God's command explicitly confers ability in the command or elsewhere in scripture, then such ability does not exist; otherwise, for a person to claim the ability exists is the person's heart wickedly adding to scripture.

An example from the Torah:

The Word of God records the command of God to Adam "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).
Scripture reveals that Adam disobeyed God's command (Genesis 3:6); therefore, scripture reveals Adam's ability to disobey God.
That was the single command issued by God to Adam, and Adam disobeyed; moreover, no account of Adam obeying a command of God exists in scripture.
No scripture reveals Adam's ability to obey God.
The English word "choose" has a Hebrew word equivalent of "בָּחר" (bachar -Strong's Number 977).
The Hebrew word "בָּחר" does not occur in the creation account (Genesis 1:1-31 Genesis 2:1-25 Genesis 3:1-24).
God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey".
Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God.
​

Commands Embedded In Conditional Logic Statements​

Scripture contains many conditional logic statements. A conditional logic statement is normally an IF/THEN construct.

In linguistics, logic, semantics, and reality the established fact is that an IF/THEN construct follows this pattern:

IF condition THEN predicate
​

The condition results in a true state or false state. If, and only if, the condition results in a true state does the predicate get executed.

An IF-THEN construct merely exposes whether a condition is true or false; consequently, an if/then statement does not inherently convey ability to produce a true state for the condition.

An IF/THEN construct exposes a potential, current, or previously taken PATH along with the PATH's resultant IMPACT.

So, an IF-THEN construct imposes a conditionl expression and a predicate, for example,

IF ACTION THEN RESULT
​

Moreover, no conveyance of ability exists intrinsically within the if-then construct.

In scripture, an ACTION represents fruit for the the Word of God says "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn [bushes] nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15-20) and "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).

In language, an IF/THEN statement requires a qualifier to indicate choice, for example, "if you choose chocolate then you eat chocolate" thus the qualifier in the conditional is "choose", but the conditional still does not convey ability to "choose" which such conveyance of ability to "choose" necessitates additional language connected with the IF-THEN statement, such as "you have the ability to choose" since the predicate cannot be executed in the absence of a supply of chocolate.

In Scripture, "you have the ability to choose God" is never expressed nor implied, yet, on the contrary to such a statement of "choose", the Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) with no exceptions to the stated choosing while applying to all believers in all time (John 17:20).

These facts of IF/THEN statements do not disappear in scripture.

An IF/THEN can be expressed likewise as:

IF you_do_this that_will_happen
​

Thus, the conditional expresses an action/fruit in the condition (you_do_this), and the effectual result in the predicate (that_will_happen).
A conditional does not convey ability to the recipient of the conditional.

The same goes for a command, that is, a command does not convey ability to carry out the command.

For example, the command "do not do this" does not inherently grant the capability to comply with the command.

Neither a conditional nor a command convey choice unless specifically stated.

Commandment Exposes Righteousness and Wickedness - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance​

This all relates as to why Paul didn't write that he'd just choose to stop coveting, instead Paul indicates that he became aware of his sinfulness through the commandment. Here is that which Paul wrote:

"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." (Romans 7:7).

"sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind" (Romans 7:8).

"where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).

"the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation" (Romans 1:16).

"How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" (Romans 10:14).

Behold, the Word of God is conveyed via communication AND the gospel, the good news, the Word of God is the power of God for salvation!

A practical example from Scripture is the account of Cain and Abel.

"Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)

God did not say that Cain "could" do anything.

The conditional logic statement does not indicate ability for Cain, rather the conditional logic statement indicates an action.

We know that Cain's action was to "not do well" because it is written "Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him" (Genesis 4:8).

Action. Not choice. Not decision. But action is written.

With respect to the Law, the commandments, the Apostle Peter said "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10), so people are incapable of keeping the commandments to God's satisfaction (James 2:10); furthermore, the Word states "And I also, I have given to them statutes not good, and judgments by which they do not live" (Ezekiel 20:25) of the Israelites, so clearly the apostle is in accord with God.

The apostles tell us that the Law is for our instruction, and that we know what sin is because of the Law, and we are guilty before God apart from our Savior.

A Biblical Declaration Of Ability And Inability - Capability Examined​

Lord Jesus declares "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

The first clause decisively declares that men cannot choose Jesus; in other words, men do not have the ability to accept Jesus. The first clause is "you did not choose Me".

The second clause absolutely declares that God chooses men. The second clause is "but I chose you", and this unto salvation as well for Jesus also said "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19); in other words, God has the exclusive ability to accept men.

Commands Expose Good And Evil - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance - A Hypothetical Example​

A hypothetical example, on Monday evening you take your lovely wife a hot bowl of delicious oatmeal while she's sitting on the couch, and she places the bowl on a pillow on her lap. Then your talking and toddling son sees the bowl of delicous oatmeal, and he wants some, so he shoots across the floor to the couch, and he excitedly grabs the rim of the hot bowl letting out a shrieking scream of pain from the hot bowl.

continued to post #88

 

[Kermos]

continued from post #87

After applying soothing cream to the wound, both you and your wife explain the difference between hot and cold. You explain that hot can cause burns and pain. "Do not touch hot things" you command your son.

You continue by declaring "Your mommy and I can work around hot things to prepare and serve food, but you cannot, my love". The sobbing stops, and you all eat your dinner.

On Tuesday morning, you have the iron skillet on the stove, the gas fire keeping the iron skillet sizzling hot for a family pancake breakfast. The top of the stove radiates very HOT too, so you are sensitive to your son's current absence from the kitchen.

Your son toddles into the kitchen. You say "honey, the stove is hot, hotter than the bowl of oatmeal last night. If you touch the stove, then you'll get burned again. If you stay over there, then you'll be just fine." Then you smell that the pancake is about to burn unless you flip it, so you scrape the pancake, raise it, flip it, and you watch it drop - but as it drops, you see your precious son's hand grasp the extremely hot stove iron grill flame cover. In a flash, you dunk your excruciatingly pained and screaming child's hand in a glass of cold water, add ice, turn off the stove, examine the wound through the glass, and ...

The morals of the story:

1. Monday night's command did not convey ability. The command expressed safe action - or said another way safe inaction.
2. Monday night's declaration conveyed capabilities being that you could work around hot items while your son could not work around hot items. It is crucial to discern the exclusive nature of the declarative; one party can do something while the other party cannot do the same thing.
3. Tuesday morning's IF/THEN logic conditionals did not convey ability. Each conditional expressed the results of actions.
4. You cared deeply enough to help.
5. Your son was driven by his desires - his lusts, and he disregarded your instruction; in other words, his lusts were manifest by his action.
6. Your son's nature was to defy you despite (1) the command, (2) the declaration, and (3) the conditionals; in other words, the fruit of his nature were visible.
7. Your son was in rebellion against you.

Point 2 is a parallel - a remote shadow at best, to when the Lord Jesus' says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16, also John 15:13-15 about love and friends). It is crucial to discern the exclusive nature of the declarative; one party can do something while the other party cannot do the same thing; in other words, men cannot choose God while God chooses men.

Point 4 is analagous, a shadow at best, to how the Father in heaven causes the "sun to rise on [the] evil and [the] good, and sends rain on [the] righteous and [the] unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45).

Points 5 and 6 are analagous to the sin nature as default nature (the main document of this essay contains more detail about the nature of man).

The example is concluded.

Commands do not convey ability; rather, commands expose the desires of the person, more specifically the heart of the person - either disobedient deeds of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21) or obedient fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

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.

When you wrote "'When' is not there, except by personal interpretation. In like manner, 'If' can be just as easily inserted." regarding Genesis 2:17, then you lied because "when" is the definition of the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (Strong's 3588 - ki - that, for, when - destination link biblehub.com/hebrew/3588.htm) which was proclaimed in the original post; therefore, lexical proof exists that "when" is there in Genesis 2:17.

When you wrote "'When' is not there, except by personal interpretation. In like manner, 'If' can be just as easily inserted." regarding Genesis 2:17, then you lied because many English translations of the Bible use the word "when" in Genesis 2:17 such as "except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die" (Genesis 2:17, New American Bible).

When you wrote "'When' is not there, except by personal interpretation. In like manner, 'If' can be just as easily inserted." regarding Genesis 2:17, then you lied because the word "if" is an invalid translation of the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (Strong's 3588 - ki - that, for, when); on the other hand, the Hebrew Word אִם (Strong's 518 - im - if) accurately translates to the English word "if", and here are some highly relevant points about the Hebrew Word אִם (Strong's 518 - im - if):

• The Hebrew word אִם (im) is absent within Genesis chapters 1 - 3; in fact, it only appears in Genesis 4:7 across all of Genesis chapters 1 - 6.
• Both occurrences of the English word "if" are the Hebrew word אִם (im) inside of "If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it" Genesis 4:7.
• The definition for אִם (im) is "if".
  ]*]The word אִם (im), "if", can represent a hypothetical and/or an interrogative.
• The word אִם (im), "if", is a component of an IF/THEN logic statement construct.

When you wrote "'When' is not there, except by personal interpretation. In like manner, 'If' can be just as easily inserted." regarding Genesis 2:17, then you lied because this The Meaning Of The Hebrew Word כִּ֗י(ki)/"for"/"that"/"when" in Genesis 2:17 Comparison With Other Portions of Scripture link demonstrates that among Genesis chapters 1 - 6, the word "when" works in all verses where the Hebrew word כִּ֗י (Strong's 3588 - ki - that, for, when) occurs.

In the Apostle John's writing:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous
(1 John 2:1)
​

there is no mention of free-will choosing not to sin, and it cannot be free-will choosing not to sin because the Apostle Paul wrote of us Christians:

it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure
(Philippians 2:13)
​

so God is the One who causes us Christians not to sin for His good pleasure. Praise Lord Jesus for "the love of Christ controls us" (2 Corinthians 5:14)!

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.

 

[Ghada]

​

A Command Does Not Convey Ability To Obey Or Disobey Unless Explicitly Stated In The Command​

God never says, if you can obey it, I command you to...

The command of God does not confer an ability to obey for man, and the command of God does not confer an ability to disobey for man; unless, God's command explicitly confers ability in the command or elsewhere in scripture,

God never says, if you have power to obey it, I command you to...

then such ability does not exist; otherwise, for a person to claim the ability exists is the person's heart wickedly adding to scripture.

I.e. I don't care about natural man's philosophies, nor philologic dissection of language and words.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words.

I've been down the endless fruitless road of philosophy and sophistry and rhetoric of man, and now I'm glad to be on the solid ground seeking after Christ of the Bible.

An example from the Torah:

​

The Word of God records the command of God to Adam "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).​

Scripture reveals that Adam disobeyed God's command (Genesis 3:6); therefore, scripture reveals Adam's ability to disobey God.​

That was the single command issued by God to Adam, and Adam disobeyed; moreover, no account of Adam obeying a command of God exists in scripture.​

No scripture reveals Adam's ability to obey God.​

The English word "choose" has a Hebrew word equivalent of "בָּחר" (bachar -Strong's Number 977).​

The Hebrew word "בָּחר" does not occur in the creation account (Genesis 1:1-31 Genesis 2:1-25 Genesis 3:1-24).​

God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey".​

Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God.​

Nor am I interested in old Jewish versions of sophistry:

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Such intellectualized rubbish led straight to rejecting Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord. You see, Jesus just didn't have any time nor respect to their mishna, midrash, and other such mishmash. He was just too busy doing the will of God and teaching others to do the same.

​

Commands Embedded In Conditional Logic Statements​

As I said. Arguments in natural logic never got anyone saved by the Lord.

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

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

But it's a great way to say what God never said: That man has no free will.

Blank Scripture for that.

And even greater way to not say what God has said: That man has freewill.

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

I'll not be going over this anymore with you. You've already run into the ditch of trying to say freewill in the Hebrew, is not voluntary nor free, but just 'plentiful'. Which is as much a lie against language as them that say the word was a god.

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

 

[Ghada]

​

The condition results in a true state or false state. If, and only if, the condition results in a true state does the predicate get executed.

Rubbish. You can at least have logic throughout the proposition, if you're going to arrive at a logical conclusion.

If the condition is true, then the result is true if followed, and false if not followed.

God's commandments are all true, and those who keep His commandments do the truth.

The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth.

You see how simple it is to disembowel dishonest sophistry with plain words of God?

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[Ghada]

In Scripture, "you have the ability to choose God" is never expressed nor implied,

Whatever. The serpent tries to be subtle about things. Obvious contradiction is just writing one's own book.

I still choose this day to serve the Lord, and choose not to serve the devil.

yet, on the contrary to such a statement of "choose", the Word of God says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16)

Since God does give us freewill choice to believe and serve Him or not, then Jesus is not saying He chooses people to serve Him, who do not choose to serve Him.

Jesus was telling His disciples that He is the only true Christ of God. He is not one of the pagan gods or demigods, that they chose for themselves as their own household favorite.

Man does not choose who the Christ of God is. Man either chooses to believe and serve God's Christ, or we don't.

Jesus Christ is the only choice given by God to man to serve or not.

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

That's what the one God of the Bible was all about: He is the only true God to choose to serve. There are no other gods to choose from, that are God.

Shall a man make gods unto himself, and they are no gods?

Jesus is saying no man chooses Him, as choosing a god unto oneself.

I've also already gone over this before, so no more with you.

 

[Ghada]

Commandment Exposes Righteousness and Wickedness​

True. God's law defines what sin is. His commandments also define what is good to do.

- Not Inherent Capability Conveyance​

Natural unrepented workers of iniquity, do not believe in being created in God's image.

They don't want to believe they have power to repent of doing evil, and always do good instead. Why not? because they don't want to repent of the pleasure of their unrighteousness.

It's called a circular self-concluding argument.

Adjacent to this, is the argument against freewill to obey or disobey God. Why not? See above.

This all relates as to why Paul didn't write that he'd just choose to stop coveting, instead Paul indicates that he became aware of his sinfulness through the commandment.

He did not become 'aware' of what he was doing. He became convicted and guilty for it after hearing the word of commandment.

Here is that which Paul wrote:

"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." (Romans 7:7).

"sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind" (Romans 7:8).

For double hearted hearers, which He experienced before repenting of sinning and going on to perfection of walking only in the Spirit. (V1-6)

Self-justifying unrepented sinners like to quote the condemnation they are under, as though it were justification for it. They love Romans 7:7-23 as a lifetime endeavor. They also like to quote Psalms 53 for themselves, which is spoken against them that say there is no God.

Just because someone agrees with the condemnation of God in the Bible for themselves as atheists and unrepentant evil doers, that does not mean they are then justified by such 'honesty' about being spiritually dead.

Honesty of the heart leads to godly sorrow to repent from the heart, unto God's salvation from such sin and death.

"Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." (Genesis 4:6-7)

God did not say that Cain "could" do anything.

No, like a cat with a mouse, the Lord was just toying with poor Cain.

"If you do well (and we both know you can't), or if you do evil (which we both know you can and shall...)"

"Wink, wink, Cain. You do get the drift of what I'm saying here, right? Now get on out there and have a talk with your little brother already."

The truth is that the almighty God long suffers evil-doers, that He might save some. And the commandment is to do what is necessary to be saved:

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Action. Not choice. Not decision. But action is written.

His decision is known by the true record of his deed.

The account is made after the act, not before.

You deny being created in the image of God, and in His image having thoughts and intents of the heart.

You do away with the inner man of the heart, in order to justify disobeying God in the flesh. You teach the worst sort of pagan fatalism, that is without heart nor soul.

 

[Ghada]

so people are incapable of keeping the commandments to God's satisfaction (James 2:10);

Carnal people are incapable.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The only place on the Bible, where God ever says a man cannot do His will and keep His word, is with the willfully carnal man that repents not of his deeds. The willing worker of iniquity has no power to choose to serve God and do His law, while hardened against repentance of his deeds..

You are projecting your own willful enmity against God, that cannot do His will nor choose to serve Him, as the pattern all men must conform to.

You make unto yourself a god and christ, that you choose all men to conform to, and they have no choice in the matter, because you declare it is so.

 

[Ghada]

we are guilty before God apart from our Savior.

All unrepented sinners are guilty before God, whether knowing His law or not.

Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

And all such ungodly sinners are apart from God's Savior Jesus Christ.

For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Being in Christ Jesus is not being apart from condemnation while sinning, but is being apart from the sinning that condemns the unrepentant sinner.

But after thy hardness and unrepentant heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

All men and women created in the image of God, have power to choose to do good or evil, and also to repent of the evil.

If any man or woman chooses not to believe this simple truth, in order to justify their continued evil doing, then that is their own condemnation.

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[Ghada]

so people are incapable of keeping the commandments to God's satisfaction (James 2:10);

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

The Bible says only the natural man that believes not God, and the unrepentant carnal minded enemies of God, are the ones that cannot know Him nor be subject to Him. They have no freewill to do God's will, because they are hardened to repentance of their deeds to do His law.

Therefore, To say no man has freewill to choose to obey God, is saying all men and women are carnal minded enemies of God.

And you confess yourself as such, and so are also projecting yourself as example of all men and women. You say you have no freewill to obey God, and for you an unrepentant sinner it is certainly true.

But then you make yourself the slavish pattern all men must conform to, and just as unrepentant as you, in order to justify your own hardness of heart.

You make unto yourself a god and christ without freedom, that chooses all men to himself, and no man has any choice in the matter. And you are his logical spokesman, that learns how to use logic and rules of rhetoric to say what God does not say, and to not say what God does say.

You teach a fatalist christ twisting what Jesus Christ is not saying to any man, into saying something enslaved without heart to think and intend with.

Declaring man has no freewill to choose to do good or evil, is denying the hidden man of the heart created in the image of God, which is exactly what natural man is willingly blind to.

It's what naturalist pagans used in order to justify a life of natural mastery or slavery, according to the whims of the gods and birth.

It's akin to the predeterminism of who God chooses to make do good, and who God chooses to make do evil.

 

[Josheb]

Commandment Exposes Righteousness and Wickedness - Not Inherent Capability Conveyance

Sure they do.

This all relates as to why Paul didn't write that he'd just choose to stop coveting, instead Paul indicates that he became aware of his sinfulness through the commandment.

Which does not in any way stop a command from conveying ability.

Two fallacies are contained in this no-conveyance-of-ability position, two false dichotomies (otherwise known as the fallacy of the neglected middle). A command can convey multiple things, not just awareness of the law. It can convey ability AND it can convey inability. It can also convey awareness of the law and awareness of sin and a means of accountability. It can convey a man's character. A command can also convey God's character. A command can also convey God's authority. That is eight things right there that a command can convey. These ops have argued only one conveyance can exist and denied another when the facts of both scripture and reason are that commands may convey many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many things.

The father who commanded his two sons to go work in the field got four different responses, two different verbal response and two different behavioral responses and neither verbal response reconciled with the behavioral response. Paul wrote he wouldn't know what coveting is had he not known the law but he ALSO wrote the Gentile knows right and wrong because his conscience demonstrates he too knows God's laws. Paul ALSO wrote sin was not held into account during the period of time between Adam and Moses yet still sin reigned. The command not only accounts for good AND bad behavior, it also conveys sin's reign (add that to the list above). In other words, one NT writer - Paul - the writer you chose, provided several conveyances and all but one was ignored. This is blatant evidence of a selective use of scripture AND a selective denial of scripture.​

From the beginning of the first no-conveyance-of-ability op the argument has been wrong. False dichotomies are always and everywhere fallacious, and EVERYTHING built on the fallacy is also wrong.

 

[Josheb]

Print up Post #96. Take it to your pastor or one of the elders in your congregation and ask him about this matter. Ask him "Is there more than one single, solitary, lone thing God could be conveying when He commands?" Then go ask two other people whose views you respect. If you're married, include your spouse and ask two others. TELL THEM they have your complete permission to speak frankly, plainly, bluntly, honestly, forthcomingly to you without fear of criticism or derision. Tell them not to hold back. Establish the matter with others you respect because no one here in CCCF has been able to persuade.

This question is important for many reasons because, at a bare minimum, anyone who thinks there is and can be only one possible conveyance when God commands has bound God. That god is not a God, and s/he/it is most definitely not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is omni-attributed ALL mighty and can command an infinite number of commands for an infinite number of reasons for an infinite number of purposes conveying and infinite number of conveyances. In addition to the binding of God, the selective use of scripture whereby one set of scripture speaking about one aspect of commands is used to restrict God makes the abuser of God's word lord over God. Nowhere does scripture state "God conveys only one thing when He commands".

These ops unwittingly assert a limited God, not an almighty God and they elevate the limiter of God above God (at least I assume it is done unwittingly).

Thise no-conveyance-of-ability position really needs to be considered. There is a lot wrong with it both scripturally and logically. The patience and forbearance of others here in CCCF should also be considered because EVERYONE has made a goodwill effort to open up the incredible diversity and multiple truths of scripture for your benefit only to be ignored and, in some cases fallacious repudiated with ad hominem. Bad doctrine has been posted. It needs correction. That bad doctrine has been posted in all three ops. All three ops received correction and in all three ops the correction has been ignored.

Sometimes the command conveys inability.

Posting the same position again and again will result in the same response: correction.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Do not be that guy. Posting the same position again and again will result in the same response: correction. Eventually the result will be the wisest here will ignore the ops and the only ones with whom you'll trade posts is trolls.

God's commands can convey ability or inability. They can convey man's character, God's character, God's authority, God's sovereignty, the power of sin, knowledge of righteousness, knowledge of God's standards, knowledge of sin, a means of accountability and more. Neither God nor His commands are limited to one conveyance and all arguments to the contrary are false dichotomies that bind God and elevate the binder above God. It is an idolatrous position that should be discarded.

 

[Kermos]

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..."

Your first paragraph is untrue with respect to prophecy as proven in post #87 respecting:

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"
(Genesis 2:16-17)
​

Continuing on with your writings, your heart's treasure is "This is nothing but prophecy for the non-responsible children of disobedience: 'It's not my fault God made me this way...'" (your closing paragraph), and you are on the verge of reading that you fight the Apostle's doctrine. Notice, you, Ghada, are the "you" in the quotation "who are you, O man" (Romans 9:20) right below because you wrote "It's not my fault God made me this way".

God is the Potter, and we are the clay controlled by God (Romans 9:19-23).​

The Apostle Paul wrote:

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 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? 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? 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? 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)
​

Your thoughts are without understanding because Apostolic testimony holds that God "has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Romans 9:18).

No Scripture states man was imparted free-will, so your thoughts of "Anyone not believing in free will of man to choose to do good or evil, every preach all men die to God" matches the teaching of the children of disobedience (you did bring the group up in your writings).

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]

Meaningless word salad.

Let's just to see where your thoughts revealed in your post lead. You think that God can willpower evil against God - see item 6, below, that you wickedly call "meaningless".

Here is the content of just that section that you brought up in your post.

The attribute of man being created in the image according to the likeness of God

1. WITH a targeted result of logical deductive reasoning leveraging compare and contrast of attributes/facilities
2. SINCE Adam was made in the image according to the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26)
3. THEN some persons of the creation (creatures) argue that specific facility was given to Adam
4. 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
5. THEN Adam could not have used free will to perform evil against God
6. BECAUSE God will not use willpower in order to perform evil against God's self (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 92:15, Deuteronomy 32:4)
7. THEREFORE it follows that Man could not use free will in order to perform evil against God
8. 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 Adams 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)

You assigned "meaningless" to this Word of God:

Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
(Genesis 1:26)
​

Furthermore, you also assigned "meaningless" to this Word of God:

But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
(Matthew 15:9)
​

You see, Josh II, when you used the "..........." series of periods, then you indicated the content of that bullet point with all of it's content, at a minimum, is "meaningless" to your heart. Here is a copy of that which you quoted from the original post:

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...........
​

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]

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.

B.I.N.G.O.


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.

I'm including both your responses in this post since they are highly related.

Over in The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of God thread, the definition of "free" is considered (the link is to post #13 which has a section about "The Bondage Of A Man's Will", but the OP has a developed definition moving to "free-will"). This is highly relevant.

You convey that this definition of free-will is insufficient:

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

Salvation from the wrath of God hangs on belief in the Son whom the Father has sent (John 6:29), and this very belief is "the work of God" (John 6:29).

This belief is not the work of man (John 6:28-29, Ephesians 2:8-10).

Please bear with me, as I suspect you recognize this fact about belief/faith.

The Word of God is good unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

Now, bringing this all together.

One cannot cause one's faith to be in Jesus Christ, so the Word is needed to cause one's belief to be in Jesus Christ.

A person thinking "I chose to believe in Jesus Christ" is the person who makes for himself or herself an idol (Exodus 20:4) followed by the person worshipping the idol (Exodus 20:5), and the idol is not Lord Jesus Christ the Word of God.

The OP's "Largely" paragraph leaves no latitude regarding the crucial point that man is completely dependent upon God for salvation.

That's the crux of the point, "free-will" results in a person choosing a false god, an idol; on the other hand, a person's "bond-will" by God results in a person acknowledging God's amazing saving Grace!

What other point about free-will matters, fastfredy0?

makesends, do you see that free-will (no Scripture) is a misnomer because an unsaved person has a self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10), Biblically speaking?

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.