Was Adam imparted free will from the beginning of Creation?

[Kermos]

@Josheb @fastfredy0 @makesends @Ghada @Mr GLee @CrowCross @Josh II @Carbon @Arial

The Word of God reserves unto Himself all glory for man being saved from the wrath of God.

The gracious Benefactor of us Christians exclusively produces

1. divine choice of we beneficiaries unto salvation, for the Christ of us Christians says
   “you did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16) and “I chose you out of the world” (John 15:19)
   AND, Paul is in accord with Jesus’ words for he wrote to the Ephesians “Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love” (Ephesians 1:3-4)
   SO, clearly, Jesus’ words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 state God exclusively chooses us believers by/of/through God
2. beneficiaries’ faith/belief in Lord Jesus, for the Christ of us Christians says (see also a word about belief/faith (Greek πίστις pistis) and believe (Greek πιστεύω pisteuó))
   “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29)
   AND Paul is in accord with Jesus’ words for Paul wrote to the Ephesians “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His work” (Ephesians 2:8-10)
   AND Peter is in accord with Jesus’ words for Peter declared “God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:8-9)
   SO, clearly, Jesus’ words in John 6:29 state for us believers to believe in Jesus whom the Father has sent is exclusively by/of/through God
3. beneficiaries’ fruit of the Spirit/righteous actions/good works, for the Christ of us Christians says
   “he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God” (John 3:21)
   AND Paul is in accord with Jesus’ words for he wrote to the Philippians “being filled with the fruit of righteousness that [is] by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (Philippians 1:11)
   SO, clearly, Jesus’ words in John 3:21 state fruit in we believers is exclusively by/of/through God
4. beneficiaries’ birth by the Holy Spirit, for the Christ of us Christians says
   “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:5-8)
   AND Peter is in accord with Jesus’ words for he wrote to persons residing as aliens “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
   SO, clearly, Jesus’ words in John 3:5-8 state we believers being born again is exclusively by/of/through God
5. beneficiaries’ repent by God’s working, for the Christ of us Christians says
   “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes” (Matthew 11:25)
   AND the apostles and elders are in accord with Jesus’ words with thier saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18)
   SO, clearly, Jesus’ words in Matthew 11:25 state that God exclusively causes man to think differently after an encounter with God (repent means to think differently afterward)
6. beneficiaries’ love by God’s working, for the Christ of us Christians says
   “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34)
   AND John is in accord with Jesus’ words for he wrote “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7, see the phrase “love is from God” meaning God is the source of true love)
   AND John expands with his writing of “God is Love, and the one who abides in Love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 John 4:16, see the phrase “one who abides in Love” is equivocated with “one who abides” “in God” which extends from God’s exclusivity with “God is Love”)
   SO, clearly, Jesus’ words in John 13:34 states that the love, true love (John 3:33), the very righteous love, the Godly love within us children of God, this love is exclusively by/of/through God

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (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.

 

[Josheb]

Let's just to see where your thoughts revealed in your post lead.

No, let's discuss this op.

This op is specifically and explicitly about the premise Adam was NOT imparted free will from the beginning of creation. Consequent to that thesis I have asked some very valid and foundationally op-relevant questions.

Does God have a will?
Is the will of God free (not controlled by another and at liberty to do as He pleases)?

And those questions have not been answered and addressed op-relevantly. Instead, the responses are like the following...

Let's just to see where your thoughts revealed in your post lead. You think...

It's very simple: keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

You think that God can willpower evil against God

ROTFLMBO!

I never said any such thing. Nowhere will any such statement ever be found in any post I have ever written, whether it be in this thread or any other. If that is what was assumed I believe, then you are wrong and have always and everywhere been wrong every time that thought occurred. I do not believe God can or would willpower evil against Himself and have never said otherwise. I consider the statement nonsensical because it is nonsensically self-refuting.

Once again, you've born false witness.

What are you going to do about it?

The original post contains the Truth...

No, it does not and the evidence so far contains a lot of abused scripture, a plethora of faulty logic and several occasions where the forums rules were violated. In short, the op is both scripturally and logically faulty and not true at all. No one has agreed to it and EVERYONE has attempted various means of correcting and improving the op so that it would accurately reflect the whole of scripture and every single poster, and every single attempt is dismissed in favor of nonsense like the portions I just quoted. Proving my views incorrect will never prove the op correct. That entire line of response is faulty (both scripturally and logically) and evidence against the op.



Make it right.

"Josh, I now see I was, once again, wrong in assuming something about your beliefs and I am thankful you've made your view clear and I stand corrected. Please forgive my presumption. I will try to keep the posts about the posts and stick to making an impecable case for my views wherever anyone posts any difference."

Feel free to put that in your own words .
.

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb @fastfredy0 @makesends @Ghada @Mr GLee @CrowCross @Josh II @Carbon @Arial

The Word of God reserves unto Himself all glory for man being saved from the wrath of God.

If that is a reference to the written word, then the "Word of God" does nothing apart from God and His will. It does not "reserve" anything. If that statement is a reference to the written word than that statement is an anthropomorphizing, a reification, of the written word. As such it is an abuse of scripture.

Abuses of scripture never prove anything, and they are never truth.


If you mean the "Word of God" as a reference to the incarnate word, then you need to state that and clarify it because the incarnate word never does anything apart from God's will either. Look how many posters you listed. We do not all think alike or hold identical views but on one thing we stand united: this op is wrong, and our content is not being given a fair hearing. This op was given a fair hearing and the uniform consensus - one empowered by a plethora of scripture - is that the op contains more than a few mistakes.

 

[Josheb]

The original post contains the Truth

No, it does not and repeating that claim ad nauseam does not make the claim true. One of the many changes need in this op is the abuse of John 14:6. I broached that many posts ago and the matter has been ignored.

 

[fastfredy0]

What other point about free-will matters, fastfredy0?

Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord 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)

I can tell we have the same doctrinal beliefs on this matter when I read your more detailed analysis. That being said, I don't like your statement for semantic reasons as I don't like your definition of FREE WILL.

I believe I choose Christ leading to salvation as that was/is my will/desire to do so. I believe the cause of my will/desire was God. When most people speak of "FREE" WILL the "FREE" part of the definition means they made their decision independent of external influences (God). Your Free Will definition doesn't give the CAUSE (why) of the decision which I think is essential.
I chose Christ leading to my salvation. The cause of my choosing Christ is the Spirit via the process of regeneration. (This is the work of God that you believe). If one's definition of Free Will is the self-determined (externally uninfluenced) choosing of God then I don't believe Free Will exists.
If FREE WILL is defined as doing what I desire most then I believe I have Free Will.

 

[CrowCross]

I believe the cause of my will/desire was God.

Which means if God doesn't "cause"-------->you can't choose Christ--------->If you can't choose Christ you don't have free will.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

Yes he was not imparted free will . . the power to obey the will of God. You say mankind flunked the test.

Mankind followed after the letter of the law "death "(thou shall not or you're dead never to rise to new life) "dying mankind".

Mankind became a slave to sin after the god of this world the father of all lies .Mankind ate of the forbidden meat (food) the will of the father of lies .

Believers were rescued and freed up with the Son of man, Jesus empowered by working with the Holy Father. Jesus demonstrating the love of the Holy Father not seen. He ate of the eternal fruit meat . Our daily bread or hidden manna. Manna meaning as a query. What is it? The kind food the disciples knew not of at first .

John 4:33-34 King 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 church the freed bride .

Galaitian 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.

 

[fastfredy0]

Which means if God doesn't "cause"-------->you can't choose Christ--------->If you can't choose Christ you don't have free will.

Well, you didn't define Free Will but if you define FREE WILL as "the ability to choose to believe leading to salvation as caused by yourself alone" then I agree with your statement.

Aside: the above definition of Free Will being circular logic as it means one can chose how he determines how to chose.

 

[Josheb]

Which means if God doesn't "cause"-------->you can't choose Christ--------->If you can't choose Christ you don't have free will.

No, that's not quite correct. That's an overgeneralization that does not apply in all circumstances.

Take, for example, someone who has been rendered unconscious for whatever reason (drowned but not yet dead, struck unconscious but not dead, under the influence of drugs but not yet dead, etc.) That person has a will, but that will is either so compromised that it is ineffective for the task at hand, or it is not functioning. There are lots of conditions where a person cannot choose but still has free will. Confusing existence with efficacy is a mistake.

 

[Mr GLee]

Well, you didn't define Free Will but if you define FREE WILL as "the ability to choose to believe leading to salvation as caused by yourself alone" then I agree with your statement.

Aside: the above definition of Free Will being circular logic as it means one can chose how he determines how to chose.

I would another from another perspective. .

God forbids numbering. He wants us to trust him not seen not number or days . Thousands died because David refused to obey. We are warned of those of the number 2 Corinthians 10:12

The grace of God gives us that were dead in tresspoases a living abiding hope. For who hopes for that which they already all have.all die not receiving the promised new incorruptible body .

The key gospel is as many as

Like any many names found writen in the lambs book of life from the foundation (the 6 days he did work

Matthew 14:36 And besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.

Matthew 22:9Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

Matthew 22:10So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

John 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,even to them that believe on his name:

John 8:30As he spake these words, many believed on him.


John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

 

[Ghada]

The morals of the story:

One moral: don't listen to hypotheticals intended to justify doing evil.

Adam was not an unlearned adolescents youth, but a man with full sense, education, and career.

This is why God never uses hypotheticals. He doesn't need to, because He only speaks and commands the truth.

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).

Natural sun and rain on natural bodies, has nothing to do with spiritual will to do good or evil with the body.

Local environment does not determine outcome. The first Adam sinned in the garden of delight, and the 2nd Adam did not sin in a wicked world.

Ancient pagan fatalism and modern environment sociology are both natural man's rejection of man being created in God's image, with inner heart and soul to choose to do good or evil.

Making environment the mast of man, is destroying the heart and will of the inner man.

Points 5 and 6 are analagous to the sin nature as default nature

There is no sin nature created by Christ, nor any creature created by Him with sin and lust.

Angles and men create their own lust of heart to sin and disobey the true and living Creator.

Making a default nature for oneself to sin, is man's power of intellect to produce doctrinal justification to disobey God, by either blaming God for sinning, or to make the god of this world their creator.

Paganism is man's justification for doing evil by the gods they claimed to be created by. Unrighteous religion is unrepented sinners' justification for doing evil by changing the incorruptible God into the devil.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections

The example is concluded.

The hypothetical is foolish.

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.

We've seen your lie about freewill having nothing to do with voluntary free will.

There is nothing in Gen 2 demanding a 'when' nor an '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.

And we see here where your self-producing conclusions rely upon foolish hypotheticals and intellectual sophistry.

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:

Isolating verses from the rest of the Bible is a common wresting of Scripture from other Scripture, in order to teach separately from the one doctrine of the whole Bible.

Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy.

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

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Since God can create the whole of heaven and earth by word of His mouth, He can certainly create man in His image by the same word with power to choose like God to do good according to His own will, or to choose like gods to good or evil according to their own will and power.

Self-justifying unrepented sinners do not worship God as God, and are willingly ignorant of the power of God's creation of man in His own image.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

​

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.​

And yet you Christians do sin and justify it as naturally necessary in the this life. With pleasure.

Praise Lord Jesus for "the love of Christ controls us" (2 Corinthians 5:14)!​

Christ is not a 'possessing spirit'. Only an advocate of no freewill would translate Christ as a 'controlling' spirit, which were called one's daemon for good or evil. And so, all you do is preach for yourself the favored side of pagan fatalism. They called it being 'fortune's favorite'.

For the love of Christ constraineth us;

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

Man is indeed constrained and bound in this life by the judgment to do good or evil, not by any controlling power forcing to do one or the other.

Especially when that so-called power is of hypocrisy to do both good and evil. That controlling spirit is one's own freewill working for or against one's own soul and life.

 

[CrowCross]

Well, you didn't define Free Will but if you define FREE WILL as "the ability to choose to believe leading to salvation as caused by yourself alone" then I agree with your statement.

Aside: the above definition of Free Will being circular logic as it means one can chose how he determines how to chose.

all I was saying is that you can't choose Jesus unless God the Father grants you the ability to do so. Therefor if Father doesn't grant you the ability to do so....you can't choose Jesus. If you can't choose Jesus then you don't have the free will to choose Jesus.

 

[CrowCross]

No, that's not quite correct. That's an overgeneralization that does not apply in all circumstances.

Take, for example, someone who has been rendered unconscious for whatever reason (drowned but not yet dead, struck unconscious but not dead, under the influence of drugs but not yet dead, etc.) That person has a will, but that will is either so compromised that it is ineffective for the task at hand, or it is not functioning. There are lots of conditions where a person cannot choose but still has free will. Confusing existence with efficacy is a mistake.

And you provided an under generalization to demonstrate your point. I basically provided John 6:65.

In your post you said..."That person has a will, but that will is either so compromised that it is ineffective for the task at hand, or it is not functioning".......I would say they are so comprimised with their sin nature that they don't even have a will. Some call it total depravity.

 

[Josheb]

And you provided an under generalization to demonstrate your point. I basically provided John 6:65.

In your post you said..."That person has a will, but that will is either so compromised that it is ineffective for the task at hand, or it is not functioning".......I would say they are so comprimised with their sin nature that they don't even have a will. Some call it total depravity.

The doctrine of Total Depravity does not negate the existence of the will, and if you think otherwise then the onus is on you, not me or anyone else here to prove the will is eradicated to the point of non-existence.

Even Arminius implicitly affirmed the will's existence in the sinner (Disputation 11) when he argued it was present but useless.

"[In the sinful state] the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."​

Monergist Steve Lawson said it this way...

"Our wills are in bondage to sin, and we cannot believe the gospel in and of themselves."​

Logically speaking, it is impossible to enslave something that does not exist.

Likewise, R. C. Sproul (another wholly Reformed monergist and subscribe to TD) said this...

"The will of man is no longer in its pristine state of moral power. The will, according to the New Testament, is now in bondage. We are enslaved to the evil impulses and desires of our hearts. The body, the mind, the will, the spirit—indeed, the whole person—have been infected by the power of sin."​

Ligonier and monergismdotcom are filled with different people describing the bondage of the will in diverse ways from diverse approaches but they all agree: the will still exists, it's just dead to God salvifically and enslaved to sin. I can, if you like, provde several classic Arminians also articulated that same common ground. Neither the Augustinian monergism, the Reformed monergism, nor Reformed synergism say the human sinner's will is eradicated to the point of non-existence. They all say it exists but is unable to choose God salvifically. The sinner can choose what flavor of ice cream he prefers, or what color shirt to wear, but not salvation.




The point being made is that there is plenty of place, plenty of reason, both scripturally and logically to think a person can have a will and still not be able to choose.

Which means if God doesn't "cause"-------->you can't choose Christ--------->If you can't choose Christ you don't have free will.

No, that's not quite correct. That's an overgeneralization that does not apply in all circumstances.

Take, for example, someone who has been rendered unconscious for whatever reason (drowned but not yet dead, struck unconscious but not dead, under the influence of drugs but not yet dead, etc.) That person has a will, but that will is either so compromised that it is ineffective for the task at hand, or it is not functioning. There are lots of conditions where a person cannot choose but still has free will. Confusing existence with efficacy is a mistake.

I will agree with you on this, though: When it comes to salvation from sin the ONLY reason anyone can and does choose God is because God has empowered them to do so. The monergist perspective is that it is regeneration that empowers the choice. The synergist says it some other divine cause prior to regeneration. Regeneration precedes faith versus faith precedes regeneration. Anyone subscribing to the latter AND also believing there is no will by which the sinner might make a choice has got an internal conflict in his soteriology.

 

[fastfredy0]

all I was saying is that you can't choose Jesus unless God the Father grants you the ability to do so.

Which leaves the question: Does God grant everyone the ability to choose Jesus?
Since you didn't address that question, your definition of Free Will is still ambiguous.

Put simply ... who is the cause of you choosing Christ:
1) only yourself (Free Will as defined by Free Willianism)
2) only God (reformed view point)
3) no one (Libertarian Free Will)

 

[CrowCross]

The doctrine of Total Depravity does not negate the existence of the will,

I never claimed it did.

I divide will into two categories.

The first is having the freedom to buy a chevy or a ford....to wear a red shirt or a blue shirt.
The second is concerning "choosing Jesus"....salvation.

 

[CrowCross]

Which leaves the question: Does God grant everyone the ability to choose Jesus?

I would tend to say ...no.

Since you didn't address that question, your definition of Free Will is still ambiguous.

Put simply ... who is the cause of you choosing Christ:
1) only yourself (Free Will as defined by Free Willianism)
2) only God (reformed view point)
3) no one (Libertarian Free Will)

i'm going with 2

 

[Mr GLee]

I would tend to say ...no.

i'm going with 2

I would say the born again will.

We have the mind of God .Not a mind in bondage to the will of the god of this world

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Remember he who is of one mind always does whatsoever His mighty work of faith as a labor of His love does .Let there be a new creation and it was god

No ballot box with Monarchy, Not democracy or republican But King of Kings ,Lord of lords

God is not a man .He does not debate with a dying creation under a curse

Job 9:32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: (Let there be and it was God good) and many such things are with him. Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him. For God maketh (Let there be) my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

Who makes your heart soft is the question each one must ask according to his law of faith again "let there be" and it was God alone good. .

Many say God does not need or have faith as labor of His love, The power of resurrection those dead in trespass and sin.

 

[Josheb]

Which leaves the question: Does God grant everyone the ability to choose Jesus?
Since you didn't address that question, your definition of Free Will is still ambiguous.

Put simply ... who is the cause of you choosing Christ:
1) only yourself (Free Will as defined by Free Willianism)
2) only God (reformed view point)
3) no one (Libertarian Free Will)

#3 is not libertarian free will. If no one is the cause then the choice is uncaused and since that choice is causal to salvation it is an uncaused cause. There is no such thing as an uncaused cause in an inherently causal creation... other than God. God is the only uncaused cause. Libertarian free will takes many forms but they are all synergist - some mixture of God and the unregenerate sinner being causal. And, technically, the "only yourself" form of "free willianism" (funny moniker ) is would be a an extreme version of Pelagian and that's not representative of most synergist povs (free willianisms ). When libertarians say, "Free means uncaused," they are not denying the sinner as the causal agent of his own choices, they are simply denying the causal determinism of preceding predicate events. Influences are not causes. Libertarian is, therefore, self-causal. If the Theopedia article on Libertarianism is correct then, technically, "God limits the actions of men," is a determinism, and a determinism limiting both influence and causality (what can be minded and what can be willed) so the rest of that sentence, "God limits the actions of men but not their mind or will," is self-contradictory.

Furthermore, the op is specifically about whether or not God gave Adam free will but the conversation has turned soteriological. Soteriologically speaking, Christianity has historically separated the soteriological choice(s) from all other choices. Arminius, a synergist, held to Total Depravity. He taught that man in his sinful state could do no salvific good. Yet, along with that position, he also taught there was a moment prior to regeneration when God momentarily freed the individual from the bondage of sin (and all other determinisms*) so a free (unfettered) choice could be made. Conversely, when it comes to choices outside the arena of salvation there are plenty of soteriological monergists who are compatibilists (like me). As I said earlier, a sinfully dead, sin-enslaved unregenerate human can choose his favorite flavor of ice cream and/or what color shirt to wear but s/he cannot salvifically choose Jesus in that state.

Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will



Lastly, for the record, none of this applied to Adam prior to Genesis 3:6.








*Many Arms view this prevenient grace moment as a moment in which God also reveals himself so the individual then knows God and makes his unfettered choice in God's presence and this is one of the reasons why the choice not to be saved is so egregious: they know of God's existence and denied Him).
.

 

[Josheb]

I never claimed it did.

I never claimed you claimed it did. I was covering that base preemptively and proactively.

I divide will into two categories.

The first is having the freedom to buy a chevy or a ford....to wear a red shirt or a blue shirt.
The second is concerning "choosing Jesus"....salvation.

Yep.

Salvifically, the two should never be conflated. Historically speaking, the only ones who argued otherwise qualified as what we now call Pelagians and that has been considered a heretical position at least as far back as the influences on Augustine, Pelagius, Jerome, and their 4th century peers. More recently, Provisionists could be included in that group. They're the only ones who think sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate humans can choose salvation while dead, enslaved and unregenerate.