You say God has a “Holy nature” which I assume includes free will and does not sin, so do Adam and Eve have this “holy nature” including free will before sinning? Why did God withhold his Holy Nature from Adam and Eve?
God created a new creature in man...of less power/fewer attributes it seems than his former creation even, the angels...but neither was this creation an "equal to God" for no creation is that. We were not 'born of God' as Christ was, but man received the breath or life of God into an earthy body. The thing formed was not "Holy", but it was a 'perfect' creation. No mar or flaw was found in it (same said of Lucifer Ez.28:15) until the day in which it rebelled against his Maker. Morally it was innocent...not knowing good or evil. And having no flaw, had inward "free" will to go with or against his Creator.
The Bible does not say they were driven from the Garden because of their added knowledge or their change in nature (nor does not say their nature even changed).
But you would agree that 'something' changed and they were driven from the garden because of it. I think we may have a clue in the warning given before the event, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" [or 'dying thou shalt die' is a better rendering]. I call that a change of 'nature', but it's fine if you want to call it something else.
“As a marred vessel, his choices were not 'free' as before” is an unsupported hypothesis and is not logical. Just because a being makes one wrong free will choice, why would it mean he cannot make any more free will choices? Can we learn from our mistakes?
I think it totally logical. Here's an illustration. A young virgin makes that one mistake of not remaining in the front seat. One minute she is 'innocent', the next, and forever, she isn't. Every decision she makes after that she makes, not as a young innocent virgin, but as a young not-so-innocent maiden. Something has been 'done' that cannot be 'undone'. Thus with Adam. Once he sinned, innocence was lost, sin had entered and "every" decision he made after that was tainted with the fact that something had changed in him. And like the young girl, it wasn't only a change in 'knowledge' that had come about. He was no longer a 'virgin' as before...and the sin that had entered would forever characterize his decision-making unless...yes, that's it...unless he was 'born again'...that would give him a new nature and, in God's eyes at least, it would be like starting over. Same for the youg maiden if she could, literally and physically, be born again.
Actually the water molecules have not change and their nature is fully intact, but arsenic atoms have been added.
Yes the type or illustration always falls short but if those arsenic atoms could not be removed you probably would agree that the 'nature' of the water has been compromised. Also, I would like to ask if you would feel free to take some of that water in the illustration given if, as you say, "the water molecules have not changed and their nature is fully intact"? Tainted, isn't it?
The reason everything the nonbeliever does is of no value, is because he does not have Godly type Love motivating him, so as Paul tells us (1 Cor 13: 1-4) everything he does is worthless. That Love comes only after he gives up, surrenders and allows God to forgive him.
No, I would not totally agree. The unbeliever would not need "Godly type Love" in him to plow a field. But God says his plowing is sin. Why? Because he doesn't Love the field? You know that's nonsense. It's because he has said in his heart, "No God", "No", to God, or "There is No such thing as God"; whatever it is, he excludes God from it all; thus, he is not plowing "by faith" or trust that God will bless his labours, and as such he is doing it for some other person or purpose, "And whatsoever is not of faith, is sin". Don't you see the difference?
Not really.
Will give an outline later on the "twice dead" condition.
