Created at birth?

[TedT]

So they are born innocent? With no sin nature?

PCE theology contends that
- everyone created in HIS image were all created innocent before the creation of the physical universe or the foundation of the world with a free will and

- we stayed innocent until we chose by a free will decision to rebuke YHWH as a liar and a fase god (the unforgivable sin)
OR
we chose to rebel against HIS call for us to come out from and to be separate from the unforgivable reprobate in order to force the postponement of the judgement upon our now condemned friends.

- all sinners were sown (moved, not created as the devil sows also but cannot create) into the world of mankind, Matt 13:36-39, by their conception into this world as GOD saw fit.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Sounds a little like Ancestral Sin. OF course "the Devil is in the details", so I would be reluctant to try to make some kind of modern version of this.

Ancestral Versus Original Sin | St. Mary Orthodox Church of Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ancestral Sin: The Fall And Its Consequences

 

[Mark Quayle]

PCE theology contends that
- everyone created in HIS image were all created innocent before the creation of the physical universe or the foundation of the world with a free will and

- we stayed innocent until we chose by a free will decision to rebuke YHWH as a liar and a fase god (the unforgivable sin)
OR
we chose to rebel against HIS call for us to come out from and to be separate from the unforgivable reprobate in order to force the postponement of the judgement upon our now condemned friends.

- all sinners were sown (moved, not created as the devil sows also but cannot create) into the world of mankind, Matt 13:36-39, by their conception into this world as GOD saw fit.

Is this "free will", to which you cling so energetically, the one meaning "capable of making actual choices"? Or is it the one that means, "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or predetermination; the ability to act at one's own discretion apart from God's control"?

 

[TedT]

Is this "free will", to which you cling so energetically, the one meaning "capable of making actual choices"? Or is it the one that means, "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or predetermination; the ability to act at one's own discretion apart from God's control"?

Glad to address this again: For a will to be free it must not be coerced or forced to chose any particular option available within the choice by anything or anyone NOR constrained from choosing any option within the choice by any power or person.

Being "capable of making actual choices" does not prove nor define our free will as the Satanic who are fully leavened by the enslaving power of evil still make choices about how to express their sinfulness all the time within the constraints of their enslavement, and and the doctrine of our enslavement to sin either proves that sinners have no free will (unless reborn) or it is meaningless, unfit to attribute to our Lord.

Therefore I accept your phrase "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or predetermination; the ability to act at one's own discretion apart from God's control" as the definition of the free will that is absolutely essential for us to be guilty of sin and able to have a real marriage with HIM.

Since GOD is light in whom is no darkness at all so that no dark or evil can be produced by HIM from HIS holiness, it is obvious that Satan's first sin had to be by his own will or choice, NOT YHWH's, who would never go against HIS own nature as holy and loving by creating evil to corrupt HIS creation since HE is NOT a house divided.

But since HE obviously allowed Satan to take that first step into the creation of evil within HIS sovereign purpose to allow us to freely choose our own fate even if against HIS desire to keep HIS creation free of evil so HE would not have to judge anyone, we understand that Satan must have had a free will, that is, a will free of GOD's determination, to be able to make such a choice against GOD HIMself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Glad to address this again: For a will to be free it must not be coerced or forced to chose any particular option available within the choice by anything or anyone NOR constrained from choosing any option within the choice by any power or person.

To me it is more than simply 'interesting', that the notion of coercion is so often brought into the debate. After all, a person coerced nevertheless makes his choices with that coercion bearing on his thoughts. He does choose. You may have heard me say this before: That I have spoken with several atheists, who having not really thought about it before, and who like to think they are in charge of their own lives, nevertheless admit to the pervasiveness of cause-and-effect, and admit that their choices, while real, are nevertheless also, caused. I expect you too admit that nobody makes unbiased nor uninfluenced choices.

Being "capable of making actual choices" does not prove nor define our free will as the Satanic who are fully leavened by the enslaving power of evil still make choices about how to express their sinfulness all the time within the constraints of their enslavement, and and the doctrine of our enslavement to sin either proves that sinners have no free will (unless reborn) or it is meaningless, unfit to attribute to our Lord.

Here you begin to slide into another use of the word, "free". How are their choices caused, but yours are not? They indeed are slaves to the flesh, and you to Christ.

Therefore I accept your phrase "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or predetermination; the ability to act at one's own discretion apart from God's control" as the definition of the free will that is absolutely essential for us to be guilty of sin and able to have a real marriage with HIM.

Do you believe that anything can happen without the course for it to happen having been already set? After all, as far as we have been able to observe, whenever choices come, only one thing actually comes to pass, which always is, "whatever happens". And you admit God knew what that would be (or don't you?) and yet created anyhow!

Since GOD is light in whom is no darkness at all so that no dark or evil can be produced by HIM from HIS holiness, it is obvious that Satan's first sin had to be by his own will or choice, NOT YHWH's, who would never go against HIS own nature as holy and loving by creating evil to corrupt HIS creation since HE is NOT a house divided.

Of course. I never implied differently. He did not create sin. But then, sin is not a creation at all.

But since HE obviously allowed Satan to take that first step into the creation of evil within HIS sovereign purpose to allow us to freely choose our own fate even if against HIS desire to keep HIS creation free of evil so HE would not have to judge anyone, we understand that Satan must have had a free will, that is, a will free of GOD's determination, to be able to make such a choice against GOD HIMself.

Do you find no examples in the Bible of God setting people up for their fall? If he does that at all, then he has ruined your notion of merely "allowing". Not so "free" as you think, after all.

 

[fhansen]

Sounds a little like Ancestral Sin. OF course "the Devil is in the details", so I would be reluctant to try to make some kind of modern version of this.

Ancestral Versus Original Sin | St. Mary Orthodox Church of Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ancestral Sin: The Fall And Its Consequences

Thank you for this article; I’ve long tried to understand the differences between the two concepts and the article was helpful. And while I believe that, in actual fact, there are far more similarities between the two views than differences, some patterns emerge where both views can shed some clearer light on the nature of the Fall and man’s wounded relationship with God. IMO perhaps the most important statement in the article was this:
“Salvation is a transformation from the tragic state of alienation and autonomy that ends in death into a state of communion with God and one another that ends in eternal life.”

And that is thoroughly Catholic BTW. Also Catholic is the understanding that the will of man is necessarily involved, that salvation is a cooperative effort between man and God even as His grace is absolutely essential as the most important “ingredient”.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Thank you for this article; I’ve long tried to understand the differences between the two concepts and the article was helpful. And while I believe that, in actual fact, there are far more similarities between the two views than differences, some patterns emerge where both views can shed some clearer light on the nature of the Fall and man’s wounded relationship with God. IMO perhaps the most important statement in the article was this:
“Salvation is a transformation from the tragic state of alienation and autonomy that ends in death into a state of communion with God and one another that ends in eternal life.”

And that is thoroughly Catholic BTW.

Yeah as a Lutheran I was raised with Original Sin and later began to learn about Ancestral Sin studying Orthodox theology. I prefer Ancestral Sin, I did however accidently stumble on some strengths of Original Sin while chatting on Facebook in some Christian areas etc. This one person asked something like "why was the virgin birth necessary?", and I gave this very thorough but succinct answer that was purely Original sin dealing with the Sin of Adam and therefore since Sin came into the World via one man it also had to be defeated by the obedience and death of one man. But I realized that my answer, was pretty much based on my earlier Christian education, and that it was good at a few things like giving nice easy to understand mechanistic type explanations to a few theological problems.

I am however working to try to answer stuff like that from an Ancestral Sin perspective. It seems a little more nebulous. I do however like it because of various phenomenon, especially the fact that lots of Christians, well Protestants I've known have really pooh poohed other religions and philosophies that often have arrived at similar insights as far as wisdom, I'm talking about stuff like Stoicism, Taoism, Buddhism etc. I'm use to those things being disregarded even though they often have very practical advise, and growing up I was very disappointed in how Christians behaved etc. Basically they didn't incarnate their theology very well. They could speak a lot about agape but rarely show it etc. Anyway when it comes to the Imago Dei being found sometimes outside in other people, and the notion of being conformed into the Divine Image as far as theosis / Divinization etc. I tend to side more on ancestral sin.

 

[TedT]

I expect you too admit that nobody makes unbiased nor uninfluenced choices.

There is a difference between a biased influenced decision and a decision that is forced upon us by the effective power of someone else's' will.

Did GOD try to influence our decision to accept HIM as our GOD and the Son as our saviour so as to bring us to faith? You bet your boots HE did!

HE made all sorts of wonderful promises on the good side about a heavenly marriage and promises of salvation from hell etc, etc if we would put our faith, our unproven hope, in HIM, AND HE gave us all sorts of warnings about the legal and natural consequences of choosing rebellion to HIM including a life of suffering that would be eternal for those who rebuked HIM as a false god.

So what's the difference between an influence and a coercion? An influence can be considered and ignored but a coercion cannot, it compels. No matter how wonderful HE painted the future with HIM by faith, some still sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a lair and a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania. And no matter how HE depicted the life of a sinner's sufferings, some of HIS elect, those who put their faith in HIM either believing HIM to be telling us the truth or at least, to escape any danger of hell, some of HIS elect still rebelled against HIS call for the judgment upon their newly condemned friends and lovers.

Not a very effective coercion, compelling their choice or actions of will, eh, with HIS creation being split between faith and holiness and the abject enslavement to evil of others...

Bias (feeling or showing an inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something) is self created when we decide that one option of the choice seems to us to be more reasonable or acceptable to our happiness than the other. Bias was NOT created in us by GOD's desire that we become HIS Bride or by some supposed need to compel us to sin.

PCE theology contends that we were created ingenuously innocent, completely without any inbuilt bias one way or the other.

Here you begin to slide into another use of the word, "free". How are their choices caused, but yours are not? They indeed are slaves to the flesh, and you to Christ.

First: choices are not caused, they are offered. In the case of the newly created innocents, the choice between accepting YHWH as our GOD and saviour, for whatever reason, or rebuking HIM as a liar and a fase god was presented, ie, offered to us, including all the ramifications of the consequences (from YHWH's pov) for each option within the choice.

Since sin enslaves, coerces, compels, the wills of sinners, there is no free will on earth until the person is reborn. GOD has predetermined every aspect of our lives on earth, manipulating our sinful choices and sinful decisions to one perfect end: the cleansing of HIS creation of all evil so HIS marriage to HIS beloved, HIS purified elect, may finally take place.

Slaves to Christ are slaves by their free will decision to choose to always be holy or by being willing to be taught to always choose to be holy, ie, in accord with HIS nature as holy and loving. We were not coerced to be His slave nor are our decisions coerced once we are HIS slave...we are self enslaved to Him because our training in righteousness framing our sanctification proves to us the absolute perfection of HIS nature and that happiness can only be found by accepting to be in perfect accord with that nature.

Our free will is restored to us by our rebirth and our sanctification and training in righteousness, Heb 12:-11, is the training of our free will to understand that only in HIM can we find happiness and fulfillment.

Do you believe that anything can happen without the course for it to happen having been already set?

PCE has a yes and a no to this question, depending who/when we are talking about.

YES - before the foundation of the world when we were asked to make our faith based decisions about the eternal relationship we wanted with YHWH as family or as HIS enemy, no course of action by any of us was set by GOD in any way, no matter how minute.

NO - every action of all sinners has been chosen and set by GOD, (the doctrine of predetermination of our earthly lives) for one reason, the redemption and sanctification of HIS sinful elect so that the judgement may proceed and the purpose of HIS creation of us may be fulfilled, that is, HIS wedding to a holy Bride.

Of course. I never implied differently. He did not create sin. But then, sin is not a creation at all.

Well, it is a bit of a word play but I consider sin was a creation because, though evil was only available as a possible option, no evil was manifest in HIS creation anywhere until Satan decided to commit to his conception of YHWH as a liar and therefore a false god to be the truth. He became evil and enslaved to evil and so sinful evil was manifest, created in HIS creation by Satan's decision.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is a difference between a biased influenced decision and a decision that is forced upon us by the effective power of someone else's' will.

Did GOD try to influence our decision to accept HIM as our GOD and the Son as our saviour so as to bring us to faith? You bet your boots HE did!

HE made all sorts of wonderful promises on the good side about a heavenly marriage and promises of salvation from hell etc, etc if we would put our faith, our unproven hope, in HIM, AND HE gave us all sorts of warnings about the legal and natural consequences of choosing rebellion to HIM including a life of suffering that would be eternal for those who rebuked HIM as a false god.

So what's the difference between an influence and a coercion? An influence can be considered and ignored but a coercion cannot, it compels. No matter how wonderful HE painted the future with HIM by faith, some still sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a lair and a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania. And no matter how HE depicted the life of a sinner's sufferings, some of HIS elect, those who put their faith in HIM either believing HIM to be telling us the truth or at least, to escape any danger of hell, some of HIS elect still rebelled against HIS call for the judgment upon their newly condemned friends and lovers.

Not a very effective coercion, compelling their choice or actions of will, eh, with HIS creation being split between faith and holiness and the abject enslavement to evil of others...

Bias (feeling or showing an inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something) is self created when we decide that one option of the choice seems to us to be more reasonable or acceptable to our happiness than the other. Bias was NOT created in us by GOD's desire that we become HIS Bride or by some supposed need to compel us to sin.

PCE theology contends that we were created ingenuously innocent, completely without any inbuilt bias one way or the other.



First: choices are not caused, they are offered. In the case of the newly created innocents, the choice between accepting YHWH as our GOD and saviour, for whatever reason, or rebuking HIM as a liar and a fase god was presented, ie, offered to us, including all the ramifications of the consequences (from YHWH's pov) for each option within the choice.

Since sin enslaves, coerces, compels, the wills of sinners, there is no free will on earth until the person is reborn. GOD has predetermined every aspect of our lives on earth, manipulating our sinful choices and sinful decisions to one perfect end: the cleansing of HIS creation of all evil so HIS marriage to HIS beloved, HIS purified elect, may finally take place.

Slaves to Christ are slaves by their free will decision to choose to always be holy or by being willing to be taught to always choose to be holy, ie, in accord with HIS nature as holy and loving. We were not coerced to be His slave nor are our decisions coerced once we are HIS slave...we are self enslaved to Him because our training in righteousness framing our sanctification proves to us the absolute perfection of HIS nature and that happiness can only be found by accepting to be in perfect accord with that nature.

Our free will is restored to us by our rebirth and our sanctification and training in righteousness, Heb 12:-11, is the training of our free will to understand that only in HIM can we find happiness and fulfillment.

PCE has a yes and a no to this question, depending who/when we are talking about.

YES - before the foundation of the world when we were asked to make our faith based decisions about the eternal relationship we wanted with YHWH as family or as HIS enemy, no course of action by any of us was set by GOD in any way, no matter how minute.

NO - every action of all sinners has been chosen and set by GOD, (the doctrine of predetermination of our earthly lives) for one reason, the redemption and sanctification of HIS sinful elect so that the judgement may proceed and the purpose of HIS creation of us may be fulfilled, that is, HIS wedding to a holy Bride.

Well, it is a bit of a word play but I consider sin was a creation because, though evil was only available as a possible option, no evil was manifest in HIS creation anywhere until Satan decided to commit to his conception of YHWH as a liar and therefore a false god to be the truth. He became evil and enslaved to evil and so sinful evil was manifest, created in HIS creation by Satan's decision.

The love of Christ compels us.

But you have already departed from the idea of free will necessarily meaning that choices are uncaused, into free will meaning that choices are uncoerced.

There's a whole lot of reasoning there, based on what is not said in Scripture. Enjoy.

 

[TedT]

The love of Christ compels us.

But you have already departed from the idea of free will necessarily meaning that choices are uncaused, into free will meaning that choices are uncoerced.

I never pearted from this foolishness, I leaned theology without it until today and reject it at face value out of hand.

Uncaused choice is a meaningless construct when all the choices we face are brought to us by GOD's gospel, ie, the choices are obviously GOD caused by HIS asking us to choose. If you have to twist the meaning of a word out of all useful proportion then it can't be the best word choice for explanations...

If the term is used to refer to an uncaused decision, then why use uncaused choice??

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never pearted from this foolishness, I leaned theology without it until today and reject it at face value out of hand.

Uncaused choice is a meaningless construct when all the choices we face are brought to us by GOD's gospel, ie, the choices are obviously GOD caused by HIS asking us to choose. If you have to twist the meaning of a word out of all useful proportion then it can't be the best word choice for explanations...

If the term is used to refer to an uncaused decision, then why use uncaused choice??

I was of the impression that you began with the notion that people are endowed by God with the ability to choose in such a way that God had no say in the matter. Most who go into the debate on Free Will do so without regard to whether a choice is coerced.

 

[TedT]

Good morning, Mark;

I was of the impression that you began with the notion that people are endowed by God with the ability to choose in such a way that God had no say in the matter.

I do begin with this notion now, it is true, but I did not begin with this notion as I was committed to a regular mix of Reformed and Arminian impulses as a new Christian...if that is what you mean by began.

Rather than saying GOD had no say in the matter of our choices...since I believe HE had a lot to say about the nature of the available options since it was such a monumental decision with an eternally effect.

So I like to say that after HE taught us everything pertinent about the options (a choice without full knowledge is a guess, not a true choice) and the nature of the consequences attached to each option in HIS opinion*, and after a long time of discussion then a time of trying on in our minds the uniform so to speak of the two options (much like we teach our children what we think is the nature of the world and society and as teenagers they skip from attitude to attitude without commitment), until we come to a final commitment to one option or the other. HE responded to this finalized commitment by the election to salvation for those who put their faith in HIM as telling us the truth and with condemnation on the spot for those who rebuked HIM as a lair.

Saying God had no say in the matter implies to me that HE was outside of and not involved in our choosing at all which I can't see happening with HIS beloved children even if the story of the Garden is interpreted in this way, sigh. I believe He was very involved and did HIS best to influence us all to accept HIM as telling the truth without going past the boundaries of a true free will decision and coercing / forcing us to ch anoose an option by force of the proof of the truth.

*(We chose to believe, trust in, HIS claims or not; we did not choose on the proven reality of the future HE predicted for us because we chose by faith in an unproven hope that GOD was telling us the truth about which option would bring us them most happiness.)

Most who go into the debate on Free Will do so without regard to whether a choice is coerced.

Yes, I remember my own struggles with the concept until I met the man who introduced me to PCE theology which emphasized the meaning of a free will as a decision based upon ourselves, our own desires and hopes, without being forced or coerced to choose one option or the other by anything in our created character or by proof of the consequences of our decision...

...and also by not being constrained from any option by being forced or coerced to choose one option or the other by anything in our created character or by proof of the consequences of our decision.

The implications of this are:
- no one was created as reprobate, ie, with HIM knowing who would end in hell. Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. If the usual meaning of HIS works, ie, HIS acts of creation, is held to be the reference here, then IF He left our decision for us to choose and HE did not create the results of our choice for us but let us create them for and from ourselves,
then HE did not know which option we would chose until we made it a reality by committing to one option or the other.

- It also implies no one was created with any sinfulness at all whether it is called an original sin or an inherited sin or a sin nature...all this is bogus when applied to our creation and not to the effects of our free will decisions.

- Aslo it implies that no sinner has a free will because we are constrained by sin so as to be unable to choose to be righteous by the power of our own willful choice. If we had a free will we could save ourselves but we cannot ergo our wills are not free, at least until we are reborn.

 

[fhansen]

Basically they didn't incarnate their theology very well.

Yes, and I think the term "mechanistic" is quite relevant. Whether or not a mechanical practice of the faith is inherently more likely due to the teachings of one church or the other, such mechanical or legalistic practice is nonetheless always a threat-and while I know it’s been done in Catholicism, I'd hazard to bet that any theology or view of the faith can and has devolved into this very human “activity”. Anyway, I, too, have appreciated the teachings of various non-Christian religions or systems of thought. It’s just that the fullness of truth, with a personal God who is love, simply cannot be found outside of Christianity. The truths God reveals have been the only thing that could hold my attention for long, providing truly vital and valuable knowledge. But, yes, while our Model is great, we may well fail to model Him very well ourselves.

And while I’d agree that theosis has probably been taught better in the east, it’s definitely a western concept as well. I would use caution, too, in understanding the Ancestral verses Original Sin debate. I think its partially a distinction without a difference and that anti-Catholicism can be involved as well. While the east can be difficult to pin down on its teachings sometimes, given the fact that we’re dealing with many autonomous churches as well as individual commentators who might interpret history as they prefer to view it, and also because universal catechisms just aren’t in any kind of abundance there, the doctrine of Original Sin as taught in the west has also historically been taught in the east. Neo-patristics, a relatively recent movement in the east, has played a role in changing teachings and rather than some of the current teachings being a return to past teachings in the east, they’re arguably closer to amounting to a new and better understanding of God’s will-and of His love- for man now, while based to a large degree on ECFs. Something like this has been happening in the west as well, and I believe that Vatican II is an example of the fruit of this maturity, for lack of a better word. Anyway, here’s a related article, if interested:

Original and Ancestral Sin: A Church Dividing Issue? – Journal

 

[Fervent]

Sounds a little like Ancestral Sin. OF course "the Devil is in the details", so I would be reluctant to try to make some kind of modern version of this.

Ancestral Versus Original Sin | St. Mary Orthodox Church of Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts

Ancestral Sin: The Fall And Its Consequences

I've always found it strange that the lead word is changed when both are essentially in agreement on that point...the sin began with our original ancestors. Where the difference lies is more in the notion of original guilt, or vicarious guilt. Original sin is the old proverb "The children's teeth are set on edge because their fathers ate sour grapes."

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I've always found it strange that the lead word is changed when both are essentially in agreement on that point...the sin began with our original ancestors. Where the difference lies is more in the notion of original guilt, or vicarious guilt. Original sin is the old proverb "The children's teeth are set on edge because their fathers ate sour grapes."

I think the problem is with early Augustinianism. It was very cut and dried and left nothing to mystery and God's judgement when it came to things like the fate of people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel etc. They were all doomed etc.

 

[TedT]

Original sin is the old proverb "The children's teeth are set on edge because their fathers ate sour grapes."

...which GOD thru Jeremiah told us was false, right? No one suffers death for another's sin, Jer 31:30 the very next verse, 30 Instead, each will die for his own iniquity.

 

[TedT]

I think the problem is with early Augustinianism. It was very cut and dried and left nothing to mystery and God's judgement when it came to things like the fate of people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel etc. They were all doomed etc.

Yes, how he got so much influence with his reprehensible ideas is beyond me, sigh.

 

[Fervent]

I think the problem is with early Augustinianism. It was very cut and dried and left nothing to mystery and God's judgement when it came to things like the fate of people who never had a chance to hear the Gospel etc. They were all doomed etc.

It seems to me Augustine never fully shook his manichean roots.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

It seems to me Augustine never fully shook his manichean roots.

yeah I have had a number of interesting talks to people on that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do begin with this notion now, it is true, but I did not begin with this notion as I was committed to a regular mix of Reformed and Arminian impulses as a new Christian...if that is what you mean by began.

By "began", I was referring to where your argument began in the thread,

Rather than saying GOD had no say in the matter of our choices...since I believe HE had a lot to say about the nature of the available options since it was such a monumental decision with an eternally effect.

So I like to say that after HE taught us everything pertinent about the options (a choice without full knowledge is a guess, not a true choice) and the nature of the consequences attached to each option in HIS opinion*, and after a long time of discussion then a time of trying on in our minds the uniform so to speak of the two options (much like we teach our children what we think is the nature of the world and society and as teenagers they skip from attitude to attitude without commitment), until we come to a final commitment to one option or the other. HE responded to this finalized commitment by the election to salvation for those who put their faith in HIM as telling us the truth and with condemnation on the spot for those who rebuked HIM as a lair.

Your narrative sounds home-made.

You certainly endow us with a lot more intellect than we can currently control. Has experience not taught you that we are not wise, not consistent, not strong, not dedicated, and ignorant as to the Gospel, no matter how well we know the words?

Saying God had no say in the matter implies to me that HE was outside of and not involved in our choosing at all which I can't see happening with HIS beloved children even if the story of the Garden is interpreted in this way, sigh. I believe He was very involved and did HIS best to influence us all to accept HIM as telling the truth without going past the boundaries of a true free will decision and coercing / forcing us to ch anoose an option by force of the proof of the truth.

Did his best?

We are not that wise, but what's worse, you make God a victim of his own creation, a mere recipient of our good nature. Did his best? Do you subscribe to the notion that God could not do what it takes?

Try to understand: God is all that is good about us. We are made to be one with him. "Apart from me you can do nothing."

*(We chose to believe, trust in, HIS claims or not; we did not choose on the proven reality of the future HE predicted for us because we chose by faith in an unproven hope that GOD was telling us the truth about which option would bring us them most happiness.)

Predicted? Why would God have to predict anything? And why would he have to reveal the future to us, in order for us to choose, in our ignorance? Whether we knew or not is irrelevant as to whether we chose or not. God is not a victim of some unknown uncaused future!

He is not subject to any principle from outside himself, or he is not God.

Yes, I remember my own struggles with the concept until I met the man who introduced me to PCE theology which emphasized the meaning of a free will as a decision based upon ourselves, our own desires and hopes, without being forced or coerced to choose one option or the other by anything in our created character or by proof of the consequences of our decision...

...and also by not being constrained from any option by being forced or coerced to choose one option or the other by anything in our created character or by proof of the consequences of our decision.

Then you are talking about 'free will' in the sense of "If the Son of Man shall set you free, ye shall be free indeed. Yet below you stray off that use again, saying that we are the "creators" of our choices. Or is that term just a figure of speech?

The implications of this are:
- no one was created as reprobate, ie, with HIM knowing who would end in hell. Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. If the usual meaning of HIS works, ie, HIS acts of creation, is held to be the reference here, then IF He left our decision for us to choose and HE did not create the results of our choice for us but let us create them for and from ourselves,
then HE did not know which option we would chose until we made it a reality by committing to one option or the other.

(Who said anyone was created reprobate? "Conceived in sin" doesn't translate into "created reprobate".) But anyhow, that doesn't imply that their creation preceeded their conception. It only does so to our temporal mindset, which is as faulty as the notion that God can't accomplish his plans unless his people are faithful and obedient. Or the notion that when a redeemed believer dies he finally accomplished perfection moments before, finally suitable for heaven.

- It also implies no one was created with any sinfulness at all whether it is called an original sin or an inherited sin or a sin nature...all this is bogus when applied to our creation and not to the effects of our free will decisions.

You began that paragraph well enough, but somehow you morphed it into relevant to the free will matter. You separate creation from conception somehow, and I don't have a problem with that, but then you imply time sequence, not causal sequence, in the matter of inherited sin (or whatever terminology you wish to use there.)

- Aslo it implies that no sinner has a free will because we are constrained by sin so as to be unable to choose to be righteous by the power of our own willful choice. If we had a free will we could save ourselves but we cannot ergo our wills are not free, at least until we are reborn.

If no sinner has free will (to which claim I also subscribe —depending on what is meant by free will) in that his intellect and knowledge is unable to free him from his bondage to sin, which by simple cause-and-effect is reasonable enough to believe concerning the sinner, how is the one bound to Christ suddenly wise and knowledgeable and endowed with strength to make FREE choices, and that, apart from causation and apart from Christ, i.e. apart from God, specifically, the Spirit of God, being the active agent for good within us. It is not our intellect nor desires nor integrity that makes us free.