Does man have a freewill ?

[CoreyD]

Everyone agrees that we do not have the free will to fly around the room by our own power, so we are limited in our choices. We can be extremely limited by our physical and environmental condition, but could every mature adult mentally make just one free will choice outside of these limitations and thus be a choice of his own discretion?

You define “free will” as: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

I would add “to act” this “or think”, since thinking can be a mental action, since we are focusing on “one’s own discretion”.

Thanks for giving a definition. It's always important in a discussion, to have a clear understanding of what is under discussion.

A slave is extremely limited to what he wills to do, with a slave of satan always acting with a selfish motive and not being able to keep from the action of sinning, although like Paul in Ro. 7 might personally desire not to sin. Even though most of the time the sinner selfishly personally desires to sin, can He/she for a moment be like Paul in Ro. 7 and not want to sin, even though they go on and sin?

You are the slave of who you are following (which is a choice), so can you just stop following satan for a moment?



Does God have the power and Love to allow mature adult humans to truly make very limited (maybe just one) autonomous free will choices to accept or reject God’s pure charity, which will enable the human to become like God himself in that the human obtains the free unconditional gift of Godly type Love (Luke 7)?

Did God granted a very limited autonomous free will choice to Adam and Eve and if so why could God not do the same for all mature adults?

God can still be autonomous by autonomously choosing to allow humans one autonomous free will choice within the Limits His choosing?

Just as the prodigal son on his own did nothing worthy of anything, yet was brought to his senses by his own actions and made the free will choice return to the Father, can we (and really will we) be brought to our senses at least once, while in our mature adult situation, to decide to be macho and stay in the pigsty of life where we deserve to be or humbly turn to the Father we have hurt and ask for just some kind of undeserving existence, out of our selfish motivation?

A mature adult sinful nonbeliever cannot “do” anything righteous, worthy, spiritual or even unselfish, but does that also mean the sinful person, in this dead state, could not humbly accept pure charity for selfish reasons?

All good questions... and yes.

 

[Clare73]

Hi Clare.
Can you explain 'voluntary' yo me please?

"Voluntary" is used in reference to choosing what one prefers.

The context here is the Biblical notion of moral "free will."
"Free will" is a philosophical notion, not a Biblical notion, the philosophical meaning of which is the ability to make all moral choices.
The Biblical notion of personal freedom is simply the ability to voluntarily choose what one prefers.
Fallen man cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to never sin, therefore, he does not have philosophical "free will."
The Biblical notion of the human will is simply the power to choose what one prefers.

Also, have you defined free will as "complete free will to make all moral choices; e.g."
I don't understand freewill to be "complete free will"?

Free will is not a Biblical notion, it is a philosophical notion.

Free will is not free will, by quantity.
Nor is it a case of free will being ultimate, or unlimited, as my post explained.

So, you don't seem to be tackling freewill. Right now, it seems you are tackling something greater than free will. Perhaps sovereignty, or absolute authority.
No. Man was not given either of these, as can be seen from the explanation in my post.
You aren't trying to adjust free will to not be free will, are you?

I am pointing out that "free will" is not a Biblical notion, it is a philosophical notion.
The Bible presents man's "freedom" as acting voluntarily, the power to choose what he prefers.
It does not present man's freedom as the power to make all moral choices, which is what is meant by "free will,"
and which "free will" is not found in Scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

No. I do not "have a Bachelors of Theology from a Bible College". That's philosophy.
I use the Bible which is what all disciples of Christ do. John 7:15
The Jews therefore were marveling, saying, “How has this man become learned, having never been educated [ - gone to school]?”

Above, you said, "during the course of studies, we went over all the books of the bible, if not critically at least summary's".
Did you go over Philemon 1:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:16-18
Did these verses seem to you to be as important as all others? What's philosophical about them?

Im giving you bible and you giving me human philosophy

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It was clear.

Not to me it wasn't. Do you care whether or not the person you're talking to can understand what you're saying? That should matter to you. Can you please answer my question? What do you mean they (predestination and free will) are the same?

Let me ask you a question.

So, you expect me to answer your question when you don't answer mine. How nice.

What is God’s mechanism to predestine?

Why does he predestine some and not others?

He does not predestine certain individuals to believe, He predestines those who believe to be conformed to the image of His Son and to be "holy and blameless" (Ephesians 1:4). God does not choose for us whether we believe or not. He holds us responsible to choose. Those who do believe are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son and to be holy and blameless.

What can't be true is that God predestines some to believe and be saved entirely by His own choice while the rest are left in unbelief and are condemned with no opportunity to be saved. God is love (1 John 4:8). God graciously offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11), so it's not possible that the choice in salvation is entirely up to Him. He wants people to submit to Him and His Son willingly.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

See posts #15, #108 and #278.

I already have seen them and responded to them. This is just ridiculous that this is all you can say at this point. If you have nothing to add to what you said in those posts then you clearly have nothing to refute what I've sad. See all of my previous posts where I refuted what you said in those posts.

The issue here is not inability to understand, but inability to believe.

No one has an inability to believe. If that was the case, it wouldn't be true that no one has an excuse to not glorify God as God and to be thankful to Him, but that is what Paul indicated in Romans 1:21. If all people have the ability and are expected to glorify God and be thankful to Him without any excuse for not doing so, then it makes no sense to claim that all people have that responsibility, but at the same time are somehow unable to repent and believe in Christ.

 

[Clare73]

I already have seen them and responded to them. This is just ridiculous that this is all you can say at this point. If you have nothing to add to what you said in those posts then you clearly have nothing to refute what I've sad. See all of my previous posts where I refuted what you said in those posts.
No one has an inability to believe. If that was the case, it wouldn't be true that no one has an excuse to not glorify God as God and to be thankful to Him, but that is what Paul indicated in Romans 1:21. If all people have the ability and are expected to glorify God and be thankful to Him without any excuse for not doing so, then it makes no sense to claim that all people have that responsibility, but at the same time are somehow unable to repent and believe in Christ.

Previously addressed. . .(see post #295).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The word in the Greek there is "voluntary."
Keeping in mind that man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). Slaves are not free.

Unregenerate man can make some moral choices, but he cannot make all moral choices.
He cannot choose to be sinless, he is only "free" to choose what he prefers, which preference is determined by his fallen nature.

According to Paul, he can choose whether or not to glorify God and be thankful to Him, but in your false doctrine he somehow can't choose to repent and believe the gospel. That makes no sense at all.

Nor can unregenerate man choose to savingly believe.

Yes, he can and all people are expected to do so. Why else does God get angry at people for not believing except that He requires and expects them to do so?

Faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

Not saving faith. None of those verses say that. Why do you not actually quote the text and show exactly how these verses say what you claim they say? Is that too much to expect from you? Is that too much effort for you? You just want to put in minimal effort to support your doctrine? Let's actually quote the verses and see if they teach that saving faith is a gift.

Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him, 30 since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

This verse is not talking about being given saving faith. This is talking about being given the privilege of having the opportunity to believe in and serve Christ and to suffer for Him like Paul did. Do you claim that this says that suffering for Christ is a gift that God gives us and that it isn't our choice of whether to suffer for Him or not?

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Where does this say that saving faith is a gift? Nowhere. This verse does not say that those Gentiles were appointed to believe as Calvinists falsely imagine, it says they were appointed for eternal life just as all who believe are (John 3:16).

Acts 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

Where does this say that saving faith is a gift? Nowhere. We are saved by grace through faith. We are not just saved by grace and we are not just saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Without God's grace it wouldn't be possible to have the opportunity to believe unto salvation. That's all this verse is saying. In no way, shape or form is it saying that saving faith is a gift.

You also referenced 2 Peter 1:1. Did you stop reading there?

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, 3 as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If saving faith was the gift of God, as Calvinists claim,, then why would Peter make it conditional as to whether those of us with faith will grow in the faith by adding to our faith virtue, knowledge, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love OR if we instead become "unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" which can lead "even to blindness" because of forgetting that we were cleansed from our old sins? If saving faith was the gift of God then wouldn't that mean keeping our faith would be God's responsibility as well? Yet, Peter says we need to be "even more diligent to make your call and election sure" by doing the things he talked about in verse 5 so that we never stumble. That shows that it is OUR responsibility to choose to believe and OUR responsibility to be diligent in continuing to have faith by doing the things that are necessary to grow in the faith instead of becoming unfruitful which can lead to blindness and a loss of faith.

You cherry picked 2 Peter 1:1 without looking at the context of the verse. You need to look at the context of scripture.

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

Romans 12:3 is not talking about saving faith. The context of the verse is in relation to spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not all believers have the same spiritual gifts, but God gives each person "a measure of faith" that is needed to use whatever spiritual gift(s) that he or she has. That's why Paul said things like "if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith". A certain measure of faith is needed in order to prophesy that isn't the same as needed to minister or exhort and so on. It differs. But, saving faith does not have different measures or amounts. Saving faith is the same for everyone. The faith you put in Christ that results in salvation is not different than mine. It's not as if you need a certain amount of faith to be saved that differs from the amount of faith I need to be saved. Of course not. So, once again, you are taking a verse out of context. Romans 12:3 has nothing to do with saving faith, but rather has to do with an extra measure of faith and supernatural ability that is needed to use our spiritual gifts.

So though he is a free agent, man does not have complete free will to make all moral choices; e.g., to be sinless.

Meaningless comment. That he can't choose to be sinless has nothing to do with not being able to choose to acknowledge that he is a lost sinner and that he needs the forgiveness that only Jesus can provide.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Previously addressed. . .(see post #295).

LOL. This is just comical at this point. All you can say is see post such and such where you supposedly already addressed my point even though you did not. This is a huge waste of time. You are not willing to put any effort into backing up your claims.

 

[CoreyD]

"Voluntary" is used in reference to choosing what one prefers.

Are you saying Clare, that voluntary is not used in reference to free will or willingness?
I have here, a source that says of the Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).

Are you saying I should accept your opinion over this?
Can you give me a good reason for doing so?

Willingness, or free will, even voluntary. is not simply "choosing what one prefers".
However, why that does not amount to free will, is still a puzzle to me. Perhaps you will explain.

The context here is the Biblical notion of moral "free will."
"Free will" is a philosophical notion, not a Biblical notion, the philosophical meaning of which is the ability to make all moral choices.

Do you have a source for this philosophical free will, please, and does the Bible refer to free will, regarding morality, yes or no?

The Biblical notion of personal freedom is simply the ability to voluntarily choose what one prefers.

Personal freedom?
Can you explain that and give me one or two examples, please?
Can you please explain why you refer to having a choice to act according to one's own will, "personal freedom", as opposed to "free will", and why you object to that being Biblical?

Fallen man cannot make all moral choices, he cannot choose to never sin, therefore, he does not have philosophical "free will."
The Biblical notion of the human will is simply the power to choose what one prefers.

Oh. I see.
Thanks for explaining.
So, man does not have free will, because "he cannot choose to never sin".
Without thinking of the philosophical world view, can you think of any scripture that says man can have a will, and has the freedom to exercise that will?
Or do you believe that man can never exercise his will?

Free will is not a Biblical notion, it is a philosophical notion.

Okay. Yes, I heard that, but many who study the Bible disagree.
So, before we have any further discussion on if man has free will, we need to establish if the Bible refers to free will apart from the philosophical worldview.
If not, we would wind up talking about two different things... like "theory" and "theory (scientific)"

So, can you prove that millions of students of the Bible are wrong that the Bible refers to free will, and that you are right, and the Bible does not refer to free will?

I am pointing out that "free will" is not a Biblical notion, it is a philosophical notion.
The Bible presents man's "freedom" as acting voluntarily, the power to choose what he prefers.
It does not present man's freedom as the power to make all moral choices, which is what is meant by "free will,"
and which "free will" is not found in Scripture.

Okay. Thank you.
I understand you, and appreciate your clear explanation.
I await your proof that you are correct, and all the others are incorrect.

 

[CoreyD]

Im giving you bible and you giving me human philosophy

Some people just have self proclaimed "truths", and the best they can do is repeat that they are in the right.
I don't have a disclaimer, but I've adopted @Rose_bud's own.
I don't think she'd mind.
See yah.

 

[CoreyD]

LOL. This is just comical at this point. All you can say is see post such and such where you supposedly already addressed my point even though you did not. This is a huge waste of time. You are not willing to put any effort into backing up your claims.

Seems to go on a lot on RF. It must be the spirit of the air.
I think I need to go read all the comments. That will occupy my time, until I hear from someone actually willing to have a discussion.
So far, Clare has given me an explanation, and I appreciate that.

 

[CoreyD]

Well, we can start with Jesus who said man is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves are not free.

Man's will is not free to make all moral choices. . .he cannot choose to be sinless.
Man's will is free to choose what he prefers. . . which in unregenerate man is self over submission to God.

Interesting Clare.
Just recently, you were having a discussion on keeping the law, and you did refer to what Paul said, so what are your thoughts on Romans 7:25

 

[Clare73]

Are you saying Clare, that voluntary is not used in reference to free will or willingness?

1) Free will is a philosophical notion, not a Biblical notion, which means that man has the power to make all moral choices.
But Scripture does not present the "free will" of man, it presents the slavery to sin of man (Jn 8:34). Slaves to sin are not completely morally free.
They cannot choose to be sinless, therefore, they are not completely morally free.

The Biblical notion of "freedom" is "voluntary;" i.e., man has the power to choose what he prefers, not the power to choose anything (sinlessness).

2) "Voluntary" does not imply (the philosophical notion of) complete freedom; i.e., ability to make all moral choices.
"Voluntary" simply means that man has the moral power to choose what he prefers.
Fallen man does not have the freedom to make all moral choices, he cannot choose to be sinless, because he is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34).
Therefore, his will is not completely free. . .his moral choices are limited.
He has freedom, but it is limited, not complete. He can choose what he prefers, but he cannot choose to be sinless.

I have here, a source that says of the Greek word hekousios - meaning free will, is the neuter of a derivative from hekon; voluntariness -- willingly, which is (an adjective, a primitive term) – properly, willing; "unforced, of one's own will, voluntary" (J. Thayer), i.e. acting on one's own accord. The root (hek-) emphasizes intentional, deliberate action (choice), i.e. "of free-will" (J. Thayer).

Are you saying I should accept your opinion over this?
Can you give me a good reason for doing so?

There is no conflict.
That definition does not involve the extent of voluntariness (which does not extend to sinlessness).

Willingness, or free will, even voluntary. is not simply "choosing what one prefers".
However, why that does not amount to free will, is still a puzzle to me. Perhaps you will explain.

Because free will is a human notion (Pelagius), and its definition is the ability to make all moral choices.
The NT denies this ability, one cannot choose to be sinless.

Do you have a source for this philosophical free will, please,

It does back to Aristotle and Cicero, but we have Pelagius, a British monk around 400 AD, to thank for it in the church.

and does the Bible refer to free will, regarding morality, yes or no?

"Free will" is not in the Bible.

Personal freedom?
Can you explain that and give me one or two examples, please?

Personal "freedom" is simply the power to act voluntarily, which does not include the power to choose to be sinless.
We don't have that power, our "personal freedom" is limited.

Can you please explain why you refer to having a choice to act according to one's own will, "personal freedom", as opposed to "free will", and why you object to that being Biblical?

Philosophical free will is the power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have that power, he cannot choose to be sinless.

Personal freedom is simply the ability to act voluntarily, but not necessarily to make all moral choices; e.g., sinlessness.

Oh. I see.
Thanks for explaining.
So, man does not have free will, because "he cannot choose to never sin".
Without thinking of the philosophical world view, can you think of any scripture that says man can have a will, and has the freedom to exercise that will?
Or do you believe that man can never exercise his will?

"Free will" is not in the Bible.
Choosing "voluntarily" is in the Bible, which presents limitations to man's power to choose voluntarily; e.g., to be sinless.

Okay. Yes, I heard that, but many who study the Bible disagree.
So, before we have any further discussion on if man has free will, we need to establish if the Bible refers to free will apart from the philosophical worldview.
If not, we would wind up talking about two different things... like "theory" and "theory (scientific)"

So, can you prove that millions of students of the Bible are wrong that the Bible refers to free will, and that you are right, and the Bible does not refer to free will?

Present the verse which states "free will" of man, there is none.

Okay. Thank you.
I understand you, and appreciate your clear explanation.
I await your proof that you are correct, and all the others are incorrect.

 

[Hentenza]

He does not predestine certain individuals to believe, He predestines those who believe to be conformed to the image of His Son and to be "holy and blameless" (Ephesians 1:4). God does not choose for us whether we believe or not. He holds us responsible to choose. Those who do believe are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son and to be holy and blameless.

Based on His foreknowledge.

What can't be true is that God predestines some to believe and be saved entirely by His own choice while the rest are left in unbelief and are condemned with no opportunity to be saved. God is love (1 John 4:8). God graciously offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11), so it's not possible that the choice in salvation is entirely up to Him. He wants people to submit to Him and His Son willingly.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. If what you describe above and conclude below work in unison then how do you account for Romans 9:22-24?

 

[Clare73]

Based on His foreknowledge.

Let me also point out that prognosis is used only of God's foreknowledge, who knows in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed that it shall happen.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. If what you describe above and conclude below work in unison then how do you account for Romans 9:22-24?

 

[zoidar]

Let me also point out that prognosis is used only of God's foreknowledge, who knows in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed that it shall happen.

If God knows what is going to happen because He decreed it, doesn't that mean God's foreknowledge is based on His action rather than His being (unless God is His decree)?

 

[Clare73]

If God knows what is going to happen because He decreed it, doesn't that mean God's foreknowledge is based on His action rather than His being (unless God is His decree)?

Where does his action come from, if not his being?

 

[zoidar]

Where does his action come from, if not his being?

Then it seems to me God isn't all knowing in Himself, but God has all knowledge through His action.

 

[CoreyD]

1) Free will is a philosophical notion, not a Biblical notion, which means that man has the power to make all moral choices.
But Scripture does not present the "free will" of man, it presents the slavery to sin of man (Jn 8:34). Slaves to sin are not completely morally free.
They cannot choose to be sinless, therefore, they are not completely morally free.

I cannot choose to be black or white, but that doesn't mean I can't choose.
You are incorrectly defining free will... in the Bible.

The Biblical notion of "freedom" is "voluntary;" i.e., man has the power to choose what he prefers, not the power to choose anything (sinlessness).

That is not relevant to free will... in the Bible.

2) "Voluntary" does not imply (the philosophical notion of) complete freedom; i.e., ability to make all moral choices.
"Voluntary" simply means that man has the moral power to choose what he prefers.
Fallen man does not have the freedom to make all moral choices, he cannot choose to be sinless, because he is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34).
Therefore, his will is not completely free. . .his moral choices are limited.
He has freedom, but it is limited, not complete. He can choose what he prefers, but he cannot choose to be sinless.

This reminds me of the man that said aliens abducted him and gave him knowledge he can't share.
When asked to prove it, he said, "I said it, so there."
All you have done Clare, is said, I'm right, so there.
You have not been given the authority to decide what's in the Bible. You're not God, Clare.

Free will is not about overcoming one's 'nature'.
Free will is about being given the gift to freely make decisions based one's desires... regardless of sin.
Adam was sinless, wasn't he? Was he given free will... yes or no?
Sin does not render one incapable of having the freedom to make decisions regarding one's will.

At Deuteronomy 30:19, God said, "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, so that you and your descendants may live,"
It's not possible to choose life, if one did not have free will.
So, you are making God's word void, aren't you?

There is no conflict.
That definition does not involve the extent of voluntariness (which does not extend to sinlessness).

Because free will is a human notion (Pelagius), and its definition is the ability to make all moral choices.

No, Clare.
The Bible does not support that philosophical concept.

The NT denies this ability, one cannot choose to be sinless.

That has nothing to do with free will in the Bible.

It does back to Aristotle and Cicero, but we have Pelagius, a British monk around 400 AD, to thank for it in the church.

No source?
Okay. Then we have your opinion and your claim, alone.

"Free will" is not in the Bible.

Repeated claim, but that is your word against the Bible's.
I go with the Bible. If you prefer your claim, that's your free willed choice.

Personal "freedom" is simply the power to act voluntarily, which does not include the power to choose to be sinless.
We don't have that power, our "personal freedom" is limited.

Did you make that up, because it sounds like you coined the term, and gave it a definition, because personal freedom is subjective to 8,000,000,000 people.
To some, personal freedom is not having to get up in the morning to go to work.
Personal freedom refers to the ability of individuals to make choices and decisions about their lives without undue interference from external forces, such as government or societal norms.

However, let's work with your definition.
You said,

Personal "freedom" is simply the power to act voluntarily, which does not include the power to choose to be sinless.
We don't have that power, our "personal freedom" is limited.

Free will is the ability to act according to one's will, desires... and does not include the power to choose to be sinless.
We don't have that power, our free will is limited. For example, free will cannot change our skin color, nor make us immune to sicknesses, since free will is not a physical 'asset'.

What argument do you have against free will, because it's no different to what you call "personal freedom"?

Philosophical free will is the power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have that power, he cannot choose to be sinless.

Let's forget about Philosophical free will.
I'm not discussing that.
I'm talking about God given free will.
If you aren't talking about that, then it's like you talking to me about theory (scientific), when I am talking about theory (general).
If we aren't talking about the same thing, the conversation is meaningless. It's actually not conversing.

Personal freedom is simply the ability to act voluntarily, but not necessarily to make all moral choices; e.g., sinlessness.

"Free will" is not in the Bible.

It is in the Bible, and I showed two scriptures.
However, you claimed that you know better than those who understand Greek, and therefore they need to remove the word they used - hekousios: free will.
On what basis, Clare... because Clare said it?

Choosing "voluntarily" is in the Bible, which presents limitations to man's power to choose voluntarily; e.g., to be sinless.

I must use your Bible then, because of the 43 translations on this page, only 10 use the word voluntary.
All the others use "free will"; "willing"; "of your own accord"; "willingly"...
Are you saying I should scrap these, and take up the one you prefer?

Present the verse which states "free will" of man, there is none.

I did Clair.
You called it into question with your expertise Greek knowledge.
What more would you like me to do?
Asking me to satisfy a self proclaimed expert that provides no proof of their claim of being the right one is no different to to asking me to break a wall with my head, and I can't do that.

You have not provided any proof of your claim, but yet, you are right... to you.

 

[Brightfame52]

Some people just have self proclaimed "truths", and the best they can do is repeat that they are in the right.
I don't have a disclaimer, but I've adopted @Rose_bud's own.
I don't think she'd mind.
See yah.

But Im giving you scripture.