The Reality of Free Will

[childeye 2]

Why does it matter at all in your scheme of things?

I would not claim to have my own scheme of things. But to answer the intent of your question, for one thing, what I believe to be true affects my reasoning and I will also be edified through fellowship with others in the body of Christ.

 

[CoreyD]

It's not about God, it's about man.

Morality very much involves God, because God determines morality, and so, what is moral isn't decided by man... including you, Clare.

Nowhere does the Bible state that man has a "free will."

You have repeatedly admitted the opposite.
In fact, not only did you admit God gave Adam - man, free will, you have admitted that man has free will.

• Clare73 said:
  You have limited free will, ability to make some moral choices, but not all.

Clare73 said:

• No fallen man has complete free will. . .he has only limited free will

Clare73 said:

• If you are unable to make any particular moral choice, you will is not completely free, it is limited.

Clare73 said:

• The will of fallen man is unable to make the moral choice to be sinless, therefore, fallen man's will is not completely free, it is limited.

That's four times, Clare, you actually said, in your own words, that man has free will, and in the same breath, say that man does not have free will.
Not only do you contradict yourself, you proudly deny a fact you do not want to accept.
That is not a good job at arguing, Clare.

Rather, Jesus said that mankind is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34). . .slaves (to sin) are not (morally) free. . .they cannot choose to be sinless.

My apologizes.
All the while I thought you were ignoring what I posted, but I now realize I was giving you the wrong book.
It's not actually Galatians. It's Romans.

The Bible says at Romans 6:6, 16, 17, 20, 22

6 We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin​

16 Do you not know that when you offer yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the one you obey, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to obedience leading to righteousness?​

17 But thanks be to God that, though you once were slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were committed.​

20 For when you were slaves to sin, you were free of obligation to righteousness.​

22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you reap leads to holiness, and the outcome is eternal life.​

Sorry about the mix up. A misquote, or mis-reference can make quite a difference.
So, you see, Jesus was referring to practicing sin,. One who refrains from practicing sin, as slaves of Christ do, are no longer slaves to sin.

The word here is "voluntary," not "free will."

Sorry, but I see 'free will'.
One can't erase a word just because they don't like it... for whatever reason.
What do you have against free will?

No, complete free will (which is the only true free will) is the power (freedom) to make all moral choices.
Man does not have that power, he cannot choose to be sinless. . .man's free will is limited.

Can man choose to live sinlessly?

Here you admit it again.... man's free will.
Limited or not, man has free will.
Limited, or relative peace, is still peace.
Adam was perfect. It wasn't absolute perfection, because anything we have is still relative to God, but that did not make him, not perfect.
We cannot be holy in the absolute sense, but we can be holy.

So, one may not want to accept the fact that man has free will, but it is clear he does... so much so, that even you find it impossible to deny it.

 

[CoreyD]

We need to qualify what the will is free from, when we assert a free will. Who can understand what it means if it's not qualified?


I understand what a self-will is. That is why I posted this:

Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Notice that there is no term "free" being used in Isaiah 53:6. Isaiah 53:6 is talking about being self-willed. You are using John 8:44 above to describe being self-willed.

Please note that 2 Peter 2:10 is saying that to be self-willed is to walk in servitude to the flesh.

10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Self-willed = carnal-willed = the will of the flesh.
John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders.

The children born of the Spirit of God have the same Character as their Father. --> But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

John 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. <-- God is Spirit.

The tares like obscurity and darkness because they don't want to be found.
The wheat like clarity and Light because they want to be found.

Therefore, it's wrong to use unqualified terms that obscure rather than clarify.

The devil will use semantics to obscure the truth. For example, below are two opposite meanings of free wills using this dichotomy Free/slave, but only one is truly free and the other is a lie.

(1) A will that is free from righteousness and is therefore a slave to unrighteousness.
(2) A will that is free from unrighteousness and is therefore a slave to righteousness.



Jesus said these words below so as to indicate that people will do/act according to the inner character of the soul which implies a pre-disposition. Hence the carnal will/self-will serves the desires of the flesh, and those desires are not voluntary.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You see the above underscored in bold? Now look at this -->
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

People who are blinded by lies do not represent intelligence nor an ability to act freely of their own.

One's own desires are predicated upon one's image of God/god in their heart. The angel that became Satan had a corrupt image of god and so do his children.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

This scripture is referring to a voluntary offering. It is an adverb, not a noun as in a man's will.

I see Paul conveying that he does NOT volunteer to preach the Gospel.

He does NOT preach the Gospel willingly. He does it because he has to --> (a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me).

This is a choice/option to either do these commandments or die. It is the exact opposite of unforced.

This is exhorting us to be liberal concerning our being charitable. Charity is a fruit of the Holy Spirit of Truth, it is not self-willed.

This scripture is simply saying Paul doesn't want Philemon to feel forced about receiving Onesimus.

This is why we need to qualify what the will is free from when we assert free will. Here you're now saying it means we have two options to choose from Life or death which now means it's NOT voluntary --> Do these commandments or be cursed and die.

Below is the Merriam Webster definition for volition. If you will notice #1, the term WILL standing alone without the adjective "FREE" added, already denotes the ability to reason and make choices/decisions.

volition​

noun​

vo·li·tion vō-ˈli-shən
və-

Synonyms of volition
1
: the power of choosing or determining : will

2
: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made


will
2 of 3

noun​

ˈwil
1
: a legal declaration of a person's wishes regarding the disposal of his or her property or estate after death
especially : a written instrument legally executed by which a person makes disposition of his or her estate to take effect after death

2
: desire, wish: such as
a
: disposition, inclination
where there's a will there's a way

b
: appetite, passion
c
: choice, determination

3
: the act, process, or experience of willing : volition

4
a
: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending
b
: a disposition to act according to principles or ends
c
: the collective desire of a group
the will of the people


5
: the power of control over one's own actions or emotions
a man of iron will


6
a
: something desired
especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power.


I don't know why you would think Adam desired to disobey God. The scriptures actually show that Adam didn't volunteer to eat, he was persuaded by the woman who was deceived --> And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

No, this above is incorrect. God is Spirit. The True worship of God is drawn out by the object of worship, it's not a choice/decision. When we become fully convinced that God's Spirit is the Light of the soul and the only goodness in our soul that keeps us from becoming abominations, then we will worship Him in Truth.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

2 Corinthians 4:7
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.


In this post I'm responding to you've identified 4 different meanings of "free" will:

(1) Being "self"-willed (a carnal will, a noun).
(2) You've identified a "willingness" (an adverb) as proof of a "free" will, when in fact It only requires a will (noun) to have willingness (adverb).
(3) A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice (an adjective).
(4) The presence of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die was claimed as proof of a free will even though it's not voluntary. In fact, the presenting of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die is NOT even a product of man's will, it is a situation where a choice/decision must be made out of necessity.

Your first statement says you still do not understand, so I did not read any further. Sorry.
If not a will that is free from anything. It's having the freedom to do, or act accordingly...
I don't have the skills required to simplify what I explained any simpler.

 

[Clare73]

Morality very much involves God, because God determines morality, and so, what is moral isn't decided by man... including you, Clare.

You have repeatedly admitted the opposite.

Yes, true (complete) free will is the power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have true (complete) free will, the power to make all moral choices.

Man has limited "free will," the power to make some oral choices, but not all. . .he cannot make the moral choice to live sinlessly.

Partial freedomv is not complete freedom.
One is not truly free if his freedom is not complete.

 

[childeye 2]

Your first statement says you still do not understand, so I did not read any further.

Please don't mischaracterize what I said. But also, don't get discouraged. <-- courage is a virtue. Don't be afraid to learn or be corrected -->for scripture says that the wise receive instruction with joy and the fool despises correction.

I spent a lot of time writing that post for you, and your response was an immediate mischaracterization and you didn't even bother to even read the rest. Ask yourself if you think that's the Spirit of Christ would want you to do; Is your response loving me as you would want to be loved? Moreover, you're thinking/believing false things about me and what I said. You won't want to be deceived about that.

My first statement did NOT say nor was it ever meant to imply that I don't understand. I've studied semantics particular to psycholinguistics for well over forty years of my life, and one of the first sentiments I studied was the differences between monergism and synergism. My first statement simply said we need to qualify what the will is free from when we assert a free will. The reason why we need to do that when discussing free will is so that it will be a stable term to reason upon, otherwise it will become a fluid term, a term that morphs in meaning.

Sorry.
If not a will that is free from anything. It's having the freedom to do, or act accordingly...
I don't have the skills required to simplify what I explained any simpler.

I understand that you're doing your best. However, you didn't simplify the meaning as you may think. Because you won't qualify the term free the term has morphed in meaning just as I said it would do. Below are the Four different meanings you gave in your post because the term morphed in meaning. I'm only left guessing that #4 is what you see as the simplest meaning, the capacity to choose:

(1) Being "self"-willed (a carnal will, a noun).
(2) You've identified a "willingness" (an adverb) as proof of a "free" will, when in fact It only requires a will (noun) to have willingness (adverb).
(3) A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice/decision (an adjective).
(4) The presence of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die was claimed as proof of a free will even though it's not voluntary. In fact, the presenting of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die is NOT even a product of man's will, it is a situation where a choice/decision must be made out of necessity.

If you had read my post, you would have seen this:
This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders.

The children born of the Spirit of God have the same Character as their Father. --> The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, true (complete) free will is the power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have true (complete) free will, the power to make all moral choices.

Man has limited "free will," the power to make some oral choices, but not all. . .he cannot make the moral choice to live sinlessly.

Partial freedomv is not complete freedom.
One is not truly free if his freedom is not complete.

I have three quick questions.
(1) When you say free will are you qualifying the term free as free from the slavery of sin? <--- Jesus and Paul, both did this as shown below.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Romans 6:18
Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

(2) Do you believe that moral conduct can only be fulfilled through God's Spirit? For example, LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is LOVE, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self control...

(3) Would you testify to the existence of the moral power of virtue?

Mark 5:30
And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
Luke 6:19
And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.

virtue​

noun​

vir·tue ˈvər-(ˌ)chü


1
a
: conformity to a standard of right : morality
b
: a particular moral excellence

2
: a beneficial quality or power of a thing

3
: manly strength or courage : valor

4
: a commendable quality or trait : merit

5
: a capacity to act : potency

6
: chastity especially in a woman

7
virtues plural : an order of angels see celestial hierarchy

virtueless
ˈvər-(ˌ)chü-ləs
adjective

 

[CoreyD]

Yes, true (complete) free will is the power to make all moral choices.
Man does not have true (complete) free will, the power to make all moral choices.

Man has limited "free will," the power to make some oral choices, but not all. . .he cannot make the moral choice to live sinlessly.

Partial freedomv is not complete freedom.
One is not truly free if his freedom is not complete.

Free will doesn't have to be "complete"... absolute, to be free will, just as perfection does not have to be absolute, in order to be perfection... among a whole lot of things. Have a good day Clare.

 

[CoreyD]

Please don't mischaracterizing what I said. But also, don't get discouraged. <-- courage is a virtue. Don't be afraid to learn or be corrected -->for scripture says that the wise receive instruction with joy and the fool despises correction.

How did I mischaracterizing what you said by expressing that what you said shows you do not understand, even after I simplified it?

I spent a lot of time writing that post for you, and your response was an immediate mischaracterization and you didn't even bother to even read the rest. Ask yourself if you think that's the Spirit of Christ would want you to do; Is your response loving me as you would want to be loved? Moreover, you're thinking/believing false things about me and what I said. You won't want to be deceived about that.

I understand how you feel, and it's good you want to be Christ-like.
However, if we do not understand something, and we say a lot of words, with that misunderstanding, nothing we say will be on point of what is being discussed.... and yes, I would want you do do the same to me, because I would not want to preach a sermon to you until I understood you.

Did Jesus know when people did not understand him, and respond accordingly? Yes, on many occasions.
Did he explain, and try to get persons to understand? Yes. How did he respond? Matthew 16:2-4

Would you prefer I do as Jesus did, on that occasion?
I let you know you don't understand. I haven't walked away.

My first statement did NOT say nor was it ever meant to imply that I don't understand. I've studied semantics particular to psycholinguistics for well over forty years of my life, and one of the first sentiments I studied was the differences between monergism and synergism. My first statement simply said we need to qualify what the will is free from when we assert a free will. The reason why we need to do that when discussing free will is so that it will be a stable term to reason upon, otherwise it will become a fluid term, a term that morphs in meaning.

From your statement, I can see you don't understand. You don't have to tell me you don't understand, in order for me to know that you don't.
You know when someone didn't get you, don't you?

It's always the case you will find people who are knowledgeable in this or that academic, to feel they understand anything one talks to them about, so I understand your feelings.

You said, "we need to qualify what the will is free from"
Please, explain to me what freedom of choice is free from.

I understand that you're doing your best. However, you didn't simplify the meaning as you may think. Below are the Four different meanings you gave in your post because the term morphed in meaning. I'm left guessing that #4 is what you see as the simplest meaning, the capacity to choose:

Let's take a look.

(1) Being "self"-willed (a carnal will, a noun).

Did you get that from "Of his own - self"?
If at this point, someone told you, you don't understand, would you accept that, or would you think they are challenging your status as being knowledgeable?

The way of his own is used from John 8:44, is not a noun.
I tried explaining that, but obviously failed. Perhaps this might help.
Does this help you see what part of speech "of one's own" falls under, when you review the OP.

(2) You've identified a "willingness" (an adverb) as proof of a "free" will, when in fact It only requires a will (noun) to have willingness (adverb).

Willingness is a noun, isn't it?
Willingly is the adverb.
Willing is the adjective.

However, why does that matter, since words are not used in only one context.
Willingness does not necessarily require a pre-existing will in the sense of a conscious, forceful determination. Instead, willingness is often described as a state of openness or readiness that can exist independently of a strong, exerted will.
While will refers to the internal power or capacity to make decisions and achieve goals, often involving determination or volition, [as in strong will... which is not the same as will used in free will], willingness emphasizes a positive attitude or inclination towards action, implying readiness rather than force.
See here.

I don't see what you are getting at though.
You obviously have things in mind, which aren't related to what I said.
Might that be the reason you don't understand?

(3) A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice/decision (an adjective).

I still don't understand, because you are separating the definitions and putting them in other categories, or context than what they belong, when they are all related, and in the same context, refer to the same thing.
There is no reason to separate , "willingness", "willing", "voluntary", "freewill", "free choice", or "freedom of choice", when they are used in the context of the OP.

(4) The presence of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die was claimed as proof of a free will even though it's not voluntary. In fact, the presenting of a choice/option to either do these commandments or die is NOT even a product of man's will, it is a situation where a choice/decision must be made out of necessity.

Please read Deuteronomy 30:19, 20 again.
It's not as you described.
"I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore choose life, so that you and your descendants may live," is the same as, "There are sharks in the water, so stay out of the water, so that you are not harmed."
You have the choice. No one is forcing you.
You get to decide what you will do.

The conditions do not change that.
Do people by necessity stop smoking cigars, because...

Does that take away their freedom of choice? Does it force them?

If you had read my post, you would have seen this:
This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders.

The children born of the Spirit of God have the same Character as their Father. --> The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;

Please state how this affects free will.
Are you forced to become a child of God, or do you make that choice? Is it automatic?

 

[Aaron112]

No, Jesus never tried to get the crowds or assembly to understand. He specifically told His personal disciples that He spoke in parables so that they (the audiences) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND.

 

[CoreyD]

No, Jesus never tried to get the crowds or assembly to understand. He specifically told His personal disciples that He spoke in parables so that they (the audiences) WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND.

Thanks Aaron.
Let me rephrase Jesus explained in a way that people could understand... at times.

 

[childeye 2]

How did I mischaracterizing what you said by expressing that what you said shows you do not understand, even after I simplified it?


I understand how you feel, and it's good you want to be Christ-like.
However, if we do not understand something, and we say a lot of words, with that misunderstanding, nothing we say will be on point of what is being discussed.... and yes, I would want you do do the same to me, because I would not want to preach a sermon to you until I understood you.

Did Jesus know when people did not understand him, and respond accordingly? Yes, on many occasions.
Did he explain, and try to get persons to understand? Yes. How did he respond? Matthew 16:2-4

Would you prefer I do as Jesus did, on that occasion?
I let you know you don't understand. I haven't walked away.


From your statement, I can see you don't understand. You don't have to tell me you don't understand, in order for me to know that you don't.
You know when someone didn't get you, don't you?

It's always the case you will find people who are knowledgeable in this or that academic, to feel they understand anything one talks to them about, so I understand your feelings.

Okay, thank you for this. I now think I took you wrong. I now think you're saying I don't understand what you're trying to say.

You said, "we need to qualify what the will is free from"
Please, explain to me what freedom of choice is free from.

Remember when I said earlier that any comment I make about the will would be strictly in the moral/immoral context? In keeping with that, I'm going to say that the binary choice/option of freedom of choice/decision is between right/wrong.

Okay, you're doing your best to articulate what free will means --> "freedom of choice". I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from.

Now, how exactly can I explain to you what freedom of choice is free from? I can think of free from innocence, but it's a negative connotation of free that ends in death. So, I think is ends in a contradiction of reasoning, and because of that I believe it's based on a false premise.

I believe that mankind started out with a free will, as in "free" from sin, --> no knowledge of good and evil, and therefore no choice/option between right/wrong and subsequently no freedom of choice/decision. I believe mankind trusted in God completely and were perfectly content in their station under God. I believe mankind was made in God's image and were perfect in their Character without the knowledge of good and evil. But I don't believe they knew how perfect they were in their innocence.

Only when the serpent said Eve could eat of the knowledge and it would not kill them but instead would make them like gods did she experience a challenge to what she had always believed to be true through a pure unadulterated faith in God. Only then was she presented with the thought that there was something better she may be missing out on. Only then did she consider that they could improve their station under God. Of course I was not there, but maybe only then did she consider there were other gods. I think she bought into the false premise that they could become like gods when they were already made in God's perfect Character, and therefore she believed a contradiction that she could fix what was not broken. I believe the freedom of choice in the moral/immoral context is the knowledge of good/evil.

I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent. And this is why no one can qualify the free will described as freedom of choice without contradiction, because it is where sin entered in through an adulterated imagery. For I hear God telling me that what is right is always the only viable option, otherwise wrong doesn't mean wrong. But more importantly, just as Mankind was made in God's perfect image without needing the knowledge of good and evil, I know it's not my faculty of reasoning between right/wrong that manifested the Spirit of Love in my heart which came by grace through faith in the knowledge of God's Person, His Christ, the TRUE Image of God sent by God. And this is why I think Paul says to the Galatians ---> This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

 

[Clare73]

I have three quick questions.
(1) When you say free will are you qualifying the term free as free from the slavery of sin?

I am qualifying the term "free" (power to make all moral choices, including the choice to live sinlessly) as limited, because man cannot choose to live totally sinlessly in thought, word and deed.

We are free from slavery to sin, but not free from all sinning, for we still sometimes sin.

<--- Jesus and Paul, both did this as shown below.
John 8:32 - And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Romans 6:18 - Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
(2) Do you believe that moral conduct can only be fulfilled through God's Spirit? For example, LOVE your neighbor as yourself.

There are atheists in the world who do morally good things.

Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is LOVE, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self control...
(3) Would you testify to the existence of the moral power of virtue?

In the A.V., "power" (dunamis) is translated "virtue" (Mk 5:30, Lk 6:19).

, 8:46
Mark 5:30And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
Luke 6:19And the whole multitude sought to touch him: for there went virtue out of him, and healed them all.

virtue noun​

vir·tue ˈvər-(ˌ)chü
1a: conformity to a standard of right : morality
b: a particular moral excellence
2: a beneficial quality or power of a thing
3: manly strength or courage : valor
4: a commendable quality or trait : merit
5: a capacity to act : potency
6: chastity especially in a woman
7virtues plural : an order of angels see celestial hierarchy
virtueless ˈvər-(ˌ)chü-ləs adjective

 

[Fervent]

Sorry, but I see 'free will'.
One can't erase a word just because they don't like it... for whatever reason.
What do you have against free will?

She's engaging in the classic word-concept fallacy. The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will. Whether or not the word is present or used, it is clearly required in order for the passage to work.

But in these kinds of conversations, it isn't really about free will at all. It is about preserving a doctrinal system at any and all costs. Which requires playing word games and deploying logical fallacies(such as the strawman that free will must be absolute in order for it to be authentically free).

 

[CoreyD]

Okay, thank you for this. I now think I took you wrong. I now think you're saying I don't understand what you're trying to say.

If you mean by this, I am saying you don't understand free will as explained in the OP, yes, that is what I am saying.

Remember when I said earlier that any comment I make about the will would be strictly in the moral/immoral context? In keeping with that, I'm going to say that the binary choice/option of freedom of choice/decision is between right/wrong.

If a decision to serve God or not, or obey God or not, is in that category, then that's okay.

Okay, you're doing your best to articulate what free will means --> "freedom of choice". I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from.

Now, how exactly can I explain to you what freedom of choice is free from? I can think of free from innocence, but it's a negative connotation of free that ends in death. So, I think is ends in a contradiction of reasoning, and because of that I believe it's based on a false premise.

Thank you.
Your question then was a contradiction of reasoning, based on a false premise, because like freedom of choice, free will is not free from anything.
You had a false premise about free will due to not understanding it.

I believe that mankind started out with a free will, as in "free" from sin, --> no knowledge of good and evil, and therefore no choice/option between right/wrong and subsequently no freedom of choice/decision.

Just as I thought.
Some people equate free will with perfection.
The two are far from equal.

Did Adam not know right from wrong, and had the choice of choosing one or the other?
How then could they be judged?
Here is what the Bible says...
Genesis 2:15-17
15 Then the LORD God took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

Genesis 3:2, 3
2 The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden,
3 but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’”

So, your mom baked a cake; slice it in half; gave you a quarter of the half, and the other quarter to your sister, and told you, you can eat those, but don't touch the half on the table.
Will you cut or break off piece of that cake, and say you did not know right from wrong?
Or, would you take your dad's wallet, and take money from it, and say you did not know right from wrong.

Both Adam and Eve knew it was wring to disobey God, and they both confessed to their guilt, after hiding... though they tried to pass blame from themselves. Genesis 3:12, 13
This is what free will is about - God allowing humans to make their own decisions to act on their own accord, according to their own desire.

I believe mankind trusted in God completely and were perfectly content in their station under God. I believe mankind was made in God's image and were perfect in their Character without the knowledge of good and evil. But I don't believe they knew how perfect they were in their innocence.

Thank you for expressing your beliefs.

Only when the serpent said Eve could eat of the knowledge and it would not kill them but instead would make them like gods did she experience a challenge to what she had always believed to be true through a pure unadulterated faith in God. Only then was she presented with the thought that there was something better she may be missing out on. Only then did she consider that they could improve their station under God. Of course I was not there, but maybe only then did she consider there were other gods. I think she bought into the false premise that they could become like gods when they were already made in God's perfect Character, and therefore she believed a contradiction that she could fix what was not broken. I believe the freedom of choice in the moral/immoral context is the knowledge of good/evil.

Again, thank you for sharing your beliefs.
I don't understand what you mean by "I believe the freedom of choice in the moral/immoral context is the knowledge of good/evil.", and you did not explain why you believe that.

I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent.

I don't understand this statement - the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??
What do you mean? Can you explain.

And this is why no one can qualify the free will described as freedom of choice without contradiction, because it is where sin entered in through an adulterated imagery.

You lost me.
I do not have a clue what you are trying to say, and unless I do, I cannot respond to it.
However, I believe the Bible is what substantiates truth, rather than people's ideas, or what they believe.

For I hear God telling me that what is right is always the only viable option, otherwise wrong doesn't mean wrong. But more importantly, just as Mankind was made in God's perfect image without needing the knowledge of good and evil, I know it's not my faculty of reasoning between right/wrong that manifested the Spirit of Love in my heart which came by grace through faith in the knowledge of God's Person, His Christ, the TRUE Image of God sent by God. And this is why I think Paul says to the Galatians ---> This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

You believe the tree gave knowledge of good and evil.
So, you believe by eating a fruit, man got knowledge of good and evil.
May I ask, do you believe Adam and Eve could not see... they being blind... but after eating the fruit, they could then see?
The Bible says... And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; so they sewed together fig leaves and made coverings for themselves. Genesis 3:7

Do you believe they did not see each other's nakedness, and know of it?

 

[CoreyD]

She's engaging in the classic word-concept fallacy. The question is, how can something be "voluntary" without free will. Whether or not the word is present or used, it is clearly required in order for the passage to work.

But in these kinds of conversations, it isn't really about free will at all. It is about preserving a doctrinal system at any and all costs. Which requires playing word games and deploying logical fallacies(such as the strawman that free will must be absolute in order for it to be authentically free).

I seem to be learning to be more patient. Thank God, because normally I wouldn't continue a conversation where it becomes obvious the person is jumping around a subject to avoid admittance.
I'm glad it's ended... I hope. I was going to ask one final question...

God is holy, in the absolute sense... 'completely' for those that like that word because it allows them to use the other word - 'partly', or 'partially'.
Man is sinful... far removed from God's holiness.
Yet, God tell imperfect men, “You must be holy because I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:16
So, can man be truly holy, and who gets to decide if they are... humans, or God?

The answer is obvious.

 

[Fervent]

I seem to be learning to be more patient. Thank God, because normally I wouldn't continue a conversation where it becomes obvious the person is jumping around a subject to avoid admittance.
I'm glad it's ended... I hope. I was going to ask one final question...

I quickly found my way onto her ignore list, so I am lucky enough to not be tempted to try to engage with her.

God is holy, in the absolute sense... 'completely' for those that like that word because it allows them to use the other word - 'partly', or 'partially'.
Man is sinful... far removed from God's holiness.
Yet, God tell imperfect men, “You must be holy because I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:16
So, can man be truly holy, and who gets to decide if they are... humans, or God?

The answer is obvious.

Yeah, but so many are caught up in a form of Manichean gnosticism via Augustine that blinds them to God's statements on the matter.

 

[CoreyD]

I quickly found my way onto her ignore list, so I am lucky enough to not be tempted to try to engage with her.

That's too bad. You probably missed out on what James 1:2-4 says.

Yeah, but so many are caught up in a form of Manichean gnosticism via Augustine that blinds them to God's statements on the matter.

It's much more huge than Augustine, I'm sure.

 

[Fervent]

That's too bad. You probably missed out on what James 1:2-4 says.

It's much more huge than Augustine, I'm sure.

Maybe, though Augustine's the easy captor to identify. Especially when we see that a church without him having strong influence easily resisted similar doctrinal movements.