The Reality of Free Will

[childeye 2]

Not a refutation of "God is not a liar" (post #190).

Are you well? I just showed you from the record I was NOT refuting "God is not a liar". I was saying pragmatics do not allow for God to be a liar --> childeye 2 said: The topic is free will. God is Truth. According to pragmatics going against God/Truth must involve believing in something not true.

 

[childeye 2]

We have been through this, and I have clarified what exactly free will is.

You're mistaken. You're still using the neutral philosophical meaning of free will that is NOT scriptural BECAUSE it does NOT acknowledge God as the Truth in the moral/immoral context of Character. Note that in scripture the children of the devil sin because they will do the works of their father. In scripture "will" means desire/intent NOT choice.

I cannot change your mindset, from the direction you want to go.

I have the mind of Christ because I am continuing in the words Jesus spoke --> "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin". "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

 

[CLEEB]

Let me warn you, that you are going to engage in a fruitless argument that will only wear you out.
It is already clear from scripture that freedom is relative; cleanness is relative; holiness is relative; righteousness is relative.
Engaging in a debate with someone who insists on using the word "complete" to make something real, is no different to engaging in an argument with someone who insists that knowledge must be absolute, for one to have true knowledge... which is an unreasonable argument.

The argument that freedom must be "complete" for it be real freedom, is no different... either scripturally, or otherwise.
God's people have true freedom. Galatians 5:1
As you know, humans have free will too.
Don't get carried away by the "complete" argument.
No fruit will come from it.

I just read your last email and on this subject I agree with you. Agape is Greek for GODLY love that HE gives us freely and we need to return freely. The lake of fire exists for a reason. Salvation can be lost. This is also by free will. GOD is wanting quality not quantity. GOD does know our choices before we make them but doesn't make them for us. You are correct that this issue has been pounded to much.

 

[childeye 2]

Scripture proves a choice between two trees in Eden.

The term choice you're using in this statement implies option. Scripture does not express that they are options implying an either/or.

A choice under the law to choose life and live.

This is a strawman argument. No one I know of on this thread is denying that we make choices between right and wrong life and death in the moral/immoral context. The issue is culpability when factoring in that scripture indicates the carnal will (or “mind of the flesh”) is not the true self God intends us to live from. Paul consistently distinguishes between the flesh (carnal nature) and the spirit (new nature in Christ), showing that the carnal will is a corrupted orientation of desire, not the essence of who we are in Christ.

 

[CLEEB]

Let me warn you, that you are going to engage in a fruitless argument that will only wear you out.
It is already clear from scripture that freedom is relative; cleanness is relative; holiness is relative; righteousness is relative.
Engaging in a debate with someone who insists on using the word "complete" to make something real, is no different to engaging in an argument with someone who insists that knowledge must be absolute, for one to have true knowledge... which is an unreasonable argument.

The argument that freedom must be "complete" for it be real freedom, is no different... either scripturally, or otherwise.
God's people have true freedom. Galatians 5:1
As you know, humans have free will too.
Don't get carried away by the "complete" argument.
No fruit will come from it.

If there is no free will then why doesn't GOD just convert everyone instead of allowing them to be trapped in evil ? Remember, that forbidden fruit was the knowledge of GOOD as well as evil. People are capable of doing good on a human level. James describes the human sinful condition. James 1: 13-15 it is our own lust that is sin, GOD doesn't tempt any to sin, its all on us.

 

[CoreyD]

Can someone help me with this.
Is @Clare73 saying that only the "unregeneerte" do not have free will, but all other men do have free will, even though after the fall no man has free will?
I'm leaving that alone.

 

[CoreyD]

If there is no free will then why doesn't GOD just convert everyone instead of allowing them to be trapped in evil ? Remember, that forbidden fruit was the knowledge of GOOD as well as evil. People are capable of doing good on a human level. James describes the human sinful condition. James 1: 13-15 it is our own lust that is sin, GOD doesn't tempt any to sin, its all on us.

It's all up to us, yes. You are right on that point.
We all have the choice to do, or not to do... As you repeatedly quoted... Deuteronomy 30:19
Joshua, who succeeded Moses, told the people, "if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve... As for me and my house[hold], we will serve the LORD!” Joshua 24:15
Pretty simple and straightforward. No one is forced, but freely, and willingly make a decision.

 

[CoreyD]

I just read your last email and on this subject I agree with you. Agape is Greek for GODLY love that HE gives us freely and we need to return freely. The lake of fire exists for a reason. Salvation can be lost. This is also by free will. GOD is wanting quality not quantity. GOD does know our choices before we make them but doesn't make them for us. You are correct that this issue has been pounded to much.

Hey, but we can't truly have love, because it's not "complete" love.
So, we cannot truly love one another. Get what I'm saying.
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here. Don't mind me.

 

[childeye 2]

If there is no free will then why doesn't GOD just convert everyone instead of allowing them to be trapped in evil ?

AMSWER-> 1 Corinthians 1:29. That no flesh should glory in His presence.​

God’s way ensures that no flesh can glory in His presence. Salvation is structured so that all credit belongs to Him, not to human free will, voluntariness, or autonomy.​

Remember, that forbidden fruit was the knowledge of GOOD as well as evil.

Which God did not want us to have because we would die. If the tree represents experiential knowledge, then sin would be in that knowledge and subsequently death would ensue.

People are capable of doing good on a human level. James describes the human sinful condition. James 1: 13-15 it is our own lust that is sin, GOD doesn't tempt any to sin, its all on us.

• James 1:14–15: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” → James uses the Greek word epithymia (desire, craving, lust). He emphasizes that temptation arises from within the person — “his own desire.”
• James does not explicitly use the phrase lusts of the flesh (epithymiai sarkos), which Paul uses in Galatians 5:16–17 and Ephesians 2:3. Instead, James speaks more generally of “desire” (epithymia) without attaching it to “flesh” (sarx).

Comparison with Paul​

• Galatians 5:16–17: Paul says, “Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit.” → Here, epithymia is explicitly tied to sarx (flesh).
• Ephesians 2:3: “…we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind.” → Paul makes the same connection: sinful desires = lusts of the flesh.

Double‑Mindedness in James​

• James 1:8: “He is a double‑minded man, unstable in all his ways.” -> Refers to someone wavering between trusting God and relying on self/worldly desires.
• James 4:8: “Purify your hearts, you double‑minded.” -> Calls believers to wholehearted devotion to God, not divided loyalties.

Connection to Free Will​

• Neutral free will (philosophical idea): A supposed faculty of choice that can swing either way, detached from moral orientation.
• James’ double‑mindedness: Not a neutral choice faculty, but a conflicted will — torn between God and sinful desire.
• James is not describing a neutral “free will,” but a divided desire. The person is unstable because their will is pulled in two directions.

 

[childeye 2]

Can someone help me with this.
Is @Clare73 saying that only the "unregeneerte" do not have free will, but all other men do have free will, even though after the fall no man has free will?
I'm leaving that alone.

She's qualifying unregenerate as the fallen carnal will and subsequently it is not a will free from sin as Jesus promised. It makes sense if you realize regenerate implies a transformative process of the will/desire.

Here is the carnal will/desire in its depravity-> Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Free Will Defined as “Ability to Choose”​

• Philosophically, free will is often defined as the capacity to choose between alternatives.
• This definition assumes a kind of neutrality: that humans can weigh good and evil and then select either one.

The Reality of Depravity​

• Romans 3:10–12: “There is none righteous, no, not one… there is none who seeks after God.”
• Romans 8:7–8: “The carnal mind is enmity against God… those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
• Ephesians 2:1: Humanity is described as “dead in trespasses and sins.”

Depravity means the human will is not neutral. It is enslaved to sin (John 8:34).

Why “Ability to Choose” Becomes Irrelevant​

1. No Neutral Ground
   • Depravity removes the possibility of a neutral choice.
   • Humans are not standing between good and evil, weighing options; they are already bent toward evil.
2. Deadness, Not Just Weakness
   • Paul describes sinners as dead.
   • A dead will cannot exercise “ability to choose” in the sense of moral neutrality.
3. Choice Is Always Morally Charged either in a negative or positive sense.
   • In depravity, every choice flows from a corrupted orientation.
   • Even when choosing something “good” outwardly, the motive is self‑glory, not God’s glory Matthew 23:27–28.
4. True Freedom Comes Only in Christ
   • The only way the will becomes relevant again is when God intervenes.
   • John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
   • The will is liberated by grace, not by its own neutral ability.

The Key Point​

Free will defined as “ability to choose” is irrelevant in view of depravity because:

• The will is not neutral but enslaved.
• Choices are always bent toward sin.
• Without God’s intervention, the “ability to choose” is an illusion — the will can only choose according to its sinful nature.

Conclusion​

In depravity, the human will is not a neutral faculty of choice but a captive faculty of sin. That’s why Paul insists in 1 Corinthians 1:29, “That no flesh should glory in His presence.” The irrelevance of free will (as neutral choice) magnifies the necessity of God’s grace — salvation is His work alone.

 

[childeye 2]

Hey, but we can't truly have love, because it's not "complete" love.

I'm going to speak out of a belief God is brotherly agape Love: So, what do you mean we can't truly have God?

So, we cannot truly love one another. Get what I'm saying.

You're saying God/Love is untrue/unreal?

I'm playing the Devil's advocate here. Don't mind me.

Okay, so are you really advocating for Satan or is this sarcasm? Looks to me like you're mocking those who are pointing out that your definition of free will is omitting that God is the Spirit of goodness in mankind. Let's clear this up.

Do you agree we cannot will/desire to do good apart from God's Spirit of Love within us?

 

[Clare73]

Can someone help me with this.
Is @Clare73 saying that only the "unregeneerte" do not have free will, but all other men do have free will, even though after the fall no man has free will?
I'm leaving that alone.

"Free will" of fallen man, either regenerate or unregenerate, is not a Biblical notion, "free will" of man is not found in the Bible.
"Free will" is a notion of man, superimposed on the Bible.

If fallen man's will were completely free, he could choose to live sinlessly.
Man cannot make that choice, even after being regenerated.
Man's will has limited freedom.
Only Adam and Eve had complete free will, the ability to choose to live sinlessly, which ability was lost for all when they chose to sin, and which will be recovered in the new heavens and new earth.

 

[childeye 2]

"Free will" of fallen man, either regenerate or unregenerate, is not a Biblical notion, it is not found in the Bible.
"Free will" is a notion of man, superimposed on the Bible.

If fallen man's will were completely free, he could choose to live sinlessly.
Man cannot make that choice, even after being regenerated.
Man's will has limited freedom.
Only Adam and Eve had complete free will, the ability to choose to live sinlessly, which ability was lost for all when they chose to sin.

I just want an honest opinion, so please don't get defensive when I ask you this:
Do you believe there will be sin in the New Heavens and earth in this capacity--> I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me?

 

[Clare73]

I just want an honest opinion, so please don't get defensive when I ask you this:
Do you believe there will be sin in the New Heavens and earth in this capacity--> I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me?

That "capacity" is the result of the fall.

There will be no sin in the new heavens and new earth, which will be the home of righteousness.

 

[childeye 2]

That "capacity" is the result of the fall.

There will be no sin in the new heavens and new earth, which will be the home of righteousness.

I just wanted to make that clear in case others might misunderstand you.

 

[childeye 2]

It's all up to us, yes. You are right on that point.
We all have the choice to do, or not to do... As you repeatedly quoted... Deuteronomy 30:19
Joshua, who succeeded Moses, told the people, "if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve... As for me and my house[hold], we will serve the LORD!” Joshua 24:15
Pretty simple and straightforward. No one is forced, but freely, and willingly make a decision.

Joshua’s Stipulation​

• In Joshua 24:15, Joshua says: “If it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve…”
• Notice the stipulation: the “choice” only exists for those who think serving God is evil.
• For Joshua himself, there is no choice — “As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
• This means the “choice” is not a neutral free will option, but a testimony of heart orientation.
  • Those who see God as wicked presume they have alternatives.
  • Those who love God see no alternative — serving Him is the only reality.

This is why the term "will" has to be desire/intent and NOT the ability to choose in the moral/immoral paradigm of good/evil.

 

[CoreyD]

@childeye 2 I can see you still do not understand.
I'm not going to say it's because you don't want to understand, though that's more than likely the case, since you are reading my posts, but ignoring them, and refusing to respond to them or answer the questions posed to you.

However, for some reason, you and @Clare73 obviously have something against free will.
I don't know what it is, but I'm guessing you had this argument before, and you don't want to admit you are wrong.
Whatever the case, it's not possible for either of you to refute the proof in this thread.

Let me talk with Clare first, since, as they say, 'Ladies first".
Clare, my dear, all words are from humans, so the complaint that free will is a human notion, doesn't have any merit.
To make that argument, would be to argue that "unreasonable", "foolish", "stupid", "twisted", and the word you used "unregeneerte"... which isn't spelled correctly, but "unregenerate" are human notions, and are not found in the Bible.

That argument is not only false, but foolish, as it lacks proper knowledge and understanding.
All these words, like free will, are English words equivalent to the Hebrew and Greek words use before English.

Some Hebrew and Greek words are direct, but yet more can be understood by digging deeper.
For example, the words at 2 Peter 3:16... ἀμαθής (amathés), which some translate as "unlearned", "ignorant", comes from the Greek a (as a negative particle) and manthano, according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

Did you know that? Can you read that?
This is why we have the help of Hebrew and Greek Lexicons.

A lexicon, in our case, is the vocabulary of a language, encompassing all the words and phrases they use. It can refer to the complete set of words in a language, including their meanings, pronunciations, and grammatical properties.​

Think of that for a moment.

Without a Lexicon, would you know this:

1A – alpha, the first letter of the Greek alphabet. 1/a (alpha) is used as a prefix (called its "privative use") and typically means "no" or "not" (= "un-," "without").​

Strong's Greek: 1. Α (alpha) -- Alpha​

[Greek words, whose first letter (of the root) is alpha, can not take an "alpha-privative" to negate them, so the only way to express their "antithesis" is using a negative particle before them (e.g. mē, ou).]​

Strong's Greek: 1. Α (alpha) -- Alpha​

Example: There is no single word for "unforgiveness" in the NT because the first letter is already alpha ("a") – so a negative has to be used separately like, "not forgive" (ou/mē aphiēmi). "Righteousness/judge" (dikē) however does not begin in Greek with the letter "a" so unrighteousness is formed by using the prefix alpha (adikia).​

We wouldn't.
Would you argue that "unrighteous", or "unrighteousness" is a human notion, and not a Biblical word?
That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it.

In the same way, it is ridiculous to argue that "free will" is a human notion, and not found in the Bible.
It is indeed found in the Bible.
Are you saying the Hebrew and Greek words in these Lexicons and their information is wrong?
If so, you are under obligation to provide references which demonstrate these Lexical works erroneous.
If you are unable to provide these references, the evidence proves your arguments are erroneous and they lack understanding of the subject, and a willingness to accept the evidence before you.

Spoiler: Using Lexicons to Dig Deeper

Topical Lexicon
Definition and Scope
The single New Testament usage of ἀμαθεῖς (Strong’s Greek 261) highlights a moral and spiritual condition rather than merely an academic one. It describes those who remain willfully untaught in the things of God, resulting in faulty reasoning and destructive handling of divine revelation. Scripture consistently portrays such ignorance as culpable when truth has been made available (compare Proverbs 1:22–23; Hosea 4:6; Romans 1:
Source

​

Spoiler: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

Strong's Concordance​

Each original-language word (Hebrew or Greek) is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance.
Strong's Concordance includes:

• The 8,674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: אֱנוֹשׁ (H582))
• The 5,624 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: λόγος (G3056))

Strong's dictionaries​

In the 1890 version, Strong added a "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary" and a "Greek Dictionary of the New Testament" to his concordance. In the preface to both dictionaries, Strong explains that these are "brief and simple" dictionaries, not meant to replace reference to "a more copious and elaborate Lexicon." He mentions Gesenius and Fürst as examples of the lexicons that Strong's is drawn from. His dictionaries were meant to give students a quick and simple way to look up words and have a general idea of their meaning
Source

@childeye 2 there's not much to say to you, since I know you read my posts, so I'll just say you chose to have a conversation with yourself rather than with me, by talking about "will" rather than the subject of the OP, which is "free will".
That's off topic, and I am not taking this thread off topic.
If at any time you want to get back to the topic, and actually discuss it with me, feel free to respond to the posts that actually discuss one's "free will".
That would be these...
Posts #172, #184, and #209, if you like.
These make clear that both you and I understand that we aren't discussing "the will".

I think I have covered everything here.