The Reality of Free Will

[childeye 2]

Well . . . yes love causes us to do something.

But we do have ability to choose to do something. So, this would mean we have some sort of free will . . . meaning ability to choose.

I know I have the ability to move or not move my finger (I thank God for that). In my thinking, what I desire or intend to do with my fingers is my will, and scripture concurs. Is it free? Do I just make up a will to do something? Perhaps when I'm bored? But I didn't will to be bored. I don't actually will to will when I think about it, and there's always a reason why I reason and that's because I'm alive.

Okay, I have an ability to choose to move my finger. But in the moral/immoral sense, to have a will that equivocates back and forth between obeying God and disobeying God would be doublemindedness. In the dialogue of faith, that's what it looks like.

• James 1:8: “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
• James 4:8: “Purify your hearts, ye double minded.”

However, we have how there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. Satan's spirit is working people to do what they do, I see this means, since his evil spirit "works in" disobedient people. And his spirit has anger, fear, lust, and unforgiveness which were not in Adam and Eve when God created them "very good".

This is the same scripture that informs my reasoning about what makes me will as in lust or covet. It's important to note that the Truth preceded a lie in existence. I'm defining a lie as something false that undermines what is true. The reason this is important is because if we already had a free will walking and abiding in the truth through faith, then the lie that we don't have a free will would make free will a lie. So yes, there is a prince of the power of the air, and that power implies the ability to create desires in the flesh through deception, or vain imaginings which lead to sin. So, in this scenario, what looks like free isn't actually free.

Humans now in sin are not "very good". And so their wills are not in the "very good" state in which humans were first created.

So, their wills are free, meaning they can make choices; however . . . where does the Bible say they work their own wills???? And we have, for children of God >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, I see from this, that God is the One who works in our wills, to get us to do whatsoever is "for His good pleasure". And this would be in His love having us so submit to Him.

So, we might say we have the ability to choose this, but who in us is working us to use this ability the right way? Are we of our own selves freely getting our own selves to submit to God working at every moment . . . or does God change our character so we become submissive to Him in His love?

Exactly. These are the right questions to ask. In the dialect of Faith, God is the Eternal power, and we are dirt. “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.” <-- What is this power? --> In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes really. He wants the Corinthians to see that his ministry is not self‑chosen or self‑serving, but a divine commission. Most all theologians recognize that Paul is saying woe to me if I don't preach the Gospel. He was given a stewardship and necessity was laid upon him.

I think he did it willingly, I know I do. But that wasn't his point. I too have to preach the Gospel because the Love of others compels me. <-- GOD.

"The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it cannot.” Resistance to the Spirit is the natural posture of fallen humanity. Resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51) is possible, but that resistance is the carnal mind at work. "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." The carnal will is not a free will. John 8:32 --> “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 16:8 --> The Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Conviction is not suggestion; it is divine persuasion that bends the will. The Holy Spirit convicts me of sin by showing me when I'm not loving others as myself. I can't just unsee it according to my volition.

1 Corinthians 12:3.

Paul writes: Therefore, I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is cursed". and no one can say "Jesus is Lord", except in the Holy Spirit.



When I was four years old, we were coming back from church, and I asked my dad "what is free will?' He replied. "It means we make choices". I thought to myself, "Hmm, I knew that." .... That is, I knew I made choices everyday all day long. Believing in the free will you're talking about and my Dad talked about, isn't about believing in the word voluntary or willing, or unforced; it's about believing in a philosophical, theological concept.

That doesn't mean we're not in a battle of words. Basically, I'm saying what you call free will, is what scripture calls the carnal will.
Resisting the Spirit (Acts 7:51) is possible, but that resistance is the carnal mind at work. The carnal will is not a free will. John 8:32 --> “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Acts 7:51​

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.​

That's why the free will I believe in is God's will. I must die (my carnal will) so Christ may live in me. The dialect of faith gradually eliminates the dialect of the carnal will along with the free will concept based on autonomous choice. I'm saying that if you think in terms of faith/trust in God and in His Christ, you will come to see the ability to choose against God will die as we trust in Christ. That's why when we're baptized for the remission of sins we are baptized into his death.

If you would just acknowledge that scripture denotes a change from the carnal mind to the mind of Christ, and that it happens through the work of the Holy Spirit, through faith, and not by our choice, you would see that it logically follows that the free will of the carnal mindset is not the free will that Christ has.

• Romans 8:6–7 — “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God…” → Here Paul contrasts the carnal mind with the Spirit‑led mind. The Spirit replaces hostility with peace.
• 1 Corinthians 2:14–16 — “The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God… But we have the mind of Christ.” → The Spirit enables believers to grasp spiritual truth, giving them the “mind of Christ.”
• Romans 12:2 — “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind…” → Transformation of the mind is Spirit‑driven, aligning believers with God’s will.
• Philippians 2:5 — “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” → The Spirit empowers believers to adopt Christ’s humility and obedience.
• 2 Corinthians 3:18 — “We all… are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” → The Spirit actively transforms believers into Christ’s likeness.

Yes, it's true, but your mistake is concluding my reasoning is faulty.

Let me show you.
I'll highlight the faulty reasoning.

Yes, I saw them every time you posted them. Those words are greek and hebrew words meaning willing, voluntary. Like I said, they are adjectives, adverbs, sometimes verbs, but not the noun free will. So, for instance, let's take the word "willing", it means inclined or favorably disposed in mind, it doesn't mean all choices are voluntarily and I'm always willing. Likewise, when I say I have made a voluntary choice, it doesn't mean all my choices are voluntary choices. But particularly in the moral/immoral context, it's my contention that Love fulfills the law and it is love that causes us to act responsibly and care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer.

First, there is no noun 'free will', being mentioned in this thread... except by the user @childeye 2.
This is at least the sixth or seventh time I told you this, but rather than respond to what I said, and showed you... namely...

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).​

You keep responding to yourself, by putting up this strawman, and then attacking it.
Is that not ridiculously faulty?

If someone were talking to you about chalk, and referring to white chalk, would you keep talking about charcoal, and claim the person is talking about charcoal?
Seriously, would that not be faulty... to an extreme?


Secondly, God is love, and everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.
So, the statement "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law and it is love that causes us to act responsibly and care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer" is extremely faulty because... well... I mean... look at it C.
I cannot even make sense of that.
Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

The fact that a person is moved from a heart filled with love, to voluntarily, or willingly take a particular course, does not mean they have not acted willingly, and voluntarily.
They have done so, because it was their choice to... just as a person is moved from a heart that is lacking love, to rebel against God... like Adam did, as well as the angel that became Satan, and mankind today, who want to go their own way, and fulfill their sinful desires.
In both cases, they acted willingly... deliberately... voluntarily - of their own free will.

It's not an "ability to volunteer".
Something done voluntarily, willingly, unforced, of one's own accord, or of free will, is a deliberate action - an "exercise of will (verb), done freely", which is part of a decision making process, or choice. The root (hek-) of hekousios emphasizes intentional, deliberate action

We are not talking about being able to volunteer, as if we need an able-bodied person to do some work. Or offer up a ram.
The Hebrew expression nedabah (נְדָבָה) is rendered freewill offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary, offering, willingly, offering. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
This Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew word nadab, of which Topical Lexicon says...
The verb נָדַב consistently underlines a movement of the heart that is neither coerced nor merely dutiful.

Voluntary offerings were made by "every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD’S offering... Exodus 35:21
Exodus 35:26 And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats’ hair.
Exodus 35:29 The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses.

So, it's no mistake I am making. Your reasoning is faulty.... to such an extreme, it doesn't even make sense when read... and I had to read it a number of times before I could decide on a response.

 

[com7fy8]

Did God create his intelligent children with free will?

Yes. But has sin affected how free a person's will is actually going to function?

Yes, someone can choose at any moment to do anything, at all . . . but how much does the person's real character affect what the person will choose to do or not?

Because God is all-loving, by nature, He actually does choose to do all-loving things, right?

But if some human has a will but the person is selfish . . . doesn't the person's real character affect what the person's will is able to choose??

Therefore, does the reality of my will include the reality of the character of my will? And does my character have a major influence on what I am really capable of choosing?

But, then > if Jesus makes a person > "free indeed" > in John 8:36 > does this change the nature and reality of the freedom of someone's will?

And where does this new freedom come from, if Jesus makes someone "free indeed"?

It is written > "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, if we are children of God, God Himself is working our wills, it seems to me, from this scripture. So, I see how God is sharing His own freedom with us in our wills, while He is working what we will. And so, we can choose more and better, with God working in us.

Could it be "like" how a car can have the ability to do different things, but what the car can actually do depends on who is operating the car?

If God is operating my free will, then, I can choose - - - with God, in sharing with God - - - to do what is better than what I can choose without God.

So, then, perhaps we can agree that the reality of our free wills has a lot to do with our real character of our free wills, along with whoever is in union with us and really is operating our wills with us.

God "works in you both to will . . .", we have in Philippians 2:13.

Also, we have that there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. So, how does this affect the reality of someone's will . . . if Satan's evil and selfish spirit is working in the person??

 

[CoreyD]

Yes. But has sin affected how free a person's will is actually going to function?

Sin affects all mankind born to Adam, so that no human is free from sickness and death, but does this mean humans don't have life, and health?
In other words, does sin take away life and health?

Similarly, sin does not take away free will.
Rather, the quality of life, health, and free will exists despite our being affected by sin.

For example, one can choose to eat healthy, and maintain relatively good health, or they can eat unhealthy and have poor health.
Man can misuse the gift of free will, by making poor choices that lead to worst ones, or they can make wise choices that lead to even wiser ones.
Jesus put it this way...

“If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities.

Luke 16:10

Peter explains how a person can be honest and faithful in little things.
He said...

Live in freedom, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.

1 Peter 2:16

In other word, don't take freedom for granted, and live as 'close to the edge as possible'.
If you get what I am saying.

Yes, someone can choose at any moment to do anything, at all . . . but how much does the person's real character affect what the person will choose to do or not?

A good example, is someone who is raised in a terrorist group.
Taught to hate a certain group; Trained to kill members of the 'hated' group; Trained to blow themselves to smithereens for the cause...
His character has been shaped.
Does that mean he doesn't have free will?
Not at all.

Suppose for example, he learned that a loved one is of that group. Maybe he fell in love with a girl, whom he later learned, is of that group... and her parents?
What now?
Does his character move him to kill the girl and her parents?
No. He now has a choice to make.

1. Will he will himself to go against everything that he was taught, and what he has become, or have a change of heart that moves him to abandon his course?
2. Or will he will himself to be loyal to the cause, or have a heart for it?

Either way, he makes a decision.
One thing is certain.
His decision is going to be deliberate; intentional; unforced; voluntarily; of his own accord... Will he do it willingly? Yes. Even if he has to die, for the girl he loves, or kill the girl he loves.
This is the heart's role. Therein lies the true self, that will allow him to make a decision, one way or other.

One may argue... "Well, maybe he is unwilling."
Does he kill the girl unwillingly, or desert the group unwillingly? No.
Whatever choice he makes he does so willingly, regardless of the consequences.
This is free will being exercised.

One's 'character' in not fixed. It changes, because the heart - which is the motivator - changes.
"every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing... Exodus 35:21

Because God is all-loving, by nature, He actually does choose to do all-loving things, right?

That's right.
God isn't programmed.. and this is a good example to show that what one feeds one's heart on, is what one's heart will become.
So that if we want to make wise choices, or "choose to do all-loving things", we need to use our freedom, as Peter said, as servants of God.
In other words, in little things, choose to do the right thing.

It all starts with choice.
One does not become rebellious without will, and the freedom to act of one's own will, allows for that.
Satan; Adam and Eve; the angels that sinned; rebellious Israelites... and since we are here, let's talk about them.
God said they were an obstinate and rebellious people. Yet, individual Israelites chose to do what's right. How did that happen, if character affects what the person will choose to do or not? Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15

Choosing to listen to and obey God, changes character. So, the ability to choose - willingly, unforced, voluntarily, of one's own accord... of free will, must be present before character.
Do you know of any atheists that were reluctant to give the Bible a chance, but listened, and then chose to obey?
Free will must exist at the start, and this is the case, since God made man in his image, and Adam was the first to exercise free will.

But if some human has a will but the person is selfish . . . doesn't the person's real character affect what the person's will is able to choose??

A person is willing, or wills themselves to act either against a desire, or on a desire.
This is how sin is born, according to James 1:14.
At Ezekiel 28:15, we read...
New Living Translation
“You were blameless in all you did from the day you were created until the day evil was found in you.

English Standard Version
You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you.

Berean Standard Bible
From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways—until wickedness was found in you.

Blameless character, becomes evil. How?
Was it not by acting on their own will, or accord?
If a person is selfish, they got there by acting on their own will - exercising free will.
They can reverse it, in the same manner.

Therefore, does the reality of my will include the reality of the character of my will? And does my character have a major influence on what I am really capable of choosing?

Consider the above, and then let me know what you think.

But, then > if Jesus makes a person > "free indeed" > in John 8:36 > does this change the nature and reality of the freedom of someone's will?

A person that is liberated, according to John 8:36, enjoys the freedom mentioned at Galatians 5:1 where Paul said...

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.

It is the same freedom Paul refers to at Galatians 5:13, where he said...

For you, brothers, were called to freedom; but do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh. Rather, serve one another in love.

As well as the freedom mentioned earlier by Peter. 1 Peter 2:16

In every case, persons had to make every effort to not misuse their freedom, nor lose it, by the choices the make.
So, one's free willed choices had to be exercised correctly, in order to maintain freedom.
The freedom here is not free will. Freedom and freewill are not the same.
One can have freedom and have free will, or one can lack freedom and have free will.

Freedom does not add or take away free will.
The freedom to exercise one's will - freely, willingly, voluntarily, of one's own accord, deliberately and intentionally, is separate from the freedom in the aforementioned verse.
They aren't related.

And where does this new freedom come from, if Jesus makes someone "free indeed"?

It is written > "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

So, if we are children of God, God Himself is working our wills, it seems to me, from this scripture. So, I see how God is sharing His own freedom with us in our wills, while He is working what we will. And so, we can choose more and better, with God working in us.

Could it be "like" how a car can have the ability to do different things, but what the car can actually do depends on who is operating the car?

If God is operating my free will, then, I can choose - - - with God, in sharing with God - - - to do what is better than what I can choose without God.

If God is operating your will, then it's not your free will. It's determined.
However, if God is the One working in you both to will and to work according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), then yes, your will becomes God's will - that is, instead of you saying, "let my will take place", you'd be saying, "Not my will, but yours - God's."
This is because, as you said, " I can choose ... to do what is better..." with God's help and guidance. So you chose God as your "compass".

Psalm 40:8

I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your law is within my heart.”

Notice that you are the one who wills to do God's will, because it is in your heart.
You are moved from the heart to serve God willingly, voluntarily, unforced, of your own accord, of free will.
God isn't operating your will, but he gives you what you need to fulfill the desire of your heart / the delight of your soul / the yearning of your soul / your heart’s desire... which aren't sinful desires. Ezekiel 24:21

I do like your illustration though.
Also, in hindsight, I was thinking that operating was more controlling, but the definition says

1. To exert an influence.
   forces operating on the economy.

In that case, the holy spirit does serve as an influential force, so you would be right if that is what you are saying.
Only after you made the choice to submit to its influence by listening to God, and obeying him.

So, then, perhaps we can agree that the reality of our free wills has a lot to do with our real character of our free wills, along with whoever is in union with us and really is operating our wills with us.

We can't agree. Sorry... Unless, you agree with what I wrote here. That can work.
Let me know what you don't agree with, and why.

I like your well thought out questions and line of reasoning, so I look forward to your using this same format when you respond.
Very organized, and I can follow you easily from one point to the next.

God "works in you both to will . . .", we have in Philippians 2:13.

Also, we have that there is "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. So, how does this affect the reality of someone's will . . . if Satan's evil and selfish spirit is working in the person??

Can Satan's spirit work in you if you choose not to allow it.
Notice what happens if one allows it, and how one can choose not to allow it.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

9 The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the working of Satan, with every kind of power, sign, and false wonder, 10 and with every wicked deception directed against those who are perishing, because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them.​

11 For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, 12 in order that judgment may come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.​

Did you notice that persons exercised their free will, by making a choice whether they would believe the truth or deny it, and whether or not they would take delight in wickedness.
Only after they made their free willed choice, does God let them go blind so that they believe the lie so strongly, they cannot escape.

It's like the man that decides he can swim with crocodiles.
He makes the choice willingly, voluntarily, of his own accord, of his own will, of free will.
You try to convince him to change his mind, but it's his own will, which you must allow him to act in accord with.
Tying him up in chains might restrict his free will, for a time.

God isn't going to tie us in chains, and he does not bind us in holy spirit to make us do his will.
God allows us to exercise our free will - to exercise our will, freely. The consequences are either a good reward, or the opposite.

God wants us to choose our path. Either listen to him, love him, and obey him... or don't. Deuteronomy 30:19
The choice is ours.
We always come to Deuteronomy 30:19, which is a key scripture demonstrating the reality of free will.

 

[childeye 2]

Let me show you.
I'll highlight the faulty reasoning.

First, there is no noun 'free will', being mentioned in this thread... except by the user @childeye 2.

CoreyD said:

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.

The word “will” in “acted on his own free will” is grammatically a noun. It is the head of the noun phrase “his own free will”, which serves as the object of the preposition “on”.

By syntactic rule, verbs cannot function as prepositional objects, adjectives cannot serve as heads of noun phrases, and adverbs cannot be modified by adjectives like 'Free'. The structure --> determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will) — is a standard noun phrase. Therefore, “will” here is unambiguously a noun meaning volition or choice, not a verb, adjective, or adverb.

This is at least the sixth or seventh time I told you this, but rather than respond to what I said, and showed you... namely...

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).​

You keep responding to yourself, by putting up this strawman, and then attacking it.
Is that not ridiculously faulty?

I don't know what strawman you are referring to. You posted the op, not me. The fault I see lies in conflating Greek morphology with English syntax. Hekousios is an adjective in Greek, meaning “voluntary.” In English, “free will” is a noun phrase: determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will). When you post a scriptural verse with a term that is an adjective meaning freewill/voluntary offering you seem to think it proves we have free wills meaning autonomous.

Prepositions like 'on' require a noun phrase as their object, so will here --> "Adam acted on his own free WILL", must be a noun. Translators often shift adjectives into nouns when the target language requires it (e.g., dikaios → righteousness). So the Greek root explains the meaning, but it doesn’t change the English grammar. That’s why your accusation doesn’t hold — the categories are being mixed.

If someone were talking to you about chalk, and referring to white chalk, would you keep talking about charcoal, and claim the person is talking about charcoal?
Seriously, would that not be faulty... to an extreme?

Your chalk vs. charcoal analogy doesn’t work. Chalk and charcoal are two different substances.

But 'WILL' in English is one word with multiple grammatical functions. The question isn’t about confusing two unrelated things — it’s about identifying which function 'WILL' takes in a given sentence.

In “acted on his own free will”, the preposition 'on' requires a noun phrase, and free and will together forms exactly that. Adjectives can’t head prepositional objects, and verbs can’t be modified by adjectives like free. So unlike chalk vs. charcoal, where you’d be misidentifying the material, here the grammar itself dictates that will is a noun. The fault lies in conflating Greek adjective roots with English noun usage, NOT in my analysis.

Secondly, God is love, and everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.
So, the statement "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law and it is love that causes us to act responsibly and care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer" is extremely faulty because... well... I mean... look at it C.
I cannot even make sense of that.
Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

First allow me to point out an error --> You said this: ... everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.

If God’s love were merely a voluntary choice, then His essence would be contingent. But Scripture says “God IS love.” Love is not something He sometimes chooses, it's His Eternal nature. Hosea’s “I will love them freely” means His love is sovereign and unmanipulated, not optional. To reduce God’s love to voluntariness is to deny His essence. And if that were true, God would not be God.
--------------------------------------------------

CoreyD: I cannot even make sense of that. Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

Childeye 2 says --> "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law. <-- it means Without love we cannot Love God with all our hearts mind and strength, nor love our neighbor as ourselves....
and it is love that causes us to act responsibly <-- while free will philosophy is meant to imply a moral responsibility for our choices and actions because we could have chosen otherwise, it's actually brotherly Love that causes us to care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer or to choose otherwise.

The Spirit of Love precedes any action of love. Without Love, an action cannot truly be moral, because morality requires caring how our actions affect others. Voluntary is a neutral term. Voluntary may describe the manner of action, but love is the foundation. Without love, there is no morality --> only indifference. Moreover, wanting to volunteer requires a want. Voluntariness doesn’t stand alone, it’s always driven by some desire. If that desire is love, the act is moral. If it’s carnal selfishness, the act may be immoral. That shows voluntariness itself is morally empty; love or lack of love is what determines morality/immorality.

compassion​

noun​

com·pas·sion kəm-ˈpa-shən

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

The fact that a person is moved from a heart filled with love, to voluntarily, or willingly take a particular course, does not mean they have not acted willingly, and voluntarily.

But that’s exactly my point: voluntariness is redundant. God/Love makes people willing to do what is good.
Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

The moral foundation is love, not voluntariness. Free will adds nothing to the explanation that it’s love that precedes and determines whether the action is moral or immoral. Voluntariness only describes the act after love has already moved the person to volunteer.

I don’t accept the false premise that free will simply means voluntariness. Voluntariness describes the manner of an act, but free will is about autonomy, the supposed ability to do otherwise. My point is that morality doesn’t depend on either. Love precedes and determines whether an action is moral. Without love, voluntariness and free will are both redundant.

They have done so, because it was their choice to... just as a person is moved from a heart that is lacking love, to rebel against God... like Adam did, as well as the angel that became Satan, and mankind today, who want to go their own way, and fulfill their sinful desires.
In both cases, they acted willingly... deliberately... voluntarily - of their own free will.

Children of God are led by the Spirit of Truth. Children of the devil are led by lies. That distinction itself denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality, because truth is knowledge, not an option.

We need terms like Truth and faith to cleanse the mind.

Why “Truth and faith” matter​

• Truth: knowledge revealed by God, not an option or decision. It denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality.
• Faith: trust in God’s Spirit of Truth. It is the posture of dependence, not autonomous choice.
• Together, they cleanse the mind — they reframe the discussion away from voluntariness and toward divine reality.

See here: The children of God are led by The Spirit of Truth according to faith:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

​

John 3:21 — “He that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” → Works are wrought in God, not chosen voluntarily.​

​

John 8:32 — “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” → Freedom comes from knowing truth, not from voluntariness.​

​

Romans 8:4 — “…that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” → Fulfillment of the law comes only by being led by the Spirit of Truth, not by voluntariness.​

​

John 16:13 — “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” → The Spirit of Truth guides, not voluntariness.​

​

It's not an "ability to volunteer".
Something done voluntarily, willingly, unforced, of one's own accord, or of free will, is a deliberate action - an "exercise of will (verb), done freely", which is part of a decision making process, or choice. The root (hek-) of hekousios emphasizes intentional, deliberate action

I don't know why you're bringing this up. I have never denied the meaning of hekousios. “Yes, hekousios means deliberate, voluntary action. But Scripture shows that even deliberate acts can be sinful if they reject truth (Hebrews 10:26). The decisive issue is not voluntariness but truth. Truth is knowledge, not an option and only those led by the Spirit of Truth fulfill the law (Romans 8:4, John 16:13). Voluntariness adds nothing once truth and love and faith are admitted as the cause.”

We are not talking about being able to volunteer, as if we need an able-bodied person to do some work. Or offer up a ram.
The Hebrew expression nedabah (נְדָבָה) is rendered freewill offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary, offering, willingly, offering. (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
This Hebrew word comes from the Hebrew word nadab, of which Topical Lexicon says...
The verb נָדַב consistently underlines a movement of the heart that is neither coerced nor merely dutiful.

Voluntary offerings were made by "every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD’S offering... Exodus 35:21
Exodus 35:26 And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats’ hair.
Exodus 35:29 The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses.

So, it's no mistake I am making. Your reasoning is faulty.... to such an extreme, it doesn't even make sense when read... and I had to read it a number of times before I could decide on a response.

I don't know why you think my reasoning is faulty. Do You understand that voluntariness is morally neutral? Do you think I'm saying God's Love is working in people who are unwilling to love?

You cite nedabah/nadab, which literally refers to voluntary offerings --> rams, goats’ hair, and other work in Exodus 35. Yet you say we’re not talking about volunteering or offering up a ram. The offerings in Exodus were for building the Tabernacle and its furnishings, consecrated to God’s dwelling among Israel. They were voluntary in manner of giving but mandatory in purpose, showing that voluntariness is descriptive, while truth, love, and faith are the foundation of righteousness.

In Exodus 35:21, the offerings are called “willing” because the heart and spirit were stirred -->The people in Exodus 35 acted out of faith, not because people sat down to freely deliberate whether to be stirred or not.
In Hebrews 10:26, “willful sin” shows voluntariness can describe rebellion too. That proves voluntariness is morally neutral.
Scripture consistently grounds righteousness in truth, love, and faith through the Spirit of Truth (Romans 8:4; John 16:13), not in voluntariness.

 

[CoreyD]

CoreyD said:

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.

The word “will” in “acted on his own free will” is grammatically a noun. It is the head of the noun phrase “his own free will”, which serves as the object of the preposition “on”.

By syntactic rule, verbs cannot function as prepositional objects, adjectives cannot serve as heads of noun phrases, and adverbs cannot be modified by adjectives like 'Free'. The structure --> determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will) — is a standard noun phrase. Therefore, “will” here is unambiguously a noun meaning volition or choice, not a verb, adjective, or adverb.



I don't know what strawman you are referring to. You posted the op, not me. The fault I see lies in conflating Greek morphology with English syntax. Hekousios is an adjective in Greek, meaning “voluntary.” In English, “free will” is a noun phrase: determiner (his) + adjectives (own, free) + noun (will). When you post a scriptural verse with a term that is an adjective meaning freewill/voluntary offering you seem to think it proves we have free wills meaning autonomous.

Prepositions like 'on' require a noun phrase as their object, so will here --> "Adam acted on his own free WILL", must be a noun. Translators often shift adjectives into nouns when the target language requires it (e.g., dikaios → righteousness). So the Greek root explains the meaning, but it doesn’t change the English grammar. That’s why your accusation doesn’t hold — the categories are being mixed.

Your chalk vs. charcoal analogy doesn’t work. Chalk and charcoal are two different substances.

But 'WILL' in English is one word with multiple grammatical functions. The question isn’t about confusing two unrelated things — it’s about identifying which function 'WILL' takes in a given sentence.

In “acted on his own free will”, the preposition 'on' requires a noun phrase, and free and will together forms exactly that. Adjectives can’t head prepositional objects, and verbs can’t be modified by adjectives like free. So unlike chalk vs. charcoal, where you’d be misidentifying the material, here the grammar itself dictates that will is a noun. The fault lies in conflating Greek adjective roots with English noun usage, NOT in my analysis.

First allow me to point out an error --> You said this: ... everything God does is governed by love,, yet God chose to love his people freely - voluntarily.

If God’s love were merely a voluntary choice, then His essence would be contingent. But Scripture says “God IS love.” Love is not something He sometimes chooses, it's His Eternal nature. Hosea’s “I will love them freely” means His love is sovereign and unmanipulated, not optional. To reduce God’s love to voluntariness is to deny His essence. And if that were true, God would not be God.
--------------------------------------------------

CoreyD: I cannot even make sense of that. Can you make sense of it, and break it down for us?

Childeye 2 says --> "it's my contention that Love fulfills the law. <-- it means Without love we cannot Love God with all our hearts mind and strength, nor love our neighbor as ourselves....
and it is love that causes us to act responsibly <-- while free will philosophy is meant to imply a moral responsibility for our choices and actions because we could have chosen otherwise, it's actually brotherly Love that causes us to care about how our actions affect others, not our ability to volunteer or not volunteer or to choose otherwise.

The Spirit of Love precedes any action of love. Without Love, an action cannot truly be moral, because morality requires caring how our actions affect others. Voluntary is a neutral term. Voluntary may describe the manner of action, but love is the foundation. Without love, there is no morality --> only indifference. Moreover, wanting to volunteer requires a want. Voluntariness doesn’t stand alone, it’s always driven by some desire. If that desire is love, the act is moral. If it’s carnal selfishness, the act may be immoral. That shows voluntariness itself is morally empty; love or lack of love is what determines morality/immorality.

compassion​

noun​

com·pas·sion kəm-ˈpa-shən

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.


But that’s exactly my point: voluntariness is redundant. God/Love makes people willing to do what is good.
Philippians 2:13
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

The moral foundation is love, not voluntariness. Free will adds nothing to the explanation that it’s love that precedes and determines whether the action is moral or immoral. Voluntariness only describes the act after love has already moved the person to volunteer.

I don’t accept the false premise that free will simply means voluntariness. Voluntariness describes the manner of an act, but free will is about autonomy, the supposed ability to do otherwise. My point is that morality doesn’t depend on either. Love precedes and determines whether an action is moral. Without love, voluntariness and free will are both redundant.


Children of God are led by the Spirit of Truth. Children of the devil are led by lies. That distinction itself denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality, because truth is knowledge, not an option.

We need terms like Truth and faith to cleanse the mind.

Why “Truth and faith” matter​

• Truth: knowledge revealed by God, not an option or decision. It denies voluntariness as the foundation of morality.
• Faith: trust in God’s Spirit of Truth. It is the posture of dependence, not autonomous choice.
• Together, they cleanse the mind — they reframe the discussion away from voluntariness and toward divine reality.

See here: The children of God are led by The Spirit of Truth according to faith:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.​

​

John 3:21 — “He that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” → Works are wrought in God, not chosen voluntarily.​

​

John 8:32 — “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” → Freedom comes from knowing truth, not from voluntariness.​

​

Romans 8:4 — “…that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” → Fulfillment of the law comes only by being led by the Spirit of Truth, not by voluntariness.​

​

John 16:13 — “When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” → The Spirit of Truth guides, not voluntariness.​

​

I don't know why you're bringing this up. I have never denied the meaning of hekousios. “Yes, hekousios means deliberate, voluntary action. But Scripture shows that even deliberate acts can be sinful if they reject truth (Hebrews 10:26). The decisive issue is not voluntariness but truth. Truth is knowledge, not an option and only those led by the Spirit of Truth fulfill the law (Romans 8:4, John 16:13). Voluntariness adds nothing once truth and love and faith are admitted as the cause.”

I don't know why you think my reasoning is faulty. Do You understand that voluntariness is morally neutral? Do you think I'm saying God's Love is working in people who are unwilling to love?

You cite nedabah/nadab, which literally refers to voluntary offerings --> rams, goats’ hair, and other work in Exodus 35. Yet you say we’re not talking about volunteering or offering up a ram. The offerings in Exodus were for building the Tabernacle and its furnishings, consecrated to God’s dwelling among Israel. They were voluntary in manner of giving but mandatory in purpose, showing that voluntariness is descriptive, while truth, love, and faith are the foundation of righteousness.

In Exodus 35:21, the offerings are called “willing” because the heart and spirit were stirred -->The people in Exodus 35 acted out of faith, not because people sat down to freely deliberate whether to be stirred or not.
In Hebrews 10:26, “willful sin” shows voluntariness can describe rebellion too. That proves voluntariness is morally neutral.
Scripture consistently grounds righteousness in truth, love, and faith through the Spirit of Truth (Romans 8:4; John 16:13), not in voluntariness.

If "on" is not correct, then "of" is what I meant, in line with the information I used.

Synonyms for "of his own free will" include voluntarily, freely, willingly, of his own accord, by choice, at his own discretion, at his own pleasure, at his own accord, without constraint, and unforced, and self-initiated. Other relevant terms are self-initiated, self-motivated, and self-determined, which convey the idea of acting without external influence. Adverbial synonyms include at will, as one pleases, at one's discretion, and without prompting; it emphasizes an action taken without coercion or external influence. A single-word synonym is "voluntary". The phrase can also be expressed using words like spontaneously, deliberately, intentionally, or purposively. In a broader sense, the concept is related to autonomy, independent decision-making, and uncoerced choice.

Does that make a difference with you?
Besides that, you keep changing your argument, because one time you are focused on the word will, when I am referring to the phrase free will.
Another time, you are saying the phrase "free will" is a noun... the noun free will, when that is not the case in the OP.

 

[CoreyD]

@com7fy8 I was thinking of an illustration to demonstrate why free will is not hampered by anything, whether it be holy spirit, the spirit of the world or the spirit of Satan.
Imagine that the chains represent any one of these.

What is it that moves one to do rhis?

In the case of holy spirit, is anyone mighty enough to break that chain, or would God need to release that one, and let them go?
What would be the reason for releasing that person?
Would it not be due to their will not to have these chains on them? A rebellion?

Unless humans have the ability to exercise free will, none of the above are possible.
One cannot even do what God's word requires. Such as...
Joshua 24:23 . . .incline your heart unto the LORD . . .
Isaiah 55:3 . . .Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live. . .

God could not even say this about anyone.
Jeremiah 7:24 ...they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

However, because we all have that freedom to act according to our own will, willingly, and freely, without being forced... voluntarily - of our own free will, all the above are possible.
We can choose to be chained by Satan's world Ephesians 4:17; chained by sin, and fleshly desires Romans 6:6; 2 Corinthians 5:15, or break free from these Galatians 5:1, and we can choose to be slaves of God Romans 6:15-22; 1 Peter 2:16, submitting to the helper - holy spirit, so that our will remains God's will, forever.