Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry.
In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Listen, you're not going to get anywhere with her. Her belief is that unless you can ALWAYS choose right, you don't have free will. Of course that is a bogus belief, but it's the way she sees it.
I thought you were finished.
I hope you aren't here to give anyone a reason to fill the thread with meaningless posts.
You don't want people who visit the thread to have to dig through a pile of nothingness.
The thread can remain small, without extending it needlessly with someone repeating words they have no support for, and where they aren't interested in conversating.
It falls to you to show the philosophical error, as well as the Scriptural basis regarding "free will,"
keeping in mind that man's will is not free to live sinlessly, at best his "free will" is only partial or limited.
I think the fact that some can lead more virtuous lives than others displays that the extent of our free will is within our control. There is no need of any other "proof". We limit ourselves.
Perhaps at this point you can answer the question I asked twice, which you ignored. Ephesians 4:30 reads... And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
How does one grieve the spirit? Isaiah 65:10
I believe it grieves the Holy Spirit when we don't listen to Him. Sometimes what people say grieves the Holy Spirit inside me. Let me say here, I don't mean to imply in any way someone is going to be perfect as they transform; I'm saying that the transformation is a process that first begins by admitting we cannot choose to BE GOOD, apart from God's Spirit.
Yes, only evil would tell me I could choose not to listen. <--This is my problem with a philosophical free will. Paul says, "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me… waging war against the law of my mind" and "making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.”
So, you have no problem saying that a believer confesses Jesus as Lord by grace through faith and not by voluntary choice? To rephrase, you agree that we abide in God and He in us from faith to faith?
Romans 10:9–10 → “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
But Paul also insists that faith itself is a gift:
Ephesians 2:8–9 → “By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”
1 Corinthians 12:3 → “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.”
Therefore, confession is not a voluntary choice—it is Spirit‑enabled faith.
No, I really didn't. These lexicon terms are single words that carry the sentiment of voluntariness in action (like offerings, devotion, or readiness). I don't deny that. I'm saying they do NOT establish a doctrine of “free will” as autonomous choice. In other words, they describe how in some instances something is given or done (freely, willingly), <-- This is contextual usage, not the existence of an independent from God human will in the moral/immoral context.
CoreyD said:
The Greek term, which you said is an adjective, and not a noun, is hekousios - meaning free will - 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).
This is not talking about someone's will, in the sense of my will, your will - the noun, but as it says willing; unforced; deliberate action; voluntary; acting on one's own accord. Which seals the point that free will refers to something done freely.. without anyone or anything forcing it.
Looking at what you said above, I saw nothing to refute. You admit it's not about someone's WILL (the noun). I agree. It seemed to me you were using these as examples to show what "free" means, 'voluntary/unforced' when you use the term free will. It still didn't refer to a free will (noun) in the moral/immoral context.
Regarding free will - the ability to make decisions of our own, unforced; willfully, and intentionally; voluntarily; of our own accord, rather than God controlling or predetermining our choice, is a Biblical teaching.
When did you add this to your meaning? --> rather than God controlling or predetermining our choice. I never said God controls or predetermines our choices. I said God is the Spiritual goodness, the brotherly love in mankind that causes us to do what is right. That He lives in us and we in Him through faith, not by a voluntary ability to choose not to.
The Hebrew expression nedabah (נְדָבָה) is rendered freewill offering, freely, plentiful, voluntary, offering, willingly, offering.
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. It describes people stirred from within to give, serve, or step forward because they have first been moved by God. Throughout Scripture this spirit of readiness is linked to worship, stewardship, civic responsibility, and warfare, revealing a multifaceted biblical theology of voluntary devotion.
God was not coerced into loving his people, but did so freely; willingly.
Exercising free will first started with God, and as humans are made in God's image, they too have this God given attribute, as can be seen in the scriptures where God allows persons to give him worship of their own accord, or of their own free will. http://My Comment
God gave humans the opportunity to make a personal choice regarding their course in life. Deuteronomy 30:19, 20
Paul uses the Greek word hekón: Willing, Voluntary. Which means of one's own free will.
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon...
STRONGS NT 1635: ἑκών
ἑκών, ἑκοῦσα, ἑκον, unforced, voluntary, willing, of one's own will, of one's own accord: Romans 8:20; 1 Corinthians 9:17. (From Homer down.)
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).
This you have done, while at the same time dismissing the meaning of voluntary. voluntary
adjective
Done or undertaken of one's own free will.
a voluntary decision to leave the job.
Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward.
a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition.
I didn't dismiss them. They do not undermine my conclusion that God abides in us and us in Him through faith, not by a doubleminded voluntary ability to choice either to believe or not believe. They actually make my point that the only true free will in the moral immoral context is a will free from sin. <-- In this context, will is a noun desire/intent and free means free from the slavery of sin.
Premise 1: Life and the capacity to choose are gifts from God (Acts 17:25; Genesis 2:7).
Premise 2: Sin and the carnal will exist only to prove God’s righteousness by contrast (Romans 3:4; Romans 5:20–21).
Premise 3: Lexicon terms for “voluntary” (nedābâh, hekōn, hekousiōs) describe Spirit‑prompted offerings, not autonomous free will.
Premise 4: God’s declaration “I will love them freely” (Hosea 14:4) reveals that love is His nature, not deliberation.
Premise 5: Without love, there is no awareness of its absence—love itself is the condition for care and recognition (1 Corinthians 13:2).
Conclusion: The only coherent free will in Scripture is the will freed from sin, aligned with God’s Spirit, and expressed in love. Love is not just the fulfillment of the law—it is the very precondition for perceiving God’s will, since without love there is no awareness, no care, and no righteousness.
I think the fact that some can lead more virtuous lives than others displays that the extent of our free will is within our control. There is no need of any other "proof". We limit ourselves.
Surely you don't believe that we are free to choose to live sinless lives. . .
Keeping in mind that "free will" is a notion of manno where stated in Scripture.
And man defines this notion as "the power to make all moral choices, without external force or constraint."
However, what is stated in Scripture is the slavery to sin (Jn 8:34) of the unregenerate as the result of the fall,
as well as the sin of the believer (1 Jn 1:8-10), which is to be confessed.
Scripture presents no totally "free will". . .i.e., power to make all moral choices, including the choice to live sinlessly (Ro 3:23).
Scripture presents only a limited "free will," exlcuding the power to choose to live sinlessly.
You said this a hundred times in this thread. 123456789101112 100
Amazing, that you are back with it... this time adding the word unregenerate, as if to say, only some people do not have free will.
How does that support your argument, if man does have free will? It doesn't does it.
I can't choose to live a sinless life.
Therefore, my will is only partially free, it cannot make all moral choices, which is necessary for a totally free will.
The best I can say is my will is partially free to refrain from all sin in thought, word and deed.
All scripture is inspired of God, yes... and the words that translators use are what?
I'd appreciate if you answer that question with an example. So try this...
In the book of Psalm the word מוֹט (Hebrew mot) is used.
Translators use the English words "To totter," "shake", "slip", or "be moved"
For example, Psalm 104:5, when translated, read....
1. He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved. Berean Standard Bible
2. He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. New American Standard Bible
3. He founded the earth upon its place, So that it will not shake forever and ever. Legacy Standard Bible
4. He established the earth on its foundations; it will never be shaken. Christian Standard Bible
Which of these four highlighted chosen words is God's word, and are any of them human notion? You said the word is a human notion. Did you not.
I did not.
I said "free will" (power to make all moral choices, including the choice to never sin) nowhere stated n Scripture, is a human notion.
Free will (defined above) is nowhere stated, or defined in Scripture.
What is stated in Scripture is that the unregenerate are slaves to sin (Jn 8:34, Lev 14:33-53)
All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16) human words.LOL. I don't believe anyone here is crazy... but then, I don't know.
The only person contradicting 2 Timothy 3:16 is the person claiming that God's inspired word is the words translators chose, but they don't accept the words they don't like... such as "freewill", and "free will". As for the scriptures that refer to free will of man, you did see them... unless of course, you are closing your eyes when you read a post, and see them.
Still waiting for the addresses of the Scriptures which state "free will,"
keeping in mind the revealed Biblical concept of man is "slaves to sin" (Jn 8:34),
unless, of course, you can choose to live sin free, in thought, word and deed.
I think the fact that some can lead more virtuous lives than others displays thatthe extent of our free will is within our control. There is no need of any other "proof". We limit ourselves.
childeye 2 said:
The definition of freewill in Greek that you have given above is an adjective, not a noun. It describes a certain type of action or choice that is uncoerced/voluntary.
----------------------------------------------------
Subjective Semantic Analysis of the op
Objective Contextual Meaning
Will = predisposed intent or desire, shaped by God’s Spirit or sinful desire.
Free = voluntariness of action.
These meanings are grounded in the context of Scripture, not abstract philosophy. They arise from how the words function in their passages (John 8:44, James 1:14, Leviticus 1:3, 2 Corinthians 9:7).
Subjective morphing
When lifted out of their contexts and combined into “free will” or “free‑willed agents,” the terms morph:
Biblical usage:
Will = predisposed intent or desire.
Free = voluntariness of action.
Together, they describe how choices are made in context (voluntary offerings, desires shaped by influence).
Philosophical usage:
“Free will” = autonomous human faculty of choice.
“Free‑willed agents” = beings with innate, independent agency.
These are interpretive constructs, not direct lexical meanings.
Mechanics of Morphing
Here’s how and why the shift happens:
Loss of context → In Scripture, will refers to intent/desire, and free refers to voluntariness of action. Once those contexts (offerings, desires, voluntary acts) are stripped away, the words lose their specific grammatical anchors.
Fusion into a new phrase → The separate categories (noun vs. adjective/adverb) are merged into a single compound phrase, “free will,” which Scripture itself does not define.
Interpretive overlay → Theology and philosophy supply new meaning, treating “free will” as a metaphysical faculty of autonomous choice.
In other words, they become subjective terms, shaped by theological or philosophical interpretation rather than by the objective contextual meaning.
Summary
Objective contextual meaning:
Will = predisposed intent or desire.
Free = voluntariness of action.
Subjective morphing:
Out of context, “free will” becomes a philosophical construct of autonomous choice.
The morphing occurs because the terms are lifted from their contextual usage and reinterpreted through theology and philosophy.
The op showed the terms were morphing terms taking them out of the syntactical context. The record shows the subsequent disconnect in communication:
CoreyD said:
I referred to the scriptures which refer to man's free will, repeatedly. Leviticus 1:3; childeye 2 said:
A "voluntary" or "freewill" choice/decision (an adjective).
CoreyD said:
From your comment, you agree then, that an unforced choice/decision, is an exercising of free will. Yes? childeye 2 said:
Not really. The context of Jesus saying, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do", implies the character of the father manifests in the fathers children.
CoreyD said:
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. <-- This is a snippet: here is the full sentence:childeye 2 said:
I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent. CoreyD said:
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. childeye 2 said:
The Satan is the one that conveyed we have the choice/option to disobey God and not die.
CoreyD said:
You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice in the matter, and could not exercise her freedom of choice... she had none.
Is that what you are saying? childeye 2 said:
The scripture is saying she was deceived into doing it. You know that don't you? It's not like she would volunteer to be deceived. Did you know that Jesus came down to destroy the works of the devil?
The record shows that you didn't want to accept that, but wanted it your way, and so, went right on ahead with what you wanted... ignoring me - the OP, and my posts.
The record shows we're having a communication breakdown, because "will" in scripture is a desire/intent, NOT an ability to choose.
Analysis of Syntactical Disconnection, Term Morphing, and miscommunication
1. Initial Claim
CoreyD:“I referred to the scriptures which refer to man's free will, repeatedly. Leviticus 1:3.”
Problem: Leviticus 1:3 uses nedābâh (“freewill offering”), which is an adjective describing voluntariness of an act, not a noun establishing a metaphysical faculty.
Morphing: CoreyD lifts “freewill” out of its syntactical context (adjective modifying “offering”) and morphs it into a noun phrase “man’s free will” (faculty of choice).
2. Response Clarifying Syntax
childeye 2:“A ‘voluntary’ or ‘freewill’ choice/decision (an adjective).”
Point: Correctly identifies that “freewill” in Leviticus is adjectival, describing the manner of the offering.
Disconnect: CoreyD interprets this as agreement with his philosophical construct, but syntactically it is not the same.
3. Morphing into Faculty
CoreyD:“From your comment, you agree then, that an unforced choice/decision, is an exercising of free will. Yes?”
Problem: He morphs “voluntary” (adjective) into “exercising free will” (noun phrase = faculty).
Disconnect: He assumes voluntariness = autonomous faculty, which is a semantic leap.
4. Counter with Contextual Meaning
childeye 2:“Not really. The context of Jesus saying, ‘Ye are of your father the devil…’ implies the character of the father manifests in the children.”
Point: Returns to contextual meaning—will = predisposed intent or desire, shaped by spiritual influence.
Disconnect: CoreyD expects agreement on “faculty of free choice,” but childeye 2 insists on contextual predisposition.
5. Further Miscommunication
CoreyD:“I don’t understand this statement—the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent??”
Problem: CoreyD interprets “choice/option” as evidence of free will (faculty).
childeye 2:“I therefore do not accept the premise that the choice/option between right/wrong is a valid freedom as conveyed by the serpent.”
Point: Argues that the serpent introduced the illusion of autonomous choice, not Scripture.
Disconnect: CoreyD reads “choice” as proof of freedom; childeye 2 reads “choice” as deception.
6. Final Breakdown
CoreyD:“You appear to be saying the woman did not have a choice… she had none.”
Morphing: Equates deception with absence of choice, still within the “faculty of free will” framework.
childeye 2:“The scripture is saying she was deceived into doing it… It’s not like she would volunteer to be deceived.”
Point: Maintains that her will was predisposed and manipulated, not freely autonomous.
Disconnect: CoreyD insists on freedom as faculty; childeye 2 insists on predisposition and deception.
Summary of Morphing
Lexical context:
Free = voluntariness (adjective/adverb).
Will = predisposed intent or desire (noun).
Morphing:
CoreyD fuses them into “free will” = autonomous faculty.
childeye 2 resists, keeping them in contextual syntax (voluntariness + predisposed desire).
Syntactical disconnection:
CoreyD treats adjectives as nouns (faculty).
childeye 2 treats them as modifiers (manner/intent).
Result: They talk past each other—one in philosophy, the other in grammar/context.
I believe it grieves the Holy Spirit when we don't listen to Him. Sometimes what people say grieve the Holy Spirit inside me. Let me say here, I don't mean to imply in any way someone is going to be perfect as they transform; I'm saying that the transformation is a process that first begins by admitting we cannot choose to BE GOOD, apart from God's Spirit.
Thank you.
So, you believe that people with holy spirit can choose not to listen to God, and go against him.
Free will is having the ability to choose a course willingly; voluntarily; unforced; of one's own accord, desire or will; intentionally and deliberately.
The angel called Satan the Devil, did this... despite having the influence of holy spirit, and despite being sinless.
Adam did this... despite having the influence of holy spirit, and being sinless.
Mankind today does this... despite having the influence of holy spirit.
They all exercise free will regardless of holy spirit or not; regardless of having sin, or not.
Surely you don't believe that we are free to choose to live sinless lives. . .
Keeping in mind that "free will" is a notion of manno where stated in Scripture.You skipped t
And man defines this notion as "the power to make all moral choices, without external force or constraint."
However, what is stated in Scripture is the slavery to sin (Jn 8:34) of the unregenerate as the result of the fall,
as well as the sin of the believer (1 Jn 1:8-10), which is to be confessed.
Scripture presents no totally "free will". . .i.e., power to make all moral choices, including the choice to live sinlessly (Ro 3:23).
Scripture presents only a limited "free will," exlcuding the power to choose to live sinlessly.
You skipped the question. Any reason why you did so?
I'll repeat it.
All scripture is inspired of God, yes... and the words that translators use are what? I'd appreciate if you answer that question with an example. So try this...
In the book of Psalm the word מוֹט (Hebrew mot) is used.
Translators use the English words "To totter," "shake", "slip", or "be moved"
For example, Psalm 104:5, when translated, read....
Yes, only evil would tell me I could choose not to listen. <--This is my problem with a philosophical free will. Paul says, "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me… waging war against the law of my mind" and "making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.”
Thanks for the question. First of all, I believe there will not 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… waging war against the law of my mind" and "making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.”
With that in mind for context, as per the question, I view virtue as a quality of Character. I'm testifying that the old character of the carnal mind dies through faith in God's Christ. In essence, a virtue doesn't have a choice, He lives in us as we believe. I like how scripture articulates it as walking or abiding in Him. The actions that display the virtue are indicative of a free will Child of God) forming and replacing the earthly carnal will. Will in scripture means desire/intent in scripture.
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. It describes people stirred from within to give, serve, or step forward because they have first been moved by God. Throughout Scripture this spirit of readiness is linked to worship, stewardship, civic responsibility, and warfare, revealing a multifaceted biblical theology of voluntary devotion.
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).
The act of willing or choosing; the act of forming a purpose; the exercise of the will.
The result of an act or exercise of choosing or willing; a state of choice.
The power of willing or determining; will.
These works are not beliefs. There are facts - works of academia.
The definition of the words here, are not subject to change based on one's belief.
They describe free will, voluntary, willful, deliberate, and intentional action.
You cannot accept them... so you claim, but at the same time do not believe them.
I cannot continue this conversation with you, as it would be similar to talking with someone who says they don't believe seas and oceans exist, simply because of their beliefs., and opening works of academia and showing that person that what they are denting is actually proven knowledge makes no difference to them.
So, thank you for the discussion, and you do have an enjoyable day sir.
Good day.
