“Yes, it's true that Hosea shows God acts freely. But the only coherent meaning of ‘free will’ in Scripture is a will free from sin, just as I have claimed. Hosea 14:4 says, ‘I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for my anger is turned away.’ Notice the subject: God heals, God loves, God turns anger away. Israel did not heal themselves, and God could not have chosen the other. That’s unconditional love, not voluntary choice. So, if Hosea proves free will, it proves God’s will — a will free from sin, immutable and faithful — not human autonomy.”
Paul uses both hekón (willing) and akón (unwilling) to show that his stewardship was not voluntary. Whether willing or unwilling, he is bound to preach. His point is not that he volunteered, but that he could not have chosen otherwise and been right before God. Hosea and Paul together prove God’s free will, not human autonomy.
Philemon 1:14, Paul does use hekousios — voluntary, unforced. But notice the context: he is contrasting compulsion with consent in Philemon’s generosity. He is not teaching libertarian free will -> could've done the other. Paul is showing the Holy Spirit is working in him through considerate brotherly love, so that Philemon’s goodness would be uncoerced, not forced.
It's not good that you see me that way. It's a bad spirit. I wish you would take that free will of God (The One without sin) and endeavor to meet me as fair and square as you are able. Know that courage is found in hope.
You’re mistaken. I never said I don’t accept lexiconic terms. I fully acknowledge the academic definitions of hekón and hekousios as voluntary, unforced, deliberate. What I am saying is that they are being taken out of context when used to prove libertarian free will — the idea that one ‘could have done otherwise’, or the false autonomy of "the capacity to choose sin".
In Philemon 1:14, Paul contrasts compulsion with consent in generosity. In 1 Corinthians 9:17, he contrasts willing with unwilling, but either way it is stewardship. And in verse 16 he says, ‘Woe to me if I do not preach,’ which shows he could not have chosen otherwise and been right before God. So the definitions are facts, but the application is wrong. They describe posture in context, not metaphysical autonomy.
Oh, come on. I do believe in seas and oceans? <-- I'm on the record. I don't want you to leave the discussion of my own free will in brotherly Love.
Your arguments do not make sense, and one can see that you are just rambling.
"to show that his stewardship was not voluntary"??? Really? No, he is saying he can do it willingly, and yes, that's what he did.
Holy spirit has nothing to do with making a decision, as shown by the fact that one can rebel against holy spirit, and do their own thing.
How can one continue a conversation with someone, who says they don't believe in free will, after opening works of academia and showing the person the word free will, and the meaning, and the person says, "I don't believe that, because I believe...? It is indeed 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 denying is actually proven knowledge makes no difference to them.
What I am saying is true, isn't it.
Using faulty reasoning does not make language words and their usage, or vocabulary disappear.
One either accepts them, or they don't. You don't, because free will used in those lexicons are not philosophy.
Philosophical argument have no place in those works. They are in their own space.
Earlier, you asked a user if they are well, because you said something repeatedly, and their response was as if you actually said nothing.
I posted those lexical works more than half a dozen times, I'm sure.
Did you not see "freewill" and "free will" scores of times? The word isn't written with invisible ink.
So, when you say free will does not exist, or you don't believe it, you have dismissed those work... I'm not confused.
Anyway, I
thoroughly detailed the concept of free will, from its origin to its existence, including its distance from philosophy, if you are interested in taking a look. Just scroll down slightly.
However, there is no use in going further, as I have really reached a hard place, where I can go neither up, down, left or right.
I've exhausted all my sources, and there is nothing more I can add.
I'm sure you don't want me to repeat myself like a parrot.
Then you'd be asking me if I am well.
I certainly don't want that.
No bad blood. Take care.
