The Reality of Free Will

BNR32FAN · Nov 9, 2025

Clare73 said:
Previously addressed. . .see post #2.

Can you choose to be sinless, to never sin?
If you can, why have you not done so?

Can you choose to live a perfectly sinless life?

Clare73 · Nov 9, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
That’s like saying I can’t catch a ball unless I can catch it every single time without missing it.
Or I can’t type on a keyboard unless I can do it perfectly every time without missing a key. It’s nonsensical.

You aren't a faultless catcher nor a perfect typist if you can't.

And you aren't sinless unless you can be without sin.

And if you're not free to be without sin, then you are not totally free, your moral freedom is limited.

Keeping in mind that "free will" (ability to make all moral choices) is not Biblical, it is a notion of man (Pelagius).

Clare73 · Nov 9, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
After coming to Christ IS ANYONE CAPABLE OF NEVER SINNING AGAIN? If not are they still slaves to sin?

The born again are not slaves to sin, nor are they totaly free of sin.

CoreyD · Nov 9, 2025

stevevw said:
I have been thinking about this since you mentioned it. Its a different way to look at free will. Not from the freedoms humans demand like individual right to self determination or autonomy. We constantly here about individual and group rights to freedoms.

But from the other side of the coin. When humans become too rightful of their own self rights and will. To the point that it leads to actual bondage and loss of freedom.

Then its a case that we have to admit defeat and realise we are really not good at knowing what is freedom at all. That its actually by surrendering that we gain true freedom and control. Its paradoxial to this world.

But I think its a truth principle in life and it stems back to Christs example of His sacrifice in overcoming sin and death that we can be truely free.

Freedom is a different subject all together.
Free will does not require true freedom. It is simply the freedom to make and act on our own, regardless of the consequences.
So, anyone can exercise their God given gift of free will, and be in bondage.

Atheists for example may not submit to God, but they can still choose not to give in to the temptation to wait in a back alley and hit their annoying neighbor on the head with a hammer.
They can, and do choose not to molest their girl child. etc.

Having true freedom is something gained when one submits to God's will 2 Corinthians 3:17, even though, as Paul said... "16 I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. 17 But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me." Romans 7:16-20

BNR32FAN · Nov 9, 2025

Clare73 said:
The born again are not slaves to sin, nor are they totaly free of sin.

So as far as sin goes they’re pretty much the same? Neither are completely absent from sin and neither are completely absent from doing good?

Clare73 · Nov 10, 2025

BNR32FAN said:
So as far as sin goes they’re pretty much the same? Neither are completely absent from sin and neither are completely absent from doing good?

Slaves to sin refers to a lifestyle of disobedience, not found among the born again even though they are not sinless.

childeye 2 · Nov 15, 2025

CoreyD said:
I didn't?
Perhaps you are trying to redefine free will, and therefore, in your mind, the true meaning is not coherent.

Keeping in mind that I'm speaking strictly in the moral/immoral context, I said this in my first post--> "The only coherent meaning of the term free will as a noun, that I can see in scripture, is a will qualified as free from sin". "Free" standing alone without will carries a positive connotation. When paired with a subjective neutral will, it can mask bondage with the illusion of empowerment. In that way I can see how a neutral free will, would be a useful scenario for a foundational lie. The power to choose as a neutral connotation isn't a power of impetus, it's a subjective scenario that happens when sharing a planet.

The distinction that free from sin in scripture brings, is a positive connotation of a carnal minded will that has been transformed by the will of God through the power of the Holy Spirit to the mind of Christ, not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God. It shows that there are wills that ARE FREE so as to show that there are wills that ARE NOT FREE without equivocation. That’s why I see the carnal free will as a foundational lie: it takes a word of liberation and uses it to cover over dependence upon God as the positive power.

Jesus told Paul, "I am sending you to them to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”....., The entire plan of salvation rests upon believing mankind cannot save themselves by the power of the will. All of scripture testifies to our dependence upon God.

The early church was persecuted for their testimony of Christ. I don't see a free will volunteering to persecute the messengers of the Gospel. I see an orchestrated attempt by powers of darkness..

How can I testify to the Spirit of God that opens blind eyes, turns people from darkness to Light and from the power of Satan to God and at the same time say we choose to do that of our own volition?

CoreyD said:
What does the evidence show?
From post #1.

...let's start with John 8:44
Starting with God's heavenly children - the spirit creation, called angels, the Bible says of the one called Devil and Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.

Agreed. Everyone has THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way. <-- NOT GOD"S WAY--> Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Scriptures generally describe a self-willed person as acting out of the carnal will, and the carnal will is subject to the flesh.

CoreyD said:
Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
Jesus further states in the same verse, John 8:44... "your will is to do your father’s desires".
Humans too, have their own will, which is in opposition to the father.

This is articulated well because here the will denotes a negative desire, NOT just the general ability to choose to act. To rephrase: The mechanism that weighs pros and cons is not a will (A "want" precedes an "action" according to the "want"). So, I think we can agree that the desire/will/want of the self-willed is inclined to servitude to sin when it is not aligned with Will of the Father.

CoreyD said:
this was a deliberate opposing of the truth. Hence, the name Satan.

John 8:44 does not actually use the term deliberate to explain the devil's opposing the truth. However, it makes sense that the devil deliberates upon a false image of god, and this is the reason why Jesus says " there is no Truth in him", NOT because he has a free will capacity to speak the truth which is The ONE WAY <--singular.

Matthew 6:22-23
22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

CoreyD said:
So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will. Nor can it be claimed that they have to give in to wrong desires.
The angels make their own decisions to do what the want. Genesis 6:2
Proof that the angels - God's heavenly children, do have free will.

The Satan means the accuser/adversary. How are you defining free will here? We agree each person has their own way, their own will that involves making their own decisions and performing their own actions pursuant to what their want/will/way is. Why is Free now being added without any qualifier? You're introducing an unknown premise.

Leaving the "free" out because I don't know what you intend to infer with it; I'm going to make this statement --> I can claim definitively that sin is a hinderance to someone's own will/way/want when it's done to them, because when someone else's will/way/want steals from me or interferes with me fulfilling my will/way/want, then my own will/want/way is hindered. My point is that inevitably one person's own way will clash with someone else's own way, and the occasion for confrontation, war and sin will be present.

Having said that, I want to know why you are interjecting Free and how you are applying it. It looks to me like it could be that age old assertion, sometimes accusation of the accuser, that at any given moment, they could have chosen to want differently than they did because there exist other better wants, they could have wanted. ---> option to choose otherwise. So, I'm wondering if you are implying free will in this mode is the ability to choose between wants and decide what we want to want?

Are you reasoning upon an equivocation hidden in this statement -->"Nor can it be claimed that they have to give in to WRONG desires"...? Notice that an equivocation mode of free will also claims the contrary --> "Nor can it be claimed they have to give in to RIGHT desires". <-- This is equivocating between two masters.

NOT giving in to wrong desires requires knowing they are wrong desires and why. So now knowledge comes into play, not subjectively but objectively true information. And it's true that knowledge makes us more responsible in the sense we know better. But wouldn't it be better said that we make our own decisions to NOT DO what is wrong because we Love others? Wouldn't it be better to thank God for the brotherly love that causes us to act responsibly without deliberating <-- Here is where the will/way/want is not manifested by the ability to choose otherwise, but through brotherly Love <--God's Way.

CoreyD said:
Regarding humans, the same apply.
In saying that their will is to do Satan's desire, what was Jesus pointing out? They were acting on their own will. Not anyone else's.
That humans have free will is made clear in other scriptures.

I've already agreed we have our own will in my first post. But the question of whether we have autonomy also invites the question of whether there exists a false sense of autonomy and a true sense of autonomy <-- negative and positive connotations. So just because we put free in front of a will that is born of the devil does not mean it's not the negative connotation of free, --> the carnal self-serving will. So, when Jesus tells these people they are of their father the devil, it implies the devil begat them and his Character is living in them, and that's why they will do his lusts even though they say or think they're free. <-- A false sense of autonomy.

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

CoreyD said:
The Bible says Adam was not deceived.

First off, when Paul says Adam was not deceived, I don't think Paul is meaning to point out that Adam knew what he was doing because Adam knew God told him not to eat because he would surely die. I say that because Paul would have known that the woman also knew that too, because she said, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die".

So some theologians tend to take it out of context and think Paul is saying Adam deliberately, willfully disobeyed of his own initiative (which is a different sentiment than Adam knew God told him not to eat or he would surely die), in other words they suggest that Paul is inferring rebellion by saying Adam was not deceived.

I have already shown how that mischaracterization of Paul's intended sentiments ends in a contradiction of reasoning. Here it is-> It would mean that Paul is saying that the woman, who was deceived/tricked into disobeying God, should follow the lead of the man who knowingly and deliberately rebelled against God. That would be like saying we should follow those leaders who knowingly and willfully rebel against God.

Given that the Genesis account does not depict the serpent talking to Adam, Paul is probably simply inferring that the woman was the one deceived by the serpent, not the man. It is remarkable that nowhere else in scripture that I know of, is it mentioned or implied that Adam was not deceived or not misled in some way by the woman and that he willfully rebelled against God.

On the other hand, it's possible that Adam knew what he was doing and was NOT deceived, because he could have wanted to die with Eve rather than live without her which would not mean he had a rebellious spirit against God.

CoreyD said:
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.

It's possible he could have decided to die with Eve rather than live without her. Assuming he wouldn't choose to eat and die had she not eaten in the first place, the circumstances would qualify as an antecedent event, wherein he might have felt forced to volunteer to die with her,

CoreyD said:
Adam and Eve were free willed agents... not driven by sin, but making free willed decisions.
Proof that humans... God's earthly children were created with free will.

"The only coherent meaning of the term free will as a noun that I can see in scripture is a will qualified as free from sin".

Yes, I agree; when they were first created, they were without sin and had wills free from sin and made decisions free from questioning Gods trustworthiness, but then they were walking in God's Way of faith. I'm not sure what you mean by free willed agents. Does agency here mean to imply a capacity to affect the course of events only positively, or is it more complicated as seen below?

Psychology today: Our brains carry predispositions from genes, but experiences and learning further shape desires and choices. Neurogeneticists, like Kevin Mitchell argue this leaves room for agency, while biologists like Robert Sapolsky see it as evidence of determinism.

CoreyD said:
Did sin somehow cancel out free will.

If we define free will as free from sin, yes of course. Logically, when sin entered in, they were no longer free from sin.

CoreyD said:
In the imagination of many, that is the case.

Paul gave thanks to God for being set free from sin in scripture. It wasn't imaginary. Jesus also teaches that the truth will set people free from the slavery of sin. Here is what Aquinas said, --> "Freedom, then, is not absolute autonomy (doing whatever one wants), but the capacity to choose rationally among perceived goods".

Here I must ask, do you not believe in a will without sin? Do you think sin will exist eternal?

CoreyD said:
However, the Bible does not say that after sin came into the world through one man, that free will became obsolete.

The Bible never speaks of “having a free will” as a faculty or a thing; it speaks of voluntary acts (like offerings) or willing hearts. I'm not sure how you're defining free will here, but scripture does show that the carnal will is in discord with God's will. If you're saying this discord is freedom, then this free will freedom carries a negative connotation, and it is sin, not of the Spirit of God.

CoreyD said:
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 is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur like in Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26. I would note that these scriptures are speaking more rhetorical, as warnings. I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will, because I want to show free as objectively positive in God's Way. The bible also shows actions that occur NOT of one's own accord. Primarily through believing things that are untrue and reasoning upon them as if they were true.

childeye 2 · Nov 15, 2025

CoreyD said:
I don't know what you find incoherent about that. It's pretty clear, what free will is, from there.

In this case it's incoherent in the sense that while a decision may be seen as unforced, the question of WHY we volunteer is not being answered by --> because we have a free will. This is a circular reasoning --> I do it because I can. Is this volition dependent or independent? When I see someone use voluntary to describe a free will in the moral/immoral paradigm, through experience, I've learned to expect the term depravity to be absent from their discussion.

Like I said, it's an adjective meaning voluntary/willing, not a noun. So, for example, a voluntary will (noun) would not make sense since it implies that we will to will. Since logically we reason for a reason, there has to be an origin of a desire or a thing we want to do whether it's in response to someone or something or an intention we wish to accomplish. There are two ways to get rid of lusts and desires, (1) we fulfill them (2) we realize they are vain imaginings and lies believed as true.

Are choices autonomous? Where is the origin of the will/desire that does what is sin? Who am I and why would I ever will what is wrong? Free will can't get to the heart of WHY we do what we do by saying we choose to. That is why scripture identifies a carnal will that needs to be transformed through the Holy Spirit.

So when I say incoherent, I'm often talking about the problem of the terms will and free morphing in meaning subjectively. Voluntary morphs into unforced and unforced morphs into no one is holding a gun to my head. There's our own self will, which implies a false autonomy if it means the carnal will which cannot be subject to God, because it is in servitude to the flesh, and even can be hostile to God.

Again, I'm not saying that we don't do anything willingly or voluntarily. I'm saying that in the moral/immoral context True freedom is being who God made me to be, restored in Christ to reflect His Image.

CoreyD said:
Post #3

...free will is defined as...
the ability to act on one's own accord; unforced, of one's own will, voluntary; willing deliberate action (choice);
The philosophical definition is varied, as well as extreme in some cases.

Free will is generally understood as the capacity or ability of people to (a) choose between different possible courses of action, (b) exercise control over their actions in a way that is necessary for moral responsibility, or (c) be the ultimate source or originator of their actions. There are different theories as to its nature, and these aspects are often emphasized differently depending on philosophical tradition, with debates focusing on whether and how such freedom can coexist with physical determinism, divine foreknowledge and other constraints.

We can see the definitions you post above are typical:

Core Definitions

Ability to choose otherwise: Free will means that at any given moment, you could have acted differently than you did.
Self-determined action: It’s the capacity to make choices that originate from your own reasoning, desires, or values, rather than being entirely dictated by external forces.
Moral responsibility: Free will is often defined in terms of accountability—if you have free will, you can be held responsible for your actions.
Compatibilist definition: Even if the universe is deterministic, free will exists when your actions align with your internal motivations, without coercion.

What the world calls free will is a lie, because apart from God we are slaves to sin. That’s not freedom—it’s blindness and false freedom. The only true free will is a will freed from sin by Christ, so that our choices originate from love and truth rather than deception. Calling our choices ‘voluntary’ twists the narrative. Volunteering to sin is nonsensical if as scripture shows, flesh is the impetus of a self-will. And we didn't volunteer to be flesh. Voluntary good is still God’s work in us. The word ‘volunteer’ hides the truth; that apart from God, our will is blind and bound to sin. Only when freed from sin by Christ does responsibility and freedom become real. Only then is it realized that Brotherly love causes us to care how our actions affect others and subsequently causes us to act responsibly.

So, in all honesty I don't see how the blind people leading the blind that Jesus talked about fall into any free will category defined above --> .... they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Exodus 4:11
And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?

Jesus’ words in John 9:39: After healing the man born blind, Jesus says, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

Blind seeing: Those who humbly acknowledge their need (spiritual blindness) are given true sight—faith, understanding, salvation.
Seeing blind: Those who claim to already “see” (self-righteous, proud, relying on their own wisdom) are exposed as blind to God’s truth.

What is being saved by grace through faith? Faith implies believing God, providing God allows we hear His Word, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by His Word. So being saved by grace through faith isn't about a free will that chooses voluntarily, it's about transforming wills from the power of Satan to the power of God. That is what scripture teaches. The scriptures do not acknowledge that mankind can choose to be righteous apart from God's Holy Spirit.

1 John 3.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

Acts 26
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

CoreyD said:
Can you please define your terms corrupt and in a state of innocence, and elaborate on them. Thanks.

I think a state of innocence and not having the Knowledge of good and evil are synonymous. In that respect, innocence is a form of ignorance operating out of trust/faith. It is also a virgin territory for sowing a seed (seed defined as an image of God that is corrupted through other images of gods, Satan's seed). To me when I read scriptures like through one man's disobedience sin entered in unto all men and so did death through sin, I view this as the beginning of corruption and Satan's seed is a corrupt image, a lie that corrupts God's Holy Image.

CoreyD said:
Also, is having a free moral choice "innocence"? Is choosing one over the other, which may be wrong, "corrupt"?

I would see this question as loaded because I don't think the innocent deliberate between moral and immoral choices, they operate through faith.

Hebrews 11:6 “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” --> Faith is the foundation of moral reality.
Romans 1:17 “The righteous shall live by faith.” --> Innocence is not about deliberation but about trust.

CoreyD said:
Imperfect to whom.

Imperfect according to the True Image of God.

CoreyD said:
Why can't free will be perfect in relation to God, and why can free will not be exercised without holy spirit?

Another loaded question since the will is perfect and imperfect relative to God. The true free will depends on the Holy Spirit because He testifies to the Character of both the Father and the son.

CoreyD said:
Why is holy spirit needed for one to make a free willed decision, either, or?

It's a loaded question. Either/or doesn't denote a will at all. It only denotes that options exist. Options existing doesn't mean autonomy; it means determinism. The will is either bound to lies in sin or freed by the Spirit of Truth. Without the Spirit either/or will inevitably fall into sin. With The Spirit, then either/or becomes the true freedom: righteousness.

CoreyD said:
It's not true freedom, I can agree, but the ability to choose true freedom or not, is still a choice we are freely given.

Again, the existence of options does not denote a will, it denotes determinism. In pragmatics the Truth came first and the lie afterward, so as to usurp power through undermining the truth that first existed. Hence The true freedom came first through faith and the only one who suggested there was an alternative freedom was the serpent.

CoreyD said:
God did make his intelligent creatures capable of disobeying him, did he not?

The proper way to articulate this is that God knew vanity would arise in the creature as a circumstance of being created, and He even knew it would first begin in the highest angels who were the most gifted. Do you see the difference? The way you say it sounds like God made us corrupted to begin with.

CoreyD said:
Are you saying, you don't think Adam and Eve had freedom?

I said I don't see the capacity to sin as freedom. I therefore do believe Adam and Eve had freedom from sin when they were operating out of faith. I'm saying I don't believe evil was present when they went to do good. They couldn't deliberate in that sense so long as they had no knowledge of good and evil.

CoreyD said:
Are you saying Jesus does not choose to to God's will.... that he has no choice?

I'm saying his will operates out of faith. He knows what he came to do and his will is to do God's will. I'm answering this way because he knows there's only One Way, God's Way, a self-sacrificing love. Notice Jesus said what will happen, he will be handed over to be crucified and Peter said, "God forbid". Jesus replied, "get behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

CoreyD said:
Does one choose whether or not to listen to God?

The Word of God is the light and the Life of every man. If they're led by Satan's imagined image of god, they would not esteem God as God, and they would be thinking they can choose to listen or not at their discretion.

CoreyD said:
Were Adam and Eve sinful, before disobeying God?

Of course not. That would be like saying God's breath that he breathed into the dirt was sinful.

CoreyD said:
Why then are you referring to "free will you are describing allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or with sinful desires."?

Because I'm responding to your definition of free will here --> CoreyD said: "Free will allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or to choose one course or the other... whether sinful - that is, prone to sin, or not."

CoreyD · Nov 17, 2025

childeye 2 said:
Keeping in mind that I'm speaking strictly in the moral/immoral context, I said this in my first post--> "The only coherent meaning of the term free will as a noun, that I can see in scripture, is a will qualified as free from sin". "Free" standing alone without will carries a positive connotation. When paired with a subjective neutral will, it can mask bondage with the illusion of empowerment. In that way I can see how a neutral free will, would be a useful scenario for a foundational lie. The power to choose as a neutral connotation isn't a power of impetus, it's a subjective scenario that happens when sharing a planet.

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).

childeye 2 said:
The distinction that free from sin in scripture brings, is a positive connotation of a carnal minded will that has been transformed by the will of God through the power of the Holy Spirit to the mind of Christ, not by the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God. It shows that there are wills that ARE FREE so as to show that there are wills that ARE NOT FREE without equivocation. That’s why I see the carnal free will as a foundational lie: it takes a word of liberation and uses it to cover over dependence upon God as the positive power.

A "carnal minded will" is not an adjective, but a noun.
You aren't talking about the same thing I am talking about.

childeye 2 said:
Agreed. Everyone has THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way. <-- NOT GOD"S WAY--> Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Scriptures generally describe a self-willed person as acting out of the carnal will, and the carnal will is subject to the flesh.

"pertaining to self, or of his own." is not THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way
Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
You did not read own will there, as in a noun.
Hence, you did not understand what you read there.

You read own will here... Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
The acting on one's own will, is free will. The word 'will' as a noun. is not free will.

To act according to one's own will or desire refers to the capacity for self-directed, purposeful action, a concept known as volition. Volition involves the ability to make autonomous decisions and act upon them, distinguishing conscious beings from purely deterministic systems. It is considered a key component of free will, as it emphasizes personal agency and freedom of choice.
The term "volition" originates from the Latin velle, meaning "to wish" or "to will". When someone acts "of their own volition," they do so voluntarily, driven by their own desires or intentions.
The idea of acting according to one's own will is also linked to autonomy, particularly moral autonomy, which involves the capacity to give oneself moral laws rather than simply following external commands.

Hence, we are not on the same page.
You haven't understood.
Therefore...

childeye 2 said:
This is articulated well because here the will denotes a negative desire, NOT just the general ability to choose to act. To rephrase: The mechanism that weighs pros and cons is not a will (A "want" precedes an "action" according to the "want"). So, I think we can agree that the desire/will/want of the self-willed is inclined to servitude to sin when it is not aligned with Will of the Father.

A negative desire can be acted upon, or against.
What do you call an "action" or "choose to act" on either... whether acting upon that desire, or acting against that desire?
Is it deliberate "action" or "choose to act"?

childeye 2 said:
The Satan means the accuser/adversary. How are you defining free will here? We agree each person has their own way, their own will that involves making their own decisions and performing their own actions pursuant to what their want/will/way is.

I have a feeling we are not agreeing on the same thing.
We did not agree that "acting on one's own", is commensurate with having a will... as in has their own way, their own will.

Whereas, you are describing possessing a will, as in having a desire, or want... i.e. "I have a desire/will... I want to eat some chocolate.", acting on one's own accord, or will, involves the freedom to make an independent choice or decision to do one thing or the other.
For example, having a strong desire/will/a wanting for chocolate is not the choice to act on one's own accord to perhaps resist that wanting... doing so intentionally, deliberately, unforced, willingly, voluntarily, of one's own free will...

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", is not the same as having a will.

We evidently are referring to two different things.

childeye 2 said:
Why is Free now being added without any qualifier? You're introducing an unknown premise.

Why? Adding free to one's own will, emphasizes the voluntary nature of an action, indicating that a person chose to do something without coercion or external pressure, which is different from possession of a personal desire, or intention - having a will, or want... a wanting, or desire to do something.

A desire or want, does not have to be acted upon, because the ability, or capacity to choose not to, is in one's possession. It's called free will.

childeye 2 said:
Leaving the "free" out because I don't know what you intend to infer with it; I'm going to make this statement --> I can claim definitively that sin is a hinderance to someone's own will/way/want when it's done to them, because when someone else's will/way/want steals from me or interferes with me fulfilling my will/way/want, then my own will/want/way is hindered. My point is that inevitably one person's own way will clash with someone else's own way, and the occasion for confrontation, war and sin will be present.

Sin does not hinder a person's choice.
"Someone's own will/way/want to steal from you or interfere with you, is that one's desire, which James says, 'a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire'. James 1:14
Only 'after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.' James 1:15

The desire does not have to conceive. Why?
Each person can freely choose not to give into the enticement, or temptation, because they have free will.
It's that free will that allows you to act on your own will, to not get a gun and shoot the person.

If that will, or desire is your want, you don't have to allow it to give birth to sin.
Sin therefore cannot hinder free will. However, your will/want/desire, can breed sin.

childeye 2 said:
Having said that, I want to know why you are interjecting Free and how you are applying it.

Let's see if you get it.

CoreyD · Nov 17, 2025

childeye 2 said:
NOT giving in to wrong desires requires knowing they are wrong desires and why. So now knowledge comes into play, not subjectively but objectively true information. And it's true that knowledge makes us more responsible in the sense we know better. But wouldn't it be better said that we make our own decisions to NOT DO what is wrong because we Love others? Wouldn't it be better to thank God for the brotherly love that causes us to act responsibly without deliberating <-- Here is where the will/way/want is not manifested by the ability to choose otherwise, but through brotherly Love <--God's Way.

Would you say one's conscience gives them subjective knowledge?
How does one gain objective knowledge?

childeye 2 said:
First off, when Paul says Adam was not deceived, I don't think Paul is meaning to point out that Adam knew what he was doing because Adam knew God told him not to eat because he would surely die. I say that because Paul would have known that the woman also knew that too, because she said, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die".

What we think isn't relevant.
Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not.
That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled.
When someone is not misled into doing something wrong, but they do it, is it deliberate - done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional, and willful - done in a manner which was intended?

The choice to do what is wrong without being misled
Choosing to do what is wrong while fully aware of its moral implications—knowing it is wrong and still proceeding—is a deliberate act of moral failure. This choice is often described as a conscious violation of one's own ethical standards or principles, and it reflects a decision made despite knowing the correct course of action. In ethical frameworks, such a decision may be analyzed through the lens of consequences, rules, or character. For instance, someone might refrain from lying because they believe it leads to bad outcomes , or because they follow a rule that demands honesty , or because they identify as an honest person. Choosing to act wrongly in spite of these considerations indicates a prioritization of personal interest, emotion, or bias over moral duty.

The decision to do wrong is not merely a mistake or a lapse in judgment; it is a choice made with full knowledge of the right alternative. This awareness can intensify the moral weight of the action, as it involves a willful disregard for truth, fairness, or the well-being of others.

childeye 2 said:
So some theologians tend to take it out of context and think Paul is saying Adam deliberately, willfully disobeyed of his own initiative (which is a different sentiment than Adam knew God told him not to eat or he would surely die), in other words they suggest that Paul is inferring rebellion by saying Adam was not deceived.

Can you provide a reference where some theologians take this out of context.

childeye 2 said:
I have already shown how that mischaracterization of Paul's intended sentiments ends in a contradiction of reasoning. Here it is-> It would mean that Paul is saying that the woman, who was deceived/tricked into disobeying God, should follow the lead of the man who knowingly and deliberately rebelled against God. That would be like saying we should follow those leaders who knowingly and willfully rebel against God.

Tricked into disobeying God?
How was Eve tricked?

Deceived does not necessarily mean tricked.
For example,, one who deceives their own mind, does not trick their mind.
They just convince themselves of something they believe... or want to believe.
Deceiving one's own mind refers to the psychological process of self-deception, where an individual convinces themselves of a belief they know or believe to be false, often to avoid discomfort, maintain self-esteem, or rationalize behavior.

It wasn't like Eve didn't know what God told her. She knew.
When Satan said, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?” Insinuating that God was wickedly withholding something good from them.
Eve responded... “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
Satan's approach was deceptive... a cunning way to sow suspicion and doubt.

Eve believed the lie. She believed what was false, to be true. The Bible doesn't say she was tricked into believing.
A person can chew over doubts and fatten suspicion, by entertaining a thought.

However, it was Satan's intent to mislead her, so I am not going to make this a subject of argument, as it's "small potatoes" and would detract from the main point... which is, that Adam was not misled into believing the lie.
That's what it means to be deceived. Deceive - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead

childeye 2 said:
Given that the Genesis account does not depict the serpent talking to Adam, Paul is probably simply inferring that the woman was the one deceived by the serpent, not the man. It is remarkable that nowhere else in scripture that I know of, is it mentioned or implied that Adam was not deceived or not misled in some way by the woman and that he willfully rebelled against God.

Probably?
Remarkable? Why... because you think something you believe is probably true?

childeye 2 said:
On the other hand, it's possible that Adam knew what he was doing and was NOT deceived, because he could have wanted to die with Eve rather than live without her which would not mean he had a rebellious spirit against God.

Could have?
Let's be clear... If you think you are not speculating, please check the dictionary for the word speculate.
Then let's end this conversation, if speculation is all you think we have to go on, because it's no use using the scriptures if nothing can be established from them.

childeye 2 said:
It's possible he could have decided to die with Eve rather than live without her. Assuming he wouldn't choose to eat and die had she not eaten in the first place, the circumstances would qualify as an antecedent event, wherein he might have felt forced to volunteer to die with her,

Possible?
Assuming?
Might have?
Okay, moving on.

childeye 2 said:
This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur like in Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26. I would note that these scriptures are speaking more rhetorical, as warnings. I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will, because I want to show free as objectively positive in God's Way. The bible also shows actions that occur NOT of one's own accord. Primarily through believing things that are untrue and reasoning upon them as if they were true.

You just said

This is an adjective not a noun. It's talking about a voluntarily action i.e. "acting on one's own accord" I'm not saying such willful sinful actions can't occur

Then you, in the same breath, turn around and say

I won't call such a will that wants to be ruled by sin a free will

"Such a will" is a noun, which I don't see mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6
Unless you are referring to "sinning willfully" mentioned in Hebrews 10:26, which is describing having the ability to willingly sin or not - that is choosing of one's own accord, or one's own free will, either to refrain from practicing sin, or practicing sin... is actually free will.

It's not describing a will. It's not a noun. It's describing a voluntary action, which is exactly an adjective. Which is exactly what I started with.
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).

If a person can refrain from sinning willfully or give into sinning willfully - one or the other, that person has free will.
Why do you not accept that?

childeye 2 · Nov 18, 2025

CoreyD said:
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).

It doesn't mean free will, the noun.

CoreyD said:
A "carnal minded will" is not an adjective, but a noun.

Carnal minded is an adjective describing a type of will, <- will here is a noun. Are you saying the carnal will is a free will?

CoreyD said:
You aren't talking about the same thing I am talking about.

I understand that you're talking about a philosophical meaning of free will. In the moral/immoral context, I'm talking about the scriptural meaning of a free will -> free from sin -> the positive layer of the neutral philosophical free will you're talking about. In reality the free will you're talking about isn't a will at all; it's the circumstance of choosing between one's own carnal will and God's will.

CoreyD said:
"pertaining to self, or of his own." is not THEIR OWN WILL qualified as OUR OWN way
Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
You did not read own will there, as in a noun.
Hence, you did not understand what you read there.

Will means desire in scripture. Our own will is descriptive of our own way according to our own desire, a noun. I quoted Isaiah 53:6 to express what I mean by our own way and further qualified it as NOT God's Way. It's right here -> All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Our own way is our own will because we willed to go our own way.

I understand that Jesus is talking about Satan's Character. On that we agree. His character is described as lusting, a murderer, and a liar not abiding in truth. Hence those descriptions show his own character/will/desire.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

CoreyD said:
You read own will here... Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
The acting on one's own will, is free will. The word 'will' as a noun. is not free will.

The acting on one's own will, is free will? Before you said freedom to choose was a free will. That's two distinct meanings.
Freedom to choose -> Here “free will” = the ability to make a decision between alternatives. <- That’s about choice.
Acting on one’s own will -> Here “free will” = following one’s own desire without interference. <- That’s about desire.

Have you ever heard of the equivocation fallacy? Because the terms will and free keep morphing, and we end up reasoning upon an equivocation. I expect you to next claim the opposite -> NOT acting on one's own will/desire, is free will.

I'm not saying the devil doesn't act according to his own will or desire. I indicated that in post #74--> "This we can agree on --> the children born of the devil have the same character as their father --> evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, slanders".

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

CoreyD said:
To act according to one's own will or desire refers to the capacity for self-directed, purposeful action, a concept known as volition. Volition involves the ability to make autonomous decisions and act upon them, distinguishing conscious beings from purely deterministic systems. It is considered a key component of free will, as it emphasizes personal agency and freedom of choice.
The term "volition" originates from the Latin velle, meaning "to wish" or "to will". When someone acts "of their own volition," they do so voluntarily, driven by their own desires or intentions.
The idea of acting according to one's own will is also linked to autonomy, particularly moral autonomy, which involves the capacity to give oneself moral laws rather than simply following external commands.

Hence, we are not on the same page.
You haven't understood.
Therefore...

Do you understand this definition above is describing secular Humanism? It excludes God as the Eternal power and the Light of the soul and replaces Him with human autonomy.

Volition as neutral capacity is real; we all have desire and the ability to act. But in the moral/immoral context, scripture shows that desire is never neutral: The Spirit of agape Love, and wisdom, flows from our father. The children of the devil desire according to his character, which is sin. The children of God desire according to His character, which is righteousness. That’s why John says those who abide in Christ do not sin, while those who sin are of the devil. Volition is shaped by nature, not autonomous neutrality.

Volition (neutral layer)
Desire + ability to act.
Example: “I had the volition to stand up and walk.” <--This is not moral in itself — it’s simply the capacity to act.

Autonomy / Moral Self‑Determination (philosophical)
The claim that humans can give themselves moral law, independent of God.
Example: “I decide what is right or wrong for myself.” <-- This is philosophy, not biblical theology.

The problem with the above definition is that it starts with volition (neutral desire + action). Then it sneaks in autonomy and moral self‑law, by calling both “free will,” hence it equivocates; sometimes meaning neutral capacity, sometimes meaning moral autonomy.

I'm trying to establish that the negative desire comes from the carnal will, and the positive desire comes from the Spirit of Christ. To reiterate, my point is that the children of God, will/desire according to the Character of their Father, and the children of the devil will/desire according to the character of their father. So, in the moral/immoral context the volition of the children of the devil is inclined to sin while the volition of the children of God is inclined to not sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

CoreyD said:
A negative desire can be acted upon, or against.
What do you call an "action" or "choose to act" on either... whether acting upon that desire, or acting against that desire?
Is it deliberate "action" or "choose to act"?

I would first call it freedom of action. I can move or not move my fingers. Hence there is a choice/option = act/not act. I would then note that the choice to act is precipitated by a carnal desire, and the choice to not act is precipitated by a higher desire that overcomes the flesh. In the Moral/Immoral context God's Word is the Light and Life of every man.

CoreyD said:
I have a feeling we are not agreeing on the same thing.
We did not agree that "acting on one's own", is commensurate with having a will... as in has their own way, their own will.

Okay. We're in a moral/immoral context. Would you agree we first have to have a will/desire (noun), in order to be willing (adverb)? If that will/desire is coming from our flesh, would you agree it is a carnal will? According to Isaiah we all went our own way. I interpret that as serving our own carnal will. There may be other ways to describe a will that is not going God's Way. But fundamentally I see scripture tying the carnal will to the impetus of pride, rebellion, worldliness, and the prince of the power of the air who works in the children of disobedience. Can you agree with that?

CoreyD said:
Whereas, you are describing possessing a will, as in having a desire, or want... i.e. "I have a desire/will... I want to eat some chocolate.", acting on one's own accord, or will, involves the freedom to make an independent choice or decision to do one thing or the other.
For example, having a strong desire/will/a wanting for chocolate is not the choice to act on one's own accord to perhaps resist that wanting... doing so intentionally, deliberately, unforced, willingly, voluntarily, of one's own free will...

I am talking in the moral/immoral context. In that context, I don't think I possess a will, but rather a will is going to possess me, hence the language of scripture speaks of servitude to either the carnal will or God. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control.

CoreyD said:
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", is not the same as having a will.

We evidently are referring to two different things.

We have to agree what terms mean to communicate; that's for sure. Previously, you were referring to free will as freedom to choose emphasizing the decision being voluntary. Meanwhile I'm referring to the will/desire, emphasizing that desires are not voluntary..

If I'm willing, then I have a will/desire. I didn't volunteer to have desires of the flesh, I'm forced to deal with them, and therefore I didn't choose for them to manifest. When we move to the deciding whether to fulfill carnal desires, it's an opposing desire that overcomes the flesh. God's Spirit would be articulated as the goodness that Loves others as oneself. I don't think Light resists darkness. It casts it out just like the Truth casts out lies.

So, carnal desires arise spontaneously and involuntarily. At first, as a believer I must consciously put them away by abiding in Christ. But as the carnal mind is renewed into the mind of Christ, the putting away of carnal desires becomes less frequent, and the goodness of God begins to arise spontaneously. I'm convinced that this transition — from impulsive flesh to spontaneous Spirit — is the transformation Scripture calls the renewing of the mind.

CoreyD said:
Why? Adding free to one's own will, emphasizes the voluntary nature of an action, indicating that a person chose to do something without coercion or external pressure, which is different from possession of a personal desire, or intention - having a will, or want... a wanting, or desire to do something.

Okay. But scripture does not present moral/immoral decision-making as “voluntary” in the secular humanist sense of free, neutral choice. It presents it as either the spontaneous impulse of the flesh or the transformative work of the Spirit.

Romans 8:13 — “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

CoreyD said:
A desire or want, does not have to be acted upon, because the ability, or capacity to choose not to, is in one's possession. It's called free will.

Before you conveyed "The acting on one's own will, is free will". Now you're conveying not acting on one's own will is free will. You're definitely talking out of an equivocation. The equivocation takes two contrary positions making it the philosophical neutral layer.

If you were talking about not acting on a carnal desire that leads to sin, then you're talking about being free from sin. One of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control. Like I said free from sin is the only coherent meaning of free will in scripture. But the worldly neutral freewill denies God as the power of goodness in mankind, reducing it to the discretion of the carnal will.

Therefore, I deny the worldly neutral “free will” outright because it is an equivocation, not a will/desire. Scripture shows that desires arise involuntarily, and choices are determined by whether one is in the flesh or in the Spirit. To call this “free will” is to confuse desire with decision and to deny God as the source of goodness in mankind.

Romans 8:7–8 -> The carnal mind “cannot” submit to God’s law.
Romans 6:16 -> We are slaves either to sin or to righteousness. -> No neutral “free” will exists; only fleshly desire or Spirit-led obedience.

Romans 9:8 -> “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.”
Romans 9:16 -> “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

Romans 8:13 -> “If by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” → The Spirit is the opposing will that makes resistance possible.
Philippians 2:13 -> God works in us “to will and to act.” → The will to resist is God’s, not autonomous free will.

CoreyD said:
Sin does not hinder a person's choice.
"Someone's own will/way/want to steal from you or interfere with you, is that one's desire, which James says, 'a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire'. James 1:14
Only 'after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.' James 1:15

The desire does not have to conceive. Why?
Each person can freely choose not to give into the enticement, or temptation, because they have free will.
It's that free will that allows you to act on your own will, to not get a gun and shoot the person.

If that will, or desire is your want, you don't have to allow it to give birth to sin.
Sin therefore cannot hinder free will. However, your will/want/desire, can breed sin.

Let's see if you get it.

James 1:14 was not the context of scripture I was responding to in your post. I was responding to John 8:44 as the context. In John 8:44, Jesus uses causal and identity markers (“because,” “of his own,” “is”) to show that the devil’s lying is not a matter of free choice but of nature. Since there is no truth in him, when he speaks, he inevitably lies. His will is bound to his nature, not free to choose otherwise. <- This is why I didn't know what you meant by free will here --> "So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will."

The context of James 1:14, is emphasizing that we are tempted by the lusts of our flesh not God, just like elsewhere scripture is speaking about the carnal will.. He is not saying the capacity to resist a desire to sin and act righteously come from human autonomy. He's saying they come from faith. ->James 1:8-9, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.

God enables both will and action
Philippians 2:13 — “For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good pleasure.”
God provides the way of escape
1 Corinthians 10:13 — “God is faithful… when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
God circumcises the heart
Deuteronomy 30:6 — “The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts… so that you may love him.”
God’s Spirit opposes the flesh
Galatians 5:17 — “The flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit… so that you are not free to do whatever you want.”

CoreyD · Nov 19, 2025

childeye 2 said:
Because I'm responding to your definition of free will here --> CoreyD said: "Free will allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or to choose one course or the other... whether sinful - that is, prone to sin, or not."

I didn't understand you clearly at first.

You said:
I note that the statement that the free will you are describing allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, or with sinful desires

The "or with sinful desires" part was confusing.
So, you note that free will as I described, allows one to choose to go against sinful desires, despite having sinful desires.
Good., because that is free will as described in the Bible.
The question is, do you accept it?

childeye 2 said:
It doesn't mean free will, the noun.

There is no free will - the noun.

childeye 2 said:
Carnal minded is an adjective describing a type of will, <- will here is a noun. Are you saying the carnal will is a free will?

Carnal minded is an adjective describing a type of will?
Can you substantiate that with some kind of reference, because it sounds like something you came up with.

In response to the question "Is Carnal minded is an adjective describing a type of will?", AI responds this way...

To be carnally minded is not an adjective describing a type of will, but rather an adjective describing a state of mind or a mindset that is focused on fleshly, worldly, and selfish desires, which is contrary to God's will. The term "carnally minded" refers to having a mind governed by the flesh, which is characterized by selfishness, self-will, and a lack of submission to God's law. This mindset is described as being in enmity against God and incapable of submitting to His law. While the carnal mind influences decision-making and behavior, it is not a direct description of the will itself but rather a condition of the mind that opposes spiritual things and leads to death, in contrast to the spiritually minded, which leads to life and peace.

This harmonizes with the scriptures, which says...
Romans 8:1-13

1 Therefore there is now no condemnation at all for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [i]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, [j]weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of [k]sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk [l]according to the flesh but [m]according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are in accord with the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are in accord with the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind [n]set on the flesh is death, but the mind [o]set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind [p]set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is [q]alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies [r]through His Spirit who dwells in you.

12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you are living in accord with the flesh, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

So, you are describing "a state of mind or a mindset that is focused on fleshly, worldly, and selfish desires", which is one's desires that they act on.... or can choose not to act on, as I described.
Free will allows one to choose not to act on sinful desires, nor have a mindset that is against God's will - setting one's mind on the flesh.
One can choose to set one's mind on the spirit, and keep walking by spirit, or allow oneself to be led by the spirit.

Romans 13:11-14

11 Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now [a]salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let’s rid ourselves of the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let’s [b]behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and debauchery, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

This is a choice you and I have to make.
It is not a built in program that we automatically follow.
These involve action on our part... a doing - willingly; voluntarily; unforced; of one's own accord.... free will.

In case you will make the argument that the spirit dwelling in a person is what makes their will God's, and therefore their will is not free, I have a question for you...
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

childeye 2 said:
I understand that you're talking about a philosophical meaning of free will.

I am not.
This is a scriptural definition.

childeye 2 said:
In the moral/immoral context, I'm talking about the scriptural meaning of a free will -> free from sin -> the positive layer of the neutral philosophical free will you're talking about. In reality the free will you're talking about isn't a will at all; it's the circumstance of choosing between one's own carnal will and God's will.

No, you are not describing any scriptural meaning of a free will, at all.

childeye 2 said:
Will means desire in scripture. Our own will is descriptive of our own way according to our own desire, a noun. I quoted Isaiah 53:6 to express what I mean by our own way and further qualified it as NOT God's Way. It's right here -> All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Our own way is our own will because we willed to go our own way.

theló: To will, to wish, to desire, to intend
Free will, is not a desire with free preceding it. Nor is it a will with free preceding it.

childeye 2 said:
I understand that Jesus is talking about Satan's Character. On that we agree. His character is described as lusting, a murderer, and a liar not abiding in truth. Hence those descriptions show his own character/will/desire.

We all build character.
What we become is based on what we desire, and act on.
We can choose to become haughty, or we can choose to become humble.
It all depends on what we choose to do.

What a person is on the inside is not that person's desire.
How can James 1:13-15 be applied if one's character is the same as one's desire?

Are you making these up as you go along, so as to contradict what is said?
What reference can you provide to support your words formation character/will/desire?

childeye 2 said:
The acting on one's own will, is free will? Before you said freedom to choose was a free will. That's two distinct meanings.
Freedom to choose -> Here “free will” = the ability to make a decision between alternatives. <- That’s about choice.
Acting on one’s own will -> Here “free will” = following one’s own desire without interference. <- That’s about desire.

Have you ever heard of the equivocation fallacy? Because the terms will and free keep morphing, and we end up reasoning upon an equivocation. I expect you to next claim the opposite -> NOT acting on one's own will/desire, is free will.

Yes. Being tired of explaining something that has been explained, and finding that the basis explanation is being misapplied, can cause this.
I'll be sure to say no more than I have said, once it's as simple as possible... starting now.

childeye 2 · Nov 19, 2025

CoreyD said:
Would you say one's conscience gives them subjective knowledge?

I'd say conscience reflects beliefs. What about addressing my question?

CoreyD said:
How does one gain objective knowledge?

They learn it. Objective knowledge is dictated by reality. <-facts.

CoreyD said:
What we think isn't relevant.
Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not.
That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled.
When someone is not misled into doing something wrong, but they do it, is it deliberate - done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional, and willful - done in a manner which was intended?

What we think matters, because it matters what we believe, because we reason upon what we believe to be true, because if we reason upon something false as true our reasoning ends in a contradiction.

"Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not". <- Look at the context, Paul is making a contrast between the man and the woman with the intention of making the case for why the man should have the greater authority.

"That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled". <-This is inaccurate because (1) it's out of context. (2) Paul did not say Adam made a deliberate choice to do wrong.

Only one of these statements is logical:
(1) The person who distrusts the almighty should have authority.
(2) The person who trusts the almighty should have authority.

What the Text Actually Says

Greek syntax: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.”
The verb ἠπατήθη (“was deceived”) is simply negated for Adam. It does NOT ADD “therefore Adam sinned deliberately.”
Paul’s statement is descriptive of Genesis: the serpent spoke with Eve, not Adam. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.
Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say “Adam sinned deliberately.” That is an interpretive inference, not a textual statement.
If Paul meant Adam’s sin was deliberate, then the logic collapses:
- The one who deliberately distrusted God would be more culpable, not less.
- Authority cannot be grounded in deliberate rebellion. Even a child could see that the one who knowingly disobeys God is less fit for authority than the one misled.

CoreyD said:
The choice to do what is wrong without being misled
Choosing to do what is wrong while fully aware of its moral implications—knowing it is wrong and still proceeding—is a deliberate act of moral failure. This choice is often described as a conscious violation of one's own ethical standards or principles, and it reflects a decision made despite knowing the correct course of action. In ethical frameworks, such a decision may be analyzed through the lens of consequences, rules, or character. For instance, someone might refrain from lying because they believe it leads to bad outcomes , or because they follow a rule that demands honesty , or because they identify as an honest person. Choosing to act wrongly in spite of these considerations indicates a prioritization of personal interest, emotion, or bias over moral duty.

The decision to do wrong is not merely a mistake or a lapse in judgment; it is a choice made with full knowledge of the right alternative. This awareness can intensify the moral weight of the action, as it involves a willful disregard for truth, fairness, or the well-being of others.

It is wrong to presume Adam and Eve knew what a lie is; It's logical to assume that without any knowledge of good and evil they only knew how to trust.

CoreyD said:
Can you provide a reference where some theologians take this out of context.

With the stipulation that when I say, "TEND to take it out of context", I mean some theologians tend to interpret that Paul is inferring that Adam was not misled and subsequently disobeyed of his own initiative; and that interpretation ends in the contradiction of reasoning.<- This would be in contrast to believing Paul is inferring that the man shouldn't be taught by the woman because the man was persuaded by the woman and was misled by the woman. <-- This reasoning does not end in a contradiction of reasoning. To be clear the contradiction is that the one who knowingly distrusts God should be in authority.

Taken out of context: Ellicott: "The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived". Ellicott

Here is one taken in context: Chrysostom: "For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband?" (Genesis 3:16.) This had not been said to her before".

"But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me." But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as "not deceived." For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he "saw the tree was good for food," but of the woman, and that she "did eat, and gave it to her husband": so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this?" Chrysostom

CoreyD said:
Tricked into disobeying God?

We can use the term deceived, or beguiled, or deluded.

CoreyD said:
How was Eve tricked?

(1) The serpent questions God’s command -> “Did God really say…?”
(2) The serpent introduced a doubt to the innocent->The serpent casts suspicion on God’s word, making Eve question whether she understood correctly.
(3) The serpent gives a false assurance -> The serpent assures her she will not die, directly contradicting God’s warning.
(4) The serpent tempts her with gain -> The serpent says she will gain wisdom and godlike knowledge if she eats.

Eve had probably never felt doubt before. I think the serpent introduced doubt into her experience for the first time, and that’s how she was deceived.

CoreyD said:
Probably?
Remarkable? Why... because you think something you believe is probably true?

Probably because it's probable. Remarkable because one would think it would be corroborated somewhere else in scripture if Adam had not been misled by his wife.

CoreyD said:
Could have?
Let's be clear... If you think you are not speculating, please check the dictionary for the word speculate.
Then let's end this conversation, if speculation is all you think we have to go on, because it's no use using the scriptures if nothing can be established from them.

I've already stated that it's speculation. The fact that one interpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning however is not speculative. And that happens to be the speculation in the OP.

CoreyD said:
Possible?
Assuming?
Might have?
Okay, moving on.

Are you ignoring other possibilities that conflict with your interpretation?

CoreyD said:
You just said

Then you, in the same breath, turn around and say

"Such a will" is a noun, which I don't see mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6
Unless you are referring to "sinning willfully" mentioned in Hebrews 10:26, which is describing having the ability to willingly sin or not - that is choosing of one's own accord, or one's own free will, either to refrain from practicing sin, or practicing sin... is actually free will.

It's not describing a will. It's not a noun. It's describing a voluntary action, which is exactly an adjective. Which is exactly what I started with.
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).

If a person can refrain from sinning willfully or give into sinning willfully - one or the other, that person has free will.
Why do you not accept that?

The point is that the Op is using a secular humanist philosophical meaning of 'free will' -> a noun. In scripture, we never find 'free will' as a noun -> a thing humans possess. What we find are adverbs like ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily,’ describing how an action is done. To import the secular noun ‘free will’ into the Bible is to add a concept that isn’t there.”

Clare73 · Nov 19, 2025

childeye 2 said:
I'd say conscience reflects beliefs. What about addressing my question?
They learn it. Objective knowledge is dictated by reality. <-facts.
What we think matters, because it matters what we believe, because we reason upon what we believe to be true, because if we reason upon something false as true our reasoning ends in a contradiction.

"Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not". <- Look at the context, Paul is making a contrast between the man and the woman with the intention of making the case for why the man should have the greater authority.
"That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled". <-This is inaccurate because (1) it's out of context. (2) Paul did not say Adam made a deliberate choice to do wrong.

That is precisely what Paul states:

Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14).
Adam chose to sin with her.

Only one of these statements is logical:
(1) The person who distrusts the almighty should have authority.
(2) The person who trusts the almighty should have authority.

What the Text Actually Says

Greek syntax: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.”

The verb ἠπατήθη (“was deceived”) is simply negated for Adam. It does NOT ADD “therefore Adam sinned deliberately.”

Paul’s statement is descriptive of Genesis: the serpent spoke with Eve, not Adam. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.

Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say “Adam sinned deliberately.” That is an interpretive inference, not a textual statement.

If Paul meant Adam’s sin was deliberate, then the logic collapses:

The one who deliberately distrusted God would be more culpable, not less.

Authority cannot be grounded in deliberate rebellion. Even a child could see that the one who knowingly disobeys God is less fit for authority than the one misled.

It is wrong to presume Adam and Eve knew what a lie is; It's logical to assume that without any knowledge of good and evil they only knew how to trust.

With the stipulation that when I say, "TEND to take it out of context", I mean some theologians tend to interpret that Paul is inferring that Adam was not misled and subsequently disobeyed of his own initiative; and that interpretation ends in the contradiction of reasoning.<- This would be in contrast to believing Paul is inferring that the man shouldn't be taught by the woman because the man was persuaded by the woman and was misled by the woman. <-- This reasoning does not end in a contradiction of reasoning. To be clear the contradiction is that the one who knowingly distrusts God should be in authority.

Taken out of context: Ellicott: "The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived". Ellicott

Here is one taken in context: Chrysostom: "For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband?" (Genesis 3:16.) This had not been said to her before".

"But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me." But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as "not deceived." For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he "saw the tree was good for food," but of the woman, and that she "did eat, and gave it to her husband": so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this?" Chrysostom

We can use the term deceived, or beguiled, or deluded.

(1) The serpent questions God’s command -> “Did God really say…?”
(2) The serpent introduced a doubt to the innocent->The serpent casts suspicion on God’s word, making Eve question whether she understood correctly.
(3) The serpent gives a false assurance -> The serpent assures her she will not die, directly contradicting God’s warning.
(4) The serpent tempts her with gain -> The serpent says she will gain wisdom and godlike knowledge if she eats.
Eve had probably never felt doubt before. I think the serpent introduced doubt into her experience for the first time, and that’s how she was deceived.
Probably because it's probable. Remarkable because one would think it would be corroborated somewhere else in scripture if Adam had not been misled by his wife.
I've already stated that it's speculation. The fact that one interpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning however is not speculative. And that happens to be the speculation in the OP.

Are you ignoring other possibilities that conflict with your interpretation?

“In scripture, we never find ‘free will’ as a noun -> a thing humans possess. What we find are adverbs like ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily,’ describing how an action is done. To import the secular noun ‘free will’ into the Bible is to add a concept that isn’t there.”

CoreyD · Nov 19, 2025

childeye 2 said:
I'd say conscience reflects beliefs. What about addressing my question?

What question is that?

childeye 2 said:
They learn it. Objective knowledge is dictated by reality. <-facts.

What we think matters, because it matters what we believe, because we reason upon what we believe to be true, because if we reason upon something false as true our reasoning ends in a contradiction.

"Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not". <- Look at the context, Paul is making a contrast between the man and the woman with the intention of making the case for why the man should have the greater authority.

"That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled". <-This is inaccurate because (1) it's out of context. (2) Paul did not say Adam made a deliberate choice to do wrong.

Only one of these statements is logical:
(1) The person who distrusts the almighty should have authority.
(2) The person who trusts the almighty should have authority.

What the Text Actually Says

Greek syntax: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.”

The verb ἠπατήθη (“was deceived”) is simply negated for Adam. It does NOT ADD “therefore Adam sinned deliberately.”

Paul’s statement is descriptive of Genesis: the serpent spoke with Eve, not Adam. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.

Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say “Adam sinned deliberately.” That is an interpretive inference, not a textual statement.

If Paul meant Adam’s sin was deliberate, then the logic collapses:

The one who deliberately distrusted God would be more culpable, not less.

Authority cannot be grounded in deliberate rebellion. Even a child could see that the one who knowingly disobeys God is less fit for authority than the one misled.

It is wrong to presume Adam and Eve knew what a lie is; It's logical to assume that without any knowledge of good and evil they only knew how to trust.

With the stipulation that when I say, "TEND to take it out of context", I mean some theologians tend to interpret that Paul is inferring that Adam was not misled and subsequently disobeyed of his own initiative; and that interpretation ends in the contradiction of reasoning.<- This would be in contrast to believing Paul is inferring that the man shouldn't be taught by the woman because the man was persuaded by the woman and was misled by the woman. <-- This reasoning does not end in a contradiction of reasoning. To be clear the contradiction is that the one who knowingly distrusts God should be in authority.

Taken out of context: Ellicott: "The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived". Ellicott

Here is one taken in context: Chrysostom: "For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband?" (Genesis 3:16.) This had not been said to her before".

"But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me." But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as "not deceived." For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he "saw the tree was good for food," but of the woman, and that she "did eat, and gave it to her husband": so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this?" Chrysostom

We can use the term deceived, or beguiled, or deluded.

(1) The serpent questions God’s command -> “Did God really say…?”
(2) The serpent introduced a doubt to the innocent->The serpent casts suspicion on God’s word, making Eve question whether she understood correctly.
(3) The serpent gives a false assurance -> The serpent assures her she will not die, directly contradicting God’s warning.
(4) The serpent tempts her with gain -> The serpent says she will gain wisdom and godlike knowledge if she eats.

Eve had probably never felt doubt before. I think the serpent introduced doubt into her experience for the first time, and that’s how she was deceived.

Probably because it's probable. Remarkable because one would think it would be corroborated somewhere else in scripture if Adam had not been misled by his wife.

I've already stated that it's speculation. The fact that one interpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning however is not speculative. And that happens to be the speculation in the OP.

childeye 2 said:
Are you ignoring other possibilities that conflict with your interpretation?

What's my interpretation?

childeye 2 said:
The point is that the Op is using a secular humanist philosophical meaning of 'free will' -> a noun. In scripture, we never find 'free will' as a noun -> a thing humans possess. What we find are adverbs like ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily,’ describing how an action is done. To import the secular noun ‘free will’ into the Bible is to add a concept that isn’t there.”

Where does the OP use free will as a noun?

childeye 2 · Nov 19, 2025

Clare73 said:
That is precisely what Paul states:

Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14).
Adam chose to sin with her.

Doesn't mean they were not misled in their innocence knowing nothing about sin.

RDKirk · Nov 19, 2025

CoreyD said:
Did God create his intelligent children with free will?
Though many whether religious or non religious claim not, and argue against this, the answer is clearly yes.

What is the proof?
There are a number of scriptures, but let's start with John 8:44

Starting with God's heavenly children - the spirit creation, called angels, the Bible says of the one called Devil and Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
The disciple James uses this term in this way...

James 1:14

Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
Jesus further states in the same verse, John 8:44... "your will is to do your father’s desires".
Humans too, have their own will, which is in opposition to the father.

Can sin be blamed for the will of intelligent creatures?
Jesus said, the one called Devil and Satan, "was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him".
So, no, this was a deliberate opposing of the truth. Hence, the name Satan.

It's also important to note that this angel .... in fact all of the angels... none are born in sin and shaped in iniquity.
So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will. Nor can it be claimed that they have to give in to wrong desires.
The angels make their own decisions to do what the want. Genesis 6:2
Proof that the angels - God's heavenly children, do have free will.

Regarding humans, the same apply.
In saying that their will is to do Satan's desire, what was Jesus pointing out? They were acting on their own will. Not anyone else's.
That humans have free will is made clear in other scriptures.

1 Timothy 2:14

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.
The verse says, Eve became a sinner, only after acting on her desire.
Adam and Eve were free willed agents... not driven by sin, but making free willed decisions.
Proof that humans... God's earthly children were created with free will.

Did sin somehow cancel out free will.
In the imagination of many, that is the case.
However, the Bible does not say that after sin came into the world through one man, that free will became obsolete.
Rather, the scriptures refer to man's free will, repeatedly.
Leviticus 1:3; 1 Corinthians 9:16-18 Deuteronomy 30:19; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Philemon 1:14

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).

While humans undeniably possess will--the capacity to make intentional choices--we do not possess "free will" in the strict sense, nor does scripture assert or even imply that we do.

True free will requires the ability of one moral agent to make moral choices without coercion, constraints, or consequences imposed by another moral agent. Anything short of that is not "free will," but "volitional agency."

In scripture, God (the ultimate moral agent) establishes both the moral law and the consequences of obedience or disobedience, limiting human choice. Scripture consistently depicts human choice as constrained, conditioned, and accountable to God’s commands. Therefore, humans have volitional agency but not free will, because all moral decisions occur within the framework of divine authority and consequence.

Colo Millz · Nov 19, 2025

The Bible is filled with direct commands and choices, which only make sense if the recipient is capable of selecting between alternatives.

"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life...'

RDKirk · Nov 19, 2025

Colo Millz said:
The Bible is filled with direct commands and choices, which only make sense if the recipient is capable of selecting between alternatives.

"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life...'

True free will requires the ability of one moral agent to make moral choices without coercion, constraints, or consequences imposed by another moral agent. Anything short of that is not "free will," but "volitional agency."

CLEEB · Nov 19, 2025

CoreyD said:
Did God create his intelligent children with free will?
Though many whether religious or non religious claim not, and argue against this, the answer is clearly yes.

What is the proof?
There are a number of scriptures, but let's start with John 8:44

Starting with God's heavenly children - the spirit creation, called angels, the Bible says of the one called Devil and Satan... When he lies, he speaks out of his own character. That is... pertaining to self, or of his own.
The disciple James uses this term in this way...

James 1:14

Jesus thus makes clear that the angel that became Satan the Devil, acts according to his own will, or desire.
Jesus further states in the same verse, John 8:44... "your will is to do your father’s desires".
Humans too, have their own will, which is in opposition to the father.

Can sin be blamed for the will of intelligent creatures?
Jesus said, the one called Devil and Satan, "was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him".
So, no, this was a deliberate opposing of the truth. Hence, the name Satan.

It's also important to note that this angel .... in fact all of the angels... none are born in sin and shaped in iniquity.
So, sin cannot be claimed as a hinderance to free will. Nor can it be claimed that they have to give in to wrong desires.
The angels make their own decisions to do what the want. Genesis 6:2
Proof that the angels - God's heavenly children, do have free will.

Regarding humans, the same apply.
In saying that their will is to do Satan's desire, what was Jesus pointing out? They were acting on their own will. Not anyone else's.
That humans have free will is made clear in other scriptures.

1 Timothy 2:14

The Bible says Adam was not deceived.
Thus Adam acted on his own free will.
The verse says, Eve became a sinner, only after acting on her desire.
Adam and Eve were free willed agents... not driven by sin, but making free willed decisions.
Proof that humans... God's earthly children were created with free will.

Did sin somehow cancel out free will.
In the imagination of many, that is the case.
However, the Bible does not say that after sin came into the world through one man, that free will became obsolete.
Rather, the scriptures refer to man's free will, repeatedly.
Leviticus 1:3; 1 Corinthians 9:16-18 Deuteronomy 30:19; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Philemon 1:14

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 are correct. GOD created Adam and Eve with free will. If HE did not then GOD would be responsible for sin in humanity . Imagine a GOD that condemns humanity for sin that they had no choice in acquiring. To truly love GOD and neighbor must be by free will otherwise it isn’t true love. The will of the unconverted is their own choice but the will of the converted is to yield their will to GOD just as Christ did. Jesus had his own will but it was always in agreement with GODS will. This is our example to follow and GODS spirit is our guide and teacher to will and to do HIS good pleasure. We then are GODS workmanship, GODS work is performed in us as in Christ. Jesus said that his FATHER did the works, provided him with the words he spoke and that his doctrine was not his own but of the ONE who sent him. We are to be transformed into the image of Jesus who is to live in us , our hope of glory. Everything is to the glory of the ALMIGHTY GOD.

The Reality of Free Will

He’s a Way of life

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Core Definitions​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

What the Text Actually Says​

Blood-bought

What the Text Actually Says​

Well-Known Member

What the Text Actually Says​

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Active Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Core Definitions

What the Text Actually Says

What the Text Actually Says

What the Text Actually Says