Was Adam Imparted Free Will From The Beginning Of Creation?

[Gilligan]

I like your answer, what about the Aorist point?

1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Aorist is a beginning, that is not ending. There is no break, which to me is implied by initial beginning, as though it is changed at some point. Maybe I'm just being picky.

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Moreover: Rom_8:28, Rom_1:6, Rom_9:23-24; Isa_41:9; 1Co_1:2, 1Co_1:9; Eph_4:4; Heb_9:15; 1Pe_2:9; 2Pe_1:10; Rev_17:14, Rev_19:9

he called: Rom_3:22-26; 1Co_6:11; Tit_3:4-7

he justified: Rom_8:1, Rom_8:17-18, Rom_8:33-35, Rom_5:8-10; Joh_5:24, Joh_6:39-40, Joh_17:22, Joh_17:24; 2Co_4:17; Eph_2:6; Col_3:4; 1Th_2:12; 2Th_1:10-12, 2Th_2:13-14; 2Ti_2:11; Heb_9:15; 1Pe_3:9, 1Pe_4:13-14, 1Pe_5:10

He that called and justified, is He that still calls and justifies the same.

The only time 'was saved', and 'was justified' applies, is when faith is cast aside, and we return to the corruption and lust we were delivered from:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

 

[Johann]

Aorist is a beginning, that is not ending. There is no break, which to me is implied by initial beginning, as though it is changed at some point. Maybe I'm just being picky.


He that called and justified, is He that still calls and justifies the same.

The only time 'was saved', and 'was justified' applies, is when faith is cast aside, and we return to the corruption and lust we were delivered from:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Shalom to you and family, I hope you stay.
J.

 

[Gilligan]

Shalom to you and family, I hope you stay.
J.

I do agree with your quiet passive teaching in one way. I call it the quiet times, when I rid myself of any thoughts and voices in the mind, so that I can be still and know that the Lord is God. Meditators practise it without the Lord, and some just clear their minds to find solutions. Bit with the Lord it is being still and quiet before the Lord, for the sake of peace with a mind stayed on Him, rather than the usual things of this life. At those times, He can speak and let us know what His will is for our day and life.

I would apply it to our sanctification by ensuring we don't allow the devil's fiery darts to invade our minds and hearts, so that we remain clean and quiet before the Lord.

I used to be a Christian that allowed lust, envy, and vain imagination to be entertained in my mind from time to time, so long as I didn't do it. One day God's command to stop that came, and do the word that says to cast them down at Jesus' feet. It took all the grace, power, and love of Christ to begin doing so, but in due time it became easy and light and spiritually natural. There is no peace to them entertaining filthy, corrupt, and wicked thoughts. That's where the war is fought and won. That's how we resist the devil and he flees from whispering his bitter nothings into our ears. That is what Jesus did from His youth up, and even on the cross, when he the devil told and tempted Him to revile them that were reviling Him.

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously. (1 Peter 2)

So we do have power of God to do our part, and thrust aside the devil and his corrupt thinking each and every time he tries it. And I thank God I can every time he does. If we're not thinking on sinning, we won't be sinning.

 

[Kermos]

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

The argument though collapses at the outset. The commandment is not just in the day you eat thereof, but is first to eat freely, and then to not eat of the other.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:16-17)

If the commandment is prophecy that shall come to pass, then the man would have eaten freely of those, and never eaten of that one.

So, any sure word of prophecy in the commandment could only be the certain death to come.

And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do.

God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33)

"God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey". Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God."

This is circular and proves nothing. The same argument can be made for the opposite:

God did not say "you do not have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you do not have the ability to choose to obey." And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God.

The fact is that man is made in God's image, and is not a beast of the field that obeys God's commandment without thought or reason or will of their own.

Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field.

You covered so many bases, that the response must be spread over several posts. Each post will at least start with your first paragraph, but this post quotes your post in full.

Let's start where you wrote "God did not say 'you do not have the ability to obey' nor did God say 'you do not have the ability to choose to obey.' And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God."

You covered the perspective of that which "you do not have".

Since based upon your accurate predicate of "God did not say 'you do not have the ability to obey' nor did God say 'you do not have the ability to choose to obey", then the next truthfully requisite logic predicate is to specifically ascertain the only other possible perspective of "you do have".

Now, we know that "God did not say 'you do not have the ability to obey' nor did God say 'you do not have the ability to choose to obey'" just as you wrote, so the next requisite predicate is "God did not say in God's command to Adam 'you do have the ability to obey' nor did God say 'you do have the ability to choose to obey'".

And now, and only now, after exhausting the possibilities for the deductive reasoning logic, is it possible to draw a logically and Spiritually accurate conclusion which is "God did not explicitly impart Adam with the ability to freewill choose toward God".

You prematurely drew your conclusion of "And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God" because you failed to circumspectually cover the full range of potentialities with respect to the logic statement.

As is plainly visible, your predicate of "God did not say 'you do not have the ability to obey' nor did God say 'you do not have the ability to choose to obey" is inconsequential to the conclusion, so it may optionally be left out of the logic statement.

Let there be no mistake, your conclusion is based on an incomplete deductive reasoning logic statement which results in an overall faulty predicate, so your conclusion is proven to be false.

Post 1 of 6: proper logic statement construction results in the logically and Spiritually accurate conclusion that "God did not explicitly impart Adam with the ability to freewill choose toward God".

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

Since you wrote "The argument though collapses at the outset. The commandment is not just in the day you eat thereof, but is first to eat freely, and then to not eat of the other", then it is prudent to verify whether the word "freely" occurs in the source language of Hebrew.

The Meaning Of The Hebrew Words אכל(akal)/"eat" and מות(muth)/"die"in Genesis 2:16-17

In reality, the word "freely" does not appear in the Hebrew of the Genesis 2:16-17 passage. The Hebrew source word for "freely" is truly "to eat" in English for Genesis 2:16.

Also, the word "may" does not appear in the Hebrew of the passage. The Hebrew source word for "may" is truly "you will be eating" in English for Genesis 2:16.

The word "surely" can surely lead to misinterpretation of the passage since the Hebrew source word for "surely" is truly "to die" in English for Genesis 2:17.

First, we need to look at the passage, so here is Genesis 2:16 from three different angles: New American Standard Bible, Hebrew Bible, and Interlinear.

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may freely eat;" (Genesis 2:16, NASB)
ויצו יהוה אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכל תאכל
(Genesis 2:16, Hebrew Bible, historians say accent marks for vowels did not appear in early Hebrew script)
and-commanded YHVH God unto the-man saying of-every tree of-the-garden to-eat you-eating (Genesis 2:16, Interlinear word(s) for word(s) translation of English from Hebrew)
​

Now, here is Genesis 2:17 from three different angles of NASB, Hebrew Bible, and Interlinear.

"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17, NASB)
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
(Genesis 2:17, Hebrew Bible, historians say accent marks for vowels did not appear in early Hebrew script)
but-of-the-tree of-the-knowledge of-good and-evil not you-eating from when in-the-day you-to-eat of-it to-die you-dying (Genesis 2:17, Interlinear word(s) for word(s) translation of English from Hebrew)
​

Second, we need to look at the lexical construction.
The final two words of both verses follow similar patterns. The final two words are verbs. The final two words have the same root word. The first word is the Qal (Strong's 7031 - light, swift, fleet) infinitive absolute verb form (to be). The second word is the qal (Strong's 7031 - light, swift, fleet) imperfect second person masculine singular verb form (incomplete action thus present tense applies and past tense can be included and future tense can apply).

In Hebrew grammar, the qal is the simple paradigm and simplest stem formation of the verb.

The word roots are easily distinguishable when carefully examined.

Here are the final two Hebrew words of Genesis 2:16, אכל תאכל, notice the consistent word root. Both of these words are Strong's 398 - eat.

Here are the final two Hebrew words of Genesis 2:17, מות תמות, notice the consistent word root. Both of these words are Strong's 4191 - die.

The sixth word of Genesis 2:17 is תאכל which is precisely the same word that appears as the second of the two last words at the end of the Genesis 2:16, so we have a point of reference for this word.

Notice that the Hebrew word אכל (Strong's 398 - eat) in Genesis 2:16 is not the Hebrew word חפשי (Strong's 2670 - free).

Third, it is prudent to mention that the Masoretes added the vowel accents into the Hebrew written manuscripts. The Masoretes were a sect of Jews that lived after Jesus ascended to heaven. We have earlier copies of Hebrew manuscripts that contain consonants only, so the Hebrew consonant only script is what I use here in this essay. I use the consonant only script because it more closely represents the original Hebrew writing.

Fourth, it's time to apply proper translation.

In Genesis 2:16, the final two words "אכל תאכל" (to-eat you-eating) are of significant relevance to this topic since both of these words are of the root "eat".

The first of the two words "אכל" (Strongs 398 - eat) is the infinitive verb form thus it translates to English as "to-eat"; however, some English translations use the word "freely", yet "freely" is an inappropriate translation of "eat" because the word is not the Hebrew word for "free" while it is the Hebrew word for "eat".

The second of the two words "תאכל" (Strongs 398 - eat) is the imperfect verb form thus it translates to English as "you-eating".

These two words essentially result in the first part of the command being "of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating" thus liberty of action without punishment is expressed. Also, instead of the permissive of "may" as part of the "eat" verb, it is appropriate for "will" to be part of the "eat" verb; in other words, "may eat" is the wrong translation., and "will eat" is the correct translation.

In Genesis 2:17, the final two words "מות תמות" (to-die you-dying) are of significant relevance to this topic since both of these words are of the root "die".

The first of the two words "מות" (Strongs 4191 - die) is the infinitive verb form thus it translates to English as "to-die"; however, some English translations use the word "surely", yet "surely" is an inappropriate translation of "die".

The second of the two words "תמות" (Strongs 4191 - die) is the imperfect verb form thus it translates to English as "you-dying".

These two words essentially cause the end of the command to say "day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying" thus the punishment is expressed.

continued to post 1,486

 

[Kermos]

continued from post 1,485

Fifth, conclusions based on the above.

Since some people say proper translation of "to eat" and "to die" depend on the Hebrew language construct, so then there should be no problem switching "freely" to "surely" in Genesis 2:16; furthermore, there should be no problem switching "surely" to "freely" in Genesis 2:17; however, switching or keeping "freely" and/or "surely" causes confusion, yet God is not of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33).

After all, "to-eat" followed by "you-will-be-eating" and "to-die" followed by "you-will-be-dying" have the same language construct of "qal infinitive absolute verb form" (to eat/to die) followed by "qal imperfect second person masculine singular verb form" (you-will-be-eating/you-will-be-dying).

The current English translation of "to eat" to "freely" is arbitrary in Genesis 2:16.

As it stands in the English translations, the translation of "to die" to "surely" is arbitrary in Genesis 2:17.

If one says that the vowel marks dictate the language construct, then such a one relies on the Masoretic Manuscript edits that the Masoretes added nearly 2,000 years after the original manuscripts, so that is arbitrary and capricous in Genesis 2:16-17.

The bottom line is that "to eat" must be translated "to eat", and "to die" must be translated "to die".

The word "freely" in the English translations of Genesis 2:16 should not be used because the underlying Hebrew word truly means "to eat".

The word "surely" in the English translations of Genesis 2:17 should not be used because the underlying Hebrew word truly means "to die".

The word "may" in the English translations of Genesis 2:16 improperly represents the underlying Hebrew; rather, the word "will" (verb future tense) is appropriate based on the underlying Hebrew word.

Genesis 2:16-17 contains a command, the word "command" in Genesis 2:16 is singular, not plural, but singular, so all of the Word of God recorded in Genesis 2:16-17 is a single command. The word "may" in Genesis 2:16 used in the English translations linguistically reduces the command to a request because the option of eating from none of the trees would be valid with the word "may"; however, with the word "will" (verb future tense) then the Integrity of a command linguistically remains intact.

For the sake of consistency, if we apply the word "may" into the last of the final two words of Genesis 2:17, just as the English translators did in Genesis 2:16, then it becomes err apparent that the word "may" fails in that position for both verses. The result for Genesis 2:17 would be essentially "day you are to eat of it to die you may be dying" thus a potential punishment is expressed, so this is ambiguous. God is precise, so ambiguous does not work.

This demonstrates that the verbs used by God to construct the final two words of Genesis 2:16 and Genesis 2:17 do not contain the word "may".

For Genesis 2:16-17 to be true to form, conjugates of "eat" must be used for each of the final two words in Genesis 2:16, and conjugates of "die" must be used for each of the final two words in Genesis 2:17.

Proper Translastion Based On The Hebrew​

First, Genesis 2:16:

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating"
​

Second, please see this essay's "The Meaning Of The Hebrew Word כִּ֗י(ki)/'for'/'when' in Genesis 2:17 Comparison With Other Portions of Scripture" section explaining the usage of the grammatically accurate word "when".
Third, Genesis 2:17:

"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"
​

Fourth, properly bringing the two verses cohesively together to illuminate the entire command Genesis 2:16-17:

and commanded YHWH God to the man, saying "Of every tree in the garden to eat you will be eating, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not eating from, when in the day you are to eat of it to die you will be dying"
​

The prophecy by God embedded in the command is that Adam would disobey the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

This means that Adam's sin was a known quantity as a part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world - just as the original post shows.

Post 2 of 6: God prophesied that Adam would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

The argument though collapses at the outset. The commandment is not just in the day you eat thereof, but is first to eat freely, and then to not eat of the other.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:16-17)

If the commandment is prophecy that shall come to pass, then the man would have eaten freely of those, and never eaten of that one.

So, any sure word of prophecy in the commandment could only be the certain death to come.

And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do.

God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33)

"God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey". Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God."

This is circular and proves nothing. The same argument can be made for the opposite:

God did not say "you do not have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you do not have the ability to choose to obey." And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God.

The fact is that man is made in God's image, and is not a beast of the field that obeys God's commandment without thought or reason or will of their own.

Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field.

You wrote "And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do".

First, man has a will.

Second, Adam named the animals before eating of the tree forbidden as food, so you missed the point there.

Third, the Apostle wrote that Adam's will was not involved with his eating of the tree forbidden as food, and the balance of this post is dedicated to his writings.

Man's "Will" In Scripture Related To The Creation Account

Despite the Creation account in Genesis 1-3 being silent about man's "will", there exists Apostolic teaching on the matter of man's "will" with regard to the creation account.

Adam did not exercise willpower to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) for Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, NASB); therefore, Adam did not make a choice, not a willing choice, to eat.

A "choice" by Adam is explicitly excluded by using scripture with scripture referencing, in fact, "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, KJV), so Adam acted not willingly but rather acted subject to vanity in his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"Not willingly" indicates "not choice".

Some people may claim that Paul was referring to a timeframe exclusively after what they call "the fall" (after Adam ate of the tree [Genesis 3:6]), but the continuity of the passage of Romans 8:20-22 must be taken as a whole for truthful context.

Paul left no room for disputing to the timeframe for which "not willingly" applies, for Paul also wrote "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22), and the phrase "until now" is the timeframe's most recent limiting factor which memes that all times prior to "now" are included, so "the whole creation" includes the moment after God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) until Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6); therefore, we can be certain that Paul includes the timeframe that Adam ate of the tree in the travailing/groaning because Paul wrote of all of this in the same passage, i.e. Romans 8:20-22.

Presenting an event driven review of Paul's writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:20-22) and the creation account and more recorded in Genesis:

• See "until now" (Romans 8:22) indicates all time prior to the Apostle Paul for he wrote "the whole creation" (Romans 8:22), as in "the whole creation" "until now".
• See the serpent was in the garden tempting Eve (Genesis 3:1-5) before Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6).
• See "subjected to futility" (Romans 8:20) as the serpent's futility of lying to Eve with "You surely will not die" (Genesis 3:4) - before Adam or Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), yet Adam and Eve died (Genesis 5:5, Genesis 7:21 none of mankind, besides the 8 [Genesis 7:7 and 1 Peter 3:20], survived the flood, so Eve had to be dead).
• See "not willingly" (Romans 8:20) applies to Adam eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6) for the Word of God specifically attributed the cause of Adam eating of the tree as "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'" (Genesis 3:17), so here God reveals for Adam the cause (listen to wife) and the effect (eat of tree); therefore, eating of the tree was "not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

Paul includes the "not willingly" (Romans 8:20-22) to apply to the time that Adam ate of the tree (Genesis 3:6).

When you followed up with "God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die" - and that's not just what God would have said - that is what God conveyed.

This means that Adam's sin was not a free-will choice as a part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world - just as the original post shows.

Post 3 of 6: the Apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Romans 8:20-22).

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

You wrote "Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field." as your concluding paragraph.

So, what does the scripture say about Adam knowing good and evil? Let's look:

The timeline of Adam knowing good and evil:

BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEN Adam and Eve knew not good and evil

AFTER Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEN Adam and Eve knew good and evil

FOR the delineation is clarified when God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22)

YET based on the Word of God saying "has become" recorded in Genesis 3:22

THEN Adam did not know good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

SO Adam did not know good and evil when God issued the command "from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die!" (Genesis 2:17)

THEREFORE at the time of eating, Adam listened and followed the last that he heard about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

WHICH Adam heard from Eve

FOR God said "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'" (Genesis 3:17)

SO Adam listened to Eve and Adam ate from the tree prior to knowing good and evil

AND a person does good by obeying God; on the other hand, a person does evil by disobeying God

SO free will choosing of good or choosing of evil is not the context

AND action is the context

SINCE good and evil are not known to Adam prior to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

THEREFORE it follows that Adam was not endowed with the attribute of free will.

Post 4 of 6: Adam did not know what good and evil was when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so free-will choosing of good or evil was outside Adam's purview.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

Returning to where you wrote "Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field." as your concluding paragraph.

The attribute of man being created in the image according to the likeness of God:

WITH a targeted result of logical deductive reasoning leveraging compare and contrast of attributes/facilities

SINCE Adam was made in the image according to the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26)

THEN some persons of the creation (creatures) argue that specific facility was given to Adam

IN particular God willpowering purported "free will" into man, specifically a free will into man in the likeness God's will, during the creation of Adam

THEN Adam could not have used free will to perform evil against God

BECAUSE God will not use willpower in order to perform evil against God's self (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 92:15, Deuteronomy 32:4)

THEREFORE it follows that Man could not use free will in order to perform evil against God

COMPARITIVELY this point's basis conveys that Adam who was made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) could not use an Adam's will created by God inside Adam which is a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will) because God's will won't work against God so then Adams will could not work against God and since Adam disobeyed God, it is with certainty that the attribute of Adam's will was not made a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will).

The logical extension of free will on this basis results in man possessing expanded facilities beyond God's facilities

• God is Creator; on the other hand, man is creature
• Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.
• Scripture does not include the mention of God endowing Adam with free will.
• Man's free will is a precept of man (Matthew 15:9).

Post 5 of 6: Adam's will was not an exact duplicate of God's will because Adam would not have done the evil of disobeying God if it were.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.[/INDENT]

 

[Kermos]

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

The argument though collapses at the outset. The commandment is not just in the day you eat thereof, but is first to eat freely, and then to not eat of the other.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:16-17)

If the commandment is prophecy that shall come to pass, then the man would have eaten freely of those, and never eaten of that one.

So, any sure word of prophecy in the commandment could only be the certain death to come.

And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do.

God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33)

"God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey". Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God."

This is circular and proves nothing. The same argument can be made for the opposite:

God did not say "you do not have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you do not have the ability to choose to obey." And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God.

The fact is that man is made in God's image, and is not a beast of the field that obeys God's commandment without thought or reason or will of their own.

Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field.

As this series of posts shows, you actively misrepresented the Word of God with respect to free-will in the creation account:

• Post 1 of 6: proper logic statement construction results in the logically and Spiritually accurate conclusion that "God did not explicitly impart Adam with the ability to freewill choose toward God".
• Post 2 of 6: God prophesied that Adam would eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
• Post 3 of 6: the Apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Romans 8:20-22).
• Post 4 of 6: Adam did not know what good and evil was when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so free-will choosing of good or evil was outside Adam's purview.
• Post 5 of 6: Adam's will was not an exact duplicate of God's will because Adam would not have done the evil of disobeying God if it were.

Free-willians introduce confusion into the Word of God by adding free-will, so it's no longer the Word of God. You "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6) "for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all assemblies of the saints" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

This is post 6 of 6.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Gilligan]

And now, and only now, after exhausting the possibilities for the deductive reasoning logic, is it possible to draw a logically and Spiritually accurate conclusion which is "God did not explicitly impart Adam with the ability to freewill choose toward God".

Neither did He not explicitly impart Adam with the ability to freewill choose toward God. The point remains the argument is circular and invalid.

You prematurely drew your conclusion of "And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God" because you failed to circumspectually cover the full range of potentialities with respect to the logic statement.

No. The only conclusion I make is that the argument cannot be proven in Gen 2.

You say God never says Adam has free will to obey Him, which is true, and so you conclude he does not. I say God never says Adam does not have free will to obey Him, which is true, and so I conclude he does.

Both the arguments are circular and unprovable, based only on what is not said.

Neither of us can prove the doctrine of free will one way or the other on Gen 2 alone.

Whether man has free will to resist God, that the animals do not have, must be proven or disproven elsewhere in Scripture, that plainly says so.

 

[Johann]

Whether man has free will to resist God, that the animals do not have, must be proven elsewhere in Scripture.

That would be interesting....can you show scriptures that man has the ability to choose/will/free-will, as a believer in Christ?

 

[Gilligan]

You wrote "And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do".

First, man has a will.

The argument is not about animals having will, but about man created in God's image with free will like God.

That free will is spiritual will that belongs to God alone, and to those living beings He gives it to, which are angels and men.

Natural humanism teaches man's will is no different than any other animal on earth, with natural power to do only what comes natural.

It's also used to teach pagan fatalism, which is inserted into Christian theology by Calvin's predestination of fate alone without free will.

Second, Adam named the animals before eating of the tree forbidden as food, so you missed the point there.

The point being Adam did obey freelly, until He freely didn't.

Third, the Apostle wrote that Adam's will was not involved with his eating of the tree forbidden as food, and the balance of this post is dedicated to his writings.

Slippery.

So Adam has will, but his will was not involved in eating? He had no knowledge of what he was doing? He was spoon fed as a baby by Eve?

Teaching man has no will at any time, while doing something with his body, is impossible. The body never acts on it's own, except to die. To say it is the case only while sinning, is the hypocritical teaching of man's flesh now being made with sin in it, so that it's the body's fault not man's.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Souls of men do good or evil with the body, not the body without the spiritual will of man.

Man's "Will" In Scripture Related To The Creation Account

Despite the Creation account in Genesis 1-3 being silent about man's "will", there exists Apostolic teaching on the matter of man's "will" with regard to the creation account.

Adam did not exercise willpower to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) for Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, NASB); therefore, Adam did not make a choice, not a willing choice, to eat.

Now you make false interpretation of what is said, in order to uphold Calvin's predestination.

Paul goes from being spiritually of God in the inner man, to the resurrection of the mortal body. The creature subject to vanity unwillingly is the will of man, but is our physical bodies, that do not have wills of their own.

Once again, this is natural humanism, that denies the spiritual will of the inner man, and we are only flesh and blood creatures on earth like the whales of the sea and bulls of the grass.

Some people may claim that Paul was referring to a timeframe exclusively after what they call "the fall" (after Adam ate of the tree [Genesis 3:6]), but the continuity of the passage of Romans 8:20-22 must be taken as a whole for truthful context.

No, he was referring to the physical body made subject to the vanity of sinners, who can even sin against their own bodies, because the body has no mind nor will of it's own to resist us.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

The inner man is freely given power to resist God, but the body has no such power to resist the inner man, except to die.

Paul includes the "not willingly" (Romans 8:20-22) to apply to the time that Adam ate of the tree (Genesis 3:6).

True Adam's own natural body had no more to say about it, then our own natural bodies today.

When you followed up with "God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die" - and that's not just what God would have said - that is what God conveyed.

Whether assumed He said, or is conveyed by what is not said, it's the same useless argument that cannot prove anything one way or the other.

 

[Gilligan]

IN particular God willpowering purported "free will" into man, specifically a free will into man in the likeness God's will, during the creation of Adam

God does not willpower nor force any man.

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

He gives the gift of free spiritual will, without restraint, that God has Himself.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Once He gives free will, it is given. The only time man's free will ceases is in hell.

THEN Adam could not have used free will to perform evil against God

This is more sophistic than deductive reasoning.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

Adam recieved knowledge of the truth, and sinned wilfully after a season of obeying the truth. Man sinning without will is false.

BECAUSE God will not use willpower in order to perform evil against God's self (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 92:15, Deuteronomy 32:4)

Neither angel nor man is God.

The free will gift of God comes with the freedom to use as we wish, whether for good or evil. It is not God that tempts to evil nor does evil, when man choose to sin against His commandment and transgress His law:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

There is no man without will, but there is sinful man with will against God. Man's own will without God is his own lust against God.

COMPARITIVELY this point's basis conveys that Adam who was made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) could not use an Adam's will created by God inside Adam which is a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will)

This is now becoming theological philosophy, not the obvious sense of the Bible.

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

it is with certainty that the attribute of Adam's will was not made a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will).

Duplicate is men's words of something other than God's image.

The logical extension of free will on this basis results in man possessing expanded facilities beyond God's facilities

True. Man can use the free will given by God to go beyond the will of God:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Man is given power of free will to either be conformed in manner of life to the image of God in Christ Jesus, or to go beyond and make himself his own god without God.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent did not promise something Adam already had, which is free will to choose good or evil. What Lucifer promises is what angels and men cannot have, which is power of will to choose evil and still live forever as gods ourselves.

• 
  
• Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

No, you only refer to the will of natural beasts: a natural will to live and survive physically, but not spiritual will to choose to do good or evil.

That is what it means to say man has no will when doing evil.

 

[Gilligan]

• Scripture does not include the mention of God endowing Adam with free will.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you.

Not only does man have free choice, but God will even give it them over His own will. God let's man have his own way on earth.

• Man's free will is a precept of man (Matthew 15:9).

Which proves our free will: we freely choose what to believe, whether good or evil, and freely do what we believe, whether for good or evil.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Man chooses the doctrine of Christ or that of man, and does and teaches accordingly.

No man does anything without will, because all men do all things according to their will. The body does nothing without man willing it.

Post 5 of 6: Adam's will was not an exact duplicate of God's will because Adam would not have done the evil of disobeying God if it were.

Which shows the error of saying being created in God's will, is a will powered duplication of God.

Man did and does still disobey God willingly, by the freedom of will given in God's image to do so.

 

[Kermos]

Neither did He not explicitly impart Adam with the ability to freewill choose toward God. The point remains the argument is circular and invalid.



No. The only conclusion I make is that the argument cannot be proven in Gen 2.

You say God never says Adam has free will to obey Him, which is true, and so you conclude he does not. I say God never says Adam does not have free will to obey Him, which is true, and so I conclude he does.

Both the arguments are circular and unprovable, based only on what is not said.

Neither of us can prove the doctrine of free will one way or the other on Gen 2 alone.

Whether man has free will to resist God, that the animals do not have, must be proven or disproven elsewhere in Scripture, that plainly says so.

You are gravely mistaken because the Word of God does not say God imparted Adam with a free-will anywhere in Genesis 1 to 5, nor anywhere in Scripture; therefore, Adam was not imparted a free-will.

The concept is the same as the Word of God does not say God imparted Adam with the knowledge of good and evil, the very knowledge that God holds, that knowledge of good and evil was not imparted to Adam as part of Adam being created in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).

You fail to understand how deductive reasoning logic operates. The above does not fall into the category of circular reasoning.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

The argument is not about animals having will, but about man created in God's image with free will like God.

That free will is spiritual will that belongs to God alone, and to those living beings He gives it to, which are angels and men.

Natural humanism teaches man's will is no different than any other animal on earth, with natural power to do only what comes natural.

It's also used to teach pagan fatalism, which is inserted into Christian theology by Calvin's predestination of fate alone without free will.



The point being Adam did obey freelly, until He freely didn't.




Slippery.

So Adam has will, but his will was not involved in eating? He had no knowledge of what he was doing? He was spoon fed as a baby by Eve?

Teaching man has no will at any time, while doing something with his body, is impossible. The body never acts on it's own, except to die. To say it is the case only while sinning, is the hypocritical teaching of man's flesh now being made with sin in it, so that it's the body's fault not man's.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Souls of men do good or evil with the body, not the body without the spiritual will of man.



Now you make false interpretation of what is said, in order to uphold Calvin's predestination.

Paul goes from being spiritually of God in the inner man, to the resurrection of the mortal body. The creature subject to vanity unwillingly is the will of man, but is our physical bodies, that do not have wills of their own.

Once again, this is natural humanism, that denies the spiritual will of the inner man, and we are only flesh and blood creatures on earth like the whales of the sea and bulls of the grass.



No, he was referring to the physical body made subject to the vanity of sinners, who can even sin against their own bodies, because the body has no mind nor will of it's own to resist us.

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

The inner man is freely given power to resist God, but the body has no such power to resist the inner man, except to die.



True Adam's own natural body had no more to say about it, then our own natural bodies today.

Whether assumed He said, or is conveyed by what is not said, it's the same useless argument that cannot prove anything one way or the other.

I didn't write anything about animals having a will. Please read the post again.

For some reason you completely neglected to mention what the Apostle Paul wrote as pointed out in the post. Here is the information for your convenience.

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

The argument though collapses at the outset. The commandment is not just in the day you eat thereof, but is first to eat freely, and then to not eat of the other.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen 2:16-17)

If the commandment is prophecy that shall come to pass, then the man would have eaten freely of those, and never eaten of that one.

So, any sure word of prophecy in the commandment could only be the certain death to come.

And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do.

God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die.

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (1 Cor 14:33)

"God did not say in God's command to Adam "you have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you have the ability to choose to obey". Adam did not have the ability to freewill choose toward God."

This is circular and proves nothing. The same argument can be made for the opposite:

God did not say "you do not have the ability to obey" nor did God say "you do not have the ability to choose to obey." And so Adam did have the ability to freewill choose toward God.

The fact is that man is made in God's image, and is not a beast of the field that obeys God's commandment without thought or reason or will of their own.

Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field.

You wrote "And since man had no say in the matter, then he would have obeyed the prophecy without will, and went straight to the wrong tree to eat of it and die. He would have only been doing without any will of his own, exactly what God prophesied and told Him to do".

First, man has a will.

Second, Adam named the animals before eating of the tree forbidden as food, so you missed the point there.

Third, the Apostle wrote that Adam's will was not involved with his eating of the tree forbidden as food, and the balance of this post is dedicated to his writings.

Man's "Will" In Scripture Related To The Creation Account

Despite the Creation account in Genesis 1-3 being silent about man's "will", there exists Apostolic teaching on the matter of man's "will" with regard to the creation account.

Adam did not exercise willpower to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) for Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, NASB); therefore, Adam did not make a choice, not a willing choice, to eat.

A "choice" by Adam is explicitly excluded by using scripture with scripture referencing, in fact, "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, KJV), so Adam acted not willingly but rather acted subject to vanity in his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"Not willingly" indicates "not choice".

Some people may claim that Paul was referring to a timeframe exclusively after what they call "the fall" (after Adam ate of the tree [Genesis 3:6]), but the continuity of the passage of Romans 8:20-22 must be taken as a whole for truthful context.

Paul left no room for disputing to the timeframe for which "not willingly" applies, for Paul also wrote "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22), and the phrase "until now" is the timeframe's most recent limiting factor which memes that all times prior to "now" are included, so "the whole creation" includes the moment after God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) until Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6); therefore, we can be certain that Paul includes the timeframe that Adam ate of the tree in the travailing/groaning because Paul wrote of all of this in the same passage, i.e. Romans 8:20-22.

Presenting an event driven review of Paul's writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:20-22) and the creation account and more recorded in Genesis:

• See "until now" (Romans 8:22) indicates all time prior to the Apostle Paul for he wrote "the whole creation" (Romans 8:22), as in "the whole creation" "until now".
• See the serpent was in the garden tempting Eve (Genesis 3:1-5) before Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6).
• See "subjected to futility" (Romans 8:20) as the serpent's futility of lying to Eve with "You surely will not die" (Genesis 3:4) - before Adam or Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6), yet Adam and Eve died (Genesis 5:5, Genesis 7:21 none of mankind, besides the 8 [Genesis 7:7 and 1 Peter 3:20], survived the flood, so Eve had to be dead).
• See "not willingly" (Romans 8:20) applies to Adam eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6) for the Word of God specifically attributed the cause of Adam eating of the tree as "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'" (Genesis 3:17), so here God reveals for Adam the cause (listen to wife) and the effect (eat of tree); therefore, eating of the tree was "not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

Paul includes the "not willingly" (Romans 8:20-22) to apply to the time that Adam ate of the tree (Genesis 3:6).

When you followed up with "God would have said thous shalt not, and then said thou shalt and die" - and that's not just what God would have said - that is what God conveyed.

This means that Adam's sin was not a free-will choice as a part of God's Plan of Redemption through the Christ for mankind before the foundation of the world - just as the original post shows.

Post 3 of 6: the Apostle Paul makes it abundantly clear that Adam did not willingly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Romans 8:20-22).

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

God does not willpower nor force any man.

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

He gives the gift of free spiritual will, without restraint, that God has Himself.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Once He gives free will, it is given. The only time man's free will ceases is in hell.

This is more sophistic than deductive reasoning.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

Adam recieved knowledge of the truth, and sinned wilfully after a season of obeying the truth. Man sinning without will is false.


Neither angel nor man is God.

The free will gift of God comes with the freedom to use as we wish, whether for good or evil. It is not God that tempts to evil nor does evil, when man choose to sin against His commandment and transgress His law:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

There is no man without will, but there is sinful man with will against God. Man's own will without God is his own lust against God.


This is now becoming theological philosophy, not the obvious sense of the Bible.

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.





Duplicate is men's words of something other than God's image.


True. Man can use the free will given by God to go beyond the will of God:

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.

Man is given power of free will to either be conformed in manner of life to the image of God in Christ Jesus, or to go beyond and make himself his own god without God.

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent did not promise something Adam already had, which is free will to choose good or evil. What Lucifer promises is what angels and men cannot have, which is power of will to choose evil and still live forever as gods ourselves.

No, you only refer to the will of natural beasts: a natural will to live and survive physically, but not spiritual will to choose to do good or evil.

That is what it means to say man has no will when doing evil.

You keep saying things that are not what God says. No scripture says man has a free-will; on the other hand, the Apostle does mention man's self-will with "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties" (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Man is accountable for his own sin.

None of your words negate the following.

This is an interesting take on the commandment of God being prophecy, that will certainly happen, rather than being evidence of man's ability to obey or disobey the commandment.

Returning to where you wrote "Conclusion: If man was created without free will to choose to do good or evil, then God has no such free will Himself, since all men are created in His image. That is not the case for the beasts of the field." as your concluding paragraph.

The attribute of man being created in the image according to the likeness of God:

WITH a targeted result of logical deductive reasoning leveraging compare and contrast of attributes/facilities

SINCE Adam was made in the image according to the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26)

THEN some persons of the creation (creatures) argue that specific facility was given to Adam

IN particular God willpowering purported "free will" into man, specifically a free will into man in the likeness God's will, during the creation of Adam

THEN Adam could not have used free will to perform evil against God

BECAUSE God will not use willpower in order to perform evil against God's self (Psalm 5:4, Psalm 92:15, Deuteronomy 32:4)

THEREFORE it follows that Man could not use free will in order to perform evil against God

COMPARITIVELY this point's basis conveys that Adam who was made in the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) could not use an Adam's will created by God inside Adam which is a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will) because God's will won't work against God so then Adams will could not work against God and since Adam disobeyed God, it is with certainty that the attribute of Adam's will was not made a duplicate of God's will (likeness of God's will).

The logical extension of free will on this basis results in man possessing expanded facilities beyond God's facilities

• God is Creator; on the other hand, man is creature
• Largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.
• Scripture does not include the mention of God endowing Adam with free will.
• Man's free will is a precept of man (Matthew 15:9).

Post 5 of 6: Adam's will was not an exact duplicate of God's will because Adam would not have done the evil of disobeying God if it were.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you.

Not only does man have free choice, but God will even give it them over His own will. God let's man have his own way on earth.


Which proves our free will: we freely choose what to believe, whether good or evil, and freely do what we believe, whether for good or evil.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Man chooses the doctrine of Christ or that of man, and does and teaches accordingly.

No man does anything without will, because all men do all things according to their will. The body does nothing without man willing it.


Which shows the error of saying being created in God's will, is a will powered duplication of God.

Man did and does still disobey God willingly, by the freedom of will given in God's image to do so.

Look carefully, they never, not once, successfully chose God.

Just as I wrote to you in the post 5 of 6 to which you replied, largely, I use free will to mean man choosing toward God, emphatically Lord Jesus Christ.

1. We Christian's gracious Benefactor produces
   1. divine choice of we beneficiaries unto salvation, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19)
      AND, Paul is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote to the Ephesians "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him in love" (Ephesians 1:3-4)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 state God exclusively chooses us believers by/of/through God
   2. beneficiaries' faith/belief in Lord Jesus, for the Christ of us Christians says (see also a word about belief/faith (Greek πίστις pistis) and believe (Greek πιστεύω pisteuó))
      "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29)
      AND Paul is in accord with Jesus' words for Paul wrote to the Ephesians "by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His work, created in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:8-10)
      AND Peter is in accord with Jesus' words for Peter declared "God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8-9)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 6:29 state for us believers to believe in Jesus whom the Father has sent is exclusively by/of/through God
   3. beneficiaries' fruit of the Spirit/righteous actions/good works, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God" (John 3:21)
      AND Paul is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote to the Philippians "being filled with the fruit of righteousness that [is] by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God" (Philippians 1:11)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 3:21 state fruit in we believers is exclusively by/of/through God
   4. beneficiaries' birth by the Holy Spirit, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:5-8)
      AND Peter is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote to persons residing as aliens "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 3:5-8 state we believers being born again is exclusively by/of/through God
   5. beneficiaries' repent by God's working, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to babes" (Matthew 11:25)
      AND the apostles and elders are in accord with Jesus' words with thier saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18)
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25 state that God exclusively causes man to think differently after an encounter with God (repent means to think differently afterward)
   6. beneficiaries' love by God's working, for the Christ of us Christians says
      "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another" (John 13:34)
      AND John is in accord with Jesus' words for he wrote "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7, see the phrase "love is from God" meaning God is the source of true love)
      AND John expands with his writing of "God is Love, and the one who abides in Love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 John 4:16, see the phrase "one who abides in Love" is equivocated with "one who abides" "in God" which extends from God's exclusivity with "God is Love")
      SO, clearly, Jesus' words in John 13:34 states that the love, true love (John 3:33), the very righteous love, the Godly love within us children of God, this love is exclusively by/of/through God

As a reminder, Post 5 of 6: Adam's will was not an exact duplicate of God's will because Adam would not have done the evil of disobeying God if it were.

Just as the original post shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Gilligan]

That would be interesting....can you show scriptures that man has the ability to choose/will/free-will, as a believer in Christ?

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

The whole argument about free will is absurd; otherwise, all men would do as God says as the animals, without thought.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God.

Or even an angel of God.