Was Adam Imparted Free Will From The Beginning Of Creation?

[Kermos]

@Enoch111 @Taken @Renniks @GISMYS_7 @Backlit @Riverwalker @BARNEY BRIGHT @TLHKAJ @HisLife @Ronald Nolette @post @Wynona @Iconoclast @CharismaticLady @MatthewG @Abaxvahl @BeyondET @RLT63 @Rightglory @Bible_Patrol @Jim B @Johann @Gilligan @Behold @Pierac @n2thelight @Eternally Grateful @Titus @marks @Ernest T. Bass @amigo de christo @Marvelloustime @RLT63

Our gracious Benefactor, the Lord God Almighty, exclusively 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.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[RLT63]

Since the prior post addressed your wrong application of Romans 7:19 -25 as being proof of man's free-will, then it is now time to show even further that free-will is a nonsensical misnomer.

No Will is Free Because Every Will Is Attached To A Being

Let's examine the free-willian dearly held faith that "my free-will is uncontrolled by God" as compared to linguistics, logic, and Scripture in Truth (John 14:6).
Free-willians abstract (compartmentalize) at two different levels when free-willians think "my free-will is uncontrolled by God".

God is a Being.

You are a being.

A "will" is not a being.

A "will" is part of a being, and a "will" does not exist without a being.

Let's look at free-willian's dearly held belief that "my free-will is uncontrolled by God" from a related perspective, "this being's free-will is uncontrolled by that Being".

Free-willian foundation is the relationship that a "will" is "free" from a "being", and the relationship succeeds logically and linguistically only by including that a "will" is "free" from every "being"; therefore, that "will" must be free from the "Being" (God) as well as that "will" free from the "being" (the free-willian) as well as that "will" free from every other "being", yet a "will" must be part of a "being" resulting in a controlling relationship between the "being" and the being's "will", so the concept of a "will" free from a "being" is illogical.

The free-willian's level of abstraction fails because free-willians have grouped "will" at the same level as the group of "beings", so free-willians are comparing unrelated things, that is, a "will" and a "being"; in other words, free-willian's faulty premise results in a sinfully false conclusion.

The word "free" means "a something detached from an other something", but free-willians redefine "free" to mean "a something detached from that something's self"; therefore, free-willian's linguistics are illegal.

No Scripture states that God imparted man a free-will, in fact, the single occurrence of free-will in the New Testament is where the Apostle Paul refers to free-will as illusory (Philemon 1:14).

Now, a free-willian's "will" is not free from all beings because the free-willian's "will" is part of himself or herself. See the word "self" in the words "himself" and "herself", and "self" is key because by definition free-willians have a self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) per the free-willian's own proclamation that the free-willian "will" is uncontrolled by God, and, here, in Scripture, we find that free-willians are out of accord with Apostolic testimony.

In Truth (John 14:6), we Christian's have a "will" controlled by the Christ of us Christians for it is written "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

Jos 24:15 - 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.

 

[Kermos]

Jos 24:15 - 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.

The Hebrew Word For "Choose" And It's Conjugates Is בָּחר (bachar) Strong's Number 977​

Beholding Joshua 24:15​

Joshua expresses a conditional logic statement in Joshua 24:15, and a conditional logic statement is normally an IF/THEN construct, for example:

IF condition THEN predicate

Stated in a more Joshua 24:15 focused fashion.

IF you_do_this that_will_happen

Thus, the conditional expresses an action in the condition (you_do_this), and the effectual result in the predicate (that_will_happen).

A conditional does not convey ability to the recipient of the conditional.

Now, the conditional logic statement Joshua expressed was "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:15), so the condition (you_do_this) is "to serve the LORD is disagreeable in your eyes"; furthermore, Joshua 24:15 contains no reference to "choice" nor "free will" towards God . The condition Joshua expressed states the condition/state-of-being/nature of the person.

Disagreeable does not mean choose.

In the predicate Joshua provides only false gods to choose among for the those people whose nature is against the LORD, for Joshua said "choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living" (Joshua 24:15), and the word "choose" in this verse is translated from בָּחר (bachar) (Strong's Number 977).

Finaly, Joshua states "but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD", and there is no reference to "choice" nor "free will" towards God (Joshua 24:15).

A state of being, "disagreeable", is mentioned in Joshua 24:15, and action, "serve", is mentioned in Joshua 24:15.

There is no choice towards God mentioned in Joshua 24:15.

Beholding The Larger Context Surrounding Joshua 24:15​

No scripture states that the people in attendance actually chose the gods of their fathers or that they chose the gods of the Amorites, not in Joshua 24:15, not elsewhere.
I am not necessarily saying that they could not choose the gods of their fathers or the gods of the Amorites.

The people said "We also will serve the LORD, for He is our God" (Joshua 24:18).

Joshua declared to the people in response "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins" (Joshua 24:19).

JOSHUA JUST TOLD THEM THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SERVE GOD.

The people then said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve YHWH." (Joshua 24:21).

Joshua responded to the people with "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen for yourselves YHWH, to serve Him." (Joshua 24:22)

JOSHUA JUST TOLD THEM THAT THEY ARE "WITNESSES AGAINST YOURSELVES", SO THEY TESTIFIED TO THE CONDEMNATION OF THEMSELVES.

When a person is a "witness for a defendant", then such a one is a proponent for the defendant; in other words, a witness for the defendant. This scenario outlines testimony for justification of the defendant.

When a person is a "witness against a defendant", then such a one is an opponent against the defendant; in other words, a witness against the defendant. This scenario outlines testimony for condemnation of the defendant.

The truth is there is no free will in the passage.

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[Kermos]

Jos 24:15 - 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.

Since the prior post addressed your wrong application of Joshua 24:15 as being proof of man's free-will, then it is now time to return to the free-will misnomer.

You fail to articulately address the points made in this post.

The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of God​

Many people preach that God has a free-will.

The common free-willian refrain is along the lines of "God has freewill. Christ has freewill. Man was made in their image/likeness. Result? = Man has free will." (an actual free-willian quote).

So, the free-willian philosophy holds that God free-will chooses to change between good and evil, and, since God created man in God's image according to God's likeness (Genesis 1:26), then man does precisely the same as God; therefore, man free-will chooses to change between good and evil.

A Will Requires A Host​

First, the definition of free must be considered.

Free denotes:

1. of autonomy:
   • (noun) no constraint, uncontrolled, liberty, not enslaved, emancipation.
   • (verb) disentangled, extricate, untangle.
2. of property:
   • (noun) complimentary, without charge, gratis, no payment required.
   • (verb) give away, sacrifice.

The subject is not of property regarding free-will, so the subject is focused of autonomy regarding free-will.

The word "free" represents a relative concept, as shown in the following paragraph; in other words, a person is "free" from "something".

A person in a constitutional republic, such as the U.S.A., is free to start a business (free from being captives of the tyranny of the King of Great Britain per the U.S. Declaration of Independence), but a person in a communist country, such as North Korea, is NOT free to start a business (communist citizens are captives (owned) by their government).

Second, the definition of free-will must be considered.

Free-will: an autonomous will, an isolated willpower, detached volition, independent moral agency.

Next, considering "will", a will exists not in a vacuum; in other words, a will must be part of a host.

Respecting an unsaved person - the default first condition of every person, since a host (person) is required to host a will, then the person's will is part of the person's self, so the person's will is self-will because the person'a will is attached to the self-same person; on the other hand, the person's will is not free floating detached from the person, so the person's will is not free-will.

The Apostle proclaims a person's will is either one of but not both of:

• a person's will is controlled by God with "God having purified your souls in the obedience of the Truth through the Spirit" (1 Peter 1:21-22) and "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
• a person's will is controlled by man with "the Lord knows how" "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).

A person's will is dependent upon God (Christimage-will (bond-will), Romans 8:29), or a person's will is dependent upon man (self-will, 2 Peter 2:9-10). No other will exists for a person; moreover, free-will is an illusion as conveyed by the Apostle Paul with "I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

While the unrighteous unbelievers daringly revel in their own glory founded in their self-willed "I chose Jesus" (2 Peter 2:9-10) thus their hearts steal King Jesus Christ's glory, on the other hand, we righteousness of God in Christ believers worship the Glorious One (2 Corinthians 5:21) who sovereignly chose us (John 15:16, John 15:19 includes salvation).

Thus says Adonai YHWH (Lord GOD) "I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8), yet the free-willians try to steal God's exclusive glory in the salvation of man.

God's Will is not free will because a free-will does not have a host, yet a host is required for an associated will to exist; therefore, the Will of God is God's Will. See God's Will mentioned in 1 Peter 2:15.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT GOD HAS A FREE-WILL.

God is unchangingly good (Malachi 3:6, Psalm 107:1) for the Word of God says "no one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18), so God is exclusively good all the time while at the same time God never changes to being evil.

In effect, free-willian philosophy includes that God imparted God-like free-will into man, and it is established that man free-will chooses between being good and being evil according to man's God-like free-will; therefore, God's free-will results in God fluctuating between good and evil because man's God-like free-will fluctuates between good and evil, so God changes to being evil by free-willian philosophers preaching that God has free-will.

THE RESULT, MAN CANNOT HAVE A GOD-LIKE FREE-WILL BECAUSE GOD CANNOT HAVE A FREE-WILL.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT MAN HAS A FREE-WILL.

Free-will philosophy includes the man generated foundation that, by free-will, man can choose to be evil or good, even the ability for a natural man to free-will choose Jesus Christ unto the good of saving himself from the wrath of God.

The Word of God declares that you cannot make a choice to follow Jesus (see your last sentence of your post, @RLT63) because the Christ of us Christians says:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people, not man choosing God, but truly God choosing man.
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the glorious blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

The only way for free-willian philosophers to acheive free-will is for them to add to the Word of God, and it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

Every person has a will, but a person's will is either one of but not both of (1) a self-will against God in evil for the natural flesh person (2 Peter 2:9-10) or (2) a will in Christ doing God's good by the Holy Spirit for the Born of God (Romans 8:29, Philippians 2:13, John 3:3-8).

As the original post shows richly in scripture, there is no such thing as free-will, but natural man possessing a self-will exists leading to damnation (2 Peter 2:9-10).

 

[RLT63]

Since the prior post addressed your wrong application of Joshua 24:15 as being proof of man's free-will, then it is now time to return to the free-will misnomer.

You fail to articulately address the points made in this post.

The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of God​

Many people preach that God has a free-will.

The common free-willian refrain is along the lines of "God has freewill. Christ has freewill. Man was made in their image/likeness. Result? = Man has free will." (an actual free-willian quote).

So, the free-willian philosophy holds that God free-will chooses to change between good and evil, and, since God created man in God's image according to God's likeness (Genesis 1:26), then man does precisely the same as God; therefore, man free-will chooses to change between good and evil.

A Will Requires A Host​

First, the definition of free must be considered.

Free denotes:

1. of autonomy:
   • (noun) no constraint, uncontrolled, liberty, not enslaved, emancipation.
   • (verb) disentangled, extricate, untangle.
2. of property:
   • (noun) complimentary, without charge, gratis, no payment required.
   • (verb) give away, sacrifice.

The subject is not of property regarding free-will, so the subject is focused of autonomy regarding free-will.

The word "free" represents a relative concept, as shown in the following paragraph; in other words, a person is "free" from "something".

A person in a constitutional republic, such as the U.S.A., is free to start a business (free from being captives of the tyranny of the King of Great Britain per the U.S. Declaration of Independence), but a person in a communist country, such as North Korea, is NOT free to start a business (communist citizens are captives (owned) by their government).

Second, the definition of free-will must be considered.

Free-will: an autonomous will, an isolated willpower, detached volition, independent moral agency.

Next, considering "will", a will exists not in a vacuum; in other words, a will must be part of a host.

Respecting an unsaved person - the default first condition of every person, since a host (person) is required to host a will, then the person's will is part of the person's self, so the person's will is self-will because the person'a will is attached to the self-same person; on the other hand, the person's will is not free floating detached from the person, so the person's will is not free-will.

The Apostle proclaims a person's will is either one of but not both of:

• a person's will is controlled by God with "God having purified your souls in the obedience of the Truth through the Spirit" (1 Peter 1:21-22) and "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
• a person's will is controlled by man with "the Lord knows how" "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).

A person's will is dependent upon God (Christimage-will (bond-will), Romans 8:29), or a person's will is dependent upon man (self-will, 2 Peter 2:9-10). No other will exists for a person; moreover, free-will is an illusion as conveyed by the Apostle Paul with "I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

While the unrighteous unbelievers daringly revel in their own glory founded in their self-willed "I chose Jesus" (2 Peter 2:9-10) thus their hearts steal King Jesus Christ's glory, on the other hand, we righteousness of God in Christ believers worship the Glorious One (2 Corinthians 5:21) who sovereignly chose us (John 15:16, John 15:19 includes salvation).

Thus says Adonai YHWH (Lord GOD) "I am YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other" (Isaiah 42:8), yet the free-willians try to steal God's exclusive glory in the salvation of man.

God's Will is not free will because a free-will does not have a host, yet a host is required for an associated will to exist; therefore, the Will of God is God's Will. See God's Will mentioned in 1 Peter 2:15.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT GOD HAS A FREE-WILL.

God is unchangingly good (Malachi 3:6, Psalm 107:1) for the Word of God says "no one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18), so God is exclusively good all the time while at the same time God never changes to being evil.

In effect, free-willian philosophy includes that God imparted God-like free-will into man, and it is established that man free-will chooses between being good and being evil according to man's God-like free-will; therefore, God's free-will results in God fluctuating between good and evil because man's God-like free-will fluctuates between good and evil, so God changes to being evil by free-willian philosophers preaching that God has free-will.

THE RESULT, MAN CANNOT HAVE A GOD-LIKE FREE-WILL BECAUSE GOD CANNOT HAVE A FREE-WILL.

NO SCRIPTURE STATES THAT MAN HAS A FREE-WILL.

Free-will philosophy includes the man generated foundation that, by free-will, man can choose to be evil or good, even the ability for a natural man to free-will choose Jesus Christ unto the good of saving himself from the wrath of God.

The Word of God declares that you cannot make a choice to follow Jesus (see your last sentence of your post, @RLT63) because the Christ of us Christians says:

• "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:16), so God chooses people, not man choosing God, but truly God choosing man.
• "I chose you out of the world" (Lord Jesus Christ, John 15:19, includes salvation), so God exclusively chooses people unto salvation.
• "What I say to you I say to all" (Lord Jesus Christ, Mark 13:37 - Jesus had taken the Apostles Peter, Andrew, James, and John aside in private and said this), so all the glorious blessings of God mentioned above are to all believers in all time.

The only way for free-willian philosophers to acheive free-will is for them to add to the Word of God, and it is written "do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).

Every person has a will, but a person's will is either one of but not both of (1) a self-will against God in evil for the natural flesh person (2 Peter 2:9-10) or (2) a will in Christ doing God's good by the Holy Spirit for the Born of God (Romans 8:29, Philippians 2:13, John 3:3-8).

As the original post shows richly in scripture, there is no such thing as free-will, but natural man possessing a self-will exists leading to damnation (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Okay how could Jesus pray that his will not be done but that the Father’s will be done? Evidently they are two separate wills. Take your time and CHOOSE whether or not you’re going to answer. And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil. Your whole premise is flawed.

 

[Titus]

Adam was the only creature with a prohibition comman with a contingent punishment for violation (Genesis 2:16-17), not the birds of the air (Genesis 1:20-22), so the birds as part of creation could not subject the creation to futility which shows your confusion that Paul referred to "creation" as a whole instead of Adam as "creature" in Romans 8:20-22

Paul says nothing about creation being punished because it violated law.
How long are you going to continue this strawman misrepresentation of what I really said?

Romans 8:20,
- For the creature(creation) was made subject(by God) to vanity(frailty, lack of vigor) not willingly(not through it's own fault)( it being creation) but by reason of Him(God) who hath subjected the same in hope(in hope meaning God did not intend for the frailty of creation that God subjected it to, to remain this way)

Paul in Romans 8:20 is using creation as the fall of Adam caused to change, become frail, Adam went from being incorruptible(flesh would never be subject to decay) to after the fall becoming frail corruptible(transformed to corruptible, decay growing old, frail)
Not only did this occur, this change to Adam and Eve the creation(nature) also became subject to frailty, decay, corruption.

The term "not willingly" is not referring to Adam but nature. Paul means by it that creation itself broke no law, therefore its transformation was not of it's own fault but the fault of Adam's law breaking.

Kermos is perverting the text "not willingly" by assigning this to Adam instead of who Paul is really referring to which is creation(nature).

so the birds as part of creation could not subject the creation to futility which shows your confusion

God absolutely did subject creation to futility because of Adam's fall(law breaking)
As is recorded in Genesis 3:17-19,

- Then to Adam God said, Because you have heeded( means to obey, Adam chose to obey his wife rather than God) the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, you shall not eat of it,

- Cursed is the ground(creation) for your sake,
In toil shall you eat of it(nature)
All the days of your life
both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth(Gods subjection of creation caused it to change not of it's own fault)
and you shall eat the herb of the field
In sweat of your face you shall eat bread(creation now requires Adam to suffer to be fed by it)
Till you return to the ground
For out of it you were taken
From dust you are
And from dust you shall return

Paul in Romans 8:20 is speaking of the creation being subject to God not willingly(not of it's own fault) being subject to decay because of Adam's sin.

Look at the synonyms for "unwilling" and see "forced", yet you wrote "YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL" (proof link); therefore, you have a self contradiction with respect to your example of that son who raped his sister because that son either (1) was forced to rape his sister or (2) willingly raped his sister. But

Notice how Kermos is trying to define the word unwilling as meaning forced.
It is true this is used to define unwillingly.
But there are more ways it is defined.

Paul uses this word not willingly
Which holds the same meaning as unwillingly.

In the scriptural context it means, not at fault, not of it's own fault

So with the story of the brother who was unwilling to rape His sister
but was forced because if he did not obey the gunman His father would be murdered.

The boys unwillingness makes him not at fault.

Unwilling can also mean, involuntary, unintentional

Both these words imply the boy raped His sister because he was forced to, therefore his actions were unintentional.

Kermos tries to say I'm confused because I teach one can do something, commit an act like rape and it be unwillingly done.

Kermos wrongly teaches the boy had to rape His sister willingly, lol!!!!
Kermos is insane, calvinism has drove him mad!

You clearly confuse "unwilling" versus "unwanted", so your confusion is endemic to your writings. Your example of that son raping his sister shows he was  willing to rape his sister, but he performed his unwanted action of raping his sister because he thought it would save his mother from being shot by the assailant (proof link).

Kermos teaches he willingly raped His sister. That's sick Kermos!!!

but he performed his unwanted action of raping his sister because he thought it would save his mother from being shot by the assailant (proof link).

Another way of saying "unwanted action" from raping his sister is unwillingly!!!!!

Kermos! You first said he willingly raped His sister.
Then you said he performed the rape as an unwanted action,!!!

You cannot do something willingly Kermos and it be an unwanted action at the same time.
You are not making sense!!!

You can do something unwillingly like rape but at the same time do the rape unwillingly(forced, unintentional) for the purpose of saving your Moms life.

So Kermos if someone said they would murder your family and had the power to do so, if you did not rape your sister(no escaping the situation all being held captive) but if you raped your sister you would all live.

You would do what?
1) not rape your sister and all be murdered
2) Willingly(not forced) rape your sister, That's sick Kermos!!!
3) Unwillingly(unintentionally, forced)) rape your sister to save your family from death

Kermos denies that it is possible to do things unwillingly like sin.
It is Important to point out, that I never said Adam sinned unwillingly.
Adam chose to commit sin. No one forced him to eat of the tree

All I'm saying is it is possible to commit sin unwillingly, forced, unintentionally
Kermos teaches it is not logically possible.
Kermos does not know what he is talking about.

Kermos claims doing something like sin must be done willingly and to say it can be performed unwillingly is illogical confusion.

No it is logical it is not confusion.
Kermos is confused because the teachings of his theology has made him unable to be rational.

 

[Titus]

Kermos' logical fallacy

Kermos claims my statement below is a logical fallacy,

Herein resides your confusion where you hold contradictory thoughts which oppose each other:

• In you prior post you wrote:
  
  People unwilling do things they know is wrong all the time!
• In your current post you wrote:
  
  YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL.

It is logically sound to believe people can do things unwillingly that they know are wrong.

I've given multiple examples of this.
One example the boy and his family being at the mercy of a gunman.
The boy is commanded to rape His sister or his mother will be murdered

The boy can obey the gunman unwillingly. Kermos believes if he rapes his sister it can only be done willingly.

Kermos thinks my next statement contradicts the first.

"You cannot force anyone to do anything against their will"
What I mean by this is you cannot take away a persons ability to choose, freewill.

I cannot force a person to choose to become a muslim.
I cannot force a person to choose to become a christian.
You cannot force a person to think the way you want them to think, so that they make the choices you want them to make.


They do not contradict,

The boy that obeyed the gunman's commands did so unwillingly.

The boy had zero desire to rape His sister.


This does not prove my second statement contradicts the first.

The boy did do something willingly.
This is what Kermos does not see or understand

The boy willingly obeyed by his own freewill choice the gunman's command not to rape his sister but to save his mother.

That willingness did not go against my belief that no one can force you to go against your will.

It was the boys will to save his mother
It was against the boys will to rape His sister.
But he unwillingly by force chose to obey because of his freewill to save his mother.

Did the boys unwillingness by obeying the gunman's command disprove my statement that,
"You cannot force anyone to go against their will"

No, it did not. There is no contradiction. There is no logical fallacy.

If the boy chose to disobey the gunman's command this would not contradict my belief that no one can make you go against your own will.

Likewise if the boy obeys the gunman's command unwillingly,
This too does not contradict my belief that no one can force you to go against your own will.

The reason being is,
The boy willingly obeyed to save his mom. That was his choice. The gunman did not take away the boys free will.

In another sense the boy obeyed unwillingly(forced) because it was not his will to rape His sister.
It was his freewill choice made out of coercion. He was forced but he could have chosen not to and suffered the consequences.


So the gunman never took over control of the boys freewill. The boy never lost his freewill to choose to obey or to dis-obey. He never lost his freewill ability to choose what he wanted to do.

So the second statement does not contradict the first.

 

[Titus]

No Scripture states that God imparted man a free-will, in fact, the single occurrence of free-will in the New Testament is where the Apostle Paul refers to free-will as illusory (Philemon 1:14).

Philemon 1:14,
- But without your consent I wanted(his own will) to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion as it were, but voluntary

Explain where you get your idea that Paul teaches here, freewill is not real, imaginary.

The only thing imaginary is in your mind that this verse proves freewill doesn't exist!!!!

Where did you get that from this text?

Explain yourself Kermos?

 

[RLT63]

Okay how could Jesus pray that his will not be done but that the Father’s will be done? Evidently they are two separate wills. Take your time and CHOOSE whether or not you’re going to answer. And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil. Your whole premise is flawed.

Why We Have Free Will

Neurons fire in your head before you become aware that you have made a decision. But this discovery does not mean you are a “biochemical puppet”

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Kermos]

Paul says nothing about creation being punished because it violated law.
How long are you going to continue this strawman misrepresentation of what I really said?

Romans 8:20,
- For the creature(creation) was made subject(by God) to vanity(frailty, lack of vigor) not willingly(not through it's own fault)( it being creation) but by reason of Him(God) who hath subjected the same in hope(in hope meaning God did not intend for the frailty of creation that God subjected it to, to remain this way)

Paul in Romans 8:20 is using creation as the fall of Adam caused to change, become frail, Adam went from being incorruptible(flesh would never be subject to decay) to after the fall becoming frail corruptible(transformed to corruptible, decay growing old, frail)
Not only did this occur, this change to Adam and Eve the creation(nature) also became subject to frailty, decay, corruption.

The term "not willingly" is not referring to Adam but nature. Paul means by it that creation itself broke no law, therefore its transformation was not of it's own fault but the fault of Adam's law breaking.

...snip...

God absolutely did subject creation to futility because of Adam's fall(law breaking)
As is recorded in Genesis 3:17-19,

- Then to Adam God said, Because you have heeded( means to obey, Adam chose to obey his wife rather than God) the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, you shall not eat of it,

- Cursed is the ground(creation) for your sake,
In toil shall you eat of it(nature)
All the days of your life
both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth(Gods subjection of creation caused it to change not of it's own fault)
and you shall eat the herb of the field
In sweat of your face you shall eat bread(creation now requires Adam to suffer to be fed by it)
Till you return to the ground
For out of it you were taken
From dust you are
And from dust you shall return

Paul in Romans 8:20 is speaking of the creation being subject to God not willingly(not of it's own fault) being subject to decay because of Adam's sin.



Notice how Kermos is trying to define the word unwilling as meaning forced.
It is true this is used to define unwillingly.
But there are more ways it is defined.

Paul uses this word not willingly
Which holds the same meaning as unwillingly.

In the scriptural context it means, not at fault, not of it's own fault

...snip...

Kermos wrongly teaches the boy had to rape His sister willingly, lol!!!!
Kermos is insane, calvinism has drove him mad!

...snip...

Another way of saying "unwanted action" from raping his sister is unwillingly!!!!!

...snip

The Greek word inflections for the noun "creature" and the adjective "willingly" grammatically require that "not willingly" modifies "creature" specifically, not God per your thoughts (see your word "intend"), but truly Adam as per the Apostle Paul. The words "the" and "creature" and "willingly" are the only words in Romans 8:20 that are Nominative and Feminine and Singular which means that "the", "creature", "not", and "willingly" must be associated together; therefore, "the creature" "not willingly" ate of the tree forbidden as food subjecting creation to vanity yet God supplies the hope in Christ to the creatures because of the Greek grammar used by the Apostle Paul. By the way, the word "Him", for God, is Accusative and Masculine and Singular, so "Him" is not associated with "willingly", per Greek as per the Apostle Paul.

And there you have it, you literally added your thoughts into the Apostle Paul's writing in your second paragraph as copied and pasted here:

For the creature(creation) was made subject(by God) to vanity(frailty, lack of vigor) not willingly(not through it's own fault)( it being creation) but by reason of Him(God) who hath subjected the same in hope(in hope meaning God did not intend for the frailty of creation that God subjected it to, to remain this way) (the word of Titus not of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:20, proof link))
​

You just now demonstrated your confused deception because the Apostle Paul truly wrote:

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope.
(the word of the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:20)
​

No place in Scripture states that man's created with a free will to choose toward God; therefore, you are adding free will to choose toward God into the scripture.

You illegally and illegitimately redefine words as is demonstrated in this post, and you fail to justify your changes that break Scripture (and "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)).

This is Spiritual Truth (John 14:6), yet what you post, what you call "reasoning holds up in the real world", is confusion according to Spiritual Truth (John 14:6)!

You elicit several more counts of confusion about the creation account:

1. Adam was the only creature with a prohibition command with a contingent punishment for violation (Genesis 2:16-17), not the birds of the air (Genesis 1:20-22), so the birds as part of creation could not subject the creation to futility which shows your confusion that Paul referred to "creation" as a whole instead of Adam as "creature" in Romans 8:20-22 (see where you wrote "Paul is speaking here figuratively not literally. Creature is not Adam but creation itself" in proof link), so only man could do the deed of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil leading to punishment, and Adam not of his will ate of the tree forbidden as food for the Word of God clearly declares that the cause of Adam eating of the tree was Adam listened to Eve (Genesis 3:17).
2. The "will" is the facility within a person to make choices, but you confusedly reverse the definition when you wrote "Unwilling is still a choice" (proof link) in your vain attempt to "prove" that a person's choice drives the person's "will" - your thoughts are backwards about "will" and "choice".
3. You hold contradictory thoughts as being true simultaneously in your mind, your thoughts which oppose each other are:
   • In a prior post of yours, you wrote:
     
     
     People unwilling do things they know is wrong all the time! (proof link)
     ​
   • In another post of yours, you wrote:
     
     
     YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL. (proof link)
     ​
   Titus, those thoughts of yours are irreconcilable opposites, so that is confusion.
4. When you wrote "Paul is speaking here figuratively not literally. Creature is not Adam but creation itself" (proof link) about Romans 8:20-22, then you confusedly conveyed that you think the mountains of creation share a "will" (see "not willingly" in Romans 8:20) as well as the trees of creation can become the children of God (see "the children of God" in Romans 8:21), yet I proclaim to you that Paul certainly constrains "creation" or "creature" in Romans 8:20-21 to persons.
5. You clearly confuse "unwilling" versus "unwanted" because "will" and "want"/desire are two different things, so your confusion is endemic to your writings. Your example of that son raping his sister shows he was willing to rape his sister, but he performed his unwanted action of raping his sister because he thought it would save his mother from being shot by the assailant (proof link).
6. You confuse "unwilling" and "not willing". You confusedly mix "unwilling" in your illegal semantic and self-contradictory sense of a person doing something against the person's will (see your example of the South African woman (proof link)) contrasted with "not willingly" in the definitive sense of a person doing something not based upon the person's will (see God's Word in Genesis 3:17 and the Apostle Paul's writing in Romans 8:20-23). In Romans 8:20-22, "not willingly" means not of the will, and choice is of the will; therefore, Adam not of his will ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil according to the Word of God (Genesis 3:17), so Adam did not choose to eat of the tree forbidden as food (Romans 8:20-22)!.

You wrote (proof link:

You are proving you dont understand what you are teaching.
He did not rape his sister willingly!!!!
Kermos you are a very confused man!

Definition of unwilling: loath, reluctant, obstinate
Synonyms: coerced, forced, involuntary, unintentional

You are the one confused by word definition not me Kermos!
​

Look at the synonyms for "unwilling" and see "forced", yet you wrote "YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL" (proof link); therefore, you have a self contradiction with respect to your example of that son who raped his sister because that son either (1) was forced to rape his sister or (2) willingly raped his sister. But as your thoughts stand right not, you hold contradictory thoughts as being true in your mind which is confusion.

"God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[RLT63]

The Greek word inflections for the noun "creature" and the adjective "willingly" grammatically require that "not willingly" modifies "creature" specifically, not God per your thoughts (see your word "intend"), but truly Adam as per the Apostle Paul. The words "the" and "creature" and "willingly" are the only words in Romans 8:20 that are Nominative and Feminine and Singular which means that "the", "creature", "not", and "willingly" must be associated together; therefore, "the creature" "not willingly" ate of the tree forbidden as food subjecting to vanity because of the Greek grammar used by the Apostle Paul. By the way, the word "Him", for God, is Accusative and Masculine and Singular, so "Him" is not associated with "willingly", per Greek as per the Apostle Paul.

And there you have it, you literally added your thoughts into the Apostle Paul's writing in your second paragraph as copied and pasted here:

​

For the creature(creation) was made subject(by God) to vanity(frailty, lack of vigor) not willingly(not through it's own fault)( it being creation) but by reason of Him(God) who hath subjected the same in hope(in hope meaning God did not intend for the frailty of creation that God subjected it to, to remain this way) (the word of Titus not of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:20, proof link))​

​

You just now demonstrated your confused deception because the Apostle Paul truly wrote:

​

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope.​

(the word of the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:20)​

​

No place in Scripture states that man's created with a free will to choose toward God; therefore, you are adding free will to choose toward God into the scripture.

You illegally and illegitimately redefine words as is demonstrated in this post, and you fail to justify your changes that break Scripture (and "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)).

This is Spiritual Truth (John 14:6), yet what you post, what you call "reasoning holds up in the real world", is confusion according to Spiritual Truth (John 14:6)!

You elicit several more counts of confusion about the creation account:

1. Adam was the only creature with a prohibition command with a contingent punishment for violation (Genesis 2:16-17), not the birds of the air (Genesis 1:20-22), so the birds as part of creation could not subject the creation to futility which shows your confusion that Paul referred to "creation" as a whole instead of Adam as "creature" in Romans 8:20-22 (see where you wrote "Paul is speaking here figuratively not literally. Creature is not Adam but creation itself" in proof link), so only man could do the deed of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil leading to punishment, and Adam not of his will ate of the tree forbidden as food for the Word of God clearly declares that the cause of Adam eating of the tree was Adam listened to Eve (Genesis 3:17).
2. The "will" is the facility within a person to make choices, but you confusedly reverse the definition when you wrote "Unwilling is still a choice" (proof link) in your vain attempt to "prove" that a person's choice drives the person's "will" - your thoughts are backwards about "will" and "choice".
3. You hold contradictory thoughts as being true simultaneously in your mind, your thoughts which oppose each other are:
   • In a prior post of yours, you wrote:
     
     
     People unwilling do things they know is wrong all the time! (proof link)​
   • In another post of yours, you wrote:
     
     
     YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL. (proof link)​
   Titus, those thoughts of yours are irreconcilable opposites, so that is confusion.
4. When you wrote "Paul is speaking here figuratively not literally. Creature is not Adam but creation itself" (proof link) about Romans 8:20-22, then you confusedly conveyed that you think the mountains of creation share a "will" (see "not willingly" in Romans 8:20) as well as the trees of creation can become the children of God (see "the children of God" in Romans 8:21), yet I proclaim to you that Paul certainly constrains "creation" or "creature" in Romans 8:20-21 to persons.
5. You clearly confuse "unwilling" versus "unwanted" because "will" and "want"/desire are two different things, so your confusion is endemic to your writings. Your example of that son raping his sister shows he was willing to rape his sister, but he performed his unwanted action of raping his sister because he thought it would save his mother from being shot by the assailant (proof link).
6. You confuse "unwilling" and "not willing". You confusedly mix "unwilling" in your illegal semantic and self-contradictory sense of a person doing something against the person's will (see your example of the South African woman (proof link)) contrasted with "not willingly" in the definitive sense of a person doing something not based upon the person's will (see God's Word in Genesis 3:17 and the Apostle Paul's writing in Romans 8:20-23). In Romans 8:20-22, "not willingly" means not of the will, and choice is of the will; therefore, Adam not of his will ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil according to the Word of God (Genesis 3:17), so Adam did not choose to eat of the tree forbidden as food (Romans 8:20-22)!.

You wrote (proof link:

​

You are proving you dont understand what you are teaching.​

He did not rape his sister willingly!!!!​

Kermos you are a very confused man!​

​

Definition of unwilling: loath, reluctant, obstinate​

Synonyms: coerced, forced, involuntary, unintentional​

​

You are the one confused by word definition not me Kermos!​

​

Look at the synonyms for "unwilling" and see "forced", yet you wrote "YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL" (proof link); therefore, you have a self contradiction with respect to your example of that son who raped his sister because that son either (1) was forced to rape his sister or (2) willingly raped his sister. But as your thoughts stand right not, you hold contradictory thoughts as being true in your mind which is confusion.

"God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

Do you claim that believing is something we have no control over? Does God force some people to believe and others not to? How can there be punishment for failure to believe if we have no choice in the matter?

 

[Titus]

And there you have it, you literally added your thoughts into the Apostle Paul's writing in your second paragraph as copied and pasted here:

For the creature(creation) was made subject(by God) to vanity(frailty, lack of vigor) not willingly(not through it's own fault)( it being creation) but by reason of Him(God) who hath subjected the same in hope(in hope meaning God did not intend for the frailty of creation that God subjected it to, to remain this way) (the word of Titus not of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:20, proof link))

These are not my interpretation of what Paul meant.
These are the true meaning of the Holy Spirits revelation in Romans 8:20

I never put my thinks so's into any scripture when i am explaining what God is revealing.

The very thing you are falsely accusing me of doing with Romans 8:20, you literally did,

Here is the proof Kermos,

The words "the" and "creature" and "willingly" are the only words in Romans 8:20 that are Nominative and Feminine and Singular which means that "the", "creature", "not", and "willingly" must be associated together; therefore, "the creature" "not willingly" ate of the tree forbidden as food subjecting to vanity

Anyone that is interested, Kermos has exposed himself as being a scripture twister with the above explanation he gave for his supposed true interpretation of Romans 8:20

We will compare Romans 8:20 with his explanation of Romans 8:20 and it will become self-evident that Kermos inserts his biased calvinist mis-interpretion into the Bible.

Kermos says the words creature(creation) and not willingly must be associated together.
I agree.

Paul is teaching that creation not willingly meaning not by it's own fault
Kermos teaches that creature(creation) means Adam.
Right there you have Kermos' theological biases inserted into the text.
Where does Paul use Adam here? That is an assumption you cannot read Adam anywhere in verse 20.
Next,
Now based on Kermos' calvinistic preconceived interpretation that the word creation is Adam he wrongly is led to the wrong conclusion here,
Notice this proves Kermos not me adds to Gods word and twists the scriptures to make them fit His calvinistic theology.

The words "the" and "creature" and "willingly" are the only words in Romans 8:20 that are Nominative and Feminine and Singular which means that "the", "creature", "not", and "willingly" must be associated together; therefore, " Adam" "not willingly" ate of the tree forbidden as food subjecting to vanity

Folks Kermos just literally re-wrote Romans 8:20 !!!!!!
Kermos claims the passage says creation ATE OF THE TREE,!!!!
Nowhere is this stated in Romans 8:20!
- For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of God who subjected  it in hope
NKJV

There it is unadulterated!!!
Kermos' perversion of Romans 8:20,
- Adam, not willingly ate of the tree forbidden as food subjecting to vanity

Wow, Again I cannot over emphasize this enough,
NOWHERE IN THE TEXT DOES PAUL SAY THE PERSON ADAM.
NOWHERE IN THE TEXT DOES PAUL SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY PERSON EATING FROM A TREE THAT WAS FORBIDDEN AS FOOD!!!!

Kermos may fool, decieve those who are ignorant of the scriptures
But he ain't fooling me!!!

The very thing he is accusing me of. He is PRACTICING AND HAS BEEN EXPOSED!!!!

You just now demonstrated your confused deception because the Apostle Paul truly wrote:

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope.
(the word of the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:20)

Look now he actually types what Paul said except notice his bias? Did you catch it?

Kermos only wants to use English Bible translations that use the word creature because he thinks that is more believable that it is Adam. NKJV uses the word creation not creature.

Either word that is used does not insinuate Adam. That is a presumption that is wrong.

I'm not guilty of scripture twisting Paul's letters.

2Peter 3:16,
- as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures

 

[Kermos]

[

These are not my interpretation of what Paul meant.
These are the true meaning of the Holy Spirits revelation in Romans 8:20

I never put my thinks so's into any scripture when i am explaining what God is revealing.

The very thing you are falsely accusing me of doing with Romans 8:20, you literally did,

Here is the proof Kermos,


Anyone that is interested, Kermos has exposed himself as being a scripture twister with the above explanation he gave for his supposed true interpretation of Romans 8:20

We will compare Romans 8:20 with his explanation of Romans 8:20 and it will become self-evident that Kermos inserts his biased calvinist mis-interpretion into the Bible.

Kermos says the words creature(creation) and not willingly must be associated together.
I agree.

Paul is teaching that creation not willingly meaning not by it's own fault
Kermos teaches that creature(creation) means Adam.
Right there you have Kermos' theological biases inserted into the text.
Where does Paul use Adam here? That is an assumption you cannot read Adam anywhere in verse 20.

...snip...

- For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of God who subjected  it in hope
NKJV

...snip....

2Peter 3:16,
- as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures

You literally added your words YOUR THOUGHTS into Paul's writing - LITERALLY - and the proof is in further down in this post. I do not add to Paul’s writing, as you confusedly accuse me - just see item 6 below.

You exercised linguistic confusion when you wrote "Another way of saying 'unwanted action' from raping his sister is unwillingly" (proof link) because of two highly relevant definitions.

Will: the facility to choose.

Want: unsatisfied desire.

Unwilling (choosing not to rape his sister) is a different thing from unwanted (his repulsion to raping his sister).

A person's unwanted action is an undesirable action, but the person may still willingly engage in an unwanted action; on the other hand, a person's concept of an unwilling activity is an action the person avoids, so the person engages not in the action.

In your macabre, evilly dreamed up example of that son choosing to rape his sister, you express that he raped his sister willingly because he chose to rape her. Raping his sister was so very unwanted by that son, that his dad perished by the assailant's weapon, but that son willingly engaged in raping his sister to avoid the same death for his mom.

You confuse "unwanted" and "unwilling" which leads you to confusion about Romans 8:20.

No place in Scripture states that man's created with a free will to choose toward God; therefore, you are adding free will to choose toward God into the scripture.

You illegally and illegitimately redefine words as is demonstrated in this post, and you fail to justify your changes that break Scripture (and "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)).

This is Spiritual Truth (John 14:6), yet what you post, what you call "reasoning holds up in the real world", is confusion according to Spiritual Truth (John 14:6)!

You elicit several more counts of confusion about the creation account:

1. You literally add your thoughts into the Apostle Paul's writing in your paragraph as copied and pasted here:
   
   
   For the creature(creation) was made subject(by God) to vanity(frailty, lack of vigor) not willingly(not through it's own fault)( it being creation) but by reason of Him(God) who hath subjected the same in hope(in hope meaning God did not intend for the frailty of creation that God subjected it to, to remain this way) (the word of Titus not of the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:20, proof link))
   ​
   You demonstrated your confused deception because the Apostle Paul truly wrote:
   
   
   For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope.
   (the word of the Apostle Paul, Romans 8:20)
   ​
2. The Greek word inflections for the noun "creature" and the adjective "willingly" grammatically require that "not willingly" modifies "creature" specifically, not God per your thoughts (see your word "intend"), but truly Adam as per the Apostle Paul. The words "the" and "creature" and "willingly" are the only words in Romans 8:20 that are Nominative and Feminine and Singular which means that "the", "creature", "not", and "willingly" must be associated together; therefore, "the creature" "not willingly" ate of the tree forbidden as food subjecting creation to vanity yet God supplies the hope in Christ to the creatures because of the Greek grammar used by the Apostle Paul. By the way, the word "Him", for God, is Accusative and Masculine and Singular, so "Him" is not associated with "willingly", per Greek as per the Apostle Paul.
3. Adam was the only creature with a prohibition command with a contingent punishment for violation (Genesis 2:16-17), not the birds of the air (Genesis 1:20-22), so the birds as part of creation could not subject the creation to futility which shows your confusion that Paul referred to "creation" as a whole instead of Adam as "creature" in Romans 8:20-22 (see where you wrote "Paul is speaking here figuratively not literally. Creature is not Adam but creation itself" in proof link), so only man could do the deed of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil leading to punishment, and Adam not of his will ate of the tree forbidden as food for the Word of God clearly declares that the cause of Adam eating of the tree was Adam listened to Eve (Genesis 3:17).
4. The "will" is the facility within a person to make choices, but you confusedly reverse the definition when you wrote "Unwilling is still a choice" (proof link) in your vain attempt to "prove" that a person's choice drives the person's "will" - your thoughts are backwards about "will" and "choice".
5. You hold contradictory thoughts as being true simultaneously in your mind, your thoughts which oppose each other are:
   • In a prior post of yours, you wrote:
     
     
     People unwilling do things they know is wrong all the time! (proof link)
     ​
   • In another post of yours, you wrote:
     
     
     YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL. (proof link)
     ​
   Titus, those thoughts of yours are irreconcilable opposites, so that is confusion.
6. When you wrote "Paul is speaking here figuratively not literally. Creature is not Adam but creation itself" (proof link) about Romans 8:20-22, then you confusedly conveyed that you think the mountains of creation share a "will" (see "not willingly" in Romans 8:20) as well as the trees of creation can become the children of God (see "the children of God" in Romans 8:21), yet I proclaim to you that Paul certainly constrains "creation" or "creature" in Romans 8:20-21 to persons.
7. You clearly confuse "unwilling" versus "unwanted" because "will" and "want"/desire are two different things, so your confusion is endemic to your writings. Your example of that son raping his sister shows he was willing to rape his sister, but he performed his unwanted action of raping his sister because he thought it would save his mother from being shot by the assailant (proof link).
8. You confuse "unwilling" and "not willing". You confusedly mix "unwilling" in your illegal semantic and self-contradictory sense of a person doing something against the person's will (see your example of the South African woman (proof link)) contrasted with "not willingly" in the definitive sense of a person doing something not based upon the person's will (see God's Word in Genesis 3:17 and the Apostle Paul's writing in Romans 8:20-23). In Romans 8:20-22, "not willingly" means not of the will, and choice is of the will; therefore, Adam not of his will ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil according to the Word of God (Genesis 3:17), so Adam did not choose to eat of the tree forbidden as food (Romans 8:20-22)!.

You wrote (proof link:

You are proving you dont understand what you are teaching.
He did not rape his sister willingly!!!!
Kermos you are a very confused man!

Definition of unwilling: loath, reluctant, obstinate
Synonyms: coerced, forced, involuntary, unintentional

You are the one confused by word definition not me Kermos!
​

Look at the synonyms for "unwilling" and see "forced", yet you wrote "YOU CANNOT FORCE ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR WILL" (proof link); therefore, you have a self contradiction with respect to your example of that son who raped his sister because that son either (1) was forced to rape his sister or (2) willingly raped his sister. But as your thoughts stand right not, you hold contradictory thoughts as being true in your mind which is confusion.

"God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture that Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

"The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either."

This has been repeated by OP numerous times as debate against " free will". I'm not getting the connection to the verse stated below.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Kermos]

Okay how could Jesus pray that his will not be done but that the Father’s will be done? Evidently they are two separate wills. Take your time and CHOOSE whether or not you’re going to answer. And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil. Your whole premise is flawed.

Hello again RLT63 and @Nancy (I noticed your Like of RLT63's post),

First, the end of your post, where you wrote "And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil", so, based on your premise, neither can man change between good and evil for man is made in God's likeness and image. You creed is broken.

Second, to your question, God has had me post on this thread that man has a will and that God has God's Will. Your word "CHOOSE" does not come into play here.

Lord Jesus Christ is the example for us Christians (John 13:15).

The Bondage Of A Man's Will​

Free-willians, in a respect, are correct that "there's no difference between self will and free will", and that respect is that both self will and free will lead to hell.
Now, instead of listening to themselves lie with things like "Free will is all through the scriptures", they need to listen to Apostolic testimony as shown below.

Peter the Apostle wrote that prior to being saved, people have a self will that brings such people under damnation with the devil according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Paul the Apostle wrote that after being saved, people have a will that is bound under the loving control of God according to the Apostle Paul (Philippians 2:13).

Here's Paul from the Bible, again. Overall, Paul uses free will as illusory instead of concrete in Philemon 1:14 - and this is the only occurrence of "free will" that I am aware of in the New American Standard Bible New Testament.

Free-willians do not have a free will, as described by Paul.

Free-willians do have a self will, as described by Peter.

Free-willians gleefully separate themselves from God's will and the Christ of us Christians Who says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19). We Christians in God's Spirit have a will bound enthusiastically in joy and love to God by God for God through God, as described by Paul.

The above mentioned Apostolic testimony verbatim:

• "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).
• "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
• "but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

I am saved from the wrath of God by God's grace, for God's glory! Praise be to the Living Lord Jesus Christ! HALLELUJAH!!

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

 

[RLT63]

Hello again RLT63 and @Nancy (I noticed your Like of RLT63's post),

First, the end of your post, where you wrote "And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil", so, based on your premise, neither can man change between good and evil for man is made in God's likeness and image. You creed is broken.

Second, to your question, God has had me post on this thread that man has a will and that God has God's Will. Your word "CHOOSE" does not come into play here.

Lord Jesus Christ is the example for us Christians (John 13:15).

The Bondage Of A Man's Will​

Free-willians, in a respect, are correct that "there's no difference between self will and free will", and that respect is that both self will and free will lead to hell.
Now, instead of listening to themselves lie with things like "Free will is all through the scriptures", they need to listen to Apostolic testimony as shown below.

Peter the Apostle wrote that prior to being saved, people have a self will that brings such people under damnation with the devil according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Paul the Apostle wrote that after being saved, people have a will that is bound under the loving control of God according to the Apostle Paul (Philippians 2:13).

Here's Paul from the Bible, again. Overall, Paul uses free will as illusory instead of concrete in Philemon 1:14 - and this is the only occurrence of "free will" that I am aware of in the New American Standard Bible New Testament.

Free-willians do not have a free will, as described by Paul.

Free-willians do have a self will, as described by Peter.

Free-willians gleefully separate themselves from God's will and the Christ of us Christians Who says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19). We Christians in God's Spirit have a will bound enthusiastically in joy and love to God by God for God through God, as described by Paul.

The above mentioned Apostolic testimony verbatim:

• "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).
• "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
• "but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

I am saved from the wrath of God by God's grace, for God's glory! Praise be to the Living Lord Jesus Christ! HALLELUJAH!!

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

Just because God doesn’t change between good and evil, that doesn’t restrict man, obviously mankind can. I’ve seen people change from bad to good and vice versa. I’m sure everyone has observed this.

 

[Nancy]

Hello again RLT63 and @Nancy (I noticed your Like of RLT63's post),

First, the end of your post, where you wrote "And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil", so, based on your premise, neither can man change between good and evil for man is made in God's likeness and image. You creed is broken.

Second, to your question, God has had me post on this thread that man has a will and that God has God's Will. Your word "CHOOSE" does not come into play here.

Lord Jesus Christ is the example for us Christians (John 13:15).

The Bondage Of A Man's Will​

Free-willians, in a respect, are correct that "there's no difference between self will and free will", and that respect is that both self will and free will lead to hell.
Now, instead of listening to themselves lie with things like "Free will is all through the scriptures", they need to listen to Apostolic testimony as shown below.

Peter the Apostle wrote that prior to being saved, people have a self will that brings such people under damnation with the devil according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 2:9-10).

Paul the Apostle wrote that after being saved, people have a will that is bound under the loving control of God according to the Apostle Paul (Philippians 2:13).

Here's Paul from the Bible, again. Overall, Paul uses free will as illusory instead of concrete in Philemon 1:14 - and this is the only occurrence of "free will" that I am aware of in the New American Standard Bible New Testament.

Free-willians do not have a free will, as described by Paul.

Free-willians do have a self will, as described by Peter.

Free-willians gleefully separate themselves from God's will and the Christ of us Christians Who says "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) and "I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19). We Christians in God's Spirit have a will bound enthusiastically in joy and love to God by God for God through God, as described by Paul.

The above mentioned Apostolic testimony verbatim:

• "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).
• "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
• "but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will" (Philemon 1:14).

I am saved from the wrath of God by God's grace, for God's glory! Praise be to the Living Lord Jesus Christ! HALLELUJAH!!

The original post contains the Truth (John 14:6) which shows richly in scripture, Adam was not imparted free will, and no man thereafter was imparted free will either.

Hi Kermos,

"First, the end of your post, where you wrote "And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil", so, based on your premise, neither can man change between good and evil for man is made in God's likeness and image. You creed is broken."

Just because we are made in His likeness, does not say, to me, that we have the same liberty to say, take vengeance as it is God's alone.
We can forgive those who have sinned against us but we cannot do like the CC does and absolve of sin as, that is God's alone. Might be able to come up with more but for brevity's sake, I'll move on

12 "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose. 14 Do everything without complaining or arguing,…"

Agreed, I added the first part of that verse because I like "...continue to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." So it is US that must "work out your own salvation" and that is a choice IMHO

What you wrote before the quote I wrote, is something I'm not "in the know" about, as it was between yourself and @RLT63

"Free-willians do not have a free will, as described by Paul.

Free-willians do have a self will, as described by Peter."

This is a new one for me, is there any difference between "free and self will"?? Can't say as I would agree that there is.


Also, calling those of us who subscribe to the doctrine of free will "freewillians" is tantamount to calling Calvinists "robots", neither is very respectful.

"Free-willians gleefully separate themselves from God's will.."

"Gleefully, huh. That is so wrong! I mean, seriously? C'mon Kermos. But what many of us "freewillies" see a lot of? the Calvinists "gleefully" accept the large majority of humankind burning in flames that never extinguish, through no fault of their own because they were created for this very purpose, in order, of course...so God will get the glory for such a horrid end for those who had no chance to even become born again ...?! That's really cold and well, just strange and counterproductive. That is, since He wishes ALL PEOPLE to be saved...
choice to submitt all to Christ.
I wonder. Why is it that God only chastises those He loves?? There has to be a reason to be chastised and that would be sin. I sure do know a lot of "Armenians" who get "chastised", including myself (big time lol) That question goes out to all who think they are sinless and perfect as well. Just my take.


When a born again true Christian loves the Lord yes, at that time we surrender ALL to Him so in that sense yes, we give UP our free will to choose right or wrong as, His will is always, every time...so much better!

Submitting our wills over to Him will make us His children, and He loves His children.

 

[Titus]

you confusedly conveyed that you think the mountains of creation share a "will" (see "not willingly" in Romans 8:20) as well as the trees of creation can become the children of God (see "the children of God" in Romans 8:21)

Kermos do you not understand what figurative means?
I never said mountains or trees share a will, lol

Kermos that is why the writing in Romans 8:20 is figurative.

Figurative: not willingly means: not of it's own fault. That is the literal meaning. Creation has no will that is why this is figurative language.

Quote me where I said the trees can become the children of God?
Stop making stuff up about me Kermos!!!!!
Kermos likes to use strawman arguments.

I have been explaining Romans 8:20
Romans 8:21 is where the words children of God are introduced.

Since you now go to the next verse I will use both verses 20-21 to prove your interpretation is error.

Verse 21,
- because the creation(Kermos wants us to believe this is Adam not ktisis which is the creation of God
- because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God

Kermos made up that I taught creation can become the children of God, lol

Paul has two subjects he is speaking of in verse 21,
Creation which has been subjected by God to decay,corruptible,not of it's own fault but because if the sin of Adam.
1) Creation
2)children of God

Paul is speaking of how Adam's sin caused himself to become corruptible, Gods punishment
Paul is also speaking of of creation and how it too was subjected to corruption, caused by Adam's sin.

Paul in verse 21 shows when the corruptible i.e. lost man,
becomes saved i.e. the children of God, they will no longer be under subjection, bondage
But set free, the corruptible man will become incorruptible(children of God)

Paul says in verse 21 that not only will the children of God be set free, delivered, liberated from decay, corruption.
Also will the creation be delivered from the bondage of corruption.
2Corinthians 3:17,
- Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY

Paul uses the corruption, bondage of man that was caused by Adam's sin,
And shows in verses 20-21 that also this change occured with nature caused by Gods punishment

As verse 20 shows nature(creation) was subjected to futility, corruption
Verse 21 shows as men are saved(children of God they are delivered from this bondage of corruption by being transformed into incorruptible(not subject to decay)
Creation also just as the children of God will no longer be subject to corruption, decay.

Kermos is desperate. Why else would he make stuff up about what I am saying?
Can't his argument itself show he is teaching truth?

Now Kermos has lied about me again!!!
Kermos claims I taught the boy willingly raped His sister!

I have been saying the opposite the entire debate!

That has been Kermos' position not mine!
Kermos has intentionally misrepresented me!
Kermos realized he is wrong so he has jumped ship, lol
I will not allow his deceitful dishonesty go unexposed!

In your macabre, evilly dreamed up example of that son choosing to rape his sister, you express that he raped his sister willingly because he chose to rape her.

Here is what I really have been saying,

The boy can obey the gunman unwillingly. Kermos believes if he rapes his sister it can only be done willingly.

The boy that obeyed the gunman's commands did so unwillingly.

Kermos is guilty of what he accuses me of believing!!!

Your son example shows that son willing to rape his sister; on the other hand, if that son was unwilling to rape his sister, then that son would not rape his sister.

You are clearly confusing "will" against "want", so your confusion is endemic to your post

This word defining is used by calvinists all the time.
Calvinist have their meaning of a word and if you do not go by their rules you are wrong.
You will be accursed of not knowing what you are saying.

Kermos needs to lean that unwanted also means unwilling!!!!!

Unwilling definition: the quality of not  wanting to do something. Cambridge dictionary

 

[Titus]

Hi Kermos,

"First, the end of your post, where you wrote "And I do not believe that God changes between good and evil", so, based on your premise, neither can man change between good and evil for man is made in God's likeness and image. You creed is broken."

Just because we are made in His likeness, does not say, to me, that we have the same liberty to say, take vengeance as it is God's alone.
We can forgive those who have sinned against us but we cannot do like the CC does and absolve of sin as, that is God's alone. Might be able to come up with more but for brevity's sake, I'll move on

12 "Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 13 For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose. 14 Do everything without complaining or arguing,…"

Agreed, I added the first part of that verse because I like "...continue to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." So it is US that must "work out your own salvation" and that is a choice IMHO

What you wrote before the quote I wrote, is something I'm not "in the know" about, as it was between yourself and @RLT63

"Free-willians do not have a free will, as described by Paul.

Free-willians do have a self will, as described by Peter."

This is a new one for me, is there any difference between "free and self will"?? Can't say as I would agree that there is.


Also, calling those of us who subscribe to the doctrine of free will "freewillians" is tantamount to calling Calvinists "robots", neither is very respectful.

"Free-willians gleefully separate themselves from God's will.."

"Gleefully, huh. That is so wrong! I mean, seriously? C'mon Kermos. But what many of us "freewillies" see a lot of? the Calvinists "gleefully" accept the large majority of humankind burning in flames that never extinguish, through no fault of their own because they were created for this very purpose, in order, of course...so God will get the glory for such a horrid end for those who had no chance to even become born again ...?! That's really cold and well, just strange and counterproductive. That is, since He wishes ALL PEOPLE to be saved...
choice to submitt all to Christ.
I wonder. Why is it that God only chastises those He loves?? There has to be a reason to be chastised and that would be sin. I sure do know a lot of "Armenians" who get "chastised", including myself (big time lol) That question goes out to all who think they are sinless and perfect as well. Just my take.


When a born again true Christian loves the Lord yes, at that time we surrender ALL to Him so in that sense yes, we give UP our free will to choose right or wrong as, His will is always, every time...so much better!

Submitting our wills over to Him will make us His children, and He loves His children.

Even through christians willingly subject ourselves to Gods all authority.
We do so our entire lives here on earth by freewill choice.

God never forces the saved or the lost to obey Him.
That is why the saved can loose their hope of eternal life.

If a born again Christian chooses to forsake Christ and go back into his old sinful lifestyle,
God loves us enough to let us leave Him.

This is why everyone who goes to hell is guilty not God.
God allows mankind to choose to be with God in this life and the next.
Or choose to seperated our selves from God in this life and the next.

 

[Nancy]

Even through christians willingly subject ourselves to Gods all authority.
We do so our entire lives here on earth by freewill choice.

God never forces the saved or the lost to obey Him.
That is why the saved can loose their hope of eternal life.

If a born again Christian chooses to forsake Christ and go back into his old sinful lifestyle,
God loves us enough to let us leave Him.

This is why everyone who goes to hell is guilty not God.
God allows mankind to choose to be with God in this life and the next.
Or choose to seperated our selves from God in this life and the next.