Is free will a failed concept?

[Slug1]

Here is where your argument fails.

The choice is God's choice that He may or may not give. Adam was given the choice, we are not unless God gives it to us. Adam did not have to die, we must die. Adam was not bound to sin, we are.

Was it God's will that Adam NOT eat the fruit?

I ask because you say it's impossible to choose, what God forbids.

[RabbiKnife]

Maybe God had no choice but to choose to let Adam decide whether to choose or not whether to have free will…

[Athanasius]

Here is where your argument fails.

The choice is God's choice that He may or may not give. Adam was given the choice, we are not unless God gives it to us. Adam did not have to die, we must die. Adam was not bound to sin, we are.

You're pointing out your own failure. Read below:

Adam had a will of his own, he was free to choose God's will or to die. As long as he was in God's will he was FREE, free as birdie in the sky or a fishy in the river.

Everyone is free unless they aren't unless they are unless they aren't unless they are unless they aren't. It's consistent nonsense, like the UK Supreme Court.

Pardon me? are you saying you have never sinned? are not a sinner? saved by Grace alone?

Do you not have to work in order to stay alive? perhaps happily you are retired.

Work totally dominates our lives. This was the consequence of being chucked out of the garden.

Yes you are right, I have sinned and I was awful

What a wonderful change in my life has been wrought
since Jesus came into my heart
there's a light in my soul which for long I had sought
since Jesus came into my heart

Since Jesus came into my heart
since Jesus came into my heart
floods of joy o'er my soul
like the sea billows roll
since Jesus came into my heart.

"Adam had a will of his own, he was free to choose God's will or to die" [sic]
"The choice is God's choice that He may or may not give. Adam was given the choice"

Trying to turn my pointing out the contradiction here into "are you saying you have never sinned?" is fantastically disingenuous. When I'm done laughing, give it another try.

Fantastic impression of the UK Supreme Court, by the way.

[teddyv]

This thread gets the Rush song "Freewill" going through my head.

[IMINXTC]

When all else fails, quote the hymnal.

[Athanasius]

When all else fails, quote the hymnal.

"The editor desires to acknowledge the very valuable assistance rendered by Mr William J. Marsh of Forth Worth, Texas, who, besides loaning numerous Mss., contributed the entire section of benediction hymns, many of which he composed expressly for this work."

[jeremiah1five]

I believe free will in man (or angel) is an illusion.

I also no longer believe in a "Fall" of man, a "Fall" which is tied to the man and woman's act of eating from the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Scripture clearly teaches that sin comes from sinner and holiness comes from Holy. Sin cannot come from someone who is Holy as 1 Corinthians 15 makes distinction between "earthy", created matter (man), and the Lord from heaven - Holy child becoming a Holy man: Jesus.

The question of "free will" in man touches several major doctrines in Scripture, one of which is "Was man created holy or was man created sinful?" If man was created holy, then there is no free will to exercise for every act and thought would come from a sinless being, such as is that of "the Lord from heaven" (Christ.)

If man were created sinful then every act and thought would be "continually evil."
Sin would come from sinner.

And why I don't believe in a "Fall" of man is mainly that the act of eating from the forbidden Tree was not man's fist sin. It was his second: lying.

      6       Add thou not unto his words,
      Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
      Proverbs 30:6.

By adding to God's Word "neither shall ye touch it [the Tree]" the man and woman prove themselves as liars and lying is a sin and sin comes from sinner.
Besides this the command "Thou shalt not" also proves that man was created sinful. But before you who read this go off the deep end, I want to make clear the definition of "sin" comes from Strong, who defines the word "sin" as "missing the mark." Now I ask, what is this "mark" that was "missed"?
The glory of God, or the glory that is God.

God Himself is the standard by which everything and everyone is judged against. Isaiah mentions three foundational truths about God. He says, "There is only ONE God, there is NONE like Him, and He gives His glory to NO ONE."

If these three things about God is true - and they are - then the created 'makeup' of man is that he was created "missing the mark" of the glory of God. Sinlessness is a glory of God. It is His Nature, His Deific Attributes of Being. Thus, God cannot sin because His Nature is Sinlessness. And since Isaiah says God gives His glory ["Sinlessness"] to no one, then man by default was created sinful, or missing the mark of the glory of God. Man sinned; Jesus did not. One was sinful, the other was Sinless. Man sinned and so he has a sinful nature and one that needs to be redeemed in order to maintain the "image of God," not the image of Adam. As born-again believers we are being conformed into the image of Christ, not the image of Adam. One is of the earth, earthy; the other is the Lord from heaven, Sinless, neither was guild found in His mouth. And since the leopard cannot change his spots, neither can man change his nature, his DNA. And as such on both counts, the leopard by nature will eat meat, while the chicken by its nature will only eat seed. The leopard will not eat seed, and the chicken will not eat meat. Their natures are set and set with a sin nature.

Man was not created sinless else he would not have sinned. The last/second Adam (Christ) proves this. Christ was Sinless, Christ was Holy, Christ was Righteous, and He did no sin. Man, on the other hand sinned thus proving God did not reduplicate His glory of sinlessness in man nor did God create man as eternal. These are Attributes of God and He shares nor gives none of His glory to man.

So, if Christ is Holy, then Christ by Nature cannot sin. If man is sinful, then if follows that he will sin.

13 As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked:
1 Samuel 24:13.

is the same as sin comes from sinner. Sin cannot come from that or He that is Holy. Therefore, if man was created sinful, or missing the mark of the glory of God, then it follows that he is a sinner and [free] will sin. Man, sins because he is a sinner; he is not a sinner because he sins. The latter destroys the Doctrine of Imputation.

I think that's all for now. We have no free will. We have a sin nature we were created with and based upon that nature, we sin and will always sin, that's why God gave the "Thou shalt not" in the Garden. If there is no Law, then there is no sin according to Saul. It is the existence of "Thou shalt not" that proves man was a sinner before he disobeyed God and ate from the Tree. And the Tree did not change the man. It was just a regular tree. But God used it to give the man the KNOWLEDGE of his sinfulness. And it worked.

[Athanasius]

wut lol

[RabbiKnife]

wut lol

Clean up on aisle 7, Jerry.

Bring a mop and a bucket.

We’ve got a live puker.

[Athanasius]

He's gone now.