The end of our interaction went like this:
As I contemplated the discussion I began to understand that 'free will' is an incorrect description which adds confusion to any discussion about will.William wrote: [Replying to post 131 by EBA]
No, because it does not matter, given you think free will does not exist...for anyone.Fair enough. May I ask why you think it is so important that Jesus possess free will?
It isn't that people do not have WILL, for they certainly do, but that given our circumstances, our WILL can never be FREE, because our circumstances - our situation in this physical universe in these physical instruments suppresses any true freedom that we might imagine we could experience and so freedom becomes relative.
One can, of course, argue for philosophical ideas to do with ones internal sense of freedom despite the external bondage and that may relate and align more to the idea of 'free will' but in relation to the will and the external reality, isn't it more appropriate to refer to the will, simply as the will without adding confusion to the mix by introducing the word 'free' in front of the word 'will'?
In relation to biblical referencing, is the concept 'free will' to be found within its pages, or is it only ever about the will? I ask this because it is often the case that 'free will' comes into the argument from Christians as if it were relevant and essential to truth, but are they taking liberties in arguing for something they call 'free will' when such does not actually exist, and why argue 'free will' if 'will' would suffice?
Is it because many arguments would fail, if only 'will' was used instead of 'free will'?
Thoughts?