Free will raises the question is if it could be giving yourself an evil nature?

Free will is the free ability to do good or to do evil. Free will is said to be given to us by God so that we can truly be ourselves.
But is free will about doing good or evil, being good or evil or both?
If you are evil you have an evil nature. If you also have a good nature, it follows that in so far as you have an evil nature, you are an evil person and to be hated.
Free will as a doctrine is not about doing good or evil so much as becoming good or evil. Free will should not be about doing but about being. Why?
You need to be able to give yourself a good or evil nature. Having a nature of evil means that you are evil in the same way you are a person. You are evil in the same way a dog is a dog. A dog is not a dog because it barks but a dog barks because it is a dog. You are not evil because you do evil but you do evil because you are evil.
If you can become good but cannot become evil then you have no free will worth talking about.
What about being partly evil in nature and partly good? It would follow then that you have both an evil and a good nature.
To identify a person with their evil is hate. If you say their nature is evil, then that indicates they should be hated totally. If you say their nature is evil but they also have a good nature, that indicates they are to be hated in so far as they are evil. It would forbid you to consider only their good nature. It would forbid you to ignore how they have ruined their nature by absorbing evil and making it their own.
To accuse them of sin only makes the hate worse.
It is one thing to think a person can become evil or good by their free will. But sin is a different problem. Sin is the notion that evil is bad not because it is bad but because it is against the law of God and will draw down punishment. It makes evil more evil. It is better to not believe in God or sin and believe in good or not-so-good instead.


No Copyright