I am trying to understand the definitions of the phrases we are using and how they differ. I still don't understand the difference between "free will" and "free choice." Is it possible to have a free choice without a free will? If so, how?
I am asking for an explanation, not a scripture without an explanation.
In the followoing Verse, the word willing is used regarding the Lord's will. In the YLT, "counseling" is used instead of "will".2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
If we were to substitute the word "choosing" instead of "willing", does that change the meaning of the verse? It would seems to move it from a definite act to and act of decision. Does God need to make a decision that any should perish? Or is it more of a declaration of a King?
The word "will" has many usages, but for this, I am presenting it as a declaration as apposed to a choice. Within that context, I think the difference between the two is manifested.
Does the word Counsel shed any more light on this. From Websters dictionary "...
b : a policy or plan of action or behavior"
From this, it would seem to indicate the same thing as "declaration", not as a choice. Put the word "planning" into the phrase "... not planning that any should perish". God's plan is that none should perish, so the same thought applies.
The difference is difficult to "see", but I think their is a difference between "will" and "choice".
Therefore, I don't think that man has his own will, his own declaration, or his own plan. I think that man is given choices within certain parameters in which to grow, as has been previously discussed. And as has also been pointed out, free will is not scriptural, but choice definitely is, a limited amount of free choice.