This is a point which I like in the confession. I don't wish to split hairs, especially since I have few left, but I think there is a distinction between "the will of the creatures" compared to "the [sic]free will of the creatures". Will implies incomplete and limited knowledge. Free will means complete knowledge and understanding.
By definition, the term "free will" means "the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances". This certainly wasn't the case for Adam and Eve and it's certainly not the case for us. Eve was influenced by Satan. Adam by Eve. And just like them we are influenced by events around us. We are incapable of making choices that are unconstrained by lust or greed or sheer independence from God. Consequently, our wills are not free but bound to the events that interrupt our lives.
The term, "free will", by definition is a corrupt construct that shouldn't be used. It gives us a sense that we know and can make judgments apart from any influence or divine will. And therein lies the heresy which influences every doctrine it touches. The root meaning is that we don't need God's divine will to guide us.
"Will of the creatures" is far more accurate and appropriate.
Theres where the miscommunication comes in. When I see choice I see free will ie the freedom of will to make a choice. I didnt take free will to the extreme that that definition does.
>> The term, "free will", by definition is a corrupt construct that shouldn't be used. Under the definition you gave I would agree.
>> "Will of the creatures" is far more accurate and appropriate.<<
Perhaps that is correct. Or at least some variation of it.
I think “unfree will” is distinct from “will”, but I think “will” implies the ability to freely choose.
“No violence” implies that the will was not directed. Therefore, whatever the state of that will, the will that was present was making the decisions for that being.
Therefore, even a depraved will is free. It will, however, lean toward depravity in all its decisions.