What part of **** don't you understand?

[Evangelist]

Many of the threads in this forum eventually resolve back to a clash of doctrines, notably centered over one thing...that being the gift of salvation.

Some maintain that it is a free gift, and quote appropriate scriptures. Someone else comes along, and uses the words "free gift", or "free", or "gift", then proceed to show conditions to the acceptance of this "free gift", again quoting many scriptures.

For edification and enlightenment, please peruse the following:

Main Entry:   1free
Pronunciation:   'frE
Function:   adjective
Inflected Form(s):   fre·er; fre·est
Etymology:   Middle English, from Old English frEo; akin to Old High German frI free, Welsh rhydd, Sanskrit priya own, dear
1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizens> c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another
2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer <free actions> c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously
3 a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome <free from pain> <a speech free of political rhetoric> b : not bound, confined, or detained by force
4 a : having no trade restrictions b : not subject to government regulation c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
5 a : having no obligations (as to work) or commitments <I'll be free this evening> b : not taken up with commitments or obligations <a free evening>
6 : having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>
7 a (1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR (2) : not being used or occupied <waved with his free hand> b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
8 a : not fastened <the free end of the rope> b : not confined to a particular position or place; also : not having a specific opponent to cover in football <a free safety> c : capable of moving or turning in any direction <a free particle> d : performed without apparatus <free tumbling> e : done with artificial aids (as pitons) used only for protection against falling and not for support <a free climb>
9 a : not parsimonious <free spending> b : OUTSPOKEN c : availing oneself of something without stint d : FRANK, OPEN e : overly familiar or forward in action or attitude f : LICENTIOUS
10 : not costing or charging anything
11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else : SEPARATE <free ores> <a free surface of a bodily part> (2) : FREESTANDING <a free column> b : chemically uncombined <free oxygen> <free acids> c : not permanently attached but able to move about <a free electron in a metal> d : capable of being used alone as a meaningful linguistic form <the word hats is a free form> -- compare 5BOUND 7
12 a : not literal or exact <free translation> b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free skating>
13 : FAVORABLE -- used of a wind blowing from a direction more than six points from dead ahead
14 : not allowing slavery
15 : open to all comers
- free·ness  /-n&s/ noun
- for free : without charge
synonyms FREE, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN, AUTONOMOUS mean not subject to the rule or control of another. FREE stresses the complete absence of external rule or condition and the full right to make all of one's own decisions <you're free to do as you like>. INDEPENDENT implies a standing alone; applied to a state it implies lack of connection with any other having power to interfere with its citizens, laws, or policies <the colony's struggle to become independent>. SOVEREIGN stresses the absence of a superior power and implies supremacy within a thing's own domain or sphere <separate and sovereign armed services>. AUTONOMOUS stresses independence in matters pertaining to self-government <in this denomination each congregation is regarded as autonomous>.

Main Entry:   1gift
Pronunciation:   'gift
Function:   noun
Etymology:   Middle English, from Old Norse, something given, talent; akin to Old English giefan to give
1 : a notable capacity, talent, or endowment
2 : something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation
3 : the act, right, or power of giving
synonyms GIFT, FACULTY, APTITUDE, BENT, TALENT, GENIUS, KNACK mean a special ability for doing something. GIFT often implies special favor by God or nature <the gift of singing beautifully>. FACULTY applies to an innate or less often acquired ability for a particular accomplishment or function <a faculty for remembering names>. APTITUDE implies a natural liking for some activity and the likelihood of success in it <a mechanical aptitude>. BENT is nearly equal to APTITUDE but it stresses inclination perhaps more than specific ability <a family with an artistic bent>. TALENT suggests a marked natural ability that needs to be developed <has enough talent to succeed>. GENIUS suggests impressive inborn creative ability <has no great genius for poetry>. KNACK implies a comparatively minor but special ability making for ease and dexterity in performance <the knack of getting along>.


What is the upshot? That those who use the words "free" and "gift", and then attach conditions to it's acceptance are semantically challenged, intellectually dishonest and spiritually hobbled by their own intellect.

What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

[JudgeNot]

 
Now you're talking.

[michael_legna]

Many of the threads in this forum eventually resolve back to a clash of doctrines, notably centered over one thing...that being the gift of salvation.

Some maintain that it is a free gift, and quote appropriate scriptures. Someone else comes along, and uses the words "free gift", or "free", or "gift", then proceed to show conditions to the acceptance of this "free gift", again quoting many scriptures.

A good summary and it is interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms rather than address the scriptures referenced in those posts.  Not only that, but it is not even clear what man you rely on or consider as authoritative for your definitions as this is important in determining any hidden biases.  

But the main issue you fail to recognize is how ethnocentric your analysis is.  If you step back for a moment you may be able to see how it focuses on the English definitions of English translations of mainly Greek terms.  In other languages you would not be able to make the same literal argument you make here and an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one.  

Finally, as I show below the Greek terms translated as free in the English translations of the scriptures does not mean precisely the same as the literal spin you attempt to put on it in your analysis.

What is the upshot? That those who use the words "free" and "gift", and then attach conditions to it's acceptance are semantically challenged, intellectually dishonest and spiritually hobbled by their own intellect.

If you do an actual study of the word free in the New Testament you will see that it is only used 31 times some of which can be argued do not refer to salvation even indirectly.

You will also see that the Greek terms translated as free in the New Testament are;

eleurberoo meaning to liberate and not necessarily with out conditions. (Strongs 1659 used 18 times)

and

eleurberos meaning unrestrained again not a position that necessarily is with out conditions. (Strongs 1658 used 6 times)

and

charisma when refering to a gift (often translated as free gift) but more precisely meaning divine gratuity or deliverance from danger.  so we see the free is inserted by the translators, which is fine as long as one understands it is not a rigorous, literal meaning of the English word free. (Strongs 5486 appears only twice in Rom 5:15 and Rom 5:16)

The other five times the word "free" appears in the KJV of the New Testament it is inserted by the translators without the Greek even having a word present to be translated.

So it is clear the literal use of the strictest definition of the English word free is never intended or supportable by the Greek, it was just the best word the translators had for the purpose and therefore your careful but seriously English Anglo-Saxon biased analysis is not applicable.

Lastly, even in American English usage a gift can have conditions upon it to retain it and not change it from free to merited or earned.

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

[sincereheart]

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

In the case of a balloon, if the child lets go it is lost FOREVER! Not to mention the fact that a balloon, if kept, will lose air and be useless.  I'm guessing you don't have any kids? I've never known a parent to give a balloon as a gift!


What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

Amen!  

[michael_legna]

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

In the case of a balloon, if the child lets go it is lost FOREVER! Not to mention the fact that a balloon, if kept, will lose air and be useless.  I'm guessing you don't have any kids? I've never known a parent to give a balloon as a gift!


What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

Amen!  

Do you really assume that if you point out minor issues in an example you disprove a contention?  Just because you don't think of a balloon as a gift does not mean it is not one.

Ok what about a puppy that the parents tell the child to look after and not let out of the house, or a kitten, or a check they are told not to rip or lose,  etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Beside I don't know how rich you were growing up but I received a balloon from my parents as a gift - it went really well with the drum I got with the picture of the Quaker on the front.  

[sincereheart]

Do you really assume that if you point out minor issues in an example you disprove a contention?  


I'm trying to point out that Christ is the gift that keeps on giving! Much better than any balloon!

[michael_legna]

Do you really assume that if you point out minor issues in an example you disprove a contention?  


I'm trying to point out that Christ is the gift that keeps on giving! Much better than any balloon!

I agree but that does not mean that a gift cannot be free if there are conditions associated with accepting it, which was my point.

I thought you were trying to address my point - instead it appears we were arguing across each others points.  I accept your point and until I see an argument addressing mine I will assume you agree with it.  

[Evangelist]

A good summary and it is interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms rather than address the scriptures referenced in those posts.

 
Thank you.
First, the scriptures referenced do not contain the words "free" or "gift". Secondly, they have been addressed before (by others), while the scriptures that do reference free and gift have been ignored by you. Tit for tat.
 

Not only that, but it is not even clear what man you rely on or consider as authoritative for your definitions as this is important in determining any hidden biases.

 

Ahhhh....an oblique character assination fallacy coupled with an intimation of unjustifiable bias. Rofl.
Merriam-Webster.....and if you care to delve more deeply, every major dictionary of the English language carries the same information, albeit in different orders. Are you accusing all dictionary publishers of hidden biases?

But the main issue you fail to recognize is how ethnocentric your analysis is.  If you step back for a moment you may be able to see how it focuses on the English definitions of English translations of mainly Greek terms.

A perfect expression of what I meant when I said "semantically challenged". What you fail to recognize is that when speaking (or writing) in English to another, and using specific terms to explain something (such as free and gift), then one automatically chooses to abide by the defining terms of those words. If you want to converse in Greek, then speak in Greek. Besides, the analysis is "Christocentric", not ethno.

In other languages you would not be able to make the same literal argument you make here and an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one.

 

In other languages (some) the same literal argument can be made, and you fail to prove that it can't. Further, it is incumbent on you to prove your contention that "an argument that cannot cross the lives of various languages is not a logically sound one", which you fail to do so here.

Finally, as I show below the Greek terms translated as free in the English translations of the scriptures does not mean precisely the same as the literal spin you attempt to put on it in your analysis.
If you do an actual study of the word free in the New Testament you will see that it is only used 31 times some of which can be argued do not refer to salvation even indirectly.
You will also see that the Greek terms translated as free in the New Testament are;
eleurberoo meaning to liberate and not necessarily with out conditions. (Strongs 1659 used 18 times)
and
eleurberos meaning unrestrained again not a position that necessarily is with out conditions. (Strongs 1658 used 6 times)
and
charisma when refering to a gift (often translated as free gift) but more precisely meaning divine gratuity or deliverance from danger.  so we see the free is inserted by the translators, which is fine as long as one understands it is not a rigorous, literal meaning of the English word free. (Strongs 5486 appears only twice in Rom 5:15 and Rom 5:16)
The other five times the word "free" appears in the KJV of the New Testament it is inserted by the translators without the Greek even having a word present to be translated.
So it is clear the literal use of the strictest definition of the English word free is never intended or supportable by the Greek, it was just the best word the translators had for the purpose and therefore your careful but seriously English Anglo-Saxon biased analysis is not applicable.

Interesting spin. Let's just examine some usage.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
charisma
1) a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own
2) the gift of divine grace
3) the gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue
4) the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith
5) grace or gifts denoting extraordinary powers, distinguishing certain Christians and enabling them to serve the church of Christ, the reception of which is due to the power of divine grace operating on
their souls by the Holy Spirit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift:
dorema
1) a gift, bounty, benefaction
for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift (charisma) [is] of many offences unto justification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rom 5:17   For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift (dorea) of righteousness (dikaiosune: the state of one acceptable to God) shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Isn't it interesting that the context and usage of both free, and gift, is exactly (literally) as originally postulated?

Further, in the other instances involving the use of "free"
eleutheros
1) freeborn
a) in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
b) of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
2) free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
3) in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

the primary context and usage is parallel to definition 2 (free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation.

 

Lastly, even in American English usage a gift can have conditions upon it to retain it and not change it from free to merited or earned.

Your following example, which I suppose is your attempt to prove this assertion, is interesting. And, as noted before in another thread, the difference would be two fold. First, it's "...interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms..." to make a point. At this juncture, it would appear to be somewhat hypocritical on your part. Nevertheless, consider....if I were a caring and loving father, like my Father in heaven is, then I would securely tie the balloon to the child so that there would be no chance of them letting go of it, thus assuring their continued happiness with the balloon I gave them.

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

Thanks for the instruction, but being a grandfather 14 times over, I don't need to ask either a child or a neophyte father how to give a balloon....or any other gift....which by definition, is freely given.

[ollie]

Many of the threads in this forum eventually resolve back to a clash of doctrines, notably centered over one thing...that being the gift of salvation.

Some maintain that it is a free gift, and quote appropriate scriptures. Someone else comes along, and uses the words "free gift", or "free", or "gift", then proceed to show conditions to the acceptance of this "free gift", again quoting many scriptures.

For edification and enlightenment, please peruse the following:

Main Entry:   1free
Pronunciation:   'frE
Function:   adjective
Inflected Form(s):   fre·er; fre·est
Etymology:   Middle English, from Old English frEo; akin to Old High German frI free, Welsh rhydd, Sanskrit priya own, dear
1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty <free citizens> c : enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another
2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer <free actions> c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously
3 a : relieved from or lacking something unpleasant or burdensome <free from pain> <a speech free of political rhetoric> b : not bound, confined, or detained by force
4 a : having no trade restrictions b : not subject to government regulation c of foreign exchange : not subject to restriction or official control
5 a : having no obligations (as to work) or commitments <I'll be free this evening> b : not taken up with commitments or obligations <a free evening>
6 : having a scope not restricted by qualification <a free variable>
7 a (1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR (2) : not being used or occupied <waved with his free hand> b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
8 a : not fastened <the free end of the rope> b : not confined to a particular position or place; also : not having a specific opponent to cover in football <a free safety> c : capable of moving or turning in any direction <a free particle> d : performed without apparatus <free tumbling> e : done with artificial aids (as pitons) used only for protection against falling and not for support <a free climb>
9 a : not parsimonious <free spending> b : OUTSPOKEN c : availing oneself of something without stint d : FRANK, OPEN e : overly familiar or forward in action or attitude f : LICENTIOUS
10 : not costing or charging anything
11 a (1) : not united with, attached to, combined with, or mixed with something else : SEPARATE <free ores> <a free surface of a bodily part> (2) : FREESTANDING <a free column> b : chemically uncombined <free oxygen> <free acids> c : not permanently attached but able to move about <a free electron in a metal> d : capable of being used alone as a meaningful linguistic form <the word hats is a free form> -- compare 5BOUND 7
12 a : not literal or exact <free translation> b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free skating>
13 : FAVORABLE -- used of a wind blowing from a direction more than six points from dead ahead
14 : not allowing slavery
15 : open to all comers
- free·ness  /-n&s/ noun
- for free : without charge
synonyms FREE, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN, AUTONOMOUS mean not subject to the rule or control of another. FREE stresses the complete absence of external rule or condition and the full right to make all of one's own decisions <you're free to do as you like>. INDEPENDENT implies a standing alone; applied to a state it implies lack of connection with any other having power to interfere with its citizens, laws, or policies <the colony's struggle to become independent>. SOVEREIGN stresses the absence of a superior power and implies supremacy within a thing's own domain or sphere <separate and sovereign armed services>. AUTONOMOUS stresses independence in matters pertaining to self-government <in this denomination each congregation is regarded as autonomous>.

Main Entry:   1gift
Pronunciation:   'gift
Function:   noun
Etymology:   Middle English, from Old Norse, something given, talent; akin to Old English giefan to give
1 : a notable capacity, talent, or endowment
2 : something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation
3 : the act, right, or power of giving
synonyms GIFT, FACULTY, APTITUDE, BENT, TALENT, GENIUS, KNACK mean a special ability for doing something. GIFT often implies special favor by God or nature <the gift of singing beautifully>. FACULTY applies to an innate or less often acquired ability for a particular accomplishment or function <a faculty for remembering names>. APTITUDE implies a natural liking for some activity and the likelihood of success in it <a mechanical aptitude>. BENT is nearly equal to APTITUDE but it stresses inclination perhaps more than specific ability <a family with an artistic bent>. TALENT suggests a marked natural ability that needs to be developed <has enough talent to succeed>. GENIUS suggests impressive inborn creative ability <has no great genius for poetry>. KNACK implies a comparatively minor but special ability making for ease and dexterity in performance <the knack of getting along>.


What is the upshot? That those who use the words "free" and "gift", and then attach conditions to it's acceptance are semantically challenged, intellectually dishonest and spiritually hobbled by their own intellect.

What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

It is not free. Jesus Christ paid for it. We accept the gift when God's word calls us to faith through hearing and believing.

Is accepting the gift through believing a condition? Is hearing?  

Ollie

[ollie]

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

In the case of a balloon, if the child lets go it is lost FOREVER! Not to mention the fact that a balloon, if kept, will lose air and be useless.  I'm guessing you don't have any kids? I've never known a parent to give a balloon as a gift!


What part of "FREE" and "GIFT" don't you understand?

Amen!  

When one gives a gift there is usually a receiver of the gift.

To receive a gift one must accept it or he will not have it.

Giving a child a balloon means the child miust reach out and take it or the child can refuse it by not reaching out for it.

Is the reaching out and taking the gift a condition of receiving it and having it?

Is the refusal of the gift a condition of not receiving it and not having it?

Do conditions make it any less free since Christ already paid for the gift?

How does one accept a free gift without reaching out and taking it.

Perhaps we need to define "conditions".

Ollie

[michael_legna]

PART 1 OF 2

A good summary and it is interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms rather than address the scriptures referenced in those posts.

Thank you.
First, the scriptures referenced do not contain the words "free" or "gift". Secondly, they have been addressed before (by others), while the scriptures that do reference free and gift have been ignored by you. Tit for tat.

I didn't see you reference any scriptures at all I dug them up for myself.  And I have never been presented with them as an argum,ent for the other side of the issue otherwise I would have addressed them.  So I can hardly be accused of ignoring them.   As for other having addressed the scriptures my side of the discussion have offered you forget to mention that each time has been unsuccessful, so I would hardly rely on them to show prove your case unless you are willing to accept that level of failure.

Not only that, but it is not even clear what man you rely on or consider as authoritative for your definitions as this is important in determining any hidden biases.

 

Ahhhh....an oblique character assination fallacy coupled with an intimation of unjustifiable bias. Rofl.
Merriam-Webster.....and if you care to delve more deeply, every major dictionary of the English language carries the same information, albeit in different orders. Are you accusing all dictionary publishers of hidden biases?

Not at all I am just trying to get you to show your sources as I know from experience on forums that all kinds of misrepresentations are passed off as facts as if from reputable sources when in reality they are from biased sources.  I have no problem with Webster (though you claim that " every major dictionary of the English language carries the same information" is an unknowable fact) but this issue is important as will become clear later in your post when you rely on just such a biased source as I was originally concerned with.

But the main issue you fail to recognize is how ethnocentric your analysis is.  If you step back for a moment you may be able to see how it focuses on the English definitions of English translations of mainly Greek terms.

A perfect expression of what I meant when I said "semantically challenged". What you fail to recognize is that when speaking (or writing) in English to another, and using specific terms to explain something (such as free and gift), then one automatically chooses to abide by the defining terms of those words.  If you want to converse in Greek, then speak in Greek.

Nonsense.  When discussing technical issues one is often required to go beyond the common usage of English terms.  No self respecting scientist discusses lightning based on Webster's definition or the one in common usage.  If you want to discuss interpretation of  scripture using only English then you do not understand the scriptures at all.  The scriptures are inerrant as written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their original languages.  The scriptures in English were translated by men and are therefore not inerrant.  In fact since there is no one to one correspondence between the two languages the translators are forced to use dynamic equivalence and other mechanisms to get the meaning of the text across.  The minute you let the translators determine the meaning before one even gets to read the text you allow for bais to enter into the process.

Besides, the analysis is "Christocentric", not ethno.

You may think it is but if you want to argue the logical meaning of a text and require that discussion to occur in your language with your preconceived notions of what terms mean then, you are centering it on your own culture and ethnicity.

In other languages you would not be able to make the same literal argument you make here and an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one.

In other languages (some) the same literal argument can be made, and you fail to prove that it can't.  Further, it is incumbent on you to prove your contention that "an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one", which you fail to do so here.

The burden of proof is not on me to show that the same literal argument can be made – that is your burden, unless of course there is no validity to my claim that logic requires arguments to cross line of language, which brings me to the next point.

You are right I did not prove that "an argument that cannot cross the lines of various languages is not a logically sound one" because I thought it was a well known fact to all (much like not proving the law of gravity to anyone).  Logic is a mathematical symbolic discipline it is not language dependent.  I could prove this symbolically though I do not have the means to transmit the symbols to the forum nor do I expect most readers here could follow them, so I will attempt to show what I mean through an example.

Suppose there is a language that has one word for snow.  Call it language A.  Suppose language B has two words for snow. Finally suppose language C has seven words for snow.  Now a text is written in language A and translated into language B and C by different translators.  The translators for language B end up with some instances of snow of type 1 and some of type 2 sprinkled through out the text due to dynamic equivalence.  Translators for language C end up with all seven varieties of snow mentioned in their translation for the same reason.  Readers of the text in language C come to the conclusion that there were all seven forms of snow present in the text and thus conclude something about the weather patterns necessary to promote those snows, while readers in language B do the same thing for the two forms of snow in their translation coming to a different conclusion about the weather patterns behind the scenes.  The truth is neither can be sure because there is not enough information contained in the original text and so any logical argument is hampered by the vagueness of the languages and their differences.  Logic is about concepts not the words used to express them, so it must be language independent.

END OF PART 1

[michael_legna]

PART 2

Finally, as I show below the Greek terms translated as free in the English translations of the scriptures does not mean precisely the same as the literal spin you attempt to put on it in your analysis.

If you do an actual study of the word free in the New Testament you will see that it is only used 31 times some of which can be argued do not refer to salvation even indirectly.
You will also see that the Greek terms translated as free in the New Testament are;
eleurberoo meaning to liberate and not necessarily with out conditions. (Strongs 1659 used 18 times)

and

eleurberos meaning unrestrained again not a position that necessarily is with out conditions. (Strongs 1658 used 6 times)

and

charisma when refering to a gift (often translated as free gift) but more precisely meaning divine gratuity or deliverance from danger.  so we see the free is inserted by the translators, which is fine as long as one understands it is not a rigorous, literal meaning of the English word free. (Strongs 5486 appears only twice in Rom 5:15 and Rom 5:16)
The other five times the word "free" appears in the KJV of the New Testament it is inserted by the translators without the Greek even having a word present to be translated.
So it is clear the literal use of the strictest definition of the English word free is never intended or supportable by the Greek, it was just the best word the translators had for the purpose and therefore your careful but seriously English Anglo-Saxon biased analysis is not applicable.

Interesting spin. Let's just examine some usage.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
charisma
1) a favour with which one receives without any merit of his own
2) the gift of divine grace
3) the gift of faith, knowledge, holiness, virtue
4) the economy of divine grace, by which the pardon of sin and eternal salvation is appointed to sinners in consideration of the merits of Christ laid hold of by faith
5) grace or gifts denoting extraordinary powers, distinguishing certain Christians and enabling them to serve the church of Christ, the reception of which is due to the power of divine grace operating on
their souls by the Holy Spirit

Again you do not provide your source for these definitions – clearly it is not Webster this time and so I am willing to guess that it is a Protestant theological dictionary and therefore biased in its definitions.

Be that as it may, even the definitions you pull from it prove nothing concerning the issue at hand.  The issue is not whether salvation is a gift as both sides say that it is, nor whether salvation is free as both sides say that it is, nor whether salvation can be merited as both sides say that it cannot be.  The issue is whether a free gift can have conditions placed on it and can those conditions be such as to not constitute meriting the gift thus rendering it other than free and other than a gift.  This analysis of Rom 5:15 does not address this final issue except where it assumes (based on the internal biases of the authors of the dictionary) that it is based on faith (alone) and is appointed.  Neither of which have anything to do with the literal Greek terms they pretend to be translating.

Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift:
dorema
1) a gift, bounty, benefaction
for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift (charisma) [is] of many offences unto justification.

Again this addresses only the points shared in common by the two sides (that salvation is a gift and it is free) it does not address the issue of conditions that do not merit.  Such a condition is know to the authors as they require faith as a mean to accepting the free gift and they do so without considering that it in some way makes the gift not a gift or in anyway affects its freeness.

Rom 5:17   For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift (dorea) of righteousness (dikaiosune: the state of one acceptable to God) shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Again not discussing the issue of conditions or lack there of on the gift, only identifying it as a gift so it has little to offer in this discussion.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

Isn't it interesting that the context and usage of both free, and gift, is exactly (literally) as originally postulated?

Actually the only reason you think it is exactly literally both free and a gift is because it is and both sides agree to that point.  But that is not what you originally postulated.  You claimed that if it were a gift and free that there could be no conditions on it.  None of the "usages" you choose for your analysis addressed that issue in the slightest.

I will tell you what is interesting about the last verse you referenced.  The phrase you included in brackets "[the free gift came]" is there because it does not exist in the original Greek at all.  There are no words in the text to correspond to them.  They were inserted by the authors to bring out the meaning of the text as they saw it.  This is the danger of arguing the meaning of a complex text without referring to the language it was originally written in.

END OF PART 2

[michael_legna]

PART 3

Further, in the other instances involving the use of "free"
eleutheros
1) freeborn
a) in a civil sense, one who is not a slave
b) of one who ceases to be a slave, freed, manumitted
2) free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation
3) in an ethical sense: free from the yoke of the Mosaic Law

the primary context and usage is parallel to definition 2 (free, exempt, unrestrained, not bound by an obligation.

Again this is most likely from a Protestant theological dictionary and therefore reflecting their bias especially in the area you have bolded.  It would be interesting to see you come up with a similarly strong definition of the Greek term from a secular Greek dictionary.

Still even your strongest definition does little to bolster your argument as the conditions of following Christ as our shepherd are no more or less obligatory than our having faith in Him.  If you believe that faith is obligatory then you feel salvation is not a free gift either if you adhere rigorously to your own definition.

Lastly, even in American English usage a gift can have conditions upon it to retain it and not change it from free to merited or earned.

Your following example, which I suppose is your attempt to prove this assertion, is interesting. And, as noted before in another thread, the difference would be two fold. First, it's "...interesting you decide to go to man's definitions of terms..." to make a point. At this juncture, it would appear to be somewhat hypocritical on your part.

If you note I am not using a definition to prove something I am using an example and as we both know an example cannot be used to prove anything only to illustrate or illuminate to help someone else see your side of the discussion.  So no I am not being hypocritical, by requiring you to abandon man's definitions and focus on Christ's as you try to prove things while I use examples to help you understand things. but thanks for your concern.

Nevertheless, consider....if I were a caring and loving father, like my Father in heaven is, then I would securely tie the balloon to the child so that there would be no chance of them letting go of it, thus assuring their continued happiness with the balloon I gave them.

Since you saw this answer posted before I suspect you saw the clear rebuttal to it which I provided at the time.  I would only tie the string of my latest gift to the child's wrist if it was my intention to take back the gift I had given earlier – that of free will.  But nice try at ducking the issue.

If I give a child a helium balloon and tell them to hold on tight and don't let go there is suddenly a condition on their keeping the gift.  But these conditions do not make the gift any less free - ask any caring loving father or their child and they will tell you.

Thanks for the instruction, but being a grandfather 14 times over, I don't need to ask either a child or a neophyte father how to give a balloon....or any other gift....which by definition, is freely given.

Do you really expect us to believe that every time you gave a child or grandchild a balloon you tied it to their wrist?  If you did at least admit you have seen other parents give their children balloons without tying it to their wrists.  When you saw this happen did you think to yourself there goes another child earning their toy balloon?  Or when you later saw a balloon floating against the ceiling did you think to yourself there must be another unworthy child who could not earn their balloon?  Nonsense!  

The bottom line is - Gifts can be given freely with conditions associated with them that do not constitute merit or earning of the gift.

END OF PART 3
END

[JudgeNot]

Ollie said:

It is not free. Jesus Christ paid for it.

Quote: "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
annonymous corporate business person

It's free to you and me.
When I get a gift for my daughter, I have to pay for it - but it's free to her (other than knowing and acknowledging that her father worked to pay for it, and showing love and gratitude in return...)
 

[michael_legna]

Ollie said:

It is not free. Jesus Christ paid for it.

Quote: "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
annonymous corporate business person

It's free to you and me.
When I get a gift for my daughter, I have to pay for it - but it's free to her (other than knowing and acknowledging that her father worked to pay for it, and showing love and gratitude in return...)
 

Yes it is free but there is still a condition on receiving even the gift of laughter - one must understand the humor in order to laugh at it.  Does this understanding mean one merits the laughter or earns it?  No!  Is is a condition of laughing?  Yes!