The desire to do wrong, I argue, stems from human nature itself—an inherent sinful condition. Your assertion that individuals possess the capacity to choose between good and evil, and that such a choice must be made internally, presupposes the existence of free will in its fullest sense. Yet, when someone consciously chooses a particular course of action, that choice is rooted in underlying tendencies, mental states, and dispositions present at the moment of decision. Choosing evil, then, is not merely about making a superficial decision; it reflects an underlying disposition or inclination that predisposes a person toward such behavior. In essence, evil is not simply a matter of choice in isolation but is deeply intertwined with human nature and the internal state of the individual. You might emphasize the idea that human beings are completely self-determined, capable of choosing their own paths without external influence. However, this perspective often overlooks the fact that God, in His grace and sovereignty, provides the means and opportunity for individuals to accept or reject salvation. By offering this choice, God grants humans the ability to select either the path toward eternal life through Christ or the path toward eternal separation from God. The biblical narrative suggests that, from the moment of birth, humanity exists in a state of spiritual death—alienated from God—and is inherently inclined toward sin and separation. This condition implies that not everyone begins life with an equal capacity to choose salvation over damnation. While those who are lost—or the damned—may seem to lack the ability to choose salvation, those who are saved demonstrate the capacity to make the choice to accept salvation rather than remain separated from God. This situation raises a profound question: if some individuals are fundamentally unable to choose salvation, does that not challenge the notion of true free will? The idea that humans are completely self-determined may be flawed because the options available to different individuals are not always equally accessible. The tendency toward sin is rooted in the fallen state of humanity, not merely in an unrestrained freedom of choice. Even Adam, who may have been the most free individual in history, was still entirely bound by sin after his disobedience. For Adam’s desire to choose between good and evil to have been genuinely balanced, external influences—particularly the attractiveness or appeal of each option—must have played a significant role in swaying his decision. In the original, unfallen state, the choices would have appeared more attractive and less conflicted than they did after the fall. This aligns with your discussion about the nature of freedom, where external factors influence decision-making. In conclusion, human choices—especially those involving sin—are intrinsically linked to and influenced by our fallen nature. Evil actions are not merely the result of a free decision made in a vacuum but are manifestations of underlying sinful tendencies that shape our decisions. This understanding highlights the limitations of the notion that humans are entirely free in the absolute sense and underscores the importance of recognizing the role that human nature and external influences play in moral decision-making. You seem to suggest that if temptation was the main motivator behind Adam’s decision, then it would somehow be better for Adam to remain in a sinful state rather than achieve moral perfection. However, I contend that this perspective is inconsistent with the true concept of freedom. Our choices are not primarily driven by external circumstances or superficial appeal, but rather by our internal nature and dispositions. Wrongful actions originate from within, from the inclinations and tendencies that shape our desires and decisions. Although this may seem counterintuitive within a traditional free will framework, it actually points toward a form of constrained agency—where choices are influenced or limited by one’s innate nature—rather than absolute, unrestrained freedom. Moral responsibility, therefore, involves recognizing that individuals are fundamentally driven by their internal inclinations and dispositions.