The ability to choose allows us to love, trust, and obey God freely—but it also allows human beings to make choices that cause tremendous harm.
Why do you think God created us with the ability to choose rather than creating people who would automatically do what is right?
Do you think genuine love requires the freedom to choose?
Yes. God does not want robots.
Peter
Lots to read on the subject of Christianity, God, Satan, and free will.
Yeah I think you are right - love requires freedom.
I think we underrate God’s purpose for people because people are so common, and because we are in the midst of our formation. The greatest physicist in history used to be in kindergarten. He didn’t command a lot of respect back then.
Same with Peter Parker. He used to wear diapers. Now he’s Spiderman.
Of course Spiderman is a fictional character, but maybe we can see the point - we don’t know what our function will be after this life, but my opinion is that God needs some superheroes that always believe Him, and always freely choose to obey Him.
Moses and Elijah showed up on a mountain to talk Jesus, about what? HIS COMING DEATH AND RESURRECTION!!! Blows me away. Jesus wants to talk to His best friends before He suffers and dies.
God wants more best friends for His Son. Jesus’ best friends always have the choice to go a different direction. They are still free, but constrained by love.
There is no greater love than loving freely, and we can believe that God wants maximally great love, because He is a maximally great God. So He gives us the choice to participate. Be superheroes.
I would push back on the question itself, because it already assumes the conclusion. The statement that “God created us with free will so that we can love Him freely” is not a biblical statement unless we first define what “free will” means and then demonstrate that definition from Scripture. The Bible certainly teaches that human beings make choices, exercise the will, love, hate, obey, disobey, repent, believe, refuse and are held responsible for what they do. But that is not automatically the same thing as the philosophical doctrine of libertarian free will, meaning that a person, at the very moment of choosing, possesses the ability to choose otherwise in precisely the same circumstances, with the choice not being determined by prior causes, desires, nature or divine providence.
That distinction matters enormously. People often use “free will,” “freedom,” “choice,” “moral responsibility,” “ability,” “volition,” “agency,” “autonomy,” “libertarian freedom,” “compatibilist freedom,” “self determination,” “free choice,” and “freedom of contrary choice” as though they were interchangeable biblical concepts. They are not. Scripture does not give us a philosophical definition of libertarian free will and then tell us that God gave it to humanity. That is a theological model imposed upon the biblical data.
The Bible does teach that human beings will and choose. But Scripture also teaches that the human will is profoundly affected by the person’s condition. Jesus says, “Everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). He then says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). Paul describes unbelievers as **“dead in trespasses and sins” and says they “walked” according to the course of this world (Ephesians 2:1–3). He describes those outside Christ as “slaves of sin” (Romans 6:20), while James says a person is enticed by his own desire (James 1:14).
So the biblical picture is not of a completely autonomous will floating above human nature and circumstances, independently determining itself.
And this is where the common argument about love becomes questionable. “Genuine love requires libertarian freedom” is not something Scripture says. It is a philosophical premise. Scripture certainly commands love for God, and Scripture presents love as something genuinely expressed by human beings. But nowhere does the Bible say, “Love is genuine only if the person possessed the metaphysical ability to choose the opposite.” That is a definition of love imported from outside the text.
Indeed, the biblical language is often quite different. Paul says that God “works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). Notice that. God is not merely standing outside the human person hoping that an autonomous will will cooperate. God is said to be working in believers both to will and to act. Yet Paul immediately commands them, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). Divine operation and genuine human willing are both present in the same passage.
That creates the real biblical question. It is not, “Are human beings robots?” Obviously they are not. Scripture never depicts human beings as robots. Nor is the question, “Do people make choices?” Of course they do. The question is whether those choices require libertarian autonomy, meaning that God’s sovereign action, providence, foreknowledge, human nature, desires and circumstances cannot determine the choice.
Scripture does not use that philosophical framework.
There is also a serious problem with saying that God gave humans libertarian freedom because otherwise love would not be genuine. If libertarian freedom is necessary for genuine love, then one has to explain why God Himself can sovereignly work in believers to produce willing obedience without thereby destroying the genuineness of that obedience. One also has to explain the biblical descriptions of God’s people being made willing. Psalm 110:3 says, “Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power.” The text does not present divine power and genuine willingness as opposites.
Likewise, Ezekiel 36:26–27 speaks of God giving His people a new heart and putting His Spirit within them, causing them to walk in His statutes. That is hardly the picture of God merely preserving an autonomous decision making faculty so that people can manufacture sufficiently free love. God’s gracious work changes the person, changes the heart, and consequently changes what the person desires and does.
And this is why I think the forum needs to stop treating “free will” as though it were a biblical term with an obvious definition. It isn’t. The biblical categories are much richer. Scripture speaks about the heart, desires, understanding, slavery to sin, blindness, hardness, repentance, faith, God’s drawing, God’s giving, God’s calling, God’s regenerating, God’s working, human willing, human choosing and human responsibility. Those are the things we should exegete.
Out of characters…
J.
Wow, you got your computer working! How about that.
Maybe you can explain the spirit that caused you to post your contradictory, confusing, strawmanning, “push back”? Was that your free choice?
Just a few words please.
Yes, it was my free choice. But notice what you just did, Pater. You simply assumed the very definition of “free choice” that is under dispute, then called my response contradictory and “strawmanning” without actually demonstrating where I supposedly misrepresented the argument. That is not an argument, it’s an assertion.
And we also have a very slow internet connection. Concise enough for Peter Parker in his diapers?
J.
Oh dude - smack down! That was a good one! I’m so glad you didn’t say “well, you can’t flap your arms and fly to Miami can you? No? Alright then, you don’t have free will!”
As you know, exhausting your available word count on every post has a few benefits. You get to look really smart, you get to blab away to no end, and - nobody in their right mind is going to sift through to argue with everything.
If you want me to, I will, but you know how that works out for you. (lol)
The greatest thing in the life of a Christian is that we have the Holy Spirit, Jesus called Him our “Helper”, to give us guidance and instruction. We also have our conscience. We should not ignore that.
I recognize that you want us to be sure to give God His due credit. Absolutely, 100%, without His Spirit, we could do nothing good. So (as always, always, always) we exercise our free will to believe Him. His truth is there, His help is there, His love is there.
Will we believe it? That’s our free will choice.
If your best response to a lengthy argument is to mock its length, then you haven’t refuted anything. You don’t get to dismiss an argument as “blabbing” simply because you don’t want to deal with it. If I’ve made a mistake, point to it and refute it. Otherwise, the sarcasm is doing the work your argument isn’t.
[quote=“Pater15, post:8, topic:20359”]
Pater, I think we’re talking past each other because you’re using “free will” as though it simply means “making a choice.” I absolutely believe human beings make genuine choices. Scripture is full of them.
But that’s not the point under dispute. The question is whether those choices prove libertarian free will, meaning that a person could have chosen otherwise under precisely the same circumstances and independently of their nature, desires, prior causes and God’s providence.
You haven’t demonstrated that from Scripture. You’ve simply asserted, “we exercise our free will to believe Him.” That’s the very proposition that needs to be proved.
And that’s why your argument doesn’t establish what you think it establishes. Choice is biblical. Human responsibility is biblical. Willing and believing are biblical. But none of those words, by themselves, establish libertarian free will.
So let’s define the term and then show the doctrine from Scripture rather than assuming it in the conclusion.
Floor is yours, it is your “free will” to rebut me. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20will#:~:text=VOLUNTARY%2C%20SPONTANEOUS-,free%20will,-2%20of%202
The phrase ‘free will’ is medieval, but the phrase itself doesn’t settle what Scripture teaches about the nature of human willing. Scripture uses words for choosing, willing, desiring and believing. The later philosophical question is whether those choices require libertarian freedom, meaning the ability to choose otherwise under exactly the same conditions. That proposition has to be demonstrated, not smuggled into Scripture by simply inserting the words ‘free will."
Check this out for yourself and see reddit on this topic.
J.
“In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.” Prov 10:19
Nobody claimed the existence of what you’re describing. So your “pushback” is against a strawman.
At that point, I have to question, why are you so intent on conjuring up an argument that doesn’t exist? No one is advocating the specific specie of free will that you’re describing.
Do you have an explanation? Because you seem to me to be in danger of 2 Tim 2:14 - “Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.”
Wouldn’t it be better to joyfully edify the body of Christ and give God the glory? Turn that frown upside down my brother. God created us free to believe Him and love Him. That’s what matters.
Pater, let’s be honest here. You aren’t actually addressing what I’m saying. You keep deflecting, throwing “strawman” around, and now you’re taking shots at me personally instead of dealing with the argument.
And now you’re dragging Proverbs 10:19 and 2 Timothy 2:14 into it, as though asking you to define and substantiate your position is somehow “quarreling about words.” That’s not an argument, brother. It’s a way of avoiding the argument.
I have asked you a very straightforward question, and you still haven’t answered it. If you don’t mean libertarian free will, then tell me what you actually mean by “free will” and show me where Scripture teaches it. That’s all I’ve asked.
But frankly, I’m done with it. Online discussions can become frustrating, and I don’t know you from a bar of soap. I came here to have a worthwhile, edifying discussion about Scripture, not trade sarcasm, personal digs and accusations.
So I’ll leave you to it. I’ve lost all interest in continuing this particular conversation. No hard feelings, but I’m done. You don’t know what I’m talking about.
Libertarian free will. A person could genuinely have chosen otherwise under exactly the same circumstances. The choice is not determined by prior causes, desires, nature, or divine determination.
Compatibilist free will. A person is free when they act according to their own desires and intentions, even if those desires and choices are determined by prior causes. Freedom does not require the ability to have chosen otherwise.
Hard determinism. Every human choice is determined by prior causes. Therefore, libertarian free will does not exist.
Hard incompatibilism. Whether determinism or indeterminism is true, neither provides the kind of freedom required for ultimate moral responsibility.
Agent-causal libertarianism. The person is the ultimate source or cause of the choice and genuinely could have chosen otherwise.
Event-causal libertarianism. Choices arise from beliefs, desires, reasons, etc., but those preceding conditions do not deterministically necessitate the choice.
Voluntarism.Freedom consists primarily in willing, choosing, or consenting voluntarily rather than being externally compelled.
Moral freedom. The capacity to make morally significant choices and therefore be held responsible for them.
Freedom from coercion. Freedom means acting without external compulsion. A person acts freely when they do what they want rather than being forced.
Augustinian freedom. Humans genuinely possess wills and make voluntary choices, but the fallen will is corrupted by sin and requires divine grace for salvation.
Thomistic freedom. Human beings genuinely will and choose according to what they perceive as good, while God’s providence remains comprehensive.
Reformed/compatibilist freedom. Humans genuinely choose according to their desires and are morally responsible, while God’s sovereign providence encompasses their choices. Fallen humanity lacks the moral ability to turn to God apart from grace.
Wesleyan/Arminian freedom. Fallen humanity requires prevenient grace, which enables a genuine response to God. The person may accept or resist that grace.
Molinist freedom. Human beings possess libertarian freedom, while God knows what every possible free creature would freely do in every possible circumstance. God’s providence operates through this knowledge.
Pretty sure I have left some out here…
Cheers mate, I had enough of the divrê hebel.
J.
My skin is thick, used to this kind of gnostic intellectualism, γνωστικὸς διανοητισμός, and pride ever lurking in all of us, even though we claim we are followers of the [Definite Article] Way.
J.
Would you be happy if you couldn’t choose?
Okay, I’ll be honest, as you asked for.
I knew when you said “I asked you a straightforward question”, you weren’t being honest. You should have said “I asked you a strawman question, and you refused to get sucked in by it.”
At that point you decided to falsely claim your disgust and that you were walking away. Pretty childish. Which I knew wasn’t true either, as you proved.
You also seemed to show contempt that I would “drag” in scriptures that seem to be relevant. What does that say? Serious question.
Finally the truth is, you took ellenvera’s thread and derailed it because you want to argue about words, something expressly forbidden in the scriptures.
PS - The honest truth is I hope to form a friendship with you and others on the forum. Friends poke fun at each other, which was my intent, until you decided to take yourself out. That’s okay - you’ll get over it.
Seriously, if you want a respectful discussion about the substance of free will, why not start a thread. I’ll be happy to participate.
Only if happiness is programmed in as well!
You see, this is one of the very few places we disagree. That deep conviction that love, to be genuine, must be freely chosen is exactly why so many feel strongly about the importance of free will. It portrays God not as a strict commander, but as a loving Father who desires a heartfelt relationship with us.
Of course, you suggest that this view might overlook how our desires can be influenced by our human condition, seeing grace as the very thing that makes us able to choose Him. On this, we completely agree. It really comes down to how we interpret those scriptural passages.
God takes the initiative by revealing the truth to us, but we are still given the free choice to accept it and allow it to transform us. This perspective emphasizes both God’s grace and human responsibility working hand in hand. If not, a lot of the Word makes no sense at all.
Peter
I am not denying that Scripture speaks of choosing or choice, @PeterC but after Pater’s snide remarks yesterday, I’d simply had enough.
Calvin…often misquoted.
“In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, έθελόδουλος (ethelodoulos, a voluntary slave); his will being bound by the fetters of sin.”
If this is indeed what we mean by free will, that there is no compulsion in our decision making, why are we so proud of it?
And again:
“but I think we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity, especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse.”
Phenomenal. Luther had the same sentiment in Bondage of the Will, saying that (paraphrased) the term is so confusing and people consider it so many different things that it is practically useless.
J.
We were created to love God. Unfortunately, our fore-parents, Adam and Eve, squandered this gift and through disobedience have sold us into sin and death; as such we are not born free. Neither you, nor I, nor any person is capable through our own efforts to attain righteousness before God by our own works alone. That is why St. Paul consistently teaches that it is not possible to attain righteousness by the Law.
Were we truly and abundantly free, of our own capacity and ability, then we would be able to live freely, without sin, and obtain righteousness through our own works by observing the commandments which God has laid out. But we don’t, we are altogether sinful and found, under the Law, sinful beyond measure.
The doctrine of Pelagianism has been condemned as heresy for centuries for precisely this reason.
I was not born with a will that is truly free, I was born with a will that desires the passions of my flesh–and therefore I am a sinner, damned and unable to do anything to make myself right with God. But God, because of His immense love for this world of sinners, sent His only-begotten Son; that I should not die in my sins and be damned, but be redeemed and rescued by His Son.
God created us with free will for the very reason you gave in the OP: because without free will you cannot choose to love, and love is a choice. Did God know that free will would bring horrible consequences for the majority of the human race? Yes, but that is the price He must pay in order for His purpose in creation to be fulfilled.
He wants people to love that will love Him back, if you cannot choose to love Him then you do not actually love Him. As someone also said, God does not want robots or dolls that say, “I love you, Daddy” whenever their string is pulled…
I’m not sure who said we should be proud of it. I also understand that you adhere to Compatibilism/Bondage of the Will.
As we have learned over time, you believe that free will is technically accurate in terms of exact wording: the exact phrase “God gave man free will so we can love Him freely” does not appear verbatim in Scripture. While the phrase isn’t a direct verse, Scripture implies the concept through commands, choices, and invitations (Joshua 24:15, Deuteronomy 30:19, John 3:16, Revelation 3:20). The argument is that commanding someone to choose implies an inherent, God-given capacity to choose otherwise.
You argue that while commands to choose exist, fallen human nature is so corrupted by sin (total depravity) that a person cannot choose God on their own without prior regeneration (monergism). I agree. Left entirely to our fallen nature, we are indeed bound by sin. Where we differ isn’t on whether sin enslaves us, but on what God’s grace accomplishes. I believe God’s grace overcomes that spiritual deadness enough to enable a genuine, unforced response to His invitation, restoring the capacity to choose Him rather than forcing the outcome. Not God deciding who accepts Him and who does not. I believe that goes against so much of the Word.
Not to rehash the whole argument; you know where I stand. If humans possess no genuine ability to choose “yes” or “no” when presented with the Gospel, universal invitations to salvation appear insincere, and holding individuals morally accountable for choices they were incapable of making presents a conflict with divine justice.- John 3:16-18, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, Acts 2:38, and 1 John 2:1-2, to name a few- are completely void. These passages show God’s genuine desire for all people to be saved. Terms like “whosoever believes” (John 3:16) or God desiring “all people to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4) imply a universal offer. If a person cannot choose “yes” or “no,” the invitation loses its moral meaning, making God’s universal offer appear insincere.
Then, of course, you have these. Romans 2:6-8, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and, of course, Revelation 20:12-13 and Matthew 16:27. God judges every person according to their deeds. For judgment to be fair and just, a person must have had the real, uncoerced option to choose righteousness or repentance over sin. Punishing someone for failing to believe when they were born morally incapable of believing makes the judgment unfair.
I truly believe that, when taking the entirety of the Bible on its own terms, without filtering it through later formal systems like 16th-century Calvinism or 18th-century Arminianism, the scriptural narrative presents a distinct tension that does not fully resolve into either modern system. Instead, the Bible consistently holds two massive truths in balance side-by-side:
God is absolutely sovereign over all creation, history, and salvation.
Humans are genuinely accountable moral agents who are commanded to make real, consequential choices.
I know, I know, it’s another word that does not appear in Scripture, but I believe it is the best way for me to illustrate my view. Synergism. The belief that salvation involves cooperation between God’s grace and human free will. God initiates the offer of salvation, but human beings must use their God-given free will to accept or reject it.
Yes, left entirely to ourselves, dead in sin, no human would ever seek God (Romans 3:10–11). God takes the first step. Through the Holy Spirit, the preaching of the Word, and His grace, God reaches out to draw people (John 12:32, Titus 2:11). God’s initiating grace overcomes human spiritual death enough to bring the person to a genuine crossroads: to yield (“Yes”) or to resist (“No”).
Scripture explicitly states that people can and do resist the Holy Spirit (“You stiff-necked people… you always resist the Holy Spirit,” Acts 7:51). This resistance is what makes human condemnation fair. God offered, drew, and convicted, but the individual actively rejected the light. (John 3:19).
Again, God’s warnings, His lamentations over lost sinners, His commands to repent, His universal offers of mercy, and His global judgment based on human deeds—a view that includes genuine, grace-enabled human choice align more naturally with the bulk of the Bible’s plain surface text.
Shalom, my brother. To you and your family.
Peter