THE TRUTH ABOUT FREE WILL AS TAUGHT IN MANY CHURCHES TODAY [PART 1]

THE TRUTH ABOUT FREE WILL AS TAUGHT IN MANY CHURCHES TODAY PART 1

Chapter 1 — Introduction

The doctrine of human free will occupies a central place in contemporary Christian thought. In many churches today, it is assumed—almost without question—that human beings possess an inherent, autonomous capacity to choose or reject God. According to this view, the human will stands as an independent, self‑determining power capable of resisting divine influence, overcoming sinful inclination, and determining one’s eternal destiny. This doctrine is often presented as essential for moral responsibility and as the only safeguard against portraying God as unjust in condemning sinners.

Yet the modern conception of free will, as popularly taught, raises profound theological, biblical, and philosophical questions. If human free will is truly sovereign, then God’s saving call can be resisted, divine grace can be thwarted, and the human will becomes the decisive factor in salvation. Such a view implies that the human will is stronger than sin, stronger than Satan, and—at least in the moment of decision—stronger than God Himself. The implications of this claim are far‑reaching, shaping not only soteriology but also the church’s understanding of human nature, divine sovereignty, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

This thesis argues that the modern doctrine of autonomous free will is neither explicitly taught in Scripture nor rooted in the earliest Christian tradition. Instead, it is a later development shaped by Stoic philosophy, Pelagian anthropology, and Enlightenment individualism. While many Christians assume that free will is a biblical doctrine, leading scholars of antiquity have noted that the language and conceptual framework of “free will” are absent from both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Michael Frede, the foremost historian of the concept, concludes that “freedom and free will” as later understood “cannot be found in either the Septuagint or the New Testament,” and that the doctrine entered Christian theology primarily through Stoic influence on early Christian thinkers.¹ Alister McGrath similarly observes that the term “free will” is not biblical but was introduced into Western Christianity by Tertullian in the second century.²

Despite this historical reality, many Christians argue for an implicit biblical case for free will, often beginning with Adam and Eve’s disobedience in Eden. Others appeal to passages in which God commands, warns, or invites human response. Yet these arguments frequently assume what they seek to prove: that human beings possess the moral ability to obey God apart from divine intervention. The biblical narrative, however, consistently portrays humanity as fallen, enslaved to sin, and dependent upon God’s sovereign grace for salvation.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the doctrine of free will through the lenses of Scripture, church history, and philosophical theology. It seeks to clarify what the Bible actually teaches about the human will, to trace the historical development of free‑will doctrine, and to evaluate the theological coherence of the modern view. In doing so, it aims to demonstrate that human responsibility does not require autonomous free will, and that divine sovereignty is not incompatible with meaningful human agency.

This study proceeds in several stages. First, it defines the modern doctrine of free will and explains why clarity of definition is essential for theological discourse. Second, it examines the biblical data, focusing on key passages in both the Old and New Testaments, including the teachings of Jesus and the apostle Paul. Third, it surveys the development of free‑will doctrine in early Christianity, the Pelagian controversy, and the Reformation. Fourth, it explores the influence of Enlightenment thought on modern conceptions of human autonomy. Finally, it offers a critical evaluation of the modern doctrine and proposes a biblically grounded alternative that upholds both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

The question of free will is not merely academic. It shapes how Christians understand salvation, grace, evangelism, discipleship, and the character of God. A clear and biblically faithful understanding of the human will is therefore essential for the life and witness of the church. This thesis seeks to contribute to that understanding by offering a historically informed, theologically coherent, and scripturally grounded account of the will in relation to God’s saving work.

Chapter 2 — Defining Free Will

Any meaningful discussion of free will must begin with clarity of definition. The term free will is used so frequently—and with such theological weight—that its meaning is often assumed rather than examined. Yet the modern doctrine of free will, as commonly taught in many churches, is not a simple or self‑evident concept. It is a composite of philosophical assumptions, theological claims, and cultural intuitions that have accumulated over centuries. Before evaluating whether Scripture affirms or denies free will, it is essential to understand what the doctrine actually asserts.

At its core, free will is the belief that human beings possess the inherent capacity to make choices that are ultimately self‑determined. In philosophical terms, free will is often defined as the ability to choose between alternative possibilities without being constrained by external forces or internal necessity. This definition assumes that the human will is autonomous, self‑originating, and capable of determining its own course of action. In theological contexts, this autonomy is frequently extended to matters of salvation, implying that humans possess the moral ability to accept or reject God’s grace.

The modern Christian conception of free will typically includes four key components. First, it asserts that humans possess the capacity for choice, meaning that individuals can select between different possible actions. Second, it claims that humans bear moral responsibility, such that praise, blame, and punishment are meaningful only if individuals possess the freedom to choose good or evil. Third, it maintains that humans exercise control over their actions, implying that desires, intentions, and behaviours are subject to the governance of the will. Fourth, it insists that humans are the originators of their actions, meaning that choices arise from within the individual rather than being determined by prior causes, divine decree, or internal corruption.

These four components form the backbone of the contemporary free‑will doctrine. Yet each of them raises significant questions. For example, if humans possess the capacity for choice, what is the nature of that capacity? Is it merely the ability to choose what one desires, or does it include the ability to choose contrary to one’s strongest inclinations? If humans bear moral responsibility, does responsibility require absolute autonomy, or can responsibility coexist with divine sovereignty? If humans control their actions, what is the relationship between the will and the desires that shape it? And if humans originate their actions, does this imply that the will is self‑caused, or does it operate within a framework of influences, inclinations, and limitations?

The importance of defining free will becomes even more apparent when considering the diversity of historical perspectives. In classical philosophy, the Stoics understood freedom not as the ability to choose between alternatives but as the ability to act in accordance with reason and nature.³ In contrast, Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant emphasized autonomy, rational self‑determination, and the independence of the will from external authority.⁴ These philosophical developments profoundly shaped Western conceptions of freedom and continue to influence modern Christian thought.

The theological definition of free will has also varied widely throughout church history. Early Christian thinkers such as Tertullian and Origen adopted elements of Stoic and Platonic thought, introducing the idea of a self‑determining human will into Christian theology.⁵ Augustine, however, sharply distinguished between the will’s natural capacity to choose and its moral inability to choose righteousness apart from grace.⁶ Pelagius, by contrast, argued that humans possess the full moral ability to obey God without divine assistance, a view later condemned as heresy.⁷ The Reformation further sharpened these distinctions, with Luther and Calvin insisting that the human will is bound by sin and incapable of choosing God apart from sovereign grace.⁸

Given this diversity, it is clear that the term free will does not have a single, universally accepted meaning. The modern doctrine—often assumed to be biblical—is in fact a synthesis of philosophical and theological ideas that developed over centuries. This makes it imperative to distinguish between natural ability (the physical capacity to choose) and moral ability (the spiritual capacity to choose righteousness), a distinction later articulated with great clarity by Jonathan Edwards.⁹ Without this distinction, discussions of free will often conflate the ability to make choices in general with the ability to choose God in particular.

The question, therefore, is not whether humans make choices—they clearly do—but whether those choices are autonomous, morally neutral, and self‑determining in the way modern free‑will doctrine assumes. The biblical narrative consistently portrays human beings as fallen, enslaved to sin, and dependent upon divine grace for any movement toward God. This raises the possibility that human choices, while real, are shaped by deeper inclinations, desires, and spiritual conditions that the will itself cannot overcome without divine intervention.

In summary, defining free will is not a mere academic exercise. It is foundational to understanding the nature of human agency, moral responsibility, and salvation. Before turning to Scripture, it is essential to recognize that the modern doctrine of free will is a complex construct with philosophical roots outside the biblical text. Only by clarifying what free will means can we meaningfully evaluate whether the Bible affirms, denies, or redefines the concept.

Chapter 3 — Free Will in Scripture

Any theological doctrine claiming biblical authority must be examined first and foremost in the light of Scripture. While many Christians assume that the Bible teaches a robust doctrine of autonomous free will, a careful reading reveals a far more complex and nuanced picture. Scripture consistently affirms human responsibility, yet it simultaneously emphasizes human inability, divine sovereignty, and the necessity of God’s initiative in salvation. This chapter surveys the biblical material, beginning with the Old Testament, moving to the teachings of Jesus, and culminating in the apostle Paul’s theology of the will.

3.1 Free Will in the Old Testament

The Old Testament contains numerous commands, warnings, and invitations that appear, at first glance, to presuppose human free will. God calls Israel to obedience, warns them of judgment, and pleads with them to turn from their wickedness. Passages such as Joshua’s exhortation—“Choose you this day whom ye will serve”¹⁰—are often cited as evidence that humans possess the autonomous ability to choose God.

However, these passages must be interpreted within the broader theological framework of the Old Testament. While Israel is commanded to obey, the Old Testament repeatedly affirms that the human heart is corrupt, stubborn, and incapable of obedience apart from divine intervention. Moses declares that Israel does not have “a heart to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear”¹¹—a condition that persists until God Himself circumcises their hearts so that they may love Him.¹² The prophets likewise emphasize human inability: Jeremiah describes the heart as “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,”¹³ while Ezekiel portrays Israel as spiritually dead until God gives them a new heart and a new spirit.¹⁴

Thus, the Old Testament presents a tension: God commands obedience, yet human beings lack the moral ability to obey without divine renewal. Commands do not imply ability; rather, they reveal the need for grace. The Old Testament does not articulate a doctrine of autonomous free will but instead portrays the human will as bound by sin and dependent upon God’s transforming work.

END OF PART 1 OF 3