Here's why the "free will" argument cannot be justified if God is all good

[Edward429451]

What they mean when they say there is no free will concern the ability to will our way into life from spiritual death. The will is bound to sin.

Are these the same people who show up later saying I live on my couch and wont do anything for the Lord because that would be a works salvation, and it's a free gift!

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Oops

 

[VeritatisVerba]

First of all, I don't believe that we have free will, but the argument of "free will" is the main theodicy that Christian apologists use. Here's why this argument cannot be justified if God is omnibenevolent.

[snip]

Lucian,

From what I’ve read, it is clear that you place a high value on logic and consistency. That is something I respect. You reject evasions that appeal to some higher, unknowable logic beyond reason, and that places you in rare company. So I intend to engage your argument directly, using only sound reasoning and clear definitions, on your own terms.

You argue that the concept of free will, when used to defend God’s goodness, creates a contradiction. If God gave humans moral agency knowing it would lead to suffering, then, by your reasoning, He chose to receive love at the cost of our well-being. That would make Him selfish. Since you are unwilling to conclude that God is selfish, you reject the premise that He gave us free will. In your view, denying free will is the only way to preserve divine goodness.

At first glance, this may seem like a reasonable reductio. On closer inspection, though, your conclusion collapses. The entire force of your argument depends on moral and relational categories that have no place in a deterministic framework. You appeal repeatedly to concepts like love, obedience, well-being, suffering, harm, selfishness, and moral value. Yet none of these terms are coherent unless freedom is real.

If no one can ever do otherwise, then no one can choose to love, no one can choose to obey, and no one can be blamed or praised. There is no moral responsibility, there is no “ought", there is only causality. A domino does not "obey" the law of gravity, nor does a computer "obey" it's programmer when it executes its programming. It's all purely cause and effect. If every thought, choice, and impulse is predetermined, then there is no such thing as morality. Every appeal to goodness or harm or value becomes a linguistic shell, evacuated of meaning. Yet your entire critique of free will depends on those very concepts.

You argue that if humans had been created without moral agency, we would have lived in blissful communion with God. That claim assumes that communion is possible without choice, and that bliss can exist without meaning. Neither is true. A relationship that is programmed is not a relationship. A creature without moral freedom is not a person. Relationship that cannot be rejected is not love. You describe a world where beings are denied agency yet somehow experience moral and relational fulfillment. That picture is not only incoherent. It is self-negating. It imagines moral outcomes in a world where morality cannot exist.

You also assert that free will, if it existed, would have harmed both God and man. Yet harm is not a category that exists in a purely determined system. If everything happens by necessity, then there is no deviation from what should have occurred. Harm requires a standard of goodness. It requires the possibility of choosing otherwise. If you remove freedom, you remove harm in the moral sense of the term. Your entire framework turns on a contradiction. You use morally charged language to argue against the only foundation that makes such language intelligible.

Your view also presents a false dichotomy. You assume that God had two options: create morally free beings and allow for the possibility of suffering, or create morally inert beings and guarantee a world of bliss. You favor the latter, assuming it would result in maximum well-being. Yet a world without freedom would not be blissful. It would be lifeless. There would be no love nor hated, no joy nor sorrow. There would be no meaning, no communion, no value of any kind. There would only be function. What you describe is not well-being. It is utility. A perfectly efficient system of causation is not a moral good, it's a machine. The highest goods, thing like truth, love, relationship, beauty, sacrifice, redemption, etc, exist only where freedom exists.

The God of Scripture did not create a machine. He created moral agents in His own image, with the capacity to choose, to love, to reason, to respond. Freedom is not a defect in His design, it is the foundation of it. A world of moral agency allows for evil, but it also allows for everything that makes life meaningful. The risk is real but so is the reward.

Moreover, God was not ignorant of the cost. He knew the danger of freedom and He understood that evil was not only possible, but likely. He judged the outcome well worth the risk. So much so that He willingly took the burden of that risk upon Himself. The value of an eternal (i.e. ever lasting) relationship of love and joy with His creation is so far above the cost of the temporary evil and suffering of this world that God was willing to restore that broken relationship with His own life's blood. It is the veritable pearl of great price and the epitome of "maximal goodness"!

"The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it.” (Matthew 13:45-46)

 

[NSH]

Omnibenevolence entails that God wants the maximum well-being for all living things, right?

Not sure of the relevance of this question. It appears to be evasion and diversion from the key point being made.
Do you agree that a choice made at gun-point is not actually a free choice at all? Can we at least establish that first?

At gun point, the choice is to live by complying or to face death. A person could go either way.
Many martyrs were happy to die for the faith. A recent example happened in India where several men agreed to be killed for their faith in Christ and their families celebrated their decision. I'll try to find the link, if it matters.

If we speak of omnibenevolence then we have to agree that God in his nature is ultimately and totally good. and if we take this premise to be true, are we saying he is doing bad when he judges us for our free choices and actions done in the body? If he could blame original sin, then we would be off the hook and would not need a savior. The temple sacrifices could remove guilt for the wrong things we knew we did. But because we sin willingly, this is why we needed a savior: because the nature could not be changed by temporary offerings in the physical.

So the spiritual offering was that Jesus gave up his body, mind and spirit to atone for our free will to sin. And in believing that we are given a new nature that is not compelled to sin, giving us a choice to go with the new nature or not.

Before salvation: I can choose to do good or bad, but I am compelled to do wrong out of my nature.
After salvation: I can choose to do good or bad, but I am compelled to do good out of my new nature. this is the grace that saves us.

 

[Webster]

I can only speak for myself here but I believe in free will with regards to whether we, as human beings, decide whether to follow or not follow God.

When He created humanity He could've hardwired obedience and compliance into us from the very beginnings of Adam & Eve in the Garden yet He didn't; He gave them the free will to choose whether to worship Him or not (as evidenced by His warning over not eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil in the Garden). Ever since the Fall, man has had a proclivity to do evil (there's a reason TV Tropes calls it "Humans Are Bastards" because when left to our own reprobate minds, man will cheat, lie, steal, kill, etc., his or her fellow human beings.

As @NSH and @VeritatisVerba said above in their respective posts,

Before salvation: I can choose to do good or bad, but I am compelled to do wrong out of my nature.

After salvation: I can choose to do good or bad, but I am compelled to do good out of my new nature. this is the grace that saves us.

The God of Scripture did not create a machine. He created moral agents in His own image, with the capacity to choose, to love, to reason, to respond. Freedom is not a defect in His design, it is the foundation of it. A world of moral agency allows for evil, but it also allows for everything that makes life meaningful. The risk is real but so is the reward.

Moreover, God was not ignorant of the cost. He knew the danger of freedom and He understood that evil was not only possible, but likely. He judged the outcome well worth the risk. So much so that He willingly took the burden of that risk upon Himself. The value of an eternal (i.e. ever lasting) relationship of love and joy with His creation is so far above the cost of the temporary evil and suffering of this world that God was willing to restore that broken relationship with His own life's blood. It is the veritable pearl of great price and the epitome of "maximal goodness"!

 

[VeritatisVerba]

At gun point, the choice is to live by complying or to face death. A person could go either way.
Many martyrs were happy to die for the faith. A recent example happened in India where several men agreed to be killed for their faith in Christ and their families celebrated their decision. I'll try to find the link, if it matters.

If we speak of omnibenevolence then we have to agree that God in his nature is ultimately and totally good. and if we take this premise to be true, are we saying he is doing bad when he judges us for our free choices and actions done in the body? If he could blame original sin, then we would be off the hook and would not need a savior. The temple sacrifices could remove guilt for the wrong things we knew we did. But because we sin willingly, this is why we needed a savior: because the nature could not be changed by temporary offerings in the physical.

So the spiritual offering was that Jesus gave up his body, mind and spirit to atone for our free will to sin. And in believing that we are given a new nature that is not compelled to sin, giving us a choice to go with the new nature or not.

Before salvation: I can choose to do good or bad, but I am compelled to do wrong out of my nature.
After salvation: I can choose to do good or bad, but I am compelled to do good out of my new nature. this is the grace that saves us.

The degree to which an action is compelled, it is amoral (i.e. neither good nor evil).

 

[CrossWalk]

First of all, I don't believe that we have free will, but the argument of "free will" is the main theodicy that Christian apologists use. Here's why this argument cannot be justified if God is omnibenevolent.

Omnibenevolence entails that God wants the maximum well-being for all living things, right? The reason why God created angels and humanity is to share His love, right? He didn't need to do this, because He is trinity and could share His love among His persons.

So, why did God endow humans with free will? Well, the answer Christians give is that it is impossible for a sentient being to love without having free will. Let's assume that this is true. Who would have been negatively impacted by the humans' inability to love God? The humans? No. Without free will, they would have lived a blissful existence of eternal communion with God. It would have negatively impacted God because He wouldn't have received love from His creation. He would have received only obedience.

But who did free will negatively impact? It negatively impacted both humans and God.

So, God had the choice between our well-being (no free will and blissful existence) and His well-being (free will and receiving love from His creation). He chose His well-being. That doesn't align with omnibenevolence. Omnibenevolence would have preferred to spare us from suffering by not endowing us with free will.

This OP is an example of a lot of supposition and man defining God's traits, abilities and/or characteristics. God defines what love and goodness is. Man does not. Love, defined by man can become so silly as to be characterized as eternally kind and gentle with all men and all living things. That is not God's definition, or even an accurate definition, of love.

Love is complicated, but love is truth. Love has often been expressed as the taking of life throughout history as that is what it takes sometimes to defend one's own life or the life of another. Sometimes we must express violence as a protest of violence and we must make war as an expression of a love for peace.

There are many examples of God taking life in the Bible. Is this evidence of an absence of, or an infidelity to, love? No, of course it isn't. God's ways and understanding are so far beyond anything we can comprehend. When we define God, we limit Him in ways that only humans are limited.

Do we have free will? I believe we do, but even that is complicated. I don't believe mankind 'chooses' when or if he is saved. Faith is a gift, as the Bible teaches, and we are then tested by what we choose to do with that gift. True, profound reverence for God takes away much of the desire/need to limit God with all these challenges and judgments. And to judge the Almighty Judge is an expression of a lack of faith.

We should simply avoid that and study His Word diligently as it teaches us so much more than what the words happen to say on any given page.

God bless.

 

[Ghost]

According to the Bible...

Does God have free will? I would say Yes.
Are humans made in God's image? I would say Yes.
Do humans have free will? I would say Yes, being made to be godly.

The Bible, and many other texts tell us that we should not judge, we should not force someone, but we should communicate God's goals, commandments, and words. Our only duty is to share the knowledge and wisdom, not to judge or enforce God's will on another. This suggests that even God's goals can be defied and God acknowledges this.

The Bible's info about being judged by God and only God is in itself a recognition that we do have free will. If we did not have free will, then what would there be to judge? Without free will, how is there sin? Without sin how is there non-sinning? Without darkness, what is light?

God set out to flood and destroy mankind, but allows Noah to save mankind and God makes a covenant to not do so again. This recognizes that even God may change their mind and that no outcome is final.

Of course a blatant example would be Jesus dying for our sins. If we had no free will, then were the sins intended by God? And if the sins were intended, then why sacrifice for something intentional?

In my faith, we are created to have the choice of morality, the practice of faith, and complete free will. The greatness comes from this freedom of faith, not from anything enforced, destined, guaranteed, or otherwise predetermined.

I am however willing to concede that it could be possible for God/s to know what will come while still preserving free will. Knowing the outcome (prophecy of Judas as an example) can be different than enforcing the outcome.

 

[Lamb]

According to the Bible...

Does God have free will? I would say Yes.
Are humans made in God's image? I would say Yes.
Do humans have free will? I would say Yes, being made to be godly.

The Bible, and many other texts tell us that we should not judge, we should not force someone, but we should communicate God's goals, commandments, and words. Our only duty is to share the knowledge and wisdom, not to judge or enforce God's will on another. This suggests that even God's goals can be defied and God acknowledges this.

The Bible's info about being judged by God and only God is in itself a recognition that we do have free will. If we did not have free will, then what would there be to judge? Without free will, how is there sin? Without sin how is there non-sinning? Without darkness, what is light?

God set out to flood and destroy mankind, but allows Noah to save mankind and God makes a covenant to not do so again. This recognizes that even God may change their mind and that no outcome is final.

Of course a blatant example would be Jesus dying for our sins. If we had no free will, then were the sins intended by God? And if the sins were intended, then why sacrifice for something intentional?

In my faith, we are created to have the choice of morality, the practice of faith, and complete free will. The greatness comes from this freedom of faith, not from anything enforced, destined, guaranteed, or otherwise predetermined.

I am however willing to concede that it could be possible for God/s to know what will come while still preserving free will. Knowing the outcome (prophecy of Judas as an example) can be different than enforcing the outcome.

God has free will and Adam and Eve HAD free will...until they fell from God's grace by disobeying Him. Because of that, they can no longer choose holiness spiritually and as mankind are all descendants of them, we cannot choose holiness either.

Jesus dying for our sins didn't need our permission because our loving God wants to save.

 

[Can't think of a name]

God has free will and Adam and Eve HAD free will...until they fell from God's grace by disobeying Him. Because of that, they can no longer choose holiness spiritually and as mankind are all descendants of them, we cannot choose holiness either.

Jesus dying for our sins didn't need our permission because our loving God wants to save.

I don't think the question is about choosing holiness but more about having any choice at all. The Bible tells us to seek for God.

 

[Ghost]

God has free will and Adam and Eve HAD free will...until they fell from God's grace by disobeying Him. Because of that, they can no longer choose holiness spiritually and as mankind are all descendants of them, we cannot choose holiness either.

Jesus dying for our sins didn't need our permission because our loving God wants to save.

I don't disagree with you on the last part, but I do think holiness and spirituality is a choice to embrace, even if it exists regardless. I have a question. If we could no longer choose holiness after the fall, then how did it come to be that we were able to sin, for Jesus to then die for our sins? Even if we had no choice in his sacrifice, is the existence of our sins evidence that we do have free will?

I guess my second question is, Where exactly does it say Adam and Eve lost free will? This is the first I am hearing about it. I've interpreted the overall story as God giving us free will, even if the world is ordained by God. Part of our creation in my opinion is the ability to sin, and choose. What is there to judge if there is no free will? Who can we forgive if there is no free will? If God controls everything, then is God sinning? And if God sins, and we are not to judge, then what is to stop an adversary from reigning hell on this world? Free will and thought is required to understand God's love, even if we must know another's hatred. This is the paradox of the creation. Light and dark. Love and sin. Family and foe. God is there to guide everyone to navigate, believe, and follow. Without free will, God's goals would be impossible. There must always be freedom to have faith, even if that freedom is given.

I think the Bible actually makes the case that anyone's covenant with God is their own, and it is not just faith and belief, but the choice to act. God does not just ask us to live and let life happen. God asks everyone to take an active role in their own spirituality, and to spread their knowledge and wisdom with others. This to me, sounds like a God who has given us the gift of free will and who is asking us for love rather than physically, emotionally, or spiritually forcing it upon us.

 

[Ghost]

I don't think the question is about choosing holiness but more about having any choice at all. The Bible tells us to seek for God.

& yeah, agreed, I think that free will is more general than whether we are sons and daughters of God, judged by God, privy to God's holiness, etc.

I also think the Bible makes the case that we do have free will immediately. Cain and Abel is a story of free will. Then God punishes Cain with a life of homelessness and wandering. When Cain says he'll be killed, God does not remove free will. The Bible says that God marks Cain so that others will know not to kill him, and if they do, they will be punished more than Cain.

Cain and Abel being mentioned so early on in Genesis is proof, to me, that God has made a distinction. Even those who sin or disobey will maintain their free will. In grace, in the garden, Adam & Eve were given free will, and given it after too. And even in punishment, Cain was given free will, and everyone else was afforded the free will to kill Cain, or to forgive Cain, or to ignore Cain.

I think the Bible is very, very clear that we all do have free will. And frankly, any god who takes our free will is no god of mine. The Bible's God requires free will. It's why we must tell our neighbors, but not judge or force our neighbors. It's why we are allowed to sin, to confess, and to ask for forgiveness. Without these core principles, what is love, or God, or anything?

 

[Can't think of a name]

& yeah, agreed, I think that free will is more general than whether we are sons and daughters of God, judged by God, privy to God's holiness, etc.

I also think the Bible makes the case that we do have free will immediately. Cain and Abel is a story of free will. Then God punishes Cain with a life of homelessness and wandering. When Cain says he'll be killed, God does not remove free will. The Bible says that God marks Cain so that others will know not to kill him, and if they do, they will be punished more than Cain.

Cain and Abel being mentioned so early on in Genesis is proof, to me, that God has made a distinction. Even those who sin or disobey will maintain their free will. In grace, in the garden, Adam & Eve were given free will, and given it after too. And even in punishment, Cain was given free will, and everyone else was afforded the free will to kill Cain, or to forgive Cain, or to ignore Cain.

I think the Bible is very, very clear that we all do have free will. And frankly, any god who takes our free will is no god of mine. The Bible's God requires free will. It's why we must tell our neighbors, but not judge or force our neighbors. It's why we are allowed to sin, to confess, and to ask for forgiveness. Without these core principles, what is love, or God, or anything?

It is inexplicable that God can be a God of love and humans to not have free will.

I recently thought that Jesus told the Pharisees that if they didn't accept him they would die in their sins, but this doesn't necessarily mean they would go to hell. I didn't seek for God because I was afraid of hell. I sought for God to find Him and He showed me my sin and His awesome Holiness. He did not threaten me with hell.

 

[Ghost]

It is inexplicable that God can be a God of love and humans to not have free will.

Yeah exactly... If there's no free will, there's no need to convince us, talk to us, or show us anything. The human experience allows us to both participate in the universe as one, and as individuals. Now, perhaps God knows all, and every micro-event or millisecond of human existence. Perhaps the exact pauses between my typing on this keyboard were known.

I am willing to accept that even in a world of free will, God transcends space and time in a way that allows for complete understanding of all things and beings, at all times, both now, in the past, and in the future... but all with free will.

The future can change quadrillion times per second, and it can be known at any given time. But the number of possibilities are endless, and nothing to happen is yet written. God may know all possibilities, and all outcomes, but the path we choose is our own within all the available routes. To say that we are limited to one path or only a few paths is to limit God. Our God has made all possible in the entire universe, and to say we have no free will or only one predetermined path would undermine what has been created.

I recently thought that Jesus told the Pharisees that if they didn't accept him they would die in their sins, but this doesn't necessarily mean they would go to hell. I didn't seek for God because I was afraid of hell. I sought for God to find Him and He showed me my sin and His awesome Holiness. He did not threaten me with hell.

This can also be looked at as a series of actions "to accept". Is it enough to say "I accept and submit to God?". Is it enough to not kill your neighbor, if you also cheat and steal? I think Jesus saying they must accept is more than just submitting or surrendering. It's living the life that comes with that acceptance. I don't think it's a threat, but actually a warning and impactful way of relating to people who might not believe specifically in a Hell, or God's commandments and guidance for Heaven. Dying in your sins can be looked at like its phrased to let any type of believer consider their own mortality, sins, and how they'll be remembered.

Also same, I came back to exploring my faith out of fascination, some experiences in October 2024 and Dec 2024, and for a few other reasons. God wants us to freely and happily be positive, push our energy forward, be passionate, loving, kind, disciplined, and dedicated to our family & everyone.

 

[Can't think of a name]

Yeah exactly... If there's no free will, there's no need to convince us, talk to us, or show us anything. The human experience allows us to both participate in the universe as one, and as individuals. Now, perhaps God knows all, and every micro-event or millisecond of human existence. Perhaps the exact pauses between my typing on this keyboard were known.

I am willing to accept that even in a world of free will, God transcends space and time in a way that allows for complete understanding of all things and beings, at all times, both now, in the past, and in the future... but all with free will.

The future can change quadrillion times per second, and it can be known at any given time. But the number of possibilities are endless, and nothing to happen is yet written. God may know all possibilities, and all outcomes, but the path we choose is our own within all the available routes. To say that we are limited to one path or only a few paths is to limit God. Our God has made all possible in the entire universe, and to say we have no free will or only one predetermined path would undermine what has been created.


This can also be looked at as a series of actions "to accept". Is it enough to say "I accept and submit to God?". Is it enough to not kill your neighbor, if you also cheat and steal? I think Jesus saying they must accept is more than just submitting or surrendering. It's living the life that comes with that acceptance. I don't think it's a threat, but actually a warning and impactful way of relating to people who might not believe specifically in a Hell, or God's commandments and guidance for Heaven. Dying in your sins can be looked at like its phrased to let any type of believer consider their own mortality, sins, and how they'll be remembered.

Also same, I came back to exploring my faith out of fascination, some experiences in October 2024 and Dec 2024, and for a few other reasons. God wants us to freely and happily be positive, push our energy forward, be passionate, loving, kind, disciplined, and dedicated to our family & everyone.

I actually embraced the Reformed doctrines of grace to a certain extent around 5 years after I was saved because they made sense of some of the experience I had of God when He saved me. It was all brand new to me at that time. I grew up Catholic and religion meant little to me in my teens. I knew pretty much almost nothing about Protestantism. I certainly had never heard of John Calvin. What is attractive about the doctrines of grace for me is its focus on God. I always had an uneasy feeling inside my gut when it came to the idea that God sends people to hell without a chance. It has never seemed like real justice, though the Calvinists claim hell IS justice. The end line for me was Total Depravity, because I know in myself that before I was saved I had a functioning conscience. I have never been able to persuade Calvinists about this, they will never concede it as a valid point. Which is strange to me, because I presume they were not conscienceless psychopaths before they were saved either (if indeed, these people have even been saved to begin with).

 

[Ghost]

I actually embraced the Reformed doctrines of grace to a certain extent around 5 years after I was saved because they made sense of some of the experience I had of God when He saved me. It was all brand new to me at that time. I grew up Catholic and religion meant little to me in my teens. I knew pretty much almost nothing about Protestantism. I certainly had never heard of John Calvin. What is attractive about the doctrines of grace for me is its focus on God. I always had an uneasy feeling inside my gut when it came to the idea that God sends people to hell without a chance. It has never seemed like real justice, though the Calvinists claim hell IS justice. The end line for me was Total Depravity, because I know in myself that before I was saved I had a functioning conscience. I have never been able to persuade Calvinists about this, they will never concede it as a valid point. Which is strange to me, because I presume they were not conscienceless psychopaths before they were saved either (if indeed, these people have even been saved to begin with).

In a way, the conscience in depravity is the path to being saved. So having the free will to recognize this and be saved is part of observing what could be the saving of everyone. If for example we do not decide to be saved, we may still have the free will of conscience to actually know that we are being saved, why, and how to seek forgiveness for our wrongdoings.

I prefer to think that the titles of Catholic, Protestant, or Calvanist, or any other label is just that, a name or category put on something by other humans. We don't read about Catholic vs Protestant in the words of God, and yet we often find ourselves debating these concepts, or social constructs if you will.

In my faith, there is no distinction between the names or titles of a God, or plural gods. God is in everything, and in nothingness too. If God has created all, then before a creation there was nothing. But how can there be nothing if there is God? I have concluded over many years that the answers of religion and answers of science will come to the same conclusion. God can be nothing and can be everything, and all in between.

If there is a personified God, then God can be personified or non-personified. If a flower lives or dies, God has lived and died. Since I accepted that the concept of God is everything, and nothing, I am open to the idea that all people of all labels and churches are all faithful in the same "God". Any god I praise or you praise is a concept and creation of a universal God.

God can be man or woman, the dead or alive flower, the water in a stream or the blood in our veins. We cannot destroy nor create matter or energy, only transform it. No matter what someone says, reads, or names "Him", the truth is present for all of us.

If you could put a date on God's birth, we would ask what came before. God is what has been, is, and always will be. God is everything in the universe, and in all of us. And we have the free will to be open or closed off to this. All efforts by humans to praise have been only in an effort to describe or label what is. God is always there and here, regardless of whether we are incorrect or correct in our interpretations. Once you connect with this idea, the labels and titles and semantics become almost secondary to your real connection with God and the universe throughout time.

 

[Lamb]

Before faith, men are spiritually dead...which is why they can't choose holiness.

 

[Ghost]

Before faith, men are spiritually dead...which is why they can't choose holiness.

Can they choose to act in line with holiness, to ask for forgiveness, and to follow the teachings?
If we can't choose holiness, can we choose the opposite, or is it 100% out of our control?

I am assuming I must be misinterpreting what you are saying. It sounds like you're saying I am spiritually dead and if I never find or achieve holiness, then that is God's will and what he wants because it's not up to me. I feel like I'm probably off on what you mean here.

Assuming it could be wording. Are you saying that the offer of holiness from God is not a choice, but the choice to deserve it and accept it is still a choice? Or are you saying that we receive holiness regardless?

 

[Lamb]

Can they choose to act in line with holiness, to ask for forgiveness, and to follow the teachings?
If we can't choose holiness, can we choose the opposite, or is it 100% out of our control?

I am assuming I must be misinterpreting what you are saying. It sounds like you're saying I am spiritually dead and if I never find or achieve holiness, then that is God's will and what he wants because it's not up to me. I feel like I'm probably off on what you mean here.

Assuming it could be wording. Are you saying that the offer of holiness from God is not a choice, but the choice to deserve it and accept it is still a choice? Or are you saying that we receive holiness regardless?

God initiates everything... we receive and then react after. The will is not free to choose God before God initiates; as in His word comes to you in the form of the Gospel so that you receive faith in order to believe. The Gospel is foolishness to unbelievers according to scripture. That's why the will is not free spiritually to seek God. Think of it like the bones in the desert...they couldn't come to life on their own. Or Lazarus, when he died. He couldn't return on his own. That's how we are before faith, we can't make ourselves alive in Christ, that's God's doing.

Now, for the question of whether God initiates this with all men, I don't have an answer for that. That's God's knowledge.

 

[jswauto]

Some Heroic Free Will Examples
If we’re going to really exemplify free will — not just “choosing good,” but choosing the Lord when evil is the easier, safer, more profitable, or more socially acceptable path — then we need stories where the person had every reason to give in, every excuse to compromise, and every pressure pushing them toward darkness…
…and still chose God.
Below are high‑voltage, modern, real‑world examples where the spiritual stakes were unmistakably clear.
These aren’t “nice moral choices.”
These are fork‑in‑the‑road, eternity‑shaping, identity‑defining decisions.

1. The Rwandan Pastors Who Refused to Abandon Their Flocks (1994)
When the genocide erupted, many leaders fled.
But some pastors — knowing they would be killed — stayed with their congregations, praying, sheltering, and refusing to hand people over.
• Easy way out: Escape and save themselves.
• Choice: “I will not leave the people God gave me.”
• Outcome: Many were killed. Their churches became sanctuaries.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing shepherdhood over survival.
When the Rwandan genocide erupted, chaos swept through villages with a speed and brutality the world still struggles to comprehend. Many leaders — political, civic, even religious — fled for their lives. But a number of pastors made a different choice. They knew that staying meant almost certain death. They knew the militias were hunting anyone who sheltered Tutsis. Yet when terrified families ran to the churches for refuge, these pastors opened the doors wide and refused to leave. Some stood at the entrances, praying aloud as machete‑wielding mobs approached. Others hid children under floorboards or behind pulpits, whispering Scripture to them as the killers drew near. They had every excuse to run. No one would have blamed them. But they chose to remain as shepherds to the end. Many were slaughtered alongside their congregations. Their choice — a pure act of free will — became a testimony that even in the darkest human hour, the light of Christ can still be chosen.

2. The Amish Community That Forgave the School Shooter (2006)
After a gunman murdered five Amish girls, the community did the unthinkable:
They forgave him publicly, visited his widow, and brought her food.
• Easy way out: Rage, vengeance, hatred.
• Choice: Radical forgiveness in the face of horror.
• Outcome: The shooter’s family said the Amish “saved” them from despair.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing mercy when justice would have been applauded.
When a gunman entered an Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, and murdered five young girls, the nation expected outrage, protests, and demands for vengeance. Instead, within hours, the Amish elders walked to the home of the shooter’s widow. They embraced her. They brought food. They told her they forgave her husband. They even invited her to the funerals of the children he had killed. This was not naïve kindness — it was a deliberate, agonizing act of obedience to Christ’s command to forgive. The easy way out would have been hatred, bitterness, or lifelong trauma. But the Amish chose the Lord’s way, not the natural human way. Their forgiveness stunned the world and became a living parable of the Sermon on the Mount. It was free will exercised at the highest spiritual altitude.

3. The Nigerian Girls Who Refused to Convert Under Boko Haram
When kidnapped Christian girls were told to convert or die, many refused.
• Easy way out: Say the words, survive, avoid torture.
• Choice: “I belong to Jesus.”
• Outcome: Some escaped. Some died. All stood firm.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing Christ over life itself.
When Boko Haram kidnapped hundreds of Christian schoolgirls, the terrorists gave them a simple choice: convert to Islam and live, or refuse and face torture, starvation, or death. Many girls were beaten, threatened, and isolated. Some were forced to watch others suffer. Yet even under this psychological warfare, a number of them refused to renounce Christ. They whispered prayers in the dark. They encouraged one another to hold on. Some escaped through impossible circumstances; others died with the name of Jesus on their lips. Their captors could break their bodies, but not their will. These girls demonstrated a level of spiritual resolve that echoes the early martyrs — choosing the Lord when survival itself demanded compromise.

4. The Chinese House Church Leaders Who Turned Down Freedom
Many imprisoned pastors in China are offered release if they sign a paper renouncing underground ministry.
• Easy way out: Sign, go home, avoid beatings.
• Choice: “I cannot deny what God has done.”
• Outcome: Years more in prison — and explosive church growth.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing truth over comfort.
In China, many underground pastors are arrested repeatedly. The government often offers them a deal: sign a document renouncing illegal house‑church activity, and you can go home. No more beatings. No more surveillance. No more prison. For many, the temptation is overwhelming — they have families, children, congregations who need them. Yet countless pastors refuse to sign. They choose to remain in prison rather than deny the movement of the Holy Spirit in their communities. Some spend years in labor camps. Some emerge frail and broken. But their refusal to compromise has fueled one of the fastest‑growing Christian movements in the world. Their free‑will choice — truth over comfort — has reshaped the spiritual landscape of an entire nation.

5. The Woman Who Forgave Her Father’s Murderer (South Africa)
During the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a woman faced the man who burned her father alive.
• Easy way out: Hatred, lifelong trauma, justified bitterness.
• Choice: She forgave him and asked God to bless him.
• Outcome: The courtroom wept. The man collapsed in repentance.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing supernatural forgiveness over generational pain.
During South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a woman faced the man who had burned her father alive. The courtroom was silent as she recounted the horror. The man stood there, expecting hatred — perhaps even violence. Instead, she looked at him and said she forgave him. She asked God to bless him. She told him that her father would have wanted her to release him from the chains of guilt. The man collapsed, sobbing. The entire room wept. This was not weakness; it was supernatural strength. The easy path was hatred, trauma, and generational bitterness. But she chose the Lord’s path — forgiveness that breaks the cycle of violence. Her free‑will decision became a national symbol of healing.

6. The Former Gang Member Who Refused Revenge
A Los Angeles gang member became a Christian. When his brother was murdered, his old crew demanded retaliation.
• Easy way out: Return to violence, reclaim status.
• Choice: He refused, preached forgiveness, and walked away.
• Outcome: He lost friends, lost protection — but saved lives.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing peace over power.
A young man in Los Angeles left gang life after encountering Christ. His transformation was real — he renounced violence, reconciled with enemies, and began mentoring younger kids. But when his brother was murdered, his old gang demanded revenge. They told him he owed it to the family. They mocked his faith. They threatened him. The easy way out — the culturally expected way — was retaliation. Instead, he stood firm. He refused to pick up a gun. He preached forgiveness at his brother’s memorial. He walked away from the gang entirely, knowing it could cost him his life. His choice prevented a cycle of retaliatory killings and saved multiple lives. Free will in its purest form: choosing peace over power.

7. The Scientist Who Risked His Career to Defend Faith
A respected biologist publicly declared his belief in God and the resurrection, knowing academia would blacklist him.
• Easy way out: Stay silent, keep grants, avoid ridicule.
• Choice: “Truth matters more than tenure.”
• Outcome: Lost positions — gained a global platform.
• Free‑Will Pivot: Choosing conviction over career.
In the modern academic world, publicly affirming belief in God — especially in the resurrection — can be career suicide. One prominent biologist knew this. He had tenure, grants, prestige, and a respected position. But after a profound encounter with Christ, he felt compelled to speak openly about his faith. Colleagues warned him. Friends told him to stay quiet. The easy way out was silence — keep the faith private, avoid controversy. Instead, he chose truth. He published articles defending the compatibility of science and Christianity. He spoke at conferences. He refused to hide. As expected, he lost positions and funding. But he gained a global platform and became a voice for thousands of Christian scientists who felt alone. His free‑will choice was costly — but it was rooted in conviction, not convenience.