Free will, what does it mean?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
GWH said:
I think we generally agree, but allow me to clarify a few points that will make it more total:

1. There is no good reason to think that when God pronounced humanity "very good" He did not mean both morally and fitting.
Click to expand...
Think again. The fact that Adam sinned is proof that he wasn't created perfectly moral.
GWH said:
2. Adam and Eve could choose to be morally bad, because God deemed it good to create humans with MFW rather than robots.
Click to expand...
It does not follow that MFW is the reason they sinned. Jesus had MFW and he didn't sin.
GWH said:
3. As humans, humans remain good or fitting for God's plan, which includes a way for their bad to be justly forgiven or punished.

4. Adam and Eve represent sinful humanity, and Jesus represents renewed humanity.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Adam and Eve represent sinful humanity.
GWH said:
5. Those who accept Jesus as Lord receive His loving Holy Spirit, but they sin again until heaven.
Click to expand...
More proof that Human beings are not created morally perfect.
GWH said:
6. God is grieved by sin, and He suffered on the cross to pay the penalty of sin.

Agreed?
:love:
Click to expand...
Jesus paid a price, but he didn't pay the penalty of sin. Paul teaches that Jesus volunteered to die on a cross so that God could demonstrate his righteousness. But many Christian theologians get this wrong, Let me quote from my video script.

Paul’s argument in Hebrews centers on the profound truth that **God was pleased with His Son’s obedience**, especially in Christ’s voluntary embrace of the cross. The writer emphasizes that Jesus did not go to His death as a victim of circumstance but as a willing priest offering Himself. His obedience was not merely passive suffering; it was an active, deliberate submission to the Father’s will. In that obedience—“even unto death”—God found perfect delight. Christ’s voluntary self‑offering fulfilled what all earlier sacrifices pointed toward, and it revealed the heart of God: He is pleased not with ritual performance but with the faithful obedience of His Son, who opened the way for us to draw near.

God was not pleased with the **death** of His Son in isolation, as though the crucifixion itself were the thing that delighted Him. What pleased the Father was the **whole arc** of His Son’s obedient mission—His death, His burial, His resurrection, and His ascension. That complete sequence is the public demonstration of God’s justice. In the death of an innocent man, God shows that He will not let injustice stand; in the resurrection, He shows that He can **undo** death itself; and in the ascension, He shows that He is both **able** and **willing** to raise His Son to rule as King in His own kingdom. The Father delights in the obedience that carried Jesus through every stage of that story, and He displays His justice by overturning the world’s verdict and enthroning His Son.
Click to expand...

God had his son go to the cross, not because sin grieved him. I does. But that wasn't the reason. Jesus went to cross so that God could make a statement about the sins that he previously passed over.

My video continues.

Paul now explains *why* God set Christ forth publicly as the hilastērion: **to demonstrate His righteousness**, because for generations God had been “passing over” previously committed sins. This echoes Paul’s earlier point—God’s forbearance is not indifference. He was not lax or casual about sin; He was patient. He was giving space for repentance, allowing time for contrition, letting human beings turn back while judgment waited at the door. But patience is not the same as approval, and history reached a moment when God chose to make a definitive statement. At the center of that statement stands the greatest miscarriage of justice in human history: humanity decreed the death penalty for a man who did nothing but love, heal, speak truth, and reveal the very heart of God. The cross exposes the depth of human sin and simultaneously displays the righteousness of God—His refusal to ignore evil and His determination to deal with it through grace. In Christ’s public death, God shows that the sins once passed over are now confronted, judged, and answered in a way that opens the door to justifiedness for all.
Click to expand...
 
Nothing in the bible says we have free will. The idea of free will was added to church doctrine several hundred years after the life and ministry of Christ.
In fact, Jesus and the Apostle Paul taught the opposite. In that we are slaves to God and righteousness or Sin and satan. as such our will is limited by which master we serve. This doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to freely choose between whatever options our master sets infront of us. This is different from 'free will.'

What it means is we can not come up with our own options and choose from them. Like how God gives us only two options to choose from concerning our eternal existence. As a slaves we will never exceed the will of our master. If we truly had free will we could freely do what we willed.

As it is, We can choose to be redeemed and serve Him or we can remain in service to sin and Satan. What we can't do is to pick a third or fourth option like option "C" to neither serve God or satan, but to go off on our own or start our own colony some where. Or option "D" wink ourselves out of existence. no heaven, no hell, just here one second and gone the next. So no free will but the freedom to choose the master we wish to serve, Then free to choose between whatever options He provides for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightTwister and Cameron143
Roger316 said:
Yes. If sin was our choice, why do we always sin? What we are by nature is sinners to the depth of our being. We can choose to serve righteousness but we can't choose to never sin.
Click to expand...

You must be one heck of a miserable believer if you can never chose not to sin. The very fact you are choosing to serve righteousness means you are simultaneously choosing not to sin. Why do you think God supplies us with His grace?
 
Drich said:
Nothing in the bible says we have free will. The idea of free will was added to church doctrine several hundred years after the life and ministry of Christ.
In fact, Jesus and the Apostle Paul taught the opposite. In that we are slaves to God and righteousness or Sin and satan. as such our will is limited by which master we serve. This doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to freely choose between whatever options our master sets infront of us. This is different from 'free will.'

What it means is we can not come up with our own options and choose from them. Like how God gives us only two options to choose from concerning our eternal existence. As a slaves we will never exceed the will of our master. If we truly had free will we could freely do what we willed.

As it is, We can choose to be redeemed and serve Him or we can remain in service to sin and Satan. What we can't do is to pick a third or fourth option like option "C" to neither serve God or satan, but to go off on our own or start our own colony some where. Or option "D" wink ourselves out of existence. no heaven, no hell, just here one second and gone the next. So no free will but the freedom to choose the master we wish to serve, Then free to choose between whatever options He provides for us.
Click to expand...
nothing in the Bible says we have free will? look at the fall of adam & eve. who chose for them? they did. read Revelation 3:20 & Mark 8:34.
 
Karlon said:
nothing in the Bible says we have free will? look at the fall of adam & eve. who chose for them? they did. read Revelation 3:20 & Mark 8:34.
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve had freewill for the most part. They had no sin nature.

Being able to make choices is not freewill. Neither are all choices available. See James 4:13-15. This is an example of what is spoken of in Acts 17:26...the bounds of their habitation...
 
Free will in Scripture is real, but it is never presented as an autonomous power that operates independently of God; rather, it is the human capacity to respond, choose, obey, or resist — a capacity that is morally responsible (Rom 1:20), yet spiritually impaired apart from grace (Rom 8:7–8).
Humans genuinely choose, but they do not generate saving faith from themselves; Scripture says faith is given (Phil 1:29), authored (Heb 12:2), and revealed (Matt 16:17), which means free will operates within God’s initiative, not instead of it.

After regeneration, free will becomes freed will — the believer now has the Spirit‑enabled ability to obey, surrender, repent, persevere, and cooperate (Rom 6:13; Gal 5:16–25).
This cooperation is voluntary, not coerced, because the Spirit produces willingness rather than compulsion (Ps 110:3); yet Scripture is clear that obedience, surrender, and perseverance are fruits of saving faith, not conditions that create it (Eph 2:10; 1 John 2:3–5).

So biblical free will is neither robotic determinism nor autonomous self‑salvation; it is the human response to divine initiative — faith as the root, surrender as the fruit, and the Spirit as the One who makes the heart willing, able, and responsive to Christ.
 
Roger316 said:
Yes. If sin was our choice, why do we always sin? What we are by nature is sinners to the depth of our being. We can choose to serve righteousness but we can't choose to never sin.
Click to expand...
This is a question about the nature of sin. Traditionally sin is viewed as a moral issue, and if this is correct then your question is difficult to answer. However, if sin is a relationship issue, then it can be argued that we choose to be like the other humans we see, and in so doing break relationships and render ourselves incapable of going back to full relationships while we remain physical, thus sinning no matter what we wish to do.
 
rewriter said:
This is a question about the nature of sin. Traditionally sin is viewed as a moral issue, and if this is correct then your question is difficult to answer. However, if sin is a relationship issue, then it can be argued that we choose to be like the other humans we see, and in so doing break relationships and render ourselves incapable of going back to full relationships while we remain physical, thus sinning no matter what we wish to do
Click to expand...
Scripture defines sin as both moral rebellion and relational rupture, but the root is moral, not social imitation.
Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4) and hostility toward God (Rom 8:7), and because of that moral corruption, relationship with God is broken (Isa 59:2).

So yes, sin destroys relationship — but Scripture says the real problem is the fallen nature, not merely choosing to act like other humans
 
GWH said:
You need to cite Scripture to support your opinions so we can see where you are coming from.
Otherwise, saying things like "sin is the principle of the flesh" forces us to figure out what that might mean.
I guess it means that sin is due to one of the following reasons:

a. a normally loving person acted uncharacteristically (Phil. 3:12-16)
b. an immature Believer is making progress–you should have known him/her a year ago! (1Cor. 3:1-3, Eph. 4:11-15)
c. a truthseeker has not yet learned the correct interpretation of God’s Word (1Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:8-9)
d. a pseudo-Christian (Matt. 7:21, 1John 2:19) affirms Jesus as Messiah but rejects His Lordship
e. an apostate or heretic (1John 2:19, Heb. 6:4-6) once believed but became blasphemous or foolish and ship-wrecked their faith (1Tim. 1:19-20)
f. An atheist imitates divine love without glorifying the One whose power makes it a golden rule rather than merely a pyrite suggestion.

God does indeed change repentant souls' selfish/sinful nature progressively, which is called the process of sanctification and is what Paul prayed for in Eph. 3:16-19. You even alluded to this truth by saying "we learn in this life... the more of self that we lose..."!
Click to expand...
You misunderstand the nature of change. God's answer to the sinful nature is death, hence the need to carry the cross daily. (Matthew 10:38 & 39)

The life referred to by Jesus here is "psuche", which refers to the natural life that is in the realm of the soul. It can also mean soul and the first NASB translated it "soul-life", which I believe to be accurate.

The life that God gives us in Christ is "zoe". It is the uncreated life that Jesus has in Himself. (John 5:26). We already have a new nature, which is what it means to be born again. (2 Corinthians 5:17). The problem is that we have a competing life that is in opposition. God is not going to change that life. He requires that we die to it and choose to live from the new life that is ours in Christ. It is change, but not by modifying the behaviour of self. It is change by exchange, new life instead of old.

Watchman Nee puts it like this. True spiritually is measured by what we lose, not by what we gain. We already have everything in Christ that we will ever have. We don't know the full extent of God's provision, but we can learn. And we need to live in the light of what we know. God is not interested in what we can do apart from Christ. Abraham's best produced Ishmael, who became Israel's enemy. God's way was Isaac, born when Sarah's womb was dead in the natural.​
 
OMC said:
Scripture defines sin as both moral rebellion and relational rupture, but the root is moral, not social imitation.
Sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4) and hostility toward God (Rom 8:7), and because of that moral corruption, relationship with God is broken (Isa 59:2).

So yes, sin destroys relationship — but Scripture says the real problem is the fallen nature, not merely choosing to act like other humans
Click to expand...
The fallen nature fits as broken relationships. An infant does not appear to distinguish itself totally from others, it reacts to discomfort but rapidly learns that the presence of significant others means that the discomfort is about to vanish and thus ceases to be an issue. However, about 7 months of age, this consistently changes and the infant appears to view themselves as clearly separable from others. Subsequent to this time brain wave patterns measurably change also. Additionally, observations from during WW1 when circumstances sometimes led to infants under age 7 months being institutionalized where care was limited found that receiving minimal necessary care, all physical needs met, but with minimal human contact, most infants died and those who did not die suffered clear emotional damage. Once age 7 months was passed though, receiving just minimal care did not typically result in death although emotional health remained damaged.
 
Gideon300 said:
You misunderstand the nature of change. God's answer to the sinful nature is death, hence the need to carry the cross daily. (Matthew 10:38 & 39)

The life referred to by Jesus here is "psuche", which refers to the natural life that is in the realm of the soul. It can also mean soul and the first NASB translated it "soul-life", which I believe to be accurate.

The life that God gives us in Christ is "zoe". It is the uncreated life that Jesus has in Himself. (John 5:26). We already have a new nature, which is what it means to be born again. (2 Corinthians 5:17). The problem is that we have a competing life that is in opposition. God is not going to change that life. He requires that we die to it and choose to live from the new life that is ours in Christ. It is change, but not by modifying the behaviour of self. It is change by exchange, new life instead of old.

Watchman Nee puts it like this. True spiritually is measured by what we lose, not by what we gain. We already have everything in Christ that we will ever have. We don't know the full extent of God's provision, but we can learn. And we need to live in the light of what we know. God is not interested in what we can do apart from Christ. Abraham's best produced Ishmael, who became Israel's enemy. God's way was Isaac, born when Sarah's womb was dead in the natural.​
Click to expand...
"Psuche" is also found in words like "psychology" and "psychiatry". This might be viewed as a connection to the "ego", the sense that we are separable individuals and that only the individual can see their "true self", which is a lie as there is no place where one can stand to see themselves standing, while seeing themselves standing watching themselves, etc. The independent ego is a myth.
 
rewriter said:
"Psuche" is also found in words like "psychology" and "psychiatry". This might be viewed as a connection to the "ego", the sense that we are separable individuals and that only the individual can see their "true self", which is a lie as there is no place where one can stand to see themselves standing, while seeing themselves standing watching themselves, etc. The independent ego is a myth.
Click to expand...
psuchē in Scripture never means the modern psychological “ego,” and that’s the key mistake behind the idea that the independent self is a myth.
Psuchē means life, self, personhood, the seat of desire, the inner life that can be lost or saved (Matt 16:25–26), and it is always relational—created by God, sustained by God, accountable to God.
Psychology and psychiatry borrow the Greek root, but they redefine it into a self‑observing ego, which Scripture never teaches; the Bible says a person cannot fully “see himself” because the heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9), and only God “searches the reins and the hearts” (Rev 2:23).
So yes, the ego as an autonomous, self‑defining observer is a myth—but not because the self is unreal; it’s because the psuchē is not self‑grounded. It is real, but it is derivative, dependent, and transparent only to God, which is why Jesus says the psuchē must be surrendered to Him to be found at all.
 
Gideon300 said:
You misunderstand the nature of change. God's answer to the sinful nature is death, hence the need to carry the cross daily. (Matthew 10:38 & 39)

The life referred to by Jesus here is "psuche", which refers to the natural life that is in the realm of the soul. It can also mean soul and the first NASB translated it "soul-life", which I believe to be accurate.

The life that God gives us in Christ is "zoe". It is the uncreated life that Jesus has in Himself. (John 5:26). We already have a new nature, which is what it means to be born again. (2 Corinthians 5:17). The problem is that we have a competing life that is in opposition. God is not going to change that life. He requires that we die to it and choose to live from the new life that is ours in Christ. It is change, but not by modifying the behaviour of self. It is change by exchange, new life instead of old.

Watchman Nee puts it like this. True spiritually is measured by what we lose, not by what we gain. We already have everything in Christ that we will ever have. We don't know the full extent of God's provision, but we can learn. And we need to live in the light of what we know. God is not interested in what we can do apart from Christ. Abraham's best produced Ishmael, who became Israel's enemy. God's way was Isaac, born when Sarah's womb was dead in the natural.​
Click to expand...

For Psuche I like "the breath of life."
For Zoe I like " life as God has it."
 
Watchman22 said:
For Psuche I like "the breath of life."
For Zoe I like " life as God has it."
Click to expand...
You can lose your psuchē (Matt 16:26), but you can never lose zōē once Christ gives it (John 10:28).
Psuche can be killed (Matt 10:28), but zōē cannot be killed because it is God’s own life.
Psuche is natural, tied to creation; zōē is supernatural, tied to new birth.
Psuche is individual, your personal mortal life; zōē is relational, shared with God through Christ.
Your definitions capture the essence perfectly:
Psuche — “the breath of life”
Zoe — “life as God has it”
 
sawdust said:
You must be one heck of a miserable believer if you can never chose not to sin. The very fact you are choosing to serve righteousness means you are simultaneously choosing not to sin. Why do you think God supplies us with His grace?
Click to expand...
Grace is not a commodity that God supplies to us. Grace is when he forgives us when we fail.
 
Drich said:
Nothing in the bible says we have free will. The idea of free will was added to church doctrine several hundred years after the life and ministry of Christ.
In fact, Jesus and the Apostle Paul taught the opposite. In that we are slaves to God and righteousness or Sin and satan. as such our will is limited by which master we serve. This doesn't mean we don't have the freedom to freely choose between whatever options our master sets infront of us. This is different from 'free will.'

What it means is we can not come up with our own options and choose from them. Like how God gives us only two options to choose from concerning our eternal existence. As a slaves we will never exceed the will of our master. If we truly had free will we could freely do what we willed.

As it is, We can choose to be redeemed and serve Him or we can remain in service to sin and Satan. What we can't do is to pick a third or fourth option like option "C" to neither serve God or satan, but to go off on our own or start our own colony some where. Or option "D" wink ourselves out of existence. no heaven, no hell, just here one second and gone the next. So no free will but the freedom to choose the master we wish to serve, Then free to choose between whatever options He provides for us.
Click to expand...
If you take the argument to the extreme, God does not have free will. He cannot lie. (Hebrews 6:18). So in that sense, God is limited by His own nature. And that is the same argument used by those who deny that man has free will, except that the unbeliever has a sinful nature. The reality is, no matter how you define it, God gave man the ability to choose and holds man responsible for the choices he makes.
 
Roger316 said:
Grace is not a commodity that God supplies to us. Grace is when he forgives us when we fail.
Click to expand...

Grace is what sustains us to do what is right and to overcome our failures and weaknesses.

Grace is what enables us to serve righteousness, yet you would have us believe it is not enough to stop us from sinning? :confused:

2 Corinthians 12:9
And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Paul would rather boast in his weakness so the grace of God could be made manifest.
 
Roger316 said:
Think again. The fact that Adam sinned is proof that he wasn't created perfectly moral.

It does not follow that MFW is the reason they sinned. Jesus had MFW and he didn't sin.

Exactly. Adam and Eve represent sinful humanity.

More proof that Human beings are not created morally perfect.

Jesus paid a price, but he didn't pay the penalty of sin. Paul teaches that Jesus volunteered to die on a cross so that God could demonstrate his righteousness. But many Christian theologians get this wrong, Let me quote from my video script.



God had his son go to the cross, not because sin grieved him. I does. But that wasn't the reason. Jesus went to cross so that God could make a statement about the sins that he previously passed over.

My video continues.
Click to expand...

Read again; I noted that humanity was very good as created, not morally perfect.

Yes, MFW is the ability to sin as A&E did--or not sin, as Jesus did not sin.

You are the first person I have known to believe that Jesus did not pay the penalty of sin!
Atoning for sin by dying on the cross demonstrated God's righteous love (Rom. 5:6-8).
 
sawdust said:
Grace is what sustains us to do what is right and to overcome our failures and weaknesses.

Grace is what enables us to serve righteousness, yet you would have us believe it is not enough to stop us from sinning? :confused:

2 Corinthians 12:9
And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Paul would rather boast in his weakness so the grace of God could be made manifest.
Click to expand...
Yes, read also Romans 7, where Paul argues that our sin is profoundly deep.
 
Karlon said:
nothing in the Bible says we have free will? look at the fall of adam & eve. who chose for them? they did. read Revelation 3:20 & Mark 8:34.
Click to expand...
Keep reading... "Free will" as you understand it is a greek philosophy reworked from its original greek philosophical form and adopted by the church. Our understanding of free will was invented 300 - 400 years after Christ's ministry.


Adam and eve chose between eating the fruit or not eating the fruit because those where the only two options they had to choose from.

If you had a poisonous fruit tree in your yard, would you just leave it, or would you cut it down? Most people with 'free will' would cut down any tree that could potentially kill them.

Don't get caught up in the analogy of the fruit tree in the yard... The main point I am making is the idea of free will did not existas we know it during the time of Christ. Meaning it could not have been taught anywhere in the bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back