Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general. Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus might appeal to any number of responses to the paradox of free will, the claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible.
Overview
The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Calvinistic circles: if God knows exactly what will happen (right down to every choice a person makes), it would seem that the "freedom" of these choices is called into question.Alston, William P. 1985. "Divine Foreknowledge and Alternative Conceptions of Human Freedom." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 18:1, 19–32.
This problem relates to Aristotle's analysis of the problem of the sea battle: tomorrow either there will or will not be a sea battle. According to the Law of Excluded Middle, there seem to be two options. If there will be a sea battle, then it seems that it was true even yesterday that there would be one. Thus it is necessary that the sea battle will occur. If there will not be one, then, by similar reasoning, it is necessary that it will not occur.Aristotle. "De Interpretatione" in The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1984. That means that the future, whatever it is, is completely fixed by past truths: true propositions about the future (a deterministic conclusion is reached: things could not have been any other way).
However, some philosophers follow William of Ockham ( 1287 – 1347) in holding that necessity and possibility are defined with respect to a given point in time and a given matrix of empirical circumstances, and so something that is merely possible from the perspective of one observer may be necessary from the perspective of an omniscient.Ockham, William. Predestination, God's Knowledge, and Future Contingents, early 14th century, trans. Marilyn McCord Adams and Norman Kretzmann 1982, Hackett, esp p. 46–7 Some philosophers follow Philo in holding that free will is a feature of a human's soul, and thus that non-human animals lack free will.
Common defenses Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using the word neshama (from the Hebrew root n.sh.m. or .נ.ש.מ meaning "breath"), but the ability to make a free choice is through Yechida (from Hebrew word "yachid", יחיד, singular), the part of the soul that is united with God, the only being that is not hindered by or dependent on cause and effect (thus, freedom of will does not belong to the realm of the physical reality, and inability of natural philosophy to account for it is expected).
In Islam, the theological issue is not usually how to reconcile free will with God's foreknowledge but with God's jabr or divine commanding power. al-Ash'ari developed an "acquisition" or "dual-agency" form of compatibilism, in which human free will and divine jabr were both asserted, and which became a cornerstone of the dominant Ash'ari position.Watt, Montgomery. Free-Will and Predestination in Early Islam. Luzac & Co.: London 1948; Wolfson, Harry. The Philosophy of Kalam, Harvard University Press 1976 In Shia Islam, Ash'aris understanding of a higher balance toward predestination is challenged by most theologists. Free will, according to Islamic doctrine is the main factor for man's accountability in his/her actions throughout life. All actions committed by man's free will are said to be counted on the Day of Judgement because they are his/her own and not God's.
The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard claimed that divine omnipotence cannot be separated from divine goodness.Jackson, Timothy P. (1998) "Arminian edification: Kierkegaard on grace and free will" in Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998. As a truly omnipotent and good being, God could create beings with true freedom over God. Furthermore, God would voluntarily do so because "the greatest good... which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to be truly free."Kierkegaard, Søren. (1848)Journals and Papers, vol. III. Reprinted in Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1967–78. Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense is a contemporary expansion of this theme, adding how God, free will, and evil are consistent.Mackie, J.L. (1955) "Evil and Omnipotence,"Mind, new series, vol. 64, pp. 200–212.
Christianity
Academic views
The consensus of scholars who focus on the study of free will in the ancient world is that the Bible does not explicitly address free will.
The leading scholar on the subject of free will in antiquity, Michael Frede, observed that "freedom and free will cannot be found in either the Septuagint or the New Testament and must have come to the Christians mainly from Stoicism."
Frede wrote that he could not find either the language of free will nor even any assumption of it in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament. According to Frede, the early Church fathers most certainly developed their doctrine of free will from the pagans.
Another Oxford scholar, Dr. Alister McGrath, concurs entirely with Frede, "The term 'free will' is not biblical, but derives from Stoicism. It was introduced into Western Christianity by the second-century theologian Tertullian."
Pauline expert, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, unequivocally insists that, "Paul firmly believed in divine determination as an intrinsic part of his whole conception of God." Paul understood freedom as "freedom of wanting what God wills".
The implicit argument
Nonetheless, many have argued an "implicit" case for finding free will in the Bible. The most fundamental source for this case lies in the fall into sin by Adam and Eve that occurred in their "willfully chosen" disobedience to God.Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, s.v. "Fall, the."
Some contend that "freedom" and "free will" can be treated as one because the two terms are commonly used as synonyms;Ted Honderich, "Determinism and Freedom Philosophy – Its Terminology," http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwTerminology.html (accessed November 7, 2009). however, there are widespread disagreements in definitions of the two terms.Robert Kane, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, (Oxford, 2005), 10 and Fischer, J., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., & Vargas, M., Four Views on Free Will (Blackwell, 2007), 128 and R. Eric Barnes, (accessed October 19, 2009). Because of these disagreements, Christian philosopher Mortimer Adler found that a delineation of three kinds of freedom is necessary for clarity on the subject, as follows:
(1) Circumstantial freedom is "freedom from coercion or restraint" that prevents acting as one wills.Mortimer J. Adler, The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom, Vol 1 (Doubleday, 1958), 127.
In the Bible, circumstantial freedom was given to the Israelites in The Exodus from slavery in Egypt.Walter A. Elwell, Philip Wesley Comfort, eds, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Tyndale House, 2001), s.v. "Exodus," 456.
(2) Natural freedom (a.k.a. volitional freedom) is freedom to determine one's own "decisions or plans." Natural freedom is inherent in all people, in all circumstances, and "without regard to any state of mind or character which they may or may not acquire in the course of their lives."Mortimer J. Adler, The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom, Vol 1 (Doubleday, 1958), 149.
Other theologians, paralleling Adler, view all humanity as naturally possessing the "free choice of the will."Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). s.v. "free will."
(3) Acquired freedom is freedom "to live as [one] ought to live," a freedom that requires a transformation whereby a person acquires a righteous, holy, healthy, etc. "state of mind or character."Mortimer J. Adler, The Idea of Freedom: A Dialectical Examination of the Idea of Freedom, Vol 1 (Doubleday, 1958), 135.
The Bible testifies to the need for acquired freedom because no one "is free for obedience and faith till he is freed from sin's dominion." People possess natural freedom but their "voluntary choices" serve sin until they acquire freedom from "sin's dominion." The New Bible Dictionary denotes this acquired freedom for "obedience and faith" as "free will" in a theological sense.J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans, 1962), s.v. "Liberty, Section III. FREE WILL." Therefore, in biblical thinking, an acquired freedom from being "enslaved to sin" is needed "to live up to Jesus' commandments to love God and love neighbor."Ted Peters, Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society (Eerdmans, 1994), 8. Jesus told his hearers that they needed to be made "free indeed" (John 8:36). "Free indeed [ontós]" means "truly free" or "really free," as it is in some translations.Strong's Greek Dictionary translates ontós as "really" or "truly." Versions using these translations include The Darby Translation, The Bible in Basic English, New Century Version, Young's Literal Translation, and Good News Translation. Being made "free indeed" means freedom from "bondage to sin."Gary M. Burge, "Gospel of John," in The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John's Gospel, Hebrews-Revelation, ed. Craig A. Evans, (David C. Cook, 2005), 88. This acquired freedom is "freedom to serve the Lord."Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, s.v. "Freedom." Being "free indeed" (i.e., true freedom) comes by "God's changing our nature" to free us from being "slaves to sin." and endowing us with "the freedom to choose to be righteous."
Mark R. Talbot, a "classical Christian theist,"Mark R. Talbot, "Does God Reveal Who He Actually Is?" in God Under Fire, ed. Douglas S. Huffman, Eric L. Johnson (Zondervan, 2002), 69. views this acquired "compatibilist freedom" as the freedom that "Scripture portrays as worth having."Mark R. Talbot, "True Freedom: The Liberty That Scripture Portrays as Worth Having" in Beyond the Bounds, ed. John Piper and others, 105-109.
Open theism denies that classical theism's compatibilist "freedom to choose to be righteous without the possibility of choosing otherwise."Mark R. Talbot, "True Freedom: The Liberty That Scripture Portrays as Worth Having" in Beyond the Bounds, ed. John Piper and others, (Crossway, 2003), 107,109. qualifies as true freedom. For open theism, true libertarian freedom is incompatibilist freedom. Regardless of factors, a person has the freedom to choose the opposite alternatives. In open theist William Hasker's words, regarding any action it is always "within the agent's power to perform the action and also in the agent's power to refrain from the action."William Hasker, "A Philosophical Perspective," in The Openness of God (InterVarsity, 1994), 136-137, Hasker's italics. Although open theism generally contradicts classical theism's "freedom to choose to be righteous without the possibility of choosing otherwise," Hasker allows that Jesus possessed and humans in heaven will possess such freedom. Regarding Jesus, Hasker views Jesus as "a free agent," but he also thinks that "it was not really possible" that Jesus would "abort the mission."William Hasker, answer to "Did Jesus have free will?" at (accessed September 27, 2009). Regarding heaven, Hasker foresees that as the result of our choice we will be "unable to sin" because all sinful impulses will be gone.William Hasker, answer to "So, will there be free will in heaven?" at (accessed Oct 14, 2009).
At an implicit level, the Old Testament supports both the thesis and the antithesis (that free will exists or not).
Roman Catholic