This would then negate free will, by defintion. But if Christianity does happen to be true, please observe the following...
Read the two definitions below:
A) Free will – Ability to choose without the constraint of necessity or fate.
B) Coercion – The act of persuasion by use of threats or force
Yes, many slight tweaks in definitions can be provided. Additional definitions also apply for free will. Again, this is one very large problem with the English language. However, above are the basic elements which describe the two defined words. Now read the following statements below and honestly assess which defined words above closer represents the answer, A) or B).
Give me your wallet, or I will shoot you. A) or B)?
Pay taxes to the IRS, or receive penalty of jail time or a fine. A) or B)?
Your mother tells you to clean your room, or be grounded for a week. A) or B)?
In a nutshell, perform the very specific requested act out of necessity, otherwise suffer a very specific unwanted fate.
The act of choice alone is not what constitutes free will. The act of the choice, with a direct and specific unwanted consequence for not fulfilling the specific request, is classified as coercion, duress, force, or is even presenting an ultimatum. The above examples are fairly straight forward and axiomatic. Not much debate may be presented as to the correct answers. They are all clearly forceful, persuaded, or loaded propositions.
Prior to understanding a clear definition for free will, many will presume the act of choice alone constitutes free will. But as one can clearly see, choice alone does not. Choice of one very specific decision, which then leads or results in one very specific conclusion, does not fall under the free will umbrella. Choice alone is merely a choice, or 'an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities' – Oxford Dictionary. Free will is only applied, if not persuaded by a very specific and very unfavorable conclusion.
A random example of an actual free will variation might possibly be going to the grocery store. The merchant has the ability to shop at any open store any time they choose, purchase exactly what they want, when they want, and without a direct threat of fate if they do not choose in a specific way. The merchant can choose to buy nothing, everything, or all in between. Whatever the merchant chooses, the store clerk is not going to present a very specific punishment if the merchant decides not to buy anything, or buy items which are not on the clerk's approval list. The merchant has 'more' free will, by the above definition, because no implied necessity or fate is imposed in lieu of shopping in a certain requested manor.
One may argue that this must mean that the merchant then has the free will to leave the store, without paying for all selected merchandise. Again, one can then apply such a scenario, to see if this specific statement carries any weight. Does the merchant have free will to leave the store with unpaid for items?
If the merchant leaves the store without paying for selected merchandise, the clerk will call the police. The merchant most likely already knows this ahead of time. This specific situation then lacks free will. By definition, this specific act of theft is directly bound by a conclusion of fate. If the merchant decides they think they have free will to leave the store without paying, the merchant will then be imposed upon a direct and specific consequence. The police will be looking for the merchant. In conclusion, pay for all selected store items prior to leaving the store, or the police may arrest you. One could argue that the merchant may get away with the crime, then demonstrating the act is then free will. However, this would be splitting hairs, and is demonstrated not to be free will by it's definition. Yes, one could get away with the crime. However, the implied threat or fate will always be presented. Human error, in not finding the thief, is not relevant. The intent of implied punishment for not following procedure yields a direct consequence. Some may never get caught. This is life.
Another example might be the ability to swing your arms however one chooses. One may do so in any empty space with little or no known consequences or fate. Do so in a crowded room and possibly strike another individual. One's level of actual free will is directly determined by the level of known implied rules, known possible consequences, variables, parameters, or elements within the arm swinger's path. Upon knowledge to the definition of free will, it becomes clear one possesses much less free will then previously thought.
Now one must get to the heart of the matter. How does free will apply to Christianity in any way, shape, or form? I've often posed the following scenario to Christian believers. The responses range from no response at all, to being incoherent. The scenario is as follows. How does the following scenario below differ with any of the above?
Believe Jesus is your savior and have eternal life (John 3:16-18 or Mark 16:15-16), or, do not believe Jesus is the messiah and suffer eternity in a lake of fire (Matthew 13:42, Matthew 25:41, or Revelation 21:8).
First of all, belief is not even a choice. Again, if belief was a choice, tell any Christian to make themselves begin to believe any alternate claimed god is the real and the true god, without sufficient justification, evidence, or reason.
Second of all, the above is clearly not free will under any viable definition. Believe or burn is coercive, and nothing more.
One can state they have the freedom to choose. However, to use the term free will is nonsensical. Furthermore, belief is driven by evidence to overturn a specific thought or idea. One cannot will themselves to believe an alternate conclusion. Otherwise, Christians could convert Muslims without some sort of demonstration to the contrary. Just tell the Muslim to start believing in Christianity. Yes, the threat or coercion factor alone might very well be enough to change the opponent's mind. However, this would only demonstrate belief by fear, which is a reason; and also further supports coercion. If the person trusts the person presenting the threat of hell for non-belief, actually only demonstrates the new Christian believer trusts the person presenting the claim, and not the actually demonstrable evidence. All which has taken place is that the converted believer more-so trusts the proclaimer's assertion of claimed duress, threats, or fate, over their now previous belief in a prior differing religious conclusion.
Free will also involves desire verses acting upon the desire. You cannot change the desire, only whether you act upon the desire. “Freewill isn't concerned with the action. It's concerned with the desire itself.” “To have freewill is to have control of your thoughts.”
