The problem of free will and salvation

 

The problem of free will and salvation

“97. Accordingly, we must now inquire about the meaning of what was said most truly by the apostle concerning God, "Who willeth that all men should be saved."203 For since not all--not even a majority--are saved, it would indeed appear that the fact that what God willeth to happen does not happen is due to an embargo on God's will by the human will.

Now, when we ask for the reason why not all are saved, the customary answer is: "Because they themselves have not willed it." But this cannot be said of infants, who have not yet come to the power of willing or not willing. For, if we could attribute to their wills the infant squirmings they make at baptism, when they resist as hard as they can, we would then have to say that they were saved against their will. But the Lord's language is clearer when, in the Gospel, he reproveth the unrighteous city: "How often," he saith, "would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks, and you would not."204 This sounds as if God's will had been overcome by human wills and as if the weakest, by not willing, impeded the Most Powerful so that he could not do what he willed. And where is that omnipotence by which "whatsoever he willed in heaven and on earth, he has done," if he willed to gather the children of Jerusalem together, and did not do so? Or, is it not rather the case that, although Jerusalem did not will that her children be gathered together by him, yet, despite her unwillingness, God did indeed gather together those children of hers whom he would? It is not that "in heaven and on earth" he hath willed and done some things, and willed other things and not done them. Instead, "all things whatsoever he willed, he hath done."”(Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion, 97; source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm )

In this excerpt, the highly influential Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), poses an interesting problem. In his view, not all human beings will be saved – indeed, as he explicitly says not even a majority will be saved – and yet, there are statements in the Christian Bible like 1 Timothy 2:4 which he quotes that seem to say that God wants the salvation of all human beings. According to Augustine, this poses a problem because it would seem that God’s will won’t be fulfilled despite the fact that God is, in his view, omnipotent.

Clearly, this poses a difficult problem for a ‘classical theist’ like him. It is quite obvious that if, indeed, as he thought that a certain number of human being will be forever lost, there are only two alternatives:

God doesn’t want the salvation of all human beings without exception (so, God’s salvific will isn’t universal). But God’s salvific will is effective for those human beings that God wants to save.

God does want the salvation of all human beings but in some cases this ‘divine desire’ will be frustrated due to the abuse of free will on the part of some human beings.

It appears to me that the first solution is quite problematic even from a purely Scriptural point of view. Consider the following passages (I take the excerpts from the NIV translation of the Bible: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/ ):

“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” (1 Timothy 4:10)

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:16-7)

“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)

“In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.” (Matthew 18:14)

““You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-8)

“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:10)

““But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:27-36)

I could go on but I think that it is enough. Saying that ‘all’ in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 doesn’t mean literally ‘all’ is a theoretical possibility but, at the same time, it is appears that some many passages suggest that it is, indeed, God’s desire to save ‘all’, whether this will occur or not.

There is, however, another problem in saying that God’s salvific will is not universal and effective. Indeed, there is the problem of ‘free will’. Now, to be sure, it is hard to conceive why a human being would reject an eternity of beatitude if their misconceptions were all removed. However, it might be the case that not even God can remove all mental obstacles and, therefore, despite God’s attempts to save a human being, a human being can be still lost forever. Indeed, if God could save all, turn the will of any human being to the good whenever He pleases, we might ask ourselves why God wouldn’t have already done it. Perhaps, the problem is about ‘omnipotence’. As a philosophical theist, I do struggle with this problem as I am inclined to believe that God, indeed, loves all and desires the salvation of all but, at the same time, if this implies a certainty that God will save all we should ask ourselves why God would allow so much suffering and death if He could just turn the will of everyone to the good whenever He pleases and if this outcome is certain how can we avoid a determinism?

 

 

Comments

  1. boundless93September 8, 2026 at 3:14 PM

    I made a post about this recently in another site that explains why, among other reasons, I'm not an universalist that might be relevant here (for a more 'religious-neutral' post, see this: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/09/possible-problems-of-theistic.html ). I copy-paste here with small modifications the post:

    "Not really a 'Christian hopeful universalist' as I'm a non-religious philosophical theist who hopes in universal salvation, which I think it means some kind of union/communion with God. As rational beings, I think that human beings can be satisfied fully only if they contemplate an infinite good and this involves some kind of personal relation.

    I do doubt that God is 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' as these terms are traditionally understood but even if God is 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' in the usual understanding of these terms, I think that that alone doesn't guarantee 'universal salvation' as a certain outcome. The main problem that I have from a purely theological viewpoint, is that I cannot see how God's omnipotence implies that God can save all. I do think that the late 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus of Lyons (in Against Heresies, IV.38; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103438.htm ) had a point when he wrote that the reason why God didn't create us 'perfect' is that development is necessary condition in order to eventually 'see God'. So, God can't just certainly 'remove all obstacles of a rational being to assure their repentance' without the synergy of the latter (if God could, then we should ask ourselves why would God let even a single sin to occur). At the same time, while I don't think that we can have a certainty that God's omnipotence implies assured salvation, I do think that God doesn't easily 'give up' on the rational beings He created to be in union/communion with Him. However, if one isn't sure that God can surely save all rational beings, this implies that one can't be sure that God will manage to save all. At the same time, though, I don't think that one then has to believe that some will be lost forever. So 'hopeful universalism'.

    Anyway, even if some will be lost forever, I can't see why God would preserve forever the existence of the irreversibly lost rational beings if this means that they will experience a state of endless conscious torment (ECT), which is arguably worse than non-existence. So, even if I'm not convinced by 'universal salvation', I do think that the 'mainstream' view of some form of ECT is implausible if one accepts a creator God that truly loves all (and to be fair, in the Bible, there are many passages that support the idea that God wants the salvation of each one and has impartial love: Mt 5:43-8, Lk 6:27-36, 1 Tim 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Mt 18:14, Lk 15, Lk 19:10, Jn 3:16-7, 1 Jn 2:2 etc): would such a God allow rational beings who He called into existence out of love to remain forever in a state that seem worse than non-existence? It doesn't make sense to me, especially if one accepts the idea that God is the sustainer of the existence of all creatures and in that case, if preserving some rational beings into existence would be for them worse than ceasing to exist, it would seem to me that a loving God would cease to preserve their existence if there are no other options (a sort of 'eschatological euthanasia')." Continue in the reply

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. boundless93September 8, 2026 at 3:15 PM

      "As for the 'Christian' in 'Christian universalism', I think that there are many passages in the Bible that seem to imply at least the possibility of a final separation between the 'saved' and the 'lost' (e.g. from the Gospels Mt 5:29-30, Mt 18:8-9, Mt 10:28, Mt 13:36-42, Mt 13:47-50, Mt 24:37-41, Mt 25:1-13, Mt 25:31-46, Mt 26:24/Mk 14:21, Mk 9:43-8, Lk 12:5, Lk 16:19-31, Lk 17:26-33, Lk 19:11-27, Jn 3:5, Jn 5:28-9, Jn 15:1-8 and so on). There are some passages that do seem to say that the eschatological punishments might be limited in time (e.g. Mt 5:25-6/Lk 12:58-9, Mt 18:21-35, Lk 12:47-8 and from the Pauline Epistles 1 Cor 13:10-5) but the apparent 'definitiveness' of the various passages that I mentioned before is hard to ignore even if, of course, Christian universalists did not ignore this and tried to read them in a way consistent to universal salvation. But, at the same time, they do seem to depict 'a definitive separation'."

      Delete
    2. boundless93September 8, 2026 at 4:43 PM

      Unfortunately, I made a mistake in this sentence: "So, God can't just certainly 'remove all obstacles of a rational being to come to faith' without the synergy of the latter...". It should be changed as "So, God can't just certainly 'remove all obstacles of a rational being to come to faith' without the synergy of the latter while still in imperfect conditions (limited knowledge, having still the possibility of sinning etc)..."

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction *Update (12/08): an updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html   * In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition *Update (12/08) : An updated version of this post can be found here: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/on-presence-of-universalism1-in-church.html * East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the Eas...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors *Update(12/08): an updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html   * Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers...
Read more