Free Will in Aquinas and the Holy Scriptures Compared
This paper examines Thomas Aquinas's philosophical defense of free will, as presented in the Summa Theologica, and compares it with both supporting and opposing arguments drawn from the Holy Scriptures. Drawing on Aristotle's concept of rational inclination toward ends, Aquinas argues that free will is intrinsically inviolable by human force, though it may be influenced by external stimuli, including fear and circumstance. The paper then evaluates four Biblical arguments in favor of free will — grounded in divine justice, salvation through belief, examples of human disobedience, and direct scriptural commands to choose — while also exploring the apparent tension posed by God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart. The paper concludes that Aquinas's account, while largely consistent with Scripture, does not fully address the possibility of divine intervention overriding human freedom.
- Introduction: Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Question of Free Will: Situating Aquinas in rational theological tradition
- Aquinas's Philosophical Defense of Free Will: Aquinas refutes determinism using Aristotelian reasoning
- Biblical Arguments For and Against Free Will: Four scriptural arguments supporting human free choice
- Human Rationality, the Good, and the Root of Sin: Sin as misapplied rationality in Aquinas and Scripture
- Free Will, Violence, and the Inviolability of the Will: Why physical force cannot compel the will
- Fear, Coercion, and the Limits of Compulsion: Fear influences but does not eliminate free choice
- Divine Omnipotence and the Limits of Aquinas's Account: God's power poses a challenge Aquinas does not fully resolve
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically moves between philosophical argument and scriptural evidence, testing Aquinas's claims against specific Biblical passages rather than treating the two sources as separate domains.
- It presents both sides honestly — acknowledging where Aquinas's answers are strong and where they fall short — rather than simply endorsing one position.
- The use of direct quotations from the Summa Theologica and the King James Bible grounds abstract claims in primary textual evidence throughout.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative theological analysis: it takes a single doctrinal concept (free will) and evaluates it simultaneously through a philosophical framework (Aquinas/Aristotle) and a scriptural framework (Old and New Testament). This comparative method allows the writer to identify genuine tensions — such as the Pharaoh problem — that neither source alone resolves, and to propose a nuanced synthesis rather than a simple verdict.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by situating Aquinas within the Aristotelian tradition and stating its central claim. It then outlines Aquinas's philosophical argument for free will, followed by a four-part examination of Biblical evidence. Subsequent sections apply Aquinas's theory to specific scenarios — rational choice and sin, physical violence, and fear-induced coercion — testing each against scriptural parallels. The paper closes by identifying the one area where Aquinas's account is genuinely inadequate: divine intervention in human willing, as illustrated by the Pharaoh narrative.
Introduction: Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Question of Free Will
Thomas Aquinas is recognized by the Orthodox as one of the foundational theologians, particularly in that he provided an important step toward the Renaissance by helping to reacquaint Christianity with Aristotle, whom he refers to throughout his work as "the Philosopher." As one who draws inspiration from Aristotle, he is particularly interested in rational philosophy as applied to the realm of religion and theology. This makes his defense of free will particularly strong, though at points one feels he lacks the necessary sense of ambiguity to completely address the Biblical texts. What is important to glean from his work, however, is a message that is also prominent in the Scriptures: that man is "made to God's image, in so far as the image implies an intelligent being endowed with free-will and self-movement" (Summa Theologica, II:1:1).
Some thinkers believe that humans do not have free will, but that our actions are determined either by our environment or by God himself. Thomas Aquinas recognizes and addresses these objections masterfully. One objection is that our actions do not display free will because they are determined by what modern functionalists would call outside stimuli, resulting entirely from external determining factors. He answers this by explaining that free will is an intrinsic act, though it can have extrinsic influences. Free will is defined by the inclination of the knowledgeable mind toward a specific end — and while the desirability or possibility of an end may be determined by circumstances, the inclination itself resides in the will. His response to the claim that free will cannot exist because God determines our future and holds all our movements in his mind is somewhat less satisfactory. He mainly suggests that God's influence is similar to any other extrinsic influence, but when he cannot entirely sustain this point in argument, he draws his conclusion from definitions. This needs to be addressed in more detail to be completely understood. Nevertheless, the primary threat to the doctrine of free will in our modern time does come from behaviorists and their ilk, who suggest that outside forces control the mind — and this Aquinas refutes neatly.
Aquinas's Philosophical Defense of Free Will
His argument for free will explains that while a rock that is thrown does not have free will in deciding to fall — because it has no knowledge or decision-making power — a human who jumps and falls possesses knowledge of the reason behind their action, and falls according to the inclination of their desires. Drawing from Aristotle, Aquinas defines will as being primarily based in knowledge of intended ends and in the inclination that leads to actions toward those ends. He writes: "those things which have a knowledge of the end are said to move themselves because there is in them a principle by which they not only act but also act for an end... Therefore, since man especially knows the end of his work, and moves himself, in his acts especially is the voluntary to be found." (ST: II: 6:1)
Aquinas presents a very rational argument that, while Christian in nature, does not depend on Scripture for its entire justification. However, it is also possible to construct arguments for and against free will from Scripture alone.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.