I think we can come to a greater clarity of the model taught in scripture, and clarified by the earliest church fathers, but even then, our comprehension will be meager.
Here are some quotes from early Christian writers who affirm free will:
100-165 AD : Justin Martyr
“We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestinated that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.” (First Apology ch.43 )
[About the year 180, Florinus had affirmed that God is the author of sin, which notion was immediately attacked by Irenaeus, who published a discourse entitled: “God, not the Author of Sin.” Florinus’ doctrine reappeared in another form later in Manichaeism, and was always considered to be a dangerous heresy by the early fathers of the church.]
**130-200 AD : Irenaeus **
“This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God…And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice…If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?” (Against Heresies XXXVII )
150-190 AD : Athenagoras
“men…have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless)…”(Embassy for Christians XXIV )
**150-200 AD : Clement of Alexandria **
“Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.” (Miscellanies, book 1, ch.17)
154-222 AD : Bardaisan of Syria
“How is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation? —if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him…And how in that case, would man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman…they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures.” (Fragments )
155-225 AD : Tertullian
“I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature.” (Against Marcion, Book II ch.5 )
185-254 AD : Origin
“This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition.” (De Principiis, Preface )
185-254 AD : Origen
“There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.” (De Principiis, Book 3, ch.1 )
250-300 AD : Archelaus
“There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he chooses.” (Disputation with Manes, secs.32,33 )
260-315 AD : Methodius
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins, discourse 8, chapter 16 )
312-386 AD : Cyril of Jerusalem
“The soul is self-governed: and though the Devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou rejectest. For if thou wert a fornicator by necessity then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou wert a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness; since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.” (Lecture IV 18 )
347-407 AD : John Chrysostom
“All is in God’s power, but so that our free-will is not lost…it depends therefore on us and on Him. We must first choose the good, and then He adds what belongs to Him. He does not precede our willing, that our free-will may not suffer. But when we have chosen, then He affords us much help…It is ours to choose beforehand and to will, but God’s to perfect and bring to the end.” (On Hebrews, Homily 12 )
Tatian: “We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.” (Address to the Greeks, 11)
Melito: “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8, page 754)
Theophilus: “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.” (Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 27)
Irenaeus: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds’…And ‘Why call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things that I say?’…All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man…For it is in man’s power to disobey God and to forfeit what is good.” (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 37)
Clement of Alexandria: “We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” (The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)
Tertullian:“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. (Against Marcion, Book 2, Chapter 5)
That is beautiful, Paidion. 
I wonder what sense of ‘free-will’ they are talking about?
FWED, of course!
How many senses of “free-will” are there? Free will is the ability to choose. The only other sense of which I am aware is that defined by compatabilism, the condition in which nothing is interfering with or preventing your actions. But that is not necessarily free will at all.
The concept of libertarian free will is simply the understanding that if one has performed action A at some time in the past, he COULD HAVE refrained from performing action A at that time. I think that is the sense of free will which those early Christian writers held.
Some mistakenly think that a believer in libertarian free thinks that one can make a choice with no exterior influences whatever. I know of no one who holds such a position.
Dr. Ramelli argues in regard to the universalists on that list (at any rate) that their notion of free-will was such that God would not violate it by simply making them good, i.e. they are not only ‘free’ in the sense of having capabilities, thus explaining why purgation took so long: God has to lead them to freely accept Him, and since someone may freely choose otherwise regardless of or against their own reason, it is not even a matter of finally educating them properly (although that’s part of the discipline).
This starts at least as early as Irenaeus (whom Dr. R strongly argues believed in the salvation of all human, though not of rebel angels), and includes Bardaisan of Syria who is probably the Syrian teacher of Clement of Alexandria, and so on through Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia and some of their successors. However, in the later centuries the universalists become increasingly abstract and mystical, leaning heavily on negative theology, so it becomes harder to tell whether they advocate free will or if so what they mean by it, even when they’re fairly clear about universal salvation.
Like this. It’s not a simple matter
I think the matter of free will IS a simple matter. It’s people who complicate it. The chart you posted exemplifies that complication.
Dave! I think Paidion got you there. I didn’t understand the chart either (or maybe Paidion actually does understand it) but I DO like your FWED. I don’t think that we have absolute free will either, but I probably include some things in free will that Paidion would not include – such as whether we have a choice regarding our birth – whether, where, to whom? Our physical attributes – smart, not so much, mental/physical health, genetic predispositions, influences on us by environment, family, teachers, fellow travelers, and much more.
The way I see it, we develop in freedom the further we travel into Christ. At any stage we do have free will enough, but not absolute free will – only Father has that.
Haha - well, if Paidion got me, I don’t see where!
But as I said elsewhere, I don’t think it matters.
Look, to avoid the complications by saying its ‘men’ who have made it complicated - well fine, if that satisfies you. It does not satisfy me, and we’re not going to change one another’s opinions, so I’ll say it one more time - we have enough free will to be responsible and meaningful as God’s creatures. It is not all or nothing imo.
I don’t know why that would trouble anyone. I hope it doesn’t.
Blessings friends!!
edit: if you thought the chart was confusing, see this: informationphilosopher.com/freedom/problem/
It also explains the chart - about halfway down the page. There are lots of hyperlinks, and a column on the left of related subject matter.
I agree with the above. It’s absolutely crucial, as the early Fathers came to understand by the mid- to late second century, to understand that God has freely created the universe ex nihilo. Once we understand this, then we will quickly understand that while we can indeed, and I think must, say that for us, who stand within time, the future is free, undetermined, and open; we cannot speak this way for God at all. We use the word “eternal” to speak of his timeless existence, but that doesn’t mean that we know what we are talking about. We do not know, cannot know. Even our talk about God’s eternal “now” is wrong.
Open theism is one big category mistake.
Hey I really enjoyed that diagram Dave - it brought back fond (and not so fond) memories of trying to think the stuff through once upon a time. I could have done with that diagram as a navigation tool. 
Amen to TWO great posts
I personally have found open theism to be the only theological system that makes sense of God’s relationship with created beings. It seems to me that if there is some sort of interaction between God and his free creature, it must take place in some sort of medium, there must be some sequence. There is a legitimate give and take. To imagine it outside of time renders the whole thing unintelligible to me.
Chris - I’ve always had a hard time ‘balancing’ immanence and transcendence. It appears that God has both. Thinking along the lines of Covenant theology (amazon.com/The-Christ-Covena … 0875524184 an excellent book) has given me a good holistic feeling about the whole thing. It could be that God, as transcendent, is the originator and administrator of the various covenants (which means that we are not just hanging out existentially, the Story is still going as planned) and as immanent, God is providentially honoring his covenant in time. That puts Him everywhere.
Just a thought. You might really enjoy the book.
Instantly becomes one of my favorite cartoons