There is a reasonable objection to the idea of grace-enabled freedom, and I think it deserves to be heard before we try to answer it.
If God has to enable my response to him, can that response really be mine? If grace comes first, if God is drawing, convicting and working in me, what remains for my own choice to do?
Those are fair questions.
They are especially important for anyone hearing the Nazarene theology of free will for the first time. The Church of the Nazarene teaches prevenient grace, meaning that God’s grace goes before and enables the human response. At the same time, its doctrine affirms moral responsibility and the ability to choose between right and wrong.
The tension is therefore not something an outsider has invented. It is already sitting inside the doctrine itself.
Scripture gives us the same tension in several places.
Philippians 2:12–13 tells believers to work out their salvation and then says that God works in them ‘both to will and to do. John 1:12 says that those who receive Christ and believe in his name become children of God, while John 1:13 says that this new birth is from God rather than from human will.
Romans 10:9–13 speaks plainly about believing in the heart, confessing with the mouth and calling upon the Lord. The response is not treated as an illusion. Yet the salvation being received is still God’s gift.
Ephesians 2:8–10 protects the other side of the argument. Salvation is by grace through faith, not something that gives us grounds for boasting.
So I do not want to begin this discussion by pretending the answer is obvious. If grace enables choice, perhaps the first question should be whether enabled choice is less real than independent choice.
The title of this article uses an unusual phrase: ‘borrowed freedom. At first, borrowed freedom sounds like freedom that is not really freedom at all. But perhaps that assumption needs examining.
What if something can be genuinely exercised by us without having originated in us? And what if that distinction helps us understand what Nazarene theology means when it says that grace makes choice possible?
I think the strongest objection deserves to remain in the room: if God enables my response, can I honestly call that response mine? After looking at the biblical evidence, I do not think the answer is to choose between God’s grace and human choice.
Genesis 1:26–27 gives us the beginning of the story. Humanity is made in God’s image. Genesis 2:16–17 then places a real command before the human creature, with a real consequence attached to disobedience.
Deuteronomy 30:19 can therefore speak of life and death and call Israel to choose life. Joshua 24:15 can ask a people to choose whom they will serve. Scripture does not speak as though human response were merely an appearance.
But Romans 3:10–12 will not allow me to turn that responsibility into natural spiritual independence. Fallen humanity cannot simply manufacture saving faith from its own resources. Ephesians 2:8–10 pushes in the same direction: salvation is by grace through faith, leaving no room for human boasting.
Then the question becomes more interesting. John 1:12 speaks of receiving Christ and believing in his name, while John 1:13 points to God as the source of the new birth. Romans 10:9–13 describes believing, confessing and calling upon the Lord.
Philippians 2:12–13 places human action beside God’s work in the believer, including God’s work in willing and doing. Titus 2:11–14 describes grace appearing and teaching people how to live.
That is why I find the Nazarene understanding of prevenient grace compelling at this point. It does not require me to say that human choice saves us. It allows me to say that grace makes a genuine response possible.
So I use the phrase ‘borrowed freedom’ carefully. I do not mean borrowed as in unreal. I mean freedom received rather than self-created.
The choice is genuinely ours, but the grace that makes our response possible is not something we produced ourselves.