First, the little accordionist came to the stable, and May said “no way!”
Then the little tuba player came, and Mary said “go 'way!”
Finally the little drummer boy came, and Mary sad “Ok”.
You just know he did.
In a deterministic universe it isn’t truly possible for someone to do otherwise or be otherwise. You could perfectly rewind the universe back to the Big Bang and watch a particular scenario play out a trillion times and it would always have the same result. An indeterministic universe doesn’t get you the do otherwise/ultimate control of your actions kind of free will either. Your actions being determined by random quantum fluctuations doesn’t sound free in any meaningful sense of the word. If you believe in a God that still obeys logic then even he couldn’t have free will because he can’t control or violate his own nature like any other being.
That’s because “free will” is a meaningless concept.
It has some meaning in the sense of being able to act according to your own desires without coercion like choosing a film to watch or a career to pursue. It doesn’t have meaning when it means something that isn’t true or can’t ever be true with reality and logic being what they are. Everything about you and your choices ultimately comes back to something you couldn’t possibly control all the way back to the beginning of the universe. And that’s okay. You don’t need perfect control of reality and logic to have a good life, make good choices or be a good person. Free will not being real isn’t exactly something you can rebel against in any useful or meaningful way.
Yes, I guess there are different meanings of the “free will” concept (as happens with practically every concept).
- The meaningless “you can decide what to do independently of anything that happened before”
- The more grounded “You decide without (too much) external coercion”.
My Great Debate about it is that questions like this are indistinguishable from fanfic: “What if Captain Kirk used the Force?” Or alternative-history speculations: “Could Neville Chamberlain have said no?” In any case, the written text stands, the ink is dried and the pen is lifted, as the Arabs say. Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all your tears wash out a word of it.
I don’t find any difference between theology and fanfic, except that speculations about Kirk and Chamberlain are less dangerous because nobody mistakes them for reality. The divine reality of God would be so far beyond the ability of human minds to grasp, or human language to explain, that all theology is inherently unreliable. An honest theologian would be forced to conclude, with Socrates, that “the only thing I know is that I know nothing.”
Ok if we go with that, fantasy (and/including sci-fi) have rules and limits (some harder then others, but the concept of them is there and needed for plot development), theologically that exists too, especially, if one includes the RCC writings and the Apocrypha which really aligns Mary with God and protects her from humankind’s ‘misalignment’ and their natural ability to chose misalignment. The protection that Mary received would seem not to tempt her out of wanting to do the will of God. As I take it, even if the choice exists, there would be simply no motivation not to. At ultimate levels that alignment is total, and one with God. This gives rise to the RCC concept that Mary was protected by the Holy Spirit from sinning and from the ‘original stain of sin’. At least till Jesus was born, or as common in RCC, perpetually.