First, some definitions:

• Sin is defined as the Christian concept of violating the will or Law of God, as established in the Bible.
• Free will is the ability of a human being to deliberate amongst perceived options and enact a decision. I am not defining free will in a libertarian way.

Argument A:

• In order for humans to have free will, they need to have the capacity to sin.

Thought #1:

• If argument A is true, this would imply that before sin entered the world in Genesis, Adam and Eve didn't have free will at all.
  • If they didn't have free will at all, this would mean Adam and Eve shouldn't be held morally responsible for disobeying God, and thereafter, that no other humans should be judged as sinful

Thought #2:

• All of our choices are limited by contextual factors, such as our biology, the laws of physics, past events, etc. We do not have limitless choices or freedom.
  • Regardless of these limited choices as defined by nature, we have free will because we can still deliberate amongst these options and enact decisions thereafter. (So, the amount of options we have is irrelevant to if we have free will or not).
• If we were unable to sin because it is not possible in nature, i.e. limited by some contextual or intrinsic factor, we still have a variety of options in the "non-sin" category
  • As a result, we can still deliberate amongst these non-sin choices and enact decisions, and thus, have free will

A Different Way of Thinking About Thought #2:

Imagine that whenever humans make a choice, they broadly fall within three categories of behaviors/actions: prosocial behavior-actions that benefit or help others or contribute to society; antisocial behavior-actions that harm others or violate their rights and entitlements within society; and asocial behavior, actions that don't involve other people at all.

Now imagine a hypothesis species that can only make prosocial decisions, because they are some kind of psychic hivemind or something. In other words, every decision they make affects society (so asociality is impossible), and antisocial behavior is physiologically impossible, because they lack the constitution required to do so. This leaves only one broad category of behavior: prosociality.

Does this hypothetical species have less freedom than humans? Yes, because they have fewer choices.

But, does this hypothetical species have less free will than humans? No, because even with the choices they are given, they can still choose amongst them (or I guess within the category of prosociality).

Applying this to Thought #2, even if we were limited by nature to be incapable of sin, we would still have free will because we can still choose within the options found in the non-sin category, similar to how the hypothetical species can choose within the options found in the prosocial category.

The Point: Sin isn't an essential precondition for humans to have free will. So, if God abolished sin, humans would still have the same amount of free will as before. This has implications for the problem of evil.

So, what do you think?