Philemon 1:14

"without your consent". This was especially humiliating for him, that he did not do something so necessary for him without your consent. "so that your good deed would not be forced but voluntary". Paul did not say, "By force," but, "would not be forced;" as …

And addressing himself to Philemon, Paul says: "that your kindness may not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary." … Now wherever there is the express statement not to do this or that, and whenever the performance of the will is required to do or refrain from some action, in keeping with God's commandments, that is sufficient proof of the free choice of the will. Let no one, therefore, blame God in his heart whenever he sins, but let him impute the sin to himself.

God does not tyrannize but rules, and when he rules, he does not coerce but encourages and he wishes that those under him yield themselves willingly to his direction so that the good of someone may not be according to compulsion but according to his free will. This is what Paul with understanding was saying to Philemon in the letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus: "So that your good be not according to compulsion but according to free will." Thus, the God of the universe hypothetically might have produced a supposed good in us so that we would give alms from "compulsion" and we would be temperate from "compulsion," but he has not wished to do so.

"But I did not want to do anything without your advice, so that your goodness would not be like a necessity, but voluntary." This question, which is asked by many and often withdrawn, can be solved from the present place, why God, creating man, did not create him good and right. For if God is good voluntarily, and not out of necessity, creating man, he ought to have made him in his image and likeness, that is, so that he too would be voluntarily, and not out of necessity, good. But those who assert that it should have been done so that evil could not be received, say this: he should have been made who was good out of necessity and not of his own accord. If such a result had been done that is good not by will, but by necessity, it would not be similar to God: who is good therefore because he wills, not because he is compelled. From which it is clear that they demand opposing things from each other. For from what they say, 'Man ought to become similar to God', they ask that free will should be obtained, just as God himself has. However, from what they infer, 'Such an individual ought to be made who could not obtain evil'; while they impose necessity upon a person for the sake of good, they desire that man should not become similar to God. And so the Apostle Paul was able to retain Onesimus for himself in service without the consent of Philemon. But if he had done this without Philemon's consent, it would have been a good thing, but not voluntary. And what is not voluntary is argued to be not good in another way. For nothing can be called good unless it is voluntary. From this it follows that the prudence of the Apostles must be considered: he who sends back a fugitive slave to his master, so that he may be of use to his master, does so for the benefit of his master, who could not benefit if the slave were held in the absence of the master. […]

This verse answers the question of why God, in creating human beings, did not constitute them invariably good and upright. If, indeed, God is good not out of some impersonal necessity but because in his essence he freely wills his own goodness, he should in making man have made him to the divine image and likeness, that is, that he be good willingly and not by necessity.