p0ink said:
but you did not have a choice, if every other option was not viable.
This is not an easy topic at all. Those who think it is usually take one of two extreme views and then focus on the verses that support it while ignoring the ones that do not. In this case, you have on one side individuals who lean toward God's Sovereign Choice (the view popularly know as "Calvinism") and those who lean toward Man's Free Will (the view often called "Arminianism").
Extreme Calvinists insist that people have no free choice at all and therefore God must essentially make their decision to follow Him for them. The Arminian sees God's sovereignty as being bound by people's free choice - that He just figures out what the future holds and chooses based on that. So keep in mind that depending on who you ask you may get very different responses to your observation then you will get here, for I take a third position that I believe better fits all Biblical data.
Free Will
The Bible clearly portrays man as having a free will. Many verses clearly call for a response from man (Rom. 6:23; Mt. 23:37; Jn. 1:12; Deut. 30:19; Josh 24:15), and these responses are predicated on man's ability to choose to respond. These verses would be asking the impossible if man were not free to choose.
Sovereign Choice
The Bible also portrays God as sovereign, in complete control of all creation (Job 42:2; Ps. 135:6; Dan 4:17; Eph. 1:4-11; Acts 2:23; etc.). So He cannot be "tied down" to what man decides to do, for He is in control. Further, to say that God "looks at the future" and bases His choosing on our actions places God in a position of dependence - but an unchanging cause cannot be affected by its effects (i.e. - us), so this is not possible.
The question naturally arises: "How can God be in control of all events if man can choose his own actions?" This question is at the heart of what you are asking. Again, while it would be easier to punt to either extreme ("God's choice forces man's will," or, "God's choice is dependent on man's will") the Biblical answer must lie somewhere in between. This is where we really need to put our thinking caps on.
Several key concepts (will, nature, causes) are necessary to understand this. I am a visual learner, so let me start with a few illustrations:
The Painting
Imagine yourself in front of a blank canvas. In your mind is a picture that you are about to create. You know everything there is to know about this picture even though it does not yet exist outside your mind on the canvas. You are the primary cause of what that painting will be, and you know it perfectly because for the painting "in your mind" to become the painting on the canvas it must exist according to what is in your mind - for that is its nature.
Well, what about people? One of the essential elements in man's nature is his will, his ability to choose. So if God is going to create people, they will have to be created according to their nature - i.e. free creatures with the ability to choose. As the Ultimate Cause, God knows all of His effects perfectly - including our free choices. If one person by nature (free choice) chooses to follow God and one does not, then God would already know that before they were created. His choosing is determinative for He cannot be wrong.
OK remember that for a minute and read the next illustration:
The Hammer
Suppose I had a hammer that I used to drive nails. If I drove a nail into a board and someone asked you, "What caused that nail to be driven into that board?" you would probably answer that I was the cause. Now, on another level you realize that the hammer had something to do with it of course, but I get the credit ultimately because I was the agent with the free choice - I only used the hammer as an instrument to drive the nail. In philosophy we call this an "instrumental cause."
But suppose the hammer had free will. Suppose it could choose whether or not it would allow itself to hit the nail by bending in some way that would miss it. This complicates things! Now the hammer is not just an instrument, it is more of a secondary cause (me being primary). In other words, without me the hammer could never hit the nail, but I did not force the hammer to hit the nail - I only empowered it. Now if someone asked for the cause, you'd have to include both me and the hammer. Ultimately, though, the hammer gets the credit - for I only supplied its ability to hit the nail, not its choice to do so.
Follow so far? OK - here goes:
Before creation God had all things in His mind. He knew all there was to know about every single thing in His mind - rocks, trees, air, planets, animals, triangles, and . . . man. Now, if God created a triangle it had to be a three sided geometric figure because that is what it is by nature. In the same way, if God created people He had to make creatures with free will, for that is what people are by nature (that is not all that they are, but it is an essential element).
So God knew what their free will would be used for and He chose that it would be so (Acts 13:48). He is the primary cause of all our actions - but we are the secondary causes and are therefore accountable for what we do even though it is God who gave us the ability to choose (and even knew exactly what we would choose when he created us). So God chooses His elect (those that freely chose to follow Him), and He did this choosing before time began (which is why we say He "foreknew" and "predestined" etc.).
God's choosing (primary cause) through our free will (secondary cause) is therefore not a contradiction. We are, as Norm Geisler says, Chosen but Free.