DO We Have Free Will?

[steve_bakr]

It does not logically follow that if our minds are tempted we have the will of a devil in our mind. That seems like a very uhealthy view that could lead to problems. It does, in fact, seem like a very incorrect theology.

Catholic theology teaches that we are free, within the contingencies of our existence, to make decisions. We are free to make a decision about our lives and about God. This is what gives meaning to our existence, to our salvation, and to our relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[Rick Otto]

It does not logically follow that if our minds are tempted we have the will of a devil in our mind. That seems like a very uhealthy view that could lead to problems. It does, in fact, seem like a very incorrect theology.

Catholic theology teaches that we are free, within the contingencies of our existence, to make decisions. We are free to make a decision about our lives and about God. This is what gives meaning to our existence, to our salvation, and to our relationship with Jesus Christ.

Steve, I sympathize with your reaction. The thought of a malicious alien presence in the midst of what we consider the core of our identity is deeply disturbing.
One thing that helps keep me on track, is to switch sides of my brain for a second & view these terms in a different but equaly valid perspective. What I mean is, to for the moment. think not of extrinsic identities (demonic), but think of the word "spirit" in the sense of "attitude" & so when we are 'possesed' we are actualy (in this sense) "obsessed" with a bad attitude - to keep it in general terms.

Right now I'm wrestling with some 'inner demons' because everyone is having a great lugh that I got up & got dressed to go to work today. I'll be livin' this down for awhile, I can tell.

 

[Rick Otto]

God never willed us that we do evil. if you need me to I could look for other passages in the scriptures that you do believe are from God to attempt to show that God does not will for us to sin.
sir.15 18-20
[18] For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
[19] his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every deed of man.
[20] He has not commanded any one to be ungodly,
and he has not given any one permission to sin.

i know this will most likely not be strong evidence to you because it is a book that is not included in your version of the bible and I doubt I see your view of will clearly enough but do you really think God wills for us to do evil? does it not make more sense that we pick evil and Gods grace uses evil for good? it makes more sense to me that God arranges things in a reactionary way according to our own wills but things get very hard to explain because God sees the entire picture and the best possible arrangement of all our wills together due to us being small and God huge.

where exactly would justice be if we did not have free will? maybe you can explain that part of your quote i underlined or link me to where you explained that?

I'm sorry, I couldn't find your explanation of Acts 2:23 in any of that.
Should I give your response my attention anyway?

 

[squint]

Steve, I sympathize with your reaction. The thought of a malicious alien presence in the midst of what we consider the core of our identity is deeply disturbing.
One thing that helps keep me on track, is to switch sides of my brain for a second & view these terms in a different but equaly valid perspective. What I mean is, to for the moment. think not of extrinsic identities (demonic), but think of the word "spirit" in the sense of "attitude" & so when we are 'possesed' we are actualy (in this sense) "obsessed" with a bad attitude - to keep it in general terms.

Right now I'm wrestling with some 'inner demons' because everyone is having a great lugh that I got up & got dressed to go to work today. I'll be livin' this down for awhile, I can tell.

Technically I have an even more benign view of temptation. For me that working merely serves as a contrasting agent that forces me to consider the deeper/spiritual aspects of my thought life and decisions.

In short, a servant whom I reign over. But if not mindful, my overlord, and a wicked one at that. A caged tiger can be beneficial to observe. A loose one is entirely different.

s

 

[steve_bakr]

Steve, I sympathize with your reaction. The thought of a malicious alien presence in the midst of what we consider the core of our identity is deeply disturbing.
One thing that helps keep me on track, is to switch sides of my brain for a second & view these terms in a different but equaly valid perspective. What I mean is, to for the moment. think not of extrinsic identities (demonic), but think of the word "spirit" in the sense of "attitude" & so when we are 'possesed' we are actualy (in this sense) "obsessed" with a bad attitude - to keep it in general terms.

Right now I'm wrestling with some 'inner demons' because everyone is having a great lugh that I got up & got dressed to go to work today. I'll be livin' this down for awhile, I can tell.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

BTW, I frequently get my days mixed up, so thanks for reminding me that it's the weekend.

 

[squint]

It does not logically follow that if our minds are tempted we have the will of a devil in our mind. That seems like a very uhealthy view that could lead to problems. It does, in fact, seem like a very incorrect theology.

The RCC openly acknowledges and publishes their fact on this matter and their fact is identical to my own.

Their determinations from there however do not and can not logically follow.

If there is another functioning will that can and does operate in the arena of internal temptations, then any such wills are categorically 'not alone' and can not therefore be ruled 'free' as the identity factor can not be determined.

We can all also easily see that we all sin and sin is of the devil who tempts and deceives, so in this we are all involved in that mixture. Our personalities are masked by that working agent or agents.

Catholic theology teaches that we are free,

Yes they do have an open logical fallacy hung out for view. No question about that to me. Their claim is, in essence, yes, you can have another entity internally present and tempting, but through our wills we can overcome. Somehow they equate this to 'freedom' of will. That is not the case. Where there are two wills functioning they have to be looked at separately. We can not logically look at the individual and say it is 'just them' there in their will when that is not the factual case.

For example, when Jesus looked at Peter and rebuked Satan, it was Satan being addressed, NOT Peter.

The RCC just hasn't managed to see this fact very well at all. In fact if you read of this account from their perspective it is as if they don't even SEE that it was SATAN in PETER speaking. It's like they are BLIND to the other entity that was IN PETER.

It's amazing to me how so many scholars in their system are just blinded to this matter and continue to be so.

within the contingencies of our existence, to make decisions. We are free to make a decision about our lives and about God. This is what gives meaning to our existence, to our salvation, and to our relationship with Jesus Christ.

Were our wills the only functioning will you'd have a point. But that is simply not the case.

Paul had evil present with him, a messenger of Satan in his flesh and was the chief of sinners post salvation. IF we see that front line Apostles are fought more viciously INTERNALLY by our mutual adversary it is quite easy to see how Paul could make the claim of being the chief of sinners because our ADVERSARY was on his own mind continually trying to defray him from his Divinely Appointed works.

And that is HOW Paul arrived at that conclusion for himself.

Now, go find any Pope in the RCC system who could stand in that mans shoes.

THERE ARE NONE and there never will be because the 'requirement' in such men is to speak HONESTLY exactly on this particular subject.

Any believer who does will enter the mystery of faith in more dynamic ways than most will care to be brought into.

enjoy!

s

 

[steve_bakr]

Technically I have an even more benign view of temptation. For me that working merely serves as a contrasting agent that forces me to consider the deeper/spiritual aspects of my thought life and decisions.

In short, a servant whom I reign over. But if not mindful, my overlord, and a wicked one at that. A caged tiger can be beneficial to observe. A loose one is entirely different.

s

This is an interesting view of our existential situation. In the Middle Ages, I think they called it concupiscence.

 

[squint]

This is an interesting view of our existential situation.

You might understand that my sight here contains ZERO harm or blame to you as a believer. I believe you are saved to the uttermost. I do not count sins of any sort against a believer.

Why?

Because I see the fact of the other party.

It is a very very FREEING sight allowing me to love all of my fellow believers AND having a sound place to place judgments that is not upon them.

And I know you have perhaps sensed this in our engagements from time to time. You should sense both love and SNARL. Now you know the SNARL might not be directed to YOU as a believer.

s

 

[Noxot]

I'm sorry, I couldn't find your explanation of Acts 2:23 in any of that.
Should I give your response my attention anyway?

ahhh. I did not see it as explaining the underlined part.

Man cannot be free of God's will.
It is a creation of God, therefore it exists by & within, His will.
It either does what He wants or does what He allows.
Therefore, either way, it exists & operates according to His will.

Some might choose to denigrate this arrangement by compoaring us to puppets or robots, but that's because they don't understand how they can still be personaly responsible for anything they do, if all they do is God's will, and they don't understand how it can be God's will that we do wickedness without that making God wicked.

Acts 2:23:Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain

Peter knew it was God's will that He would allow deicide.

how exactly does that prove your point? I see it more as God doing things for the good of us all, him knowing what our wills will do. and he still does what he does, I see God interacting with us in the best way possible while we still obtain complete free will. I find free will vastly hard to explain. for instance God put me in this part of the age instead of where I wanted/desire to be ( time of Jesus flesh body on earth ) , due to who i am and who everyone else is and due to God perfectly and justly putting me where I am at ( who knows why else God did what He did, He is to hard to grasp ) . ofc i believe I existed before I was born of woman, it really adds a lot of complexity of who I am and who God is. and it will give you a different view of who God is. and of reality in general.

 

[steve_bakr]

The RCC openly acknowledges and publishes their fact on this matter and their fact is identical to my own.

Their determinations from there however do not and can not logically follow.

If there is another functioning will that can and does operate in the arena of internal temptations, then any such wills are categorically 'not alone' and can not therefore be ruled 'free' as the identity factor can not be determined.

We can all also easily see that we all sin and sin is of the devil who tempts and deceives, so in this we are all involved in that mixture. Our personalities are masked by that working agent or agents.

Yes they do have an open logical fallacy hung out for view. No question about that to me. Their claim is, in essence, yes, you can have another entity internally present and tempting, but through our wills we can overcome. Somehow they equate this to 'freedom' of will. That is not the case. Where there are two wills functioning they have to be looked at separately. We can not logically look at the individual and say it is 'just them' there in their will when that is not the factual case.

For example, when Jesus looked at Peter and rebuked Satan, it was Satan being addressed, NOT Peter.

The RCC just hasn't managed to see this fact very well at all. In fact if you read of this account from their perspective it is as if they don't even SEE that it was SATAN in PETER speaking. It's like they are BLIND to the other entity that was IN PETER.

It's amazing to me how so many scholars in their system are just blinded to this matter and continue to be so.

Were our wills the only functioning will you'd have a point. But that is simply not the case.

Paul had evil present with him, a messenger of Satan in his flesh and was the chief of sinners post salvation. IF we see that front line Apostles are fought more viciously INTERNALLY by our mutual adversary it is quite easy to see how Paul could make the claim of being the chief of sinners because our ADVERSARY was on his own mind continually trying to defray him from his Divinely Appointed works.

And that is HOW Paul arrived at that conclusion for himself.

Now, go find any Pope in the RCC system who could stand in that mans shoes.

THERE ARE NONE and there never will be because the 'requirement' in such men is to speak HONESTLY exactly on this particular subject.

Any believer who does will enter the mystery of faith in more dynamic ways than most will care to be brought into.

enjoy!

s

I liked your other post better, which did not insult the Pope or Catholicism. I like it when you post in a serious and thoughtful manner.

Whether Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically to Peter when he addressed him as Satan, could probably be debated. It would be an interesting subject for a paper or article.

If Satan spoke from Peter's mind in that situation, then we would have to ask, Does that mean we can universalize that account and say that we are all structured as having an evil entity in our mind?

That would be one way of looking at it, but then it could be a metaphorical way of explaining our own latent (or active, in some cases) tendencies towards sin.

It occurs to me that Peter's response might have been a natural human response and that it was Jesus who was tempted by those words, tempted to avoid dying on the cross.

 

[steve_bakr]

You might understand that my sight here contains ZERO harm or blame to you as a believer. I believe you are saved to the uttermost. I do not count sins of any sort against a believer.

Why?

Because I see the fact of the other party.

It is a very very FREEING sight allowing me to love all of my fellow believers AND having a sound place to place judgments that is not upon them.

And I know you have perhaps sensed this in our engagements from time to time. You should sense both love and SNARL. Now you know the SNARL might not be directed to YOU as a believer.

s

Thanks, I appreciate your saying that.

 

[squint]

I liked your other post better, which did not insult the Pope or Catholicism. I like it when you post in a serious and thoughtful manner.

Have said before Steve I believe every last RCC member is saved. Now you may think I have something against them but I can't see them any better than that.

Do I respect what they teach? Some of it, yes. A lot of it, no. It just ain't gonna happen for me because I don't think it's RIGHT.

If by conscious consideration I can not come into peace and truth with any teaching I have to reject it. I can not purposefully believe in lies. That will not work for me.

Whether Jesus was speaking literally or metaphorically to Peter when he addressed him as Satan, could probably be debated. It would be an interesting subject for a paper or article.

Jesus was literally speaking to Satan. What in the world are you thinking?

How you can derive that it was some metaphorical Satan is strange. It was SATAN in Peter, period.

But your attempt is nearly exactly where the RCC goes. They totally ignore the obvious OTHER PARTY.

If Satan spoke from Peter's mind in that situation, then we would have to ask, Does that mean we can universalize that account and say that we are all structured as having an evil entity in our mind?

Well, a believer might say to themselves, if it happened to Peter it sure can happen to me!

That would be one way of looking at it, but then it could be a metaphorical way of explaining our own latent (or active, in some cases) tendencies towards sin.

And that is merely something that works in other people to get the OBVIOUS OTHER PARTY off the table of fact and blame only MAN, which is, in essence what the RCC does. That is why I can't stomach much of their theology. It's too blind for my liking.

Part of what got me studing this exact matter were temptation thoughts that I would have after repentance, confession, contrition and receiving the host. I'd barely walk away from receiving and get HIT in the head with a stray evil thought. That caused me to want to take a much closer look at these matters.

What I found out is what I write about now. I know now that I as a believer am forgiven, but even when the host is in my mouth, the OTHER PARTY in my mind causing temptation is NOT forgiven.

Do you understand this?

It occurs to me that Peter's response might have been a natural human response and that it was Jesus who was tempted by those words, tempted to avoid dying on the cross.

And again, that is just denying the obvious other party.

Remember, the RCC acknowledges internal temptation of SATAN and DEVILS in mankind inclusive of BELIEVERS. This much is a fact.

Now why they can't get that fact to the table any further and seek to only BLAME BELIEVERS is subject to much questioning.

s

 

[Rick Otto]

ahhh. I did not see it as explaining the underlined part.




how exactly does that prove your point? I see it more as God doing things for the good of us all, him knowing what our wills will do. and he still does what he does, I see God interacting with us in the best way possible while we still obtain complete free will. I find free will vastly hard to explain. for instance God put me in this part of the age instead of where I wanted/desire to be ( time of Jesus flesh body on earth ) , due to who i am and who everyone else is and due to God perfectly and justly putting me where I am at ( who knows why else God did what He did, He is to hard to grasp ) . ofc i believe I existed before I was born of woman, it really adds a lot of complexity of who I am and who God is. and it will give you a different view of who God is. and of reality in general.

Rom8:28:And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Not all love God, tho none can defy His will, all are personaly accountable for their acts. Acts 2:23 points out both that it was predetermined (before creation) what would happen (which defines foreknowlege). That determination was both of what He would decree(purpose) to happen, & that which He would allow (cross-purpose) to happen. So both good things He makes happen, & evil things He allows to happen, serve His ultimate, creative purpose.

 

[Arcoe]

But if not mindful, my overlord, and a wicked one at that. A caged tiger can be beneficial to observe. A loose one is entirely different.

You have the wrong lord operating in your heart.

 

[Arcoe]

For the record that would be an 'official heresy' by most standards including every branch of orthodoxy and protestantism. At least we know where you are at.

You are welcome to continue with the bizarre little dance and not have an answer one way or the other.

If you do get around to actually having a fact about it, you are welcome to state it.

If you do see that the tempter does tempt people IN MIND then you might also see the logical fallacy of freewill....

because....

Mankinds will would not be 'categorically' alone.

Is this simple enough for you yet?

s

Are you one who believes satan was Jesus' brother?

 

[squint]

You have the wrong lord operating in your heart.

When you decide to have a statement one way or the other about whether the tempter tempts believers in mind, you just let me know,

K?

s

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

If it was me saying I'd rebuke myself...



[/i]Captivity is quite beyond the subject matter put in view.

No, it can never be to my mind. Every unbeliever is a captive of Satan even though he is unconscious of it and would deny it if presented with scripture saying it is so. Satan usurped God in tempting man to sin...and thus "all have sinned" and fallen short. Christ came "to set the captive free".

A believer DOES have temptation of the tempter, period.This does not equate to 'control' or 'captivity' or 'possession.'

Amen to both statements.

It does mean that there is another ACTIVE WILL within the will of man including that of believers in the actions of temptation of the tempter within.

No, cannot agree. Scripture says we cannot serve two masters. If the believer has the Spirit of God dwelling "within", Satan cannot dwell "within". His temptations are from without but I have that old nature ""inside" that truly delights in those very temptations. That's why you and I are instructed to "resist the devil". But, no, believers do not have "another active will" within.



If you are saying a believer is never tempted by the tempter I'll take a pass on that drift. And I don't think C.S. Lewis tried to make that case either.

No need to pass...I agree totally that the tempter is very actiuve with me...and every day...and I think C.S. Lewis would agree.

 

[Shiloh1-49-10]

It is not so much a ceremony as a striving to push away from those things in the rebellious nature that hinder the indwelling of God powerfully.

OK, I can agree with that...it can only be attained by reckoning myself dead to the old man and alive unto God..."that Christ may dwell in your hearts" is the way Paul put it I believe.

Christ is anointing and this comes by an increase in faith with belief in God rather than self as the last step. His Love is apparent in the nature of Jesus. This can not be comprehended in the natural mind and only becomes apparent by an unfolding. It is a battle in the mind.

Again I agree. There's nothing ceremonial about it...occupation with Christ and His love for me rather than my love (or lack thereof) for Him I believe to be the key..."let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus" comes to mind.

 

[Arcoe]

Are you actually admitting that it is a scriptural fact that the tempter tempts in mind?

heh heh heh. Why don't you just SAY SO then?

Why bother straining with me over this FACT?

It either happens or it doesn't.

yeah or nay Arcoe?

s

James 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

[squint]

James 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Already said I didn't really expect you to actually weigh in on the subject matter.

There is scripture and there are reflections of same.

The two often vary.

s