The Existence of Freewill

[JimR-OCDS]

Albion

Yes, but that skirts the real issue. IF we are expected to use free will to choose Christ and make moral choices, our free will had better be capable of it.

That's the essence of "free will." We are capable of making the choice.

Merely to be able to choose isn't anything special. The ability to choose well--and for all of us to be able to do it--is necessary.

But here again you're confusing "free will," with correct choice, which is not what free will is about.

The proverbial monkey sitting in front of a keyboard hitting keys at random is not going to write The Tale of Two Cities...but we could say he's typing.

On of the big differences between animals and humans is that we have free will, where they react on instinct.

Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

God doesn't coerce you to go against your own will. He will provide inspiration, but inspiration is accepted or rejected freely.

The very fact that not everyone believes in God, despite his desire to have a relationship with us, shows us that he doesn't force himself on us.

God is love, as the saying goes and love is given freely. Forced, it is not love.


Jim

I see what you are saying that He doesn't force himself on us. But if I do believe in Him, and I honestly believe that I can do task A and be fine but if I do task B I will live in misery for all eternity, I know He isn't physically forcing us to do task A rather than B, but if I'm allowed to place any value whatsoever on my own soul (which I guess means I have an ego) then it really isn't much of a choice IMO. To me, that's just as forced as if God actually changed my mind for me without me even knowing He did. There is no worldly pleasure I'd give up my mortal life for, much less my eternal one. We could get into risk assessment and look at it from a more quantitative POV. But I just don't see how I can honestly love somebody of my own "free will," knowing that if I don't He'll throw me into agony. There's something of this puzzle I'm missing here...

Alan

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I see what you are saying that He doesn't force himself on us. But if I do believe in Him, and I honestly believe that I can do task A and be fine but if I do task B I will live in misery for all eternity, I know He isn't physically forcing us to do task A rather than B, but if I'm allowed to place any value whatsoever on my own soul (which I guess means I have an ego) then it really isn't much of a choice IMO. To me, that's just as forced as if God actually changed my mind for me without me even knowing He did.

Alan

Knowing that choice A is good and choice B is bad, is merely knowledge of the difference between A and B. It's still up to you on which choice you make.

We know that smoking is bad for you. Yet, young people having this knowledge, still take up smoking.

Did they go against their free will ? No, just as the young person with the same knowledge chooses not to smoke, didn't go against their own free will.

Both, equipped with the same knowledge, made their choices freely.

Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Knowing that choice A is good and choice B is bad, is merely knowledge of the difference between A and B. It's still up to you on which choice you make.

We know that smoking is bad for you. Yet, young people having this knowledge, still take up smoking.

Did they go against their free will ? No, just as the young person with the same knowledge chooses not to smoke, didn't go against their own free will.

Both, equipped with the same knowledge, made their choices freely.

Jim

In this case, it isn't as clear cut as to the cost of the choices. Yes, the smoking may kill you but it becomes quantitative and speculative. Plus it is delayed gratification. So we have, "yes, smoking is bad for me but one cigarette right now isn't going to hurt." Maybe sin is the same way, "well the chances that I actually do believe I'll go to hell, times the likelihood that I can get to confession before I die ..." or whatever.

In my model, the non-believer would have the "most free" will.

I'm going to have to reconsider some things now that we've stirred it around a little bit. I'm thinking that it actually comes down to a usage of terminology whether we have "free will" or not.

Since I'm not a theologian, I can't tell you the precise meaning and implications of the term. My personal feeling about the term is that either irresistible force or knowledge of the imminent exercise thereof, makes my decisions for me. I guess that means I'm not so defiant I'd rather suffer than change my mind.

So back to the example with the police. If three cops yell at me and say to put my hands in the air, I have the physical freedom to defy them even at the risk of immediate death. So in that sense, yes I have free will. In the same sense, if I am a believer, I have free will whether to avoid mortal sin. Maybe it's my ego making these decisions. Or my fears. But not easily recognized to me as love being the deciding factor when a fearful consequence is placed before me. So it doesn't "feel" to me like a free decision -- maybe I should put it that way. We have free will, but it's hard to believe because we are busy considering the consequences as show-stoppers.

Alan

 

[Albion]

Forgive any imprecision on my part in this post, two month old and a toddler so my brain may miss something

You are forgiven. And I'm guessing that your brain seemed to be working just fine about, oh, three months ago, right?

In the end, grace...free will..have at their heart God, Who is a Mystery. So in over-defining we may make a mistake or have a misunderstanding.

I have the feeling that that is the guts of the position taken by all freewill people. I can only say that it sounds great in theory but it is impossible in actuality...which I also think is quite evident if one takes a moment to think it though.

We can SAY that God showers the imbecile or the Muslim who has been raised with nothing but lies about Jesus with such Grace that he approaches Christ with the ability to choose as you or I would--but anyone can see that that is not so.

 

[LoAmmi]

We can SAY that God showers the imbecile or the Muslim who has been raised with nothing but lies about Jesus with such Grace that he approaches Christ with the ability to choose as you or I would--but anyone can see that that is not so.

There are people in the world who honestly took a look at Jesus and judged him not to be who Christians claim him to be. I, myself, took an honest look into it although some here seem to dispute that simply because I came to a different decision. My choice is an act of free will.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BTW, it should be understood that "Free Will," is Catholic Doctrine.

The issue is complex and the Catholic Encyclopedia at Newadvent.org, is complex, so I won't post it here.

However for those interested and who might be having a hard time falling asleep tonight, read for yourselves.

http://newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm


Jim

 

[Albion]

There are people in the world who honestly took a look at Jesus and judged him not to be who Christians claim him to be. I, myself, took an honest look into it although some here seem to dispute that simply because I came to a different decision. My choice is an act of free will.

You're not a very good example of what we're talking about, however, because you are living (I assume) in a society in which the Christian religion is nothing unusual and you have access to most of what anyone else would have, plus a lively mind, etc. etc.

Give us your best guess at how easy it would be for someone born and raised in Medieval Arabia to parallel your thought patterns and come up with the same conclusion.

 

[LoAmmi]

You're not a very good example of what we're talking about, however, because you are living (I assume) in a society in which the Christian religion is nothing unusual and you have access to most of what anyone else would have, plus a lively mind, etc. etc.

Give us your best guess at how easy it would be for someone born and raised in Medieval Arabia to parallel your thought patterns and come up with the same conclusion.

If I'm not mistaken, Catholic doctrine would say that a person who is unable to have heard the message or is unable to process the message is not automatically going to Hell for not becoming Catholic. Could you guys correct me if I'm wrong on this?

As far as someone in that time period, some could have come to the same conclusions.

 

[Davidnic]

I have the feeling that that is the guts of the position taken by all freewill people. I can only say that it sounds great in theory but it is impossible in actuality...which I also think is quite evident if one takes a moment to think it though.

We can SAY that God showers the imbecile or the Muslim who has been raised with nothing but lies about Jesus with such Grace that he approaches Christ with the ability to choose as you or I would--but anyone can see that that is not so.

On the intellectual level I would agree. Those raised with a hatred of Christ, or a total misunderstanding of him can have what appears, to our intellect, to be an insurmountable barrier. As far as the imbecile, faith is not strictly an action of intellect. There can be an internal disposition of heart. In fact free will may be far easier for the imbecile than the scholar.

But on the others we can not be so sure of the actions of God in their heart to guide them to Him as best as they can be. Since these states are often a result of the fallen world and often the human abuse of free will leads to create the situations...it still works within the dynamic.

They have the same free will, but perhaps not the same opportunity to exercise it efficiently to our eyes.. This is where our belief in invincible ignorance comes in; balanced by natural law that we all know internally. There is a point where someone may be raised in such an oppositional way to God that their road looks to us as almost impossible. They still have a functional free will, and God works with that.

But here we move into the question of how much Natural Law compensates for invincible ignorance. And where the Mercy of God comes into play.

But on a strictly free will side, they have the same free will. But I am thinking your point is that we can not realistically expect it to be useful or functional to them toward the Christian view. Natural law helps with that, we also believe God works with other beliefs to lead people to Him. It is, by far, a harder road. But it does not negate free will. It just seems unequal to our eyes in how that will can be reasonably used.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Free Will means you have the freedom to choose between good and evil according to the information you have at hand.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you'll make wrong choices, but that you are not predestined to take a course of action without the consent of your will.

A person who is born and raised in a time and place where he will never hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, still has freedom of will to choose between good and evil of what he knows.



Jim

 

[Albion]

On the intellectual level I would agree. Those raised with a hatred of Christ, or a total misunderstanding of him can have what appears, to our intellect, to be an insurmountable barrier. As far as the imbecile, faith is not strictly an action of intellect. There can be an internal disposition of heart. In fact free will may be far easier for the imbecile than the scholar.

But on the others we can not be so sure of the actions of God in their heart to guide them to Him as best as they can be. Since these states are often a result of the fallen world and often the human abuse of free will leads to create the situations...it still works within the dynamic.

They have the same free will, but perhaps not the same opportunity to exercise it

Let me stop you right there.

THAT is the point of free will! It's not that we have it (or not); it's that we are supposed to be responsible for exercising it and presumed capable of doing so. That is what our whole theological outlook--at least for Catholics and Arminians--is built upon. It means nothing if we are thought to have it but it doesn't work!

But on a strictly free will side, they have the same free will. But I am thinking your point is that we can not realistically expect it to be useful or functional to them toward the Christian view. Natural law helps with that, we also believe God works with other beliefs to lead people to Him. It is, by far, a harder road. But it does not negate free will. It just seems unequal to our eyes in how that will can be reasonably used.

So one person in a million raised in Kuwait exercises his freewill--with God's grace, of course--and chooses Christ as his Lord and Savior, while most people living in Greece have made that choice...and this does not cause you to think that something is wrong with the theory? Exactly how did God "work with that" in the Kuwait situation where everyone has heard of Jesus and 99.99999% reject him?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Free will isn't just having the option in choosing between accepting Christ or not.

Free will has to do with all choices a human being makes. He is free to act according to his will, whether in error or righteousness.


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

Let me stop you right there.

THAT is the point of free will! It's not that we have it (or not); it's that we are supposed to be responsible for exercising it and presumed capable of doing so. That is what our whole theological outlook--at least for Catholics and Arminians--is built upon. It means nothing if we are thought to have it but it doesn't work!

They can still exercise it they just do not have the easiest opportunity to do so. God works with it. The functionality in that case comes from Natural Law and God working with what is in their realm to lead them.

So one person in a million raised in Kuwait exercises his freewill--with God's grace, of course--and chooses Christ as his Lord and Savior, while most people living in Greece have made that choice...and this does not cause you to think that something is wrong with the theory? Exactly how did God "work with that" in the Kuwait situation where everyone has heard of Jesus and 99.99999% reject him?

In most of of those situations Christ has not been properly presented. God works with leading people to Him within the limits the abuse of free will by others has placed their fellow creations. We have to deal with the results of the abuse of free will that creates a Christianity that people see that is not what Christianity is about. Or creates false or atheistic cultures.

We enter here into the action of God on hearts and the hearts response. It does not mean there is no free will it means that we do not have the powers of God to understand.

We rely on the Mercy and Justice of God in application according to what only He knows.

This is why proper Evangelism and spreading the Word of Christ is so vital. It gives us more assurance for the salvation of others. But even those properly given Christ reject Him.

We believe that in the case where people have not been properly presented Christ or have an invincible ignorance due to culture or impediment that God works with their free will. We can theorize how He does that, but we can not know.

 

[Albion]

They can still exercise it they just do not have the easiest opportunity to do so. God works with it. The functionality in that case comes from Natural Law and God working with what is in their realm to lead them.





In most of of those situations Christ has not been properly presented. God works with leading people to Him within the limits the abuse of free will by others has placed their fellow creations. We have to deal with the results of the abuse of free will that creates a Christianity that people see that is not what Christianity is about. Or creates false or atheistic cultures.

We enter here into the action of God on hearts and the hearts response. It does not mean there is no free will it means that we do not have the powers of God to understand.

We rely on the Mercy and Justice of God in application according to what only He knows.

This is why proper Evangelism and spreading the Word of Christ is so vital. It gives us more assurance for the salvation of others. But even those properly given Christ reject Him.

We believe that in the case where people have not been properly presented Christ or have an invincible ignorance due to culture or impediment that God works with their free will. We can theorize how He does that, but we can not know.

We obviously do not "rely upon the Mercy and Justice of God" while claiming that every person can either choose God or reject him of his or her own accord; that would be an argument on behalf of predestination, not freewill.

 

[Davidnic]

We obviously do not "rely upon the Mercy and Justice of God" while claiming that every person can either choose God or reject him of his or her own accord; that would be an argument on behalf of predestination, not freewill.

No it isn't. We always rely upon God's Mercy and Justice. Even with free will. We rely on it because of invincible ignorance and the fact that the abuse of free will creates situations that make the proper transmission of the Gospel difficult. So we trust in God but do not just stand by and say, "well, it's God's job" We still strive to present the Truth.

There is no contradiction between relying on the Mercy and Justice of God and accepting the free will to accept and reject. Those two views are fully compatible. We do not rely on the Mercy and Justice of God and His ability to know the disposition of hearts toward or away from Him of their own free will, no matter what the circumstance.

That is perfectly compatible with free will. In fact it is that we believe in God's Mercy and Justice that we reject reprobation and believe in free will. Once free will enters the equation we do not abandon reliance on God's Mercy and Justice.

In fact is it not that we obviously do not rely upon the Mercy and Justice of God" while claiming that every person can either choose God or reject Him of his or her own accord...but rather that if we believe and rely on it we must believe in free will because no other option exists if we believe God is Just and Merciful.

 

[Nick T]

I haven't made any conclusions, and I think you err when you state that thes same Saints who spoke of the freeness of the saved also rejoiced thankfully. In some cases we really don't know much of anything else that these early Saints said.

I am in fact pretty certain that I not err with regards to the fact that many saints both rejoiced thankfully and spoke of human freedom and the dangerous risk of damnation.
I obviously I haven't read all the writings of every saint, but I do know for a fact that several saints wrote both about the narrow path of salvation and yet still thanked God for it. St John Chrysostom is probably the best example, being known for both his rather harsh sermons warning his Antiochene congregation that fewer than a hundred souls in the city would be saved, as well as for writing some of the greatest hymns of praise and thanks to God known in the Eastern Church. And St John Chrysostom is not the only big name to have written such things: St Basil, St Gregory the Great, St. Augustine, St John Climacus and many others all shared similar sentiments.

If you have counter examples then I would love to hear them, but as far as I know there are very few, if any, saints who did not rejoice thankfully in the Lord. And while there were some who held to the hope of universal reconciliation, the majority of these same saints also held to the reality of an eternal hell.

In any case, regardless of individual saints the fact remains that both free will and the necessity of joy and thanks in the Christian life has always been a central and non-negotiable teaching in Christ's Church. These doctrines are found throughout scripture, in the writings of the Fathers and indeed in the liturgy itself- we cannot sidestep them and still claim to be walking in the footsteps of the saints now in heaven.

Again, I haven't drawn any conclusions, but it sure is tempting to draw conclusions about people who would call a God who sentences most to eternal torture all-loving.

This is only tempting if one does not believe in free will, and therefore blame God for "sentencing" people to hell rather than realizing that they have damned themselves there by their own choice. This is of course what this entire thread is about, and I will leave the philosophical debates to those more knowledgeable than me, however I will point out that scripture is absolutely clear that we cannot lay the blame on God for people doing evil and going to hell.

Sirach 15 11-20
Do not say, “It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away”;
for he does not do what he hates.
Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”;
for he has no need of the sinful.
The Lord hates all abominations;
such things are not loved by those who fear him.
It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.
For great is the wisdom of the Lord;
he is mighty in power and sees everything;
his eyes are on those who fear him,
and he knows every human action.
He has not commanded anyone to be wicked,
and he has not given anyone permission to sin

 

[Albion]

This is only tempting if one does not believe in free will, and therefore blame God for "sentencing" people to hell rather than realizing that they have damned themselves there by their own choice.

Pelagius tried that argument in the ancient church and it was rightly rejected. We are not in the least intellectually aware and free so long as sin is part of the human condition...and it is. Were we Adam or Eve, of course the situation would be different; but doesn't everyone realize that something changed for all of their descendants when they were driven from the Garden?

It's so tempting to think that we all are This is of course what this entire thread is about, and I will leave the philosophical debates to those more knowledgeable than me, however I will point out that scripture is absolutely clear that we cannot lay the blame on God for people doing evil and going to hell.

On the contrary, scripture makes clear that God is in charge, not we. And if we were the freewilled creatures it's fun to think about, we would not need a savior in the first place!

No, the whole "You are the one who either chooses righteousness or rejects it, and no one but you is responsible for your eternal destiny" line of thought holds up to scrutiny only in a perfect world. But it's nice to think that's the way it is with us--and everyone who does so naturally thinks that he's going to make the right choices, even if others don't. It's always the others who will make bad choices, not oneself, according to the way we imagine this freewill business functioning.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Pelagius tried that argument in the ancient church and it was rightly rejected. We are not in the least intellectually aware and free so long as sin is part of the human condition...and it is. Were we Adam or Eve, of course the situation would be different; but doesn't everyone realize that something changed for all of their descendants when they were driven from the Garden?


On the contrary, scripture makes clear that God is in charge, not we. And if we were the freewilled creatures it's fun to think about, we would not need a savior in the first place!

No, the whole "You are the one who either chooses righteousness or rejects it, and no one but you is responsible for your eternal destiny" line of thought holds up to scrutiny only in a perfect world. But it's nice to think that's the way it is with us--and everyone who does so naturally thinks that he's going to make the right choices, even if others don't. It's always the others who will make bad choices, not oneself, according to the way we imagine this freewill business functioning.

There is an aspect I think that this line of thinking ignores or misses.

Pelagianism suffers from two core problems. First is that Pelagianism doesn't recognize concupiscence. This is more an issue relating to free-will.

concupiscence is what many protestants would refer to as "sin-nature". It is the fact that in the state of original sin, our nature and desires are bent towards sin to a degree that we cannot avoid sinning. This does not place any responsibility on God for our sins because he did not make us commit them. He did not destine us to commit sins. This is simply the cause and effect of sin.

There are many things in life that are passed down to us from our parents, because of the choices they made. We did not chose those things, but they are the consequence of other people's choices. God is not morally culpable for them. That is simply the nature of the world. The choices we make affect other people, especially our children.

So, an unregenerate person, apart from the grace of God, is not able to avoid sinning. They are not able to enter relationship with God. This is a limitation upon our will, but it is not the same thing as denying free-will.

Think of it like this. I was not born into the royal family of England. Never the less, I'd really like to be an heir of the Royal family. There is no way I can simply will myself into the royal family. I was not born into it therefore I'm not in it. There is no amount of work I could do, no amount of will, that could make me part of the Royal family.

The only thing that can make me part of the royal family is if the head of that family decides to adopt me.

You could say that this is a limitation on my will, but the truth is its not a limitation on my will, its a limitation on my ability. I could will it all I want, but I can't make it happen. Only the King (or Queen in this case) can make it happen.

When dealing with God we also have the added complexity that our fallen nature predisposes us not to pursue God. It predisposes us to pursue this world rather than the next world. So it is only by grace that we even get the desire to be part of the family.

The second problem with Pelagianism is that mere morality is not enough to save. Even if a person could perfectly follow the law and live a perfectly moral life, it would not be enough to save them.

This issue arises from a failure to recognize that the law is not our primary problem. Spiritual death is our primary problem. Even if you could live a perfectly moral life, you would still exist in a state of spiritual death, separated from God.

Sin and death do not result from the law. The law was given to make them visible. As Paul says the law made sin more sinful, by this meaning that where as sin was hidden and we were unaware of our sin.. the law revealed it and made us aware of it. This gives us the double conviction of not only sinning, but sinning knowingly and willfully.

But even before we commit a personal sin, we are already mortal, that is dead because of Adam's sin. We can't avoid sinning because we are spiritually dead... but even if we could avoid sinning... we'd still be spiritually dead.

The point of this second issue is that free-will does not preclude the necessity of a savior. Even if my will were perfectly free in the sense that I had the power, the ability, to avoid all sin (let alone the desire to avoid all sin) I would still need a savior to rescue me from death.

 

[Chany]

Okay, I must be reading the newadvent.org link wrong, because I'm seeing determinism in both traditions.

Can someone identify the point where the whole "free" part of free will comes in at? It seems God controls my life still by deciding what divine influences He will throw at me at specific times.