Do free will aligns with Christ’s will ?

[childeye 2]

The Church believes that if you commit a mortal sin, you forfeit heaven and opt for hell by your own free will and actions.
Three conditions are necessary for mortal sin to exist:

• Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and immoral. For example, murder, rape, incest, perjury, adultery, and so on are grave matter.
  
  
• Full Knowledge: The person must know that what they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral. For example, someone steals a postage stamp, thinking that it’s only worth 50 cents. She knows that it’s sinful, but if she’s unaware that the stamp is rare and actually worth a $1,000, she’s not guilty of mortal sin but of venial sin.
  
  
• Deliberate Consent: The person must freely choose to commit the act or plan to do it. Someone forced against her will doesn’t commit a mortal sin. For example, a woman told she’s giving a minor shock to another person who in fact is administering tortuous electrical jolts is not guilty of a mortal sin (although she may feel guilty if she finds out the truth).
  Mortal and Venial Sins in the Catholic Church - dummies

Being raised and schooled in Roman Catholic doctrine, I'm very familiar with this type of teaching about free will. The teaching above is an attempt to establish what constitutes culpability without first qualifying the term "free" in front of "will". As such, it either confounds or even misinforms concerning the alternative meaning of a free will that is contrasted opposite to an enslaved will, which is the teaching that the slavery of sin is based upon being deceived, such as what was taught by Jesus and his apostles. I would therefore point out, that I find myself dealing with the semantics wherein it's completely reasonable to say that in order to have a free will you have to stop believing in free will.

What does freely choose actually mean if it implies that no higher power ever rules over us in the moral/immoral purview, particularly when one must rule over us in any given situation in the moral/immoral sense of Light/dark? Is this not a contradiction? For example, I think it's clear that the Pope at the time of the inquisition was being manipulated under powers of darkness when he instructed his subordinates to burn people alive. Would this qualify as a freely made choice to the Pope or did dissenters force the decision? And did those who burned people alive in subservience to the Pope show deliberate consent with full knowledge that it's right to burn people alive if they don't agree with the Pope, or was it that such obedience is the product of a circular reasoning manifesting through the fear of not wanting to be burned alive for not burning others alive?​

 

[timothyu]

Unlike other life that is held blameless by God for following instinct be it good or bad because they do not know better so to speak. Man however has the knowledge of the distinction and must use that free will daily whether or not to benefit personally or to do no harm to others.

 

[childeye 2]

Unlike other life that is held blameless by God for following instinct be it good or bad because they do not know better so to speak. Man however has the knowledge of the distinction and must use that free will daily whether or not to benefit personally or to do no harm to others.

Is this not a definition of free will that was promoted by Satan? Since this knowledge was detrimental, it led to death, unless we are to believe Satan who said we wouldn't die.

 

[timothyu]

Is this not a definition of free will that was promoted by Satan? Since this knowledge was detrimental, it led to death, unless we are to believe Satan who said we wouldn't die.

God gave us the free will needed to create under His direction. Kinda like art. Man seems to have had choice as to whether to eat of the tree or not. The serpent did not question the choice but rather the consequence. Eve chose by free will to test the will of God, we became self aware and it's been downhill ever since.

 

[concretecamper]

Do free will aligns with Christ’s will ?

Absolutely.

When one is free from sin, and in the state of Grace, they are able to choose good. The are free to choose good.

On the other hand, those in sin have their free will enslaved to sin, and are not always capable of choosing good.

BYW, Free Will and Liberty are not the same.

 

[disciple Clint]

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of surrender which is an essential part of becoming born again.

You also seem not to appreciate what it means to have the Holy Spirit of God including the fear of Him within you.

The fear of Him is a friend that keeps you from falling into serious temptations and the ruination of your faith.

It is no longer about us - it is all about Him within us.

Being truely born again is a fearful place to be and surrender to His Holiness is essential for our salvation.

He demands our will, our life our all.

What could be better than giving all to Him?

Thanks for the Blessings and Bless you as well. The things you have mentioned are part of you denominational theology but they are not necessarily accepted in other denominations.

 

[disciple Clint]

Being raised and schooled in Roman Catholic doctrine, I'm very familiar with this type of teaching about free will. The teaching above is an attempt to establish what constitutes culpability without first qualifying the term "free" in front of "will". As such, it either confounds or even misinforms concerning the alternative meaning of a free will that is contrasted opposite to an enslaved will, which is the teaching that the slavery of sin is based upon being deceived, such as what was taught by Jesus and his apostles. I would therefore point out, that I find myself dealing with the semantics wherein it's completely reasonable to say that in order to have a free will you have to stop believing in free will.

What does freely choose actually mean if it implies that no higher power ever rules over us in the moral/immoral purview, particularly when one must rule over us in any given situation in the moral/immoral sense of Light/dark? Is this not a contradiction? For example, I think it's clear that the Pope at the time of the inquisition was being manipulated under powers of darkness when he instructed his subordinates to burn people alive. Would this qualify as a freely made choice to the Pope or did dissenters force the decision? And did those who burned people alive in subservience to the Pope show deliberate consent with full knowledge that it's right to burn people alive if they don't agree with the Pope, or was it that such obedience is the product of a circular reasoning manifesting through the fear of not wanting to be burned alive for not burning others alive?​

OK how do you feel about this concept of freewill? Do human beings truly have a free will? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thanks for the Blessings and Bless you as well. The things you have mentioned are part of you denominational theology but they are not necessarily accepted in other denominations.

What I have learned is not because I have accepted any denominational perspective. Rather I took time out to read the scripture and absolutely nothing else for 5 years.

This coupled with having my shipwrecked life restored by Him has given me a fresh perspective on a whole lot of issues.

 

[childeye 2]

OK how do you feel about this concept of freewill?
Question: "Do human beings truly have a free will?"

Answer: If “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then yes, human beings do have a free will.

The only meaning of the adjective noun free will I've ever heard that turned out to be coherent when compared to scripture, is one that is set free from sin. Having said that I find this definition of free will above to be the typical inference of having the ability to make one's own decisions so as to direct one's own course in life. Apart from stating that other animals have this same type of ability, I also find many problems with the definition and the conjecture that was formed on this thesis, but I don't want to write a long post. These are the main ones:

There is an entity known as the power of the air that seeks to deceive us in our thoughts, wherefore we need the Word of God to help guide and aid us in our reasoning. This necessarily means autonomy is an illusion in the moral/immoral aspect of being a vessel for spirit.

We all make choices moment by moment as a circumstance of being alive, and those choices affect not only the course of our lives, but also the lives of those around us, and even those who come after us.

The term "will" all by it's self without 'free' in front of it, already denotes that we are alive and each have our own will which makes choices. The term "free" therefore becomes redundant.

So focusing on the noun "will", the term 'will' actually denotes two things:
1) A mind: The mind reasons on some level of intellect so as to make choices/decisions. The mind can only reason upon what it believes to be true, wherefore knowledge and ignorance of Truth are the major factors that affect the decision.

2) A desire: Whether carnal or spiritual in origin, we are either compelled or restrained by desires which are imagined outcomes that we would "want" to achieve through our choices and actions. So while no one would argue that we make choices and act, this does not address the reality that our choices and subsequent actions are in servitude to inclinations that are initiated according to what we believe to be or see as a desired outcome.
a) Carnal desires are hardwired so that we dislike physical discomfort and like comfort. Subsequently the carnal mind measures the status of who has the better life according to these standards.
b) Spiritual desires form out of empathy for others and lack thereof. Light/dark.

It therefore should be noted and fully understood that scripture does not allude to the faculty of reasoning when referring to the will, but always speaks of the noun "the will', as being "the desire".

The definition of will in the concept presented does not pertain to desire but only to the faculty of reasoning, wherefore it is presented as an amoral mechanism for deliberation, which does not factor in carnal and spiritual desires. It must morph to a moral/immoral format to prove culpability, which will ultimately change it's original amoral meaning as the faculty of reasoning alone. And this is why the concept presented begins with the definition of free will being the ability to choose for one's self and ends with it being only truly free by the grace of God.

 

[timothyu]

I find this definition of free will above to be the typical inference of having the ability to make one's own decisions so as to direct one's own course in life. Apart from stating that other animals have this same type of ability,

There is a difference between free will and reasoning.

 

[childeye 2]

There is a difference between free will and reasoning.

I would think this is true. However, I can't be sure it's not a blank assertion unless you explain what definition of free will you are referring to so as to explain why there is a difference.

 

[childeye 2]

God gave us the free will needed to create under His direction. Kinda like art. Man seems to have had choice as to whether to eat of the tree or not.

This sounds contradictory. If God gave us the "free will" needed to create under His direction then why does the same given "free will" not follow directions?

The serpent did not question the choice but rather the consequence. Eve chose by free will to test the will of God, we became self aware and it's been downhill ever since.

Scripture says Eve was deceived. Did she volunteer/choose to be deceived with her free will?

 

[disciple Clint]

The only meaning of the adjective noun free will I've ever heard that turned out to be coherent when compared to scripture, is one that is set free from sin. Having said that I find this definition of free will above to be the typical inference of having the ability to make one's own decisions so as to direct one's own course in life. Apart from stating that other animals have this same type of ability, I also find many problems with the definition and the conjecture that was formed on this thesis, but I don't want to write a long post. These are the main ones:

There is an entity known as the power of the air that seeks to deceive us in our thoughts, wherefore we need the Word of God to help guide and aid us in our reasoning. This necessarily means autonomy is an illusion in the moral/immoral aspect of being a vessel for spirit.

We all make choices moment by moment as a circumstance of being alive, and those choices affect not only the course of our lives, but also the lives of those around us, and even those who come after us.

The term "will" all by it's self without 'free' in front of it, already denotes that we are alive and each have our own will which makes choices. The term "free" therefore becomes redundant.

So focusing on the noun "will", the term 'will' actually denotes two things:
1) A mind: The mind reasons on some level of intellect so as to make choices/decisions. The mind can only reason upon what it believes to be true, wherefore knowledge and ignorance of Truth are the major factors that affect the decision.

2) A desire: Whether carnal or spiritual in origin, we are either compelled or restrained by desires which are imagined outcomes that we would "want" to achieve through our choices and actions. So while no one would argue that we make choices and act, this does not address the reality that our choices and subsequent actions are in servitude to inclinations that are initiated according to what we believe to be or see as a desired outcome.
a) Carnal desires are hardwired so that we dislike physical discomfort and like comfort. Subsequently the carnal mind measures the status of who has the better life according to these standards.
b) Spiritual desires form out of empathy for others and lack thereof. Light/dark.

It therefore should be noted and fully understood that scripture does not allude to the faculty of reasoning when referring to the will, but always speaks of the noun "the will', as being "the desire".

The definition of will in the concept presented does not pertain to desire but only to the faculty of reasoning, wherefore it is presented as an amoral mechanism for deliberation, which does not factor in carnal and spiritual desires. It must morph to a moral/immoral format to prove culpability, which will ultimately change it's original amoral meaning as the faculty of reasoning alone. And this is why the concept presented begins with the definition of free will being the ability to choose for one's self and ends with it being only truly free by the grace of God.

It therefore should be noted and fully understood that scripture does not allude to the faculty of reasoning when referring to the will, but always speaks of the noun "the will', as being "the desire".

So when we pray in the Our Father "your will be done" are you saying that we are speaking of God's emotional desires? Caution this is somewhat of a trick question.

 

[timothyu]

If God gave us the "free will" needed to create under His direction than why does the same given "free will" not follow directions?

Because the original couple attained self awareness. Suddenly it became all about them, and from there on the trouble stated, where the only time others mattered was to lay blame on, or gain at their expense. That is why Jesus commanded us to reverse the process and get away from self interest.

 

[timothyu]

Scripture says Eve was deceived.

Was Eve deceived by a question? Surely you won't die.

 

[childeye 2]

So when we pray in the Our Father "your will be done" are you saying that we are speaking of God's emotional desires? Caution this is somewhat of a trick question.

I wouldn't characterize it as an emotional desire on His part that I'm envisioning when I say it. It means to me that the Kingdom He has ordained to come cannot be stopped from coming to pass.

 

[childeye 2]

Because the original couple attained self awareness. Suddenly it became all about them, and from there on the trouble stated, where the only time others mattered was to lay blame on, or gain at their expense. That is why Jesus commanded us to reverse the process and get away from self interest.

Self interest changes meaning based on whether we see and love others as ourselves (feel others pain and understand ignorance), or we see the issue as do it to them before they do it to us. I want you to remember as you read this post, that there was a time when I completely believed in free will (self determination). It took a great deal of sifting through the semantics to understand how I was wrong, and I thank God for the change of heart and mind because I believe He is the one who painstakingly showed me how what I was believing was a deception.

In post #63, I asked if this was the "free will" promoted by Satan intending to indicate that the will that God had originally given us was altered by the knowledge of good and evil, and in a bad way. At that time this altered will is what you had called a free will: "Man however has the knowledge of the distinction and must use that free will daily whether or not to benefit personally or to do no harm to others." The term "free" in this application appears to be qualified as having the knowledge to know good and evil because you say "that free will" which implies the will that has the knowledge to make a distinction, not the "free will" that doesn't have the knowledge.

Then in post#64 you described the unaltered will as being a free will also: "God gave us the free will needed to create under His direction." This free will would presumably follow directions.

Then in post#72 I asked why the "free will" God gave us wouldn't follow directions? Your reply was that it was "Because the original couple attained self awareness" which is the "free will" promoted by Satan which has the knowledge to make a distinction.

The qualification of "free" meaning the knowledge to make a distinction, means they are completely different free wills. The only thing I see that they share in common is that it's still their individual wills, which is the same as what the term "will" implies all by it's self. The term free is redundant and even misleading when portrayed by Satan suggesting that we are not self determined unless we have this knowledge.

Moreover, this also means that self determination cannot answer why one will would follow directions from God and the other will would not. Nor does self determination account for the caveat of whether we can be deceived into choosing death by undermining faith.

The difference of why one 'will' can follow directions and the other does not, is seen in the story of the prodigal son where one son must learn the hard way that he should have trusted His Father. His 'will' changed course only after he learned about how things are outside his Father's house. With this knowledge he reasoned that even the servants in his Father's house ate better than him, which prompted the desire/will to return in hopes of being accepted back as a servant. Great story, particularly when the Father sees him coming afar off and drops what he is doing to run and embrace His son that was deemed lost and dead.

So the issue for me is that there are two different spiritual powers of Light and dark. One works through deception and one works through knowing the Truth. There are two wills both described as being free but one is a deception and is actually a slavery that leads to death. Then there is a free will that is doubleminded and uncommitted to any single Master. Self determination is not a good thing if it means not needing God.

Since the underlying sentiment of free will is to establish culpability and blame and condemnation, I believe the term free will is a lie being used by Satan to undercut mercy and understanding. The inclination to return evil for evil is based upon the belief that people have full knowledge of what they do and that they therefore desire to do harm to others without being deceived, which makes no sense if mankind was made in God's image (meaning having His Character). Finally, I am told that the Eastern orthodox view the original will given by God as a free will, and it is defined as a 'will' only able to 'will' the good without any deliberation.

 

[timothyu]

The inclination to return evil for evil is based upon the belief that people have full knowledge of what they do and that they therefore desire to do harm to others without being deceived, which makes no sense.

Animals, reptile, insects, whatever all on instinct live a life of survival of the fittest or kill or be killed as we all including humans are food for something else. God does not call them sinners as they can reason, but are not self aware. They do what they were made to do. Man in acting the same way especially in survival of the fittest, knowingly will gain at the expense of another and conveniently change the definitions of good and evil to justify his/her actions because of our self awareness (who told you you were naked).

This goes beyond our created purpose and was a result of putting our will ahead of the will of God, the original sin. For that we were condemned. The only deception offered was a suggestion that we question whether or not that we would be penalized for making up our own mind about the fruit. It wasn't the knowledge that condemned us but the decision to be more than we were intended (as the adversary did). But would not the same happen with any mammal God decided to make in his image? How long would it take for the family pet to become an oppressor? The Gospel of the Kingdom tells us God's will indeed will soon be done and we will have no choice any more in whether we put it first or second to our own. The time of self interest and gain at the expense of others will be over.

 

[childeye 2]

Animals, reptile, insects, whatever all on instinct live a life of survival of the fittest or kill or be killed as we all including humans are food for something else. God does not call them sinners as they can reason, but are not self aware. They do what they were made to do. Man in acting the same way especially in survival of the fittest, knowingly will gain at the expense of another and conveniently change the definitions of good and evil to justify his/her actions because of our self awareness (who told you you were naked).

This goes beyond our created purpose and was a result of putting our will ahead of the will of God, the original sin. For that we were condemned. The only deception offered was a suggestion that we question whether or not that we would be penalized for making up our own mind about the fruit. It wasn't the knowledge that condemned us but the decision to be more than we were intended (as the adversary did). But would not the same happen with any mammal God decided to make in his image? How long would it take for the family pet to become an oppressor? The Gospel of the Kingdom tells us God's will indeed will soon be done and we will have no choice any more in whether we put it first or second to our own. The time of self interest and gain at the expense of others will be over.

The issue is that the will/desire is governed by what it believes to be true. When you speak of a kill or be killed mentality, it is the same worldly mentality that thinks to do it to them before they do it to you. I see this mentality described in scripture when it refers to a beast. It's therefore indicative of a lack of faith in God/empathy which we then project onto others.

Man in acting the same way especially in survival of the fittest, knowingly will gain at the expense of another and conveniently change the definitions of good and evil to justify his/her actions because of our self awareness (who told you you were naked).

The issue is that the will/desire is governed by what it believes to be true. Consider the semantics. Semantics form in subjective views. Cynicism is self fulfilling in it's thesis, and grace through faith is self fulfilling in it's thesis as well. Yet cynicism leads to death and grace through faith leads to life, so they are opposites which is why what is good in one, is evil in the other. How can I believe that someone knowingly gains at the expense of others when I know that no one gains anything when it comes at the expense of others? No, these people who would seek to gain at the expense of others know nothing, for they are deceived into serving sin even while they're thinking that those who depend on grace through faith know nothing.

See this line: "Man however has the knowledge of the distinction and must use that free will daily whether or not to benefit personally or to do no harm to others." Why is there no option considered where a person can benefit personally and also do good to others?

So where does this cynicism come from? I believe it comes from subconsciously holding to a false and corrupt image of god, which was introduced in the garden of Eden when the serpent implied that God was lying to them so as to keep them from having a knowledge that would make them His equal. Satan was promoting self determination as a good thing to be desired, which undermined faith/trust in God/empathy. Just like in the prodigal son.

 

[timothyu]

It's therefore indicative of a lack of faith in God/empathy which we then project onto others.

In other words our animal nature overrides our spiritual nature.

No, these people who would seek to gain at the expense of others know nothing, for they are deceived into serving sin even while they're thinking that those who depend on grace through faith know nothing.

Agreed