The Existence of Freewill

[LoAmmi]

No. That cannot be. Therefore, our connection to and acknowledge of God MJST be more a matter of God's doing than ours. Rationally speaking, that is the only conclusion, but let's not forget that it's also the Bible's witness.

Then you would be making it so that it would be completely unjust for Christians to have a concept of Hell. If it is out of my control if I choose Christianity or not, I could not be held culpable for my actions except by the most evil of beings. In other words, if the being that is going to sentence me to eternal torture is the same one determining if I will make the right choice, then I am destined to that eternal torture and that being is supremely evil.

 

[Albion]

Then you would be making it so that it would be completely unjust for Christians to have a concept of Hell. If it is out of my control if I choose Christianity or not, I could not be held culpable for my actions except by the most evil of beings. In other words, if the being that is going to sentence me to eternal torture is the same one determining if I will make the right choice, then I am destined to that eternal torture and that being is supremely evil.

In your last post, you told us, "I cannot comment on the Christianity part of it. It is outside my belief system and it isn't something that I take into account when determining these things."

That being the case, you are a visitor to this Christians-only forum and can only ask questions and post in fellowship, but not engage in debate.

And I, in fact, am a visitor also, although a Christian. So I apologize if anyone feels that I too have said more than I should have. That happened only because questions kept being asked of me (for which I thank those folks). I will end this here.

 

[Davidnic]

Free will is in many ways the freedom to make the wrong choice that gives the right choice meaning. Loving without the freedom to reject is not love.

 

[Davidnic]

In your last post, you told us, "I cannot comment on the Christianity part of it. It is outside my belief system and it isn't something that I take into account when determining these things."

That being the case, you are a visitor to this Christians-only forum and can only ask questions and post in fellowship, but not engage in debate.

Actually in OBOB she can as long as it does not challenge Catholic Dogma.

The members changed the subforum SOP to allow broader discussion as long as it did not oppose Catholic belief. So there can be a respectful debate as long as it does not challenge Catholic Dogma. And she can explain what she believes in a non-challenging manner if it is part of the discussion and not attacking OBOB beliefs.

 

[Davidnic]

God creates us and knows all, but He gives us the ability to reject Him and allows that possibility. For some this is accomplished by middle knowledge. That God sees all outcomes and gives us the grace to choose Him. He knows what we will chose be He is not the cause of it.

How this works is essentially fully beyond our logic. We can only theorize. But yes, if God makes hell and then makes us incapable of choosing Him over hell...it would be repbrobation, which we reject.

 

[Albion]

Actually in OBOB she can as long as it does not challenge Catholic Dogma.

The members changed the subforum SOP to allow broader discussion as long as it did not oppose Catholic belief. So there can be a respectful debate as long as it does not challenge Catholic Dogma. And she can explain what she believes in a non-challenging manner if it is part of the discussion and not attacking OBOB beliefs.

I think that would be between her and the forum, although I'm glad to be informed of the change. As I said, I hadn't expected to post so much when I made my first comments about this matter of freewill, but in any case, what do you think of my own participation, then? I have questioned the idea of unlimited freewill which (I guess) could be considered contrary to Catholic Dogma.

 

[LoAmmi]

Him

 

[Davidnic]

I think that would be between her and the forum, although I'm glad to be informed of the change. As I said, I hadn't expected to post so much when I made my first comments about this matter of freewill, but in any case, what do you think of my own participation, then? I have questioned the idea of unlimited freewill which (I guess) could be considered contrary to Catholic Dogma.

Your participation is fine. We do believe in limited predestination in a way. And Chancy made this thread, if I am not mistaken, for all thoughts and a broad discussion.

So everyone is ok.

 

[Chany]

Him

I was just about to say, "Wow. I mean, I'm on my phone a lot, but I was pretty sure LoAmmi was a guy on his profile."

 

[Davidnic]

Sometimes we put a mystery too much under a microscope and can make errors in the dissection of it. Like children taking apart a radio and not being able to understand how it works anyhow and then not being able to put it back together.

I am not saying we should not ponder the great mysteries of faith. But we should ponder in awe knowing that our only hope of deep comprehension of them past a point comes from God and not from our own logic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Again, "free will," doesn't mean making correct choices, but having the freedom to make a choice.

We are not puppets on strings controlled by God.

Jim

Where do you stand, then, on my assertion that having freedom to make a choice means it isn't coerced?

Let's say God wants to see you over here instead of over there. With string/rope pulling, He can force you to come over here beyond your human ability to resist. We all agree you have not been given a free will choice.

But what if He points a shotgun at your head and says "now you'd better get over here right this minute or I'll shoot and it will never stop hurting. Ever." This, I claim, is a coerced decision, and it does not measure anything involving your morality. In my use of the term, this is not "free" in any way. We have the desired behavior of you coming over here, but what have we learned about whether you chose to come here of your own "free will."

To me, if I am going to suffer known consequences as a result of an act, it is no longer a free will act, but an act of coercion. It's like if somebody physically forces me to move I don't have a choice, but if someone prods me with a knife, then all of a sudden I do have a choice. I could choose to get cut by the knife rather than walk. I don't see any functional differences between them. Maybe by "free" it means it is physically possible for me to do the wrong thing?

Alan

 

[Davidnic]

We are free to choose the wrong thing along with the consequences of the choice.

 

[Albion]

Free will is in many ways the freedom to make the wrong choice that gives the right choice meaning. Loving without the freedom to reject is not love.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Davidnic]

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.

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.

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.

Grace makes us capable of living the life and living the choice. Being made in the Image of God makes us capable of the choice. So because we are in the Image of God we are capable of choosing Him by accepting the grace and cooperating with it.

 

[Davidnic]

An argument is that two of the points of creation is to give glory to God and the unity of creation to God in love. That only happens if the creation is both capable of loving God and able to choose to do so.

So we look at being made in the Image of God. What we think about that is stated well by the Catechism:

1702 The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (cf. chapter two).

1703 Endowed with "a spiritual and immortal" soul,5 the human person is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake."6 From his conception, he is destined for eternal beatitude.

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection "in seeking and loving what is true and good."7


1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."8


1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him "to do what is good and avoid what is evil."9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.


So we believe we have both the choice and the capability to make it. Both due to to the Image of God that gives us the likeness and unity of the Divine Persons among themselves. This is present in all people and God gives grace according to each person's need for it.

 

[Albion]

Grace makes us capable of living the life and living the choice. Being made in the Image of God makes us capable of the choice. So because we are in the Image of God we are capable of choosing Him by accepting the grace and cooperating with it.

Partially agree. Being made in the image and likeness of God means that we are endowed with intelligence and an immortal soul, but our abilities are also diminished thanks to the events in the Garden of Eden by which sin entered into the picture.

As for Grace, however, now we are talking about a factor that almost every Christian of whatever stripe would acclaim as critically important. BUT the minute we begin talking about Grace we are talking about something that compensates for us NOT having perfect freewill. It is God taking a "hand" in assisting us with our decision-making. As you put it, "Grace makes us capable of living the life and living the choice."

 

[Davidnic]

I do not think I would call that imperfect free will. There is a function to being the created and not Creator. We need the life and help of God (Grace) to fully realize our potential. We need it to perfectly use our free will but that does not mean the free will does not perfectly function as designed.

It is designed to accept or reject God by accepting or rejecting grace. So it functions perfectly for all of us as designed; and we can use it because we are in the Image of God. To live the life we accept we need grace.

So although I disagree on parts I can see why you use the term perfect or imperfect in relation to free will. Though I disagree with, partially, your perspective on it.

 

[Albion]

I do not think I would call that imperfect free will. There is a function to being the created and not Creator. We need the life and help of God (Grace) to fully realize our potential. We need it to perfectly use our free will but that does not mean the free will does not perfectly function as designed.

It is designed to accept or reject God by accepting or rejecting grace. So it functions perfectly for all of us as designed; and we can use it because we are in the Image of God. To live the life we accept we need grace.

So although I disagree on parts I can see why you use the term perfect or imperfect in relation to free will. Though I disagree with, partially, your perspective on it.

It looks like we give different weights to Grace. But that aside, let's go back to the basics of this question.

If we are told that we have our salvation in our own hands, that we can reject God or harden our hearts to him or live lives of wantonness...and this is all up to us because we have freewill, how do you reconcile the difference in abilities of say, today's college educated Christians raised in Christian homes with, let's say, the illiterate 9th century peasant in Europe with an IQ of 85?

According to standard theological thinking, both are on their own, presumed to be able to choose wisely or foolishly. That's freewill, and everyone is supposed to have enough of it to choose or not choose Christ.

 

[Davidnic]

It looks like we give different weights to Grace. But that aside, let's go back to the basics of this question.

If we are told that we have our salvation in our own hands, that we can reject God or harden our hearts to him or live lives of wantonness...and this is all up to us because we have freewill, how do you reconcile the difference in abilities of say, today's college educated Christians raised in Christian homes with, let's say, the illiterate 9th century peasant in Europe with an IQ of 85?

According to standard theological thinking, both are on their own, presumed to be able to choose wisely or foolishly. That's freewill, and everyone is supposed to have enough of it to choose or not choose Christ.

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

We might not be giving different weights to grace as much as placing its action at different points.

First, Catholics would agree that free will, in its exercise is compromised in a fallen world. We call what compromises this concupiscence.

But Free will is not something you have more or less of, it is a functional ability. God ensures that each person has enough grace to use it evenly so to speak.

No matter what the time period or person God wills the action of Prevenient Grace. This wills them toward good so they may cooperate or reject. They are then given actual grace to assist in the cooperation. This does not even get into Sanctifying grace. (yes sometimes we over analyze and break things down)

We do not even need to look at things over time periods. I am differet from the person next door, who may need more or less help to properly use the function of free will. But it is not more or less free will, it is more or less actual grace should they cooperate. They have the same capacity for free will. Different circumstance may require more help to exercise it properly should they choose to cooperate.

Here is where a Catholic will make a distinction between types of grace like Sanctifying grace which is the justifying and habitual grace and Actual grace which is a transitory help.

So actual grace is given to each, according to their state and need to urge them to use the function of free will properly.

We define actual grace as:

Temporary supernatural intervention by God to enlighten the mind or strengthen the will to perform supernatural actions that lead to heaven. Actual grace is therefore a transient divine assistance to enable man to obtain, retain, or grow in supernatural grace and the life of God.

So the transitory help of actual grace allows us to exercise the functional free will we have from being made in the Image of God. And we may, cooperate with actual grace or reject it. That rejection or acceptance is a matter of the heart and not the intellect. So it can be accomplished no matter the state or differences between people. Although God may illuminate the intellect as well.

So if by imperfect free will you mean we need God and grace then sure. No Catholic would deny that.

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.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Where do you stand, then, on my assertion that having freedom to make a choice means it isn't coerced?

Let's say God wants to see you over here instead of over there. With string/rope pulling, He can force you to come over here beyond your human ability to resist. We all agree you have not been given a free will choice.

But what if He points a shotgun at your head and says "now you'd better get over here right this minute or I'll shoot and it will never stop hurting. Ever." This, I claim, is a coerced decision, and it does not measure anything involving your morality. In my use of the term, this is not "free" in any way. We have the desired behavior of you coming over here, but what have we learned about whether you chose to come here of your own "free will."

To me, if I am going to suffer known consequences as a result of an act, it is no longer a free will act, but an act of coercion. It's like if somebody physically forces me to move I don't have a choice, but if someone prods me with a knife, then all of a sudden I do have a choice. I could choose to get cut by the knife rather than walk. I don't see any functional differences between them. Maybe by "free" it means it is physically possible for me to do the wrong thing?

Alan

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