The Existence of Freewill

[WarriorAngel]

We're always free.
We dont act on sin because our knowledge knows - it will be accountable. We try to please God, because we know we want to be with Him.

We have 2 choices - Heaven or hell.
How we live life now - is how we end up eternally.

No one forces us to accept either option. We 'work' out our salvation with fear and trembling. Or not... in which case - we already made our choice.

What you all are confusing is free will with judgment.
Outside of this life and every choice we make - once we are judged - in hell there is no longer free will. Once in Heaven - the will is surrendered by the absolute peace and love we 'know' - which is going Home - to where we belong.

In Heaven we can no longer sin - for evil cannot ever enter again. Do we lose free will at that point? I dont think will's will exist. I think we will 'just be' sitting in the lap of love without a desire for anything else.

Having already tasted sin - and making it to Heaven - no one would give that up.

Meantime - on earth - we continue to do the best we can - because we do not wish to 'taste the gifts of the Holy Spirit' and turn away from the Lord to crucify Him again.
But we are open to the choice to do so.

 

[MKJ]

If we didn't have free will, then Adam and Eve didn't sin, but were controlled by a will outside of their own. In fact, they would have no will at all and must rely on another being to control them.

Jim

Well, some who do not believe we have free will do believe Adam and Eve had it. So that may not follow for everyone.

 

[Simon_Templar]

One, I never declared that freewill or determism should be the default position. I simply been arguing that determinism is more logical and that no one actually demonstrated how we have freewill other than saying we appear to have it. Also, I've been arguing for determinism this whole time, so I'm not sure how I feel everything is against determinism when I'm saying the exact opposite.

Two, soft determinism is still determinism. All because we will things does not make our will somehow free to select out of a choice of options. Considering how God picks everything out for our lives, including our wills, I'm not seeing how I'm getting a choice.

No one adequately explained how our wills are somehow seperate from the causes that shape them. It makes sense if a person's mind is static against causes, but it's not.

The problem is the assertion that the deterministic view is more "logical". The reality is there is no more proof, or logical basis for the idea that your choices are determined by outside factors than there is for the idea that your choices are NOT determined.

In other words, both sides are making assumptions based upon observations, but the observational basis does not prove either assumption.

For example, we very clearly appear according to our observation to be able to make any choice we desire. This doesn't prove free-will however, because the possibility exists that there are unknown factors which are influencing our choice beyond our awareness.

Yet, on the other side, there very clearly appear to be outside influences, be they genetic or environmental, which influence our desires and our choices. The assumption is made from this that these influences are effectively irresistible, making them determinative. Further it is largely assumed that there are many influences that we are not aware of which shape our desire and our decisions beyond our control.
Yet neither the basic observations, nor the logic here demand any of these conclusions.

When it comes down to it, you can put two people in the exact same circumstance, with the exact same genetics, and it is possible for them to react differently. Now, the proponent determinism can argue that this is because of unknown complex factors that make the outcome unpredictable (ie chaos theory) but this is pure assumption and can't be proven. It is, therefore, no more logical than the opposite view.

In my opinion, one part of the problem with "free-will" arguments is that people misunderstand or misdefine free-will. According to how many people define free-will, not even God has free-will.

The fact is that nature determines many things about us. This is as true of God as it is of us. Even God can not choose to be other than he is. He could not choose to be "not God".
But this in no way means you do not have free-will.

Humans, in a sense, have an ability that God does not have, because we can change. God is unchanging but human beings are changeable and malleable. We can be shaped by outside forces, but we can also shape ourselves.

The ability to change is both a negative and a positive. It is a negative because it allows us to change for the worse (ie. sin) but it is a positive because it also allows for redemption and change for the better.

Part of the problem here is that so many moderns have defined freedom in general as the ability to do whatever you want. That's not how freedom was ever understood in ages past.

Freedom is not the absence of all constraint or limit. On the contrary, freedom can only exist within constraints and within limits. This is not only a basic Christian message, it is a message that was recognized by most of the ancient pagan philosophers as well.

The more I think about it, the more I come to the opinion that the entire debate of free-will vs. determinism is a product of faulty modern philosophy and worldview.

 

[bach90]

Deliberate consent is consent of the will.

Unless you willfully commit the grave act, with full knowledge, you have not committed mortal sin.

Jim

For mortal sin, yes. You didn't specify that in your first comment though.

 

[bach90]

I give determinists the benefit of the doubt as far as their motives, they hold their views out of a pious love of God the Father. Most that I speak to hold that if God gives us free will, He cedes some control of the universe. In the Calvinist paradigm, God must always be sovereign. They, logically, conclude that free will must not exist.

Free will is an offensive doctrine in that it means that God is in fact ceding some control. He is in fact doing that and there's no way to sidestep it. The "fall" or the first sin was a loss, Jesus claim to reclaim what had been lost. In that instance even the Incarnation is a scandalous doctrine. God needed to reclaim something (man) that He had lost control over. There was a point in history that God lost control, that's what a Calvinist cannot stand to hear. Christianity does not hold this though, it just holds that in the end God will always be victorious, and He is.

 

[MKJ]

Free will is an offensive doctrine in that it means that God is in fact ceding some control. He is in fact doing that and there's no way to sidestep it. The "fall" or the first sin was a loss, Jesus claim to reclaim what had been lost. In that instance even the Incarnation is a scandalous doctrine. God needed to reclaim something (man) that he had lost control over.

Yes, this. I think that kind of determinism is very much parallel to the logic that denies the Incarnation because it is limiting God and not something that God, according to his nature, could do.

Of course Christian Calvinists do not deny the Incarnation, but I think the quality of the error is essentially the same.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

For mortal sin, yes. You didn't specify that in your first comment though.

All sin involves the will at some level, whether venial or mortal.

The difference is the gravity of the offense and the level of knowledge one has.

In all, sin is committed with consent of the will, even when committed out of ignorance it becomes less than mortal.

CCC
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

Jim

 

[WarriorAngel]

Calvin opposed the ancient teachings... in 1500 + years later.
Why does this give him any advantage whatsoever?


Free will - was understood already.




Chapter 34 Proof against the Marcionites, that the prophets referred in all their predictions to our Christ.
Chapter 35 A refutation of those who allege that the prophets uttered some predictions under the inspiration of the Highest, others from the demiurge. Disagreements of the Valentinians among themselves with regard to these same predictions.
Chapter 36 The prophets were sent from one and the same Father from Whom the Son was sent.
Chapter 37 Men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some are by nature good, and others bad.
Chapter 38 Why man was not made perfect from the beginning.
Chapter 39 Man is endowed with the faculty of distinguishing good and evil; so that, without compulsion, he has the power, by his own will and choice, to perform God's commandments, by doing which he avoids the evils prepared for the rebellious.



CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)

 

[elopez]

Like I said, it makes sense if our minds and wills are static and, at least in part, above the world's causation. However, our minds and wills are developed from a starting position. They are shaped by the causes before us, causes which are either a) outside influences outside our control or b) the results of decisions that are under the same result of it.

I'm not arguing that we don't have wills, that we don't reason, or that we don't technically choose. I'm saying that our wills, our reasoning, and therefore our choices are all ultimately determined by the causes that make them and then shape them, all of these causes being outside our control.

Yes that is compatibilism.

 

[Chany]

Yes that is compatibilism.

And because we have no control, we have no free will. I decided to will towards something because of nothing on my merit but of the causes before me.

Therefore, I do not really make any decisions.

Therefore, I cannot reasonably be held responsible for anything I do, think, or will.

 

[elopez]

And because we have no control, we have no free will. I decided to will towards something because of nothing on my merit but of the causes before me.

Therefore, I do not really make any decisions.

Therefore, I cannot reasonably be held responsible for anything I do, think, or will.

We have control just not absolute control. I am controlling my body right now to type this. Have past factors played a role in me now typing this? Yes, but that does not mean those past factors are now forcing me to type. I desire to type this. That is why we decide to will something - our desires.

So yes, you still make decisions. And you are still held accountable despite determinism as you comprehend your actions and you understand the consequences of them.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Did i mention St Irenaeus lived in the 2nd century?

Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church.
Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna....


~~~~
It becomes then - a well known fact that Christ taught we have free will.
Circumstances are outside conditions - of which we still make choices regardless.

Our only 'lack' of freedom is choosing to be born.
Since being born - God gives us the 'tools' to make choices. His grace assists us - but we ultimately are judged on how 'we' lived our life.

 

[Albion]

We have control just not absolute control.

Then the question has to be asked at some point--

If your salvation is dependent upon that uncertain control, how can we possibly believe that you (or other people, in their own lives) are totally responsible to God for their choices?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Because we are judged.

Why would we have to face the Judge at all if it is moot point?
Jesus is the Judge - so it says in scriptures.
He gave us a Church and laws.

Without free will - they are all pointless.
Him Being Judge is pointless.

So to dismiss free will is to dismiss everything.

 

[Albion]

Because we are judged.

No. That wouldn't be the answer. It's because we will be judged that the question I posed would be relevant.

If one were to re-read all the posts in this thread, I believe he'd find that the advocates of "free will" have conceded that it isn't free and doesn't operate equally, but they have become so used to defending it that they can't see that free will as the determiner of our salvation is all or nothing, like pregnancy or pacifism. You can't be sorta free and be guided solely by your own will, more or less.

And it's precisely because we know that God will judge that we should realize that for him to hold all men responsible for their acts and intellectual choices, equal for all persons, and in every choice, means that that cannot be God's standard of judgment.

Yet that is what supporters of free will think, even though they compromise and qualify it in debate.

 

[WarriorAngel]

DEBATE is the word here - and i have ignored it... because it is Catholic teaching we have free will - and i proved it via the early teacher. I didnt even submit St Augustine yet ...

I showed this thread - the early Church did believe in free will. St Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp - who was St John's friend.
He was a Bishop of the Church - as well.

You can debate it down to the nano second of what free will actually is - but in doing so - taking in all conditions - would still be arguing against God Himself simply because He speaks thru His Church - and His scriptures.

To suggest free will - in the form it is - doesnt exist - makes the entire purpose and point of God having to and wanting to have to save us rather odd - and His scriptures laying out laws to follow His will - so we can be judged accordingly is akin IMHO to dismissing God.

If we didnt have free will - why did Christ tell ppl 'how to' follow Him??

Wouldnt He just demand they do it and that was that?
Or why bother saving us at all?
Why die for us? If we were already predetermined - why give us a fighting chance?

This reminds me of someone shooting into a fishbowl.
Or someone hunting in a fenced in area of oh - 30 x 30.

Not having free will is senseless. It spits on everything God did and His Bible.

Free will is our choice. We make them. God doesnt operate us like puppets with strings.
He sends out His graces to the world - because everyone is His creature. It is those who cooperate with those graces who 'seek' to do His will.

Outside circumstances - like a car crash - still come from free will. Getting into a car knowing it can be dangerous - is a chance we take daily.
Getting out of bed or not - is a choice we make - daily.

And finally - it was thru free will that any 'bad' circumstances exist at all. And that said - we continue to live in free will - or we wouldnt even be discussing this or opposed to one another - because if God was pulling the strings - no one would be lost and or on earth and we'd all be in Paradise...contently living with His Presence.

Free will didnt end with our parents... it continues.

If a couple choose to get married and have a child and there is a birth defect - it was their choice to take that chance and get married and have children knowing the fall happened and bad can happen in giving birth.

On and on - all circumstances at first come from choices.
We accept and know bad is present in this life - but we still make choices regardless of those conditions.

The child born with a defect - might not have a choice due to the fall - but that child if cognizant - makes choices all their life on how to deal with it.
If non cognizant - that child is a living Saint.
How we treat them and deal - becomes our choice.

We know that outside circumstances exist - and we still get up each day and make the decision to do what we will do.

 

[Chany]

We have control just not absolute control. I am controlling my body right now to type this. Have past factors played a role in me now typing this? Yes, but that does not mean those past factors are now forcing me to type. I desire to type this. That is why we decide to will something - our desires.

So yes, you still make decisions. And you are still held accountable despite determinism as you comprehend your actions and you understand the consequences of them.

I disagree that you are forced. Nothing is technically forcing you to type. However, past causes have created your mind. Even though you technically can stop typing, your mind has been shaped to continue. That's the thing no one addresses. Since our minds and wills are ultimately the product of the causes that came before them, I'm not seeing how anyone can argue that our will, which is entirely formed by outside causes, is somehow free and can be held responsible.

 

[Needing_Grace]

DEBATE is the word here - and i have ignored it... because it is Catholic teaching we have free will - and i proved it via the early teacher. I didnt even submit St Augustine yet ...

I showed this thread - the early Church did believe in free will. St Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp - who was St John's friend.
He was a Bishop of the Church - as well.

You can debate it down to the nano second of what free will actually is - but in doing so - taking in all conditions - would still be arguing against God Himself simply because He speaks thru His Church - and His scriptures.

To suggest free will - in the form it is - doesnt exist - makes the entire purpose and point of God having to and wanting to have to save us rather odd - and His scriptures laying out laws to follow His will - so we can be judged accordingly is akin IMHO to dismissing God.

If we didnt have free will - why did Christ tell ppl 'how to' follow Him??

Wouldnt He just demand they do it and that was that?
Or why bother saving us at all?
Why die for us? If we were already predetermined - why give us a fighting chance?

This reminds me of someone shooting into a fishbowl.
Or someone hunting in a fenced in area of oh - 30 x 30.

Not having free will is senseless. It spits on everything God did and His Bible.

Free will is our choice. We make them. God doesnt operate us like puppets with strings.
He sends out His graces to the world - because everyone is His creature. It is those who cooperate with those graces who 'seek' to do His will.

Outside circumstances - like a car crash - still come from free will. Getting into a car knowing it can be dangerous - is a chance we take daily.
Getting out of bed or not - is a choice we make - daily.

And finally - it was thru free will that any 'bad' circumstances exist at all. And that said - we continue to live in free will - or we wouldnt even be discussing this or opposed to one another - because if God was pulling the strings - no one would be lost and or on earth and we'd all be in Paradise...contently living with His Presence.

Free will didnt end with our parents... it continues.

If a couple choose to get married and have a child and there is a birth defect - it was their choice to take that chance and get married and have children knowing the fall happened and bad can happen in giving birth.

On and on - all circumstances at first come from choices.
We accept and know bad is present in this life - but we still make choices regardless of those conditions.

The child born with a defect - might not have a choice due to the fall - but that child if cognizant - makes choices all their life on how to deal with it.
If non cognizant - that child is a living Saint.
How we treat them and deal - becomes our choice.

We know that outside circumstances exist - and we still get up each day and make the decision to do what we will do.

This seems to deny Original Sin and its effects (darkened intellect, weakened will, concupiscence which only grace--through Word, Sacrament and prayer--can overcome).

Do you know what Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism are?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Concupiscence means we struggle the flesh vs the spirit.
But we struggle - and we make choices.

We either give into the flesh or we overcome our desire to give into the flesh.

Pelagianism

These theses ran as follows:

Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.


1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:

Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Concupiscence means we struggle the flesh vs the spirit.
But we struggle - and we make choices.

We either give into the flesh or we overcome our desire to give into the flesh.

Pelagianism

These theses ran as follows:

Even if Adam had not sinned, he would have died.
Adam's sin harmed only himself, not the human race.
Children just born are in the same state as Adam before his fall.
The whole human race neither dies through Adam's sin or death, nor rises again through the resurrection of Christ.
The (Mosaic Law) is as good a guide to heaven as the Gospel.
Even before the advent of Christ there were men who were without sin.


1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:

Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.

Yeah, that part, which you bolded for emphasis, was missing from your previous post. Thanks for bringing it up.

We can only obey God as we should by His grace alone (but not by faith alone). Apart from Him, we can do nothing. I cannot underestimate the importance of grace and how must we must trust in God's graciousness and mercy at all times. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

I, for one, don't expect to point to a mountain of my own good works and expect them to get me into heaven, but my relationship to Christ (which isn't to say that good works don't count but I know that my good works are done in Christ which makes them meritorious...apart from Him, we can do nothing). No Christ, no merit. No Christ, no hope of salvation.

Unfortunately, while some of the commandments are easier than others, the first one, "Fear, love and trust God above all things" is toughest. I definitely fear God. Terrified of Him, in fact. The exquisite ways He in which could hurt me are uncountable (hell, right?). How can one love and trust someone capable and willing to do such things (do you know how to answer this in less than five words because I do)?

This leads down other roads I don't need to go down here. My point is, grace is absolutely necessary if we are to be saved. It is by God's grace that we are saved. Even the most righteous saint is saved solely because of God's grace towards that saint which was won for him by Christ.