W
Wesrock
Guest
Or perhaps your understanding of free will is different from the Church’s.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Vico
Guest
The will is not necessarily free, per the Catholic Church.You can’t be both free and have only one road ahead of you (sin). You must have options. I see no way out of it. Catholicism does not believe in free will
Catechism
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
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
True, but that view of free will doesn’t justify HellOr perhaps your understanding of free will is different from the Church’s.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Ambiguous. This is exasperatingThe will is not necessarily free, per the Catholic Church.
Catechism
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
1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
V
Vico
Guest
The principles are certain. The determination of culpability (by oneself) is difficult sometimes. That is why it is best to confess sins when there is doubt about them being mortal or venial.Ambiguous. This is exasperating
T
thinkandmull
Guest
That has nothing to do with this threadThe principles are certain. The determination of culpability (by oneself) is difficult sometimes. That is why it is best to confess sins when there is doubt about them being mortal or venial.
V
Vico
Guest
You said ambiguous and I commented that the principles are certain. That part is specifically about this thread.That has nothing to do with this thread
T
thinkandmull
Guest
That the will is not always free does not mean it is not free with regard to sin. If the will cannot resist sin it is not free
V
Vico
Guest
Council of Trent, CHAPTER V.That the will is not always free does not mean it is not free with regard to sin. If the will cannot resist sin it is not free
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.
J
John_Martin
Guest
That is the argument Martin Luther used in “The Bondage of the Will”, however Vico correctly quoted Trent’s answer.That the will is not always free does not mean it is not free with regard to sin. If the will cannot resist sin it is not free
The “will” wills what it desires - it has no desire to resist what it loves, so it is not sinning against its will - it is voluntarily, freely, doing what it loves - that which is, however, missing the mark of loving God.
But, the thing about Jesus and gratuitous Grace is that he appears in the flesh, something new to see by the flesh that can only see humanly present things. He appears to be desirable to a man who cannot see the spiritual, and to be approachable by sinners who can request that He save them. With the presence of Jesus there is suddenly something new in the world to desire by the will that can only see what is in the world.
And Jesus, in the flesh, can baptize them into new life and feed them himself, thus bestowing on them his Spirit, with Sanctifying Grace, with infusion of the light of Virtue, so that now they can see to will and to do good, though with the flesh they still see other pleasures in parallel.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Actually no. We do not believe man is free. Our free will was damaged in the fall. You are operating under a false assumption. It is grace that makes us free, and repairs our damaged free will.The Council of Trent defined: “If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.”
Since man is free, he is never forced by anything to sin. Even if there were no grace given, his free will would be intact, and he wouldn’t have to sin, only when he gives in. So it is theoretically possible for a person to never sin. So it seems that Trent condemned free will.
Your turn. Go!
V
Vico
Guest
311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:You can’t be both free and have only one road ahead of you (sin). You must have options. I see no way out of it. Catholicism does not believe in free will
For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177
1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. …
T
thinkandmull
Guest
So you are a Calvinist. That’s okThat is the argument Martin Luther used in “The Bondage of the Will”, however Vico correctly quoted Trent’s answer.
The “will” wills what it desires - it has no desire to resist what it loves, so it is not sinning against its will - it is voluntarily, freely, doing what it loves - that which is, however, missing the mark of loving God.
But, the thing about Jesus and gratuitous Grace is that he appears in the flesh, something new to see by the flesh that can only see humanly present things. He appears to be desirable to a man who cannot see the spiritual, and to be approachable by sinners who can request that He save them. With the presence of Jesus there is suddenly something new in the world to desire by the will that can only see what is in the world.
And Jesus, in the flesh, can baptize them into new life and feed them himself, thus bestowing on them his Spirit, with Sanctifying Grace, with infusion of the light of Virtue, so that now they can see to will and to do good, though with the flesh they still see other pleasures in parallel.
This is not about obtaining salvation but resisting sin. My argument is not Luther’s, yours is. I am saying that man can go through life without sinning because we are all free. Calvinism has its roots in Augustine and Aquinas. Neither believed in free will at all.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Then why the reproach for sin? Why did Jesus have to die to save us from Hell, it we had no power to resist hell anyway? Your theology is rotten from the insideActually no. We do not believe man is free. Our free will was damaged in the fall. You are operating under a false assumption. It is grace that makes us free, and repairs our damaged free will.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That has nothing at all to do with free will. It is rejecting OSAS.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Nope. Trent clearly said that no one can go through life without sinning unless God gave them special grace. If man is free than anyone can go through life without sinning, with or without grace
T
thinkandmull
Guest
I guess I am a nominal Catholic now
D
Duane1966
Guest
We had the power to resist Hell, but it was badly damaged. Our appetites became skewed. That is the point you are missing. Total free will is restored to us in baptism. But the effects of that original sin stay with us, commonly called concupiscence.Then why the reproach for sin? Why did Jesus have to die to save us from Hell, it we had no power to resist hell anyway?
With the fall of man, our free will is not intact. By the way, if you care, I can explain that canon to you.Your theology is rotten from the inside
By the way, I can see where my first answer was not quite correct. I should have said we do not believe we have undamaged free will, but that free will still existed.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
If the will was just damaged by original sin so that it was hard to resist sin, then no problem. Big problem when you say that man cannot resist sin but is still free. That is like a round circle. Do, however, try to explain the canon to me, Please
D
Duane1966
Guest
I disagree. Our free will has been so damaged that man cannot resist all sin, all the time. If he could, then grace, and the Incarnation would be unnecessary.If the will was just damaged by original sin so that it was hard to resist sin, then no problem. Big problem when you say that man cannot resist sin but is still free. That is like a round circle. Do, however, try to explain the canon to me, Please
- Status
- Not open for further replies.