Did Trent condemn free will?

[Duane1966]

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

Do you agree with the following statement?

After the fall, in our natural state, man’s free will has been so damaged that man cannot resist all sin, all the time.

 

[fhansen]

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

The cannon simply means that since our communion with God is imperfect in this life, we will continue to fail sometimes. IOW we are apart from God here to one degree or another, no matter how close we may be, and He’s the only guarantor of our moral integrity. As our proximity to God increases, the probability of our sinning decreases.

Our most basic freedom is the freedom to first of all choose to make God our God again, a choice born out and attested to by the way we live our lives.

 

[Vico]

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

Free will and the Protestant Reformers
A leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life.

Catholic Doctrine:
Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom.

Consequences
Our moral freedom, like other mental powers, is strengthened by exercise. The practice of yielding to impulse results in enfeebling self-control. The faculty of inhibiting pressing desires, of concentrating attention on more remote goods, of reinforcing the higher but less urgent motives, undergoes a kind of atrophy by disuse. In proportion as a man habitually yields to intemperance or some other vice, his freedom diminishes and he does in a true sense sink into slavery.

Maher, M. (1909). Free Will. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

 

[thinkandmull]

This isn’t about the improbability of not sinning, but the impossibility. I am not saying we can obtain the beatific vision by ourselves. That is what Christ offered. But he came to save us from our SINS. Sin implies free will absolutely. To say that our wills are so damaged that we have to sin takes the free will away from us. You have to take each temptation at a time to see my point. If I am free to turn away from it, then all the temptations added up are free to be turned away from. Trent was just wrong to define what it did

Free will and the Protestant ReformersA leading feature in the teaching of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially in the case of Luther and Calvin, was the denial of free will. Picking out from the Scriptures, and particularly from St. Paul, the texts which emphasized the importance and efficacy of grace, the all-ruling providence of God, His decrees of election or predestination, and the feebleness of man, they drew the conclusion that the human will, instead of being master of its own acts, is rigidly predetermined in all its choices throughout life.Catholic Doctrine:Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom.ConsequencesOur moral freedom, like other mental powers, is strengthened by exercise. The practice of yielding to impulse results in enfeebling self-control. The faculty of inhibiting pressing desires, of concentrating attention on more remote goods, of reinforcing the higher but less urgent motives, undergoes a kind of atrophy by disuse. In proportion as a man habitually yields to intemperance or some other vice, his freedom diminishes and he does in a true sense sink into slavery.Maher, M. (1909). Free Will. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Waste of a post as far as this discussion is concerned, except that it says Trent sided with Luther

You shouldn’t say “you can go through life without sinning, but you won’t” because who is to say you won’t until the act is done. And what about a child dying at seven, who had only one temptation. Did she HAVE to give in because of her fallen nature. She is seven and is free, otherwise there can be no sin

hmm, I think I might have an interpretation of Trent that doesn’t give in the Calvinism of Thomism.

St. Paul says “all have sinned”. That is a prophecy of the future as well as a statement about the past. So maybe Trent can be interpreted to mean that no one can avoid sinning because it has already been foretold that everyone would sin, except for those whom God gives the grace never to be tempted

Yep, I think that is the way to interpret it. I have a very clear perception of free will I believe. That is, I can see clearly how one can turn to one side or the other. To say with Aquinas that God can infallibly make you turn to good is a denial of free will. He got that from Augustine. I have long been exasperated that they both are held to be the highest doctors of the Church when they thought man was a slave to all stronger impulses, whether of grace or temptation. The statements of many on this thread show they don’t believe in free will either. Even Molinism rejects free will. How can God know what you would choose in each situation unless you are given the opportunity to turn one side or the other in an actual situation?? The basic schools of theology on predestination within Catholicism reject that which alone justifies sending people to Hell.

 

[Vico]

This isn’t about the improbability of not sinning, but the impossibility. I am not saying we can obtain the beatific vision by ourselves. That is what Christ offered. But he came to save us from our SINS. Sin implies free will absolutely. To say that our wills are so damaged that we have to sin takes the free will away from us. You have to take each temptation at a time to see my point. If I am free to turn away from it, then all the temptations added up are free to be turned away from. Trent was just wrong to define what it did

Waste of a post as far as this discussion is concerned, except that it says Trent sided with Luther

You shouldn’t say “you can go through life without sinning, but you won’t” because who is to say you won’t until the act is done. And what about a child dying at seven, who had only one temptation. Did she HAVE to give in because of her fallen nature. She is seven and is free, otherwise there can be no sin

hmm, I think I might have an interpretation of Trent that doesn’t give in the Calvinism of Thomism.

St. Paul says “all have sinned”. That is a prophecy of the future as well as a statement about the past. So maybe Trent can be interpreted to mean that no one can avoid sinning because it has already been foretold that everyone would sin, except for those whom God gives the grace never to be tempted

Yep, I think that is the way to interpret it. I have a very clear perception of free will I believe. That is, I can see clearly how one can turn to one side or the other. To say with Aquinas that God can infallibly make you turn to good is a denial of free will. He got that from Augustine. I have long been exasperated that they both are held to be the highest doctors of the Church when they thought man was a slave to all stronger impulses, whether of grace or temptation. The statements of many on this thread show they don’t believe in free will either. Even Molinism rejects free will. How can God know what you would choose in each situation unless you are given the opportunity to turn one side or the other in an actual situation?? The basic schools of theology on predestination within Catholicism reject that which alone justifies sending people to Hell.

The Council of Trent opposed the opinion of Luther and Calvin denying free will.

Council of Trent, On Justification

CANON V. If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

 

[Duane1966]

This isn’t about the improbability of not sinning, but the impossibility. I am not saying we can obtain the beatific vision by ourselves. That is what Christ offered. But he came to save us from our SINS. Sin implies free will absolutely. To say that our wills are so damaged that we have to sin takes the free will away from us. You have to take each temptation at a time to see my point. If I am free to turn away from it, then all the temptations added up are free to be turned away from. Trent was just wrong to define what it did

Waste of a post as far as this discussion is concerned, except that it says Trent sided with Luther

You shouldn’t say “you can go through life without sinning, but you won’t” because who is to say you won’t until the act is done. And what about a child dying at seven, who had only one temptation. Did she HAVE to give in because of her fallen nature. She is seven and is free, otherwise there can be no sin

hmm, I think I might have an interpretation of Trent that doesn’t give in the Calvinism of Thomism.

St. Paul says “all have sinned”. That is a prophecy of the future as well as a statement about the past. So maybe Trent can be interpreted to mean that no one can avoid sinning because it has already been foretold that everyone would sin, except for those whom God gives the grace never to be tempted

Yep, I think that is the way to interpret it. I have a very clear perception of free will I believe. That is, I can see clearly how one can turn to one side or the other. To say with Aquinas that God can infallibly make you turn to good is a denial of free will. He got that from Augustine. I have long been exasperated that they both are held to be the highest doctors of the Church when they thought man was a slave to all stronger impulses, whether of grace or temptation. The statements of many on this thread show they don’t believe in free will either. Even Molinism rejects free will. How can God know what you would choose in each situation unless you are given the opportunity to turn one side or the other in an actual situation?? The basic schools of theology on predestination within Catholicism reject that which alone justifies sending people to Hell.

Are you saying that without the grace that is given to us in baptism, that man can avoid all sin all of the time? See, without free will, you would not be able to avoid sin at all. Trent realizes, though our wills were damaged, the fact that at times we chose not to sin before baptism, showed that our free will was still there.

You are wrong on your reading of Aquinas. What he is saying is that as we continue to cooperate with God’s graces, our chances of choosing the bad becomes less and less. This in no way denies free will. Just because someone will always choose the good, does not mean they did not have free will. Also, just because God knows what you will choose in any situation, does not mean He made you choose the way you did.

If I am 100% sure that my daughter will break her curfew, does it follow that I made her break her curfew?

 

[Duane1966]

This isn’t about the improbability of not sinning, but the impossibility. I am not saying we can obtain the beatific vision by ourselves. That is what Christ offered. But he came to save us from our SINS. Sin implies free will absolutely. To say that our wills are so damaged that we have to sin takes the free will away from us. You have to take each temptation at a time to see my point. If I am free to turn away from it, then all the temptations added up are free to be turned away from. Trent was just wrong to define what it did

Waste of a post as far as this discussion is concerned, except that it says Trent sided with Luther

You shouldn’t say “you can go through life without sinning, but you won’t” because who is to say you won’t until the act is done. And what about a child dying at seven, who had only one temptation. Did she HAVE to give in because of her fallen nature. She is seven and is free, otherwise there can be no sin

hmm, I think I might have an interpretation of Trent that doesn’t give in the Calvinism of Thomism.

St. Paul says “all have sinned”. That is a prophecy of the future as well as a statement about the past. So maybe Trent can be interpreted to mean that no one can avoid sinning because it has already been foretold that everyone would sin, except for those whom God gives the grace never to be tempted

Yep, I think that is the way to interpret it. I have a very clear perception of free will I believe. That is, I can see clearly how one can turn to one side or the other. To say with Aquinas that God can infallibly make you turn to good is a denial of free will. He got that from Augustine. I have long been exasperated that they both are held to be the highest doctors of the Church when they thought man was a slave to all stronger impulses, whether of grace or temptation. The statements of many on this thread show they don’t believe in free will either. Even Molinism rejects free will. How can God know what you would choose in each situation unless you are given the opportunity to turn one side or the other in an actual situation?? The basic schools of theology on predestination within Catholicism reject that which alone justifies sending people to Hell.

Obviously you have not read Luther, as he and Trent are not even close.

In your opinion, before the fall, what did man’s pristine free will enable him to do?

 

[Usagi]

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 inside

Wait, what?

Jesus had to die to,save us from Hell precisely because we had no power to save ourselves. If a human could avoid sin completely without God’s help, then Pelagius was right and Jesus needed to be only a good example, not to literally alter reality so that salvation was possible.

Sometimes, free will can be limited to cooperating with God’s offered grace or rejecting it and freely choosing to sin. There is no teaching that an unaided human must be able to resist every possible temptation in order to be considered free.

Also, note that Trent is talking about any sin, even the least of venial sins. Only mortal sins condemn to Hell, and there is no teaching that a saved person must sin mortally. So your “justification of Hell” worry doesn’t even come into it.

 

[fhansen]

This isn’t about the improbability of not sinning, but the impossibility. I am not saying we can obtain the beatific vision by ourselves. That is what Christ offered. But he came to save us from our SINS. Sin implies free will absolutely. To say that our wills are so damaged that we have to sin takes the free will away from us. You have to take each temptation at a time to see my point. If I am free to turn away from it, then all the temptations added up are free to be turned away from. Trent was just wrong to define what it did

But I think that’s the point. The beatific vision is the* one thing* that can finally, fully captivate and maintain our wills in the right orientation, because* it* is the ultimate good that fulfills all our desire. Until we have it we’re compromised in a sense, such that we’re bound to try to fulfill our thirsts or desires in a variety of ways, often wrong-and, most importantly, pride plays its hand out in us, opposing God by its nature. Meanwhile, however, the very distractions that try to sway us from the true good also serve to validate it, as they end up in dissatisfaction and can therefore help compel us to keep aspiring to a higher ideal, a greater good that we already have a sense of, and that revelation gives us an even more specific understanding of.

There’s a basic weakness or character flaw that comes from the inherent imperfection of being a creature, relative to God with His infinite perfection, and this flaw manifests itself, in creatures possessing free will who are imperfectly united to their Creator, a partnership that is essential to the creature’s integrity or wholeness, to his own perfection. We’re here, in this apparently and effectively godless world, to experience and come to know, for one, the sheer angst of that separation, an angst we observe every day in the world of human affairs, an underlying angst that derives from the consequences of that separation: living without knowledge of our source, if there is one, why we’re here, if there’s a reason, and where we’re going, if anywhere. Death looms and grins threateningly while we’re trying or pretending to live a full rich life. And war and poverty and disease and sin in general make a mockery of attempts to find lasting fulfillment here anyway, if it were even possible. Sin and death taint and detract from the beauty of creation and our existence.

And yet pride draws us on to all kinds of wrong paths, behaving as if we’ll never die for all practical purposes, obsessed with this desire or that at any particular point in time. Trent just knows human nature, fallen human nature. So it’s a struggle, that necessarily involves the will, between good and evil, life and death, God and no God.

And the first act of the will towards justice isn’t to turn from sin but to turn back to God, the act of faith in response to grace, because apart from Him we’ll inevitably fail in overcoming sin. That’s the difference between the old and new covenants BTW; one involves myself attempting to observe the law in order to be righteousness while the other involves myself turning to God in order to be* made* righteous. Drawing closer to God means to draw closer to immediate knowledge of Him, which is the BV ultimately.

As a matter of justice we’re asked to begin this process now, in this life, orienting ourselves towards righteous as we walk by faith and without benefit of the full vision that awaits us. In this way God draws the will, without forcing it, into greater and greater justice, into a greater and greater ownership of our justice as we come to increasingly recognize and embrace it for ourselves. Just some thoughts.

 

[thinkandmull]

Are you saying that without the grace that is given to us in baptism, that man can avoid all sin all of the time? See, without free will, you would not be able to avoid sin at all. Trent realizes, though our wills were damaged, the fact that at times we chose not to sin before baptism, showed that our free will was still there.

You are wrong on your reading of Aquinas. What he is saying is that as we continue to cooperate with God’s graces, our chances of choosing the bad becomes less and less. This in no way denies free will. Just because someone will always choose the good, does not mean they did not have free will. Also, just because God knows what you will choose in any situation, does not mean He made you choose the way you did.

If I am 100% sure that my daughter will break her curfew, does it follow that I made her break her curfew?

You haven’t considered free will seriously enough. If your daughter is old enough to make up her mind, you can’t know for sure what she will do. God knows what we will do by sight into the future. If you can avoid sinning sometimes before baptism, you are free to avoid all sin down the line. Simple theological logic. As for Aquinas, he said that fate cannot be changed. He did not believe in free will. If someone always chooses good he has free will; if he has to choose good he does not, except for in Heaven of course.

 

[thinkandmull]

Wait, what?

Jesus had to die to,save us from Hell precisely because we had no power to save ourselves. If a human could avoid sin completely without God’s help, then Pelagius was right and Jesus needed to be only a good example, not to literally alter reality so that salvation was possible.

Sometimes, free will can be limited to cooperating with God’s offered grace or rejecting it and freely choosing to sin. There is no teaching that an unaided human must be able to resist every possible temptation in order to be considered free.

Also, note that Trent is talking about any sin, even the least of venial sins. Only mortal sins condemn to Hell, and there is no teaching that a saved person must sin mortally. So your “justification of Hell” worry doesn’t even come into it.

All sin condemns you to hell. Once Christ came, only mortal sins do you. This is the teaching of St. Paul. Salvation for someone who chose never to sin is like salvation for a 7 year old who hasn’t sinned yet. You can’t go to heaven without Christ because we can’t earn the beatific vision. There is no teaching that an unaided human must be able to resist every possible temptation in order to be considered free, but reason teaches us this by considering what free will is. If you can avoid one you can avoid all because each individual choice is free

 

[Duane1966]

You haven’t considered free will seriously enough.

No, you haven’t considered it seriously enough. So there.

If your daughter is old enough to make up her mind, you can’t know for sure what she will do.

If I am 100% positive she will break curfew, and then she goes out and breaks curfew, did my foreknowledge cause her to break curfew?

God knows what we will do by sight into the future. If you can avoid sinning sometimes before baptism, you are free to avoid all sin down the line. Simple theological logic.

Why could you not avoid sinning all the time before baptism?

As for Aquinas, he said that fate cannot be changed.

He’s right. The part that you seem to not be able to comprehend though, is that we cannot see into the future, so only God knows with certainty our fate. That is why Aquinas says our fate cannot be changed. If we are one of the elect, though we may for awhile fall away, in the end we will persevere. But only God knows who the elect are. And that’s what Aquinas means by fate.

He did not believe in free will.

Oh no? Hmmm. Here are Aquinas’ own words.

I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will.

It sure seems like he believed in free will.

If someone always chooses good he has free will; if he has to choose good he does not

Agreed.

Again, I ask you: Before Original Sin, what would a pristine free will enable man to do?

 

[thinkandmull]

How could you know infallibly what your daughter will do if she is free? Before the fall we were free as we are now, but without internal concupiscence. I think my interpretation of Trent is the only theologically valid one. I too have had an experience of Thomistic “free will”. Let me explain. One time I made a choice. It felt free and surely it was free. It felt however as if there was grace on one side that made me do the good act. It was irresistible, but there was still the temptation on the other side. How can it be irresistible and yet free? It can’t. I afterwards realized that it wasn’t grace I was feeling but it was part of myself working with the unfelt grace. Augustine and Aquinas had experiences like this there whole lives and thought that the irresistible pulse that was driving them to good was grace and yet it was really themselves, the grace being unfelt. This is the only way to safeguard the holy doctrine of free will and the doctrine that God is just

 

[Duane1966]

How could you know infallibly what your daughter will do if she is free?

If I overheard her tell someone she would break curfew, did my foreknowledge of her action, mean she was not free?

Before the fall we were free as we are now, but without internal concupiscence.

Even those who are unbaptized? This is the key to the canon you originally posted about.

I think my interpretation of Trent is the only theologically valid one.

Except you misread the canon.

I too have had an experience of Thomistic “free will”. Let me explain. One time I made a choice. It felt free and surely it was free. It felt however as if there was grace on one side that made me do the good act. It was irresistible, but there was still the temptation on the other side. How can it be irresistible and yet free? It can’t. I afterwards realized that it wasn’t grace I was feeling but it was part of myself working with the unfelt grace. Augustine and Aquinas had experiences like this there whole lives and thought that the irresistible pulse that was driving them to good was grace and yet it was really themselves, the grace being unfelt. This is the only way to safeguard the holy doctrine of free will and the doctrine that God is just

But they both felt that grace, even though sometimes it felt irresistible, could be resisted. And you admitted you cooperated with the grace. You were not forced to cooperate. You exercised free will. Aquinas and Augustine both write about cooperating with grace. If they did not believe in free will, then grace could not be cooperated with.

 

[thinkandmull]

Before fall, no concupiscence. After yes, for everyone. Aquinas and Augustine both believed that grace, like our fallen nature, could not be resisted although it could be. They thought it was a paradox when really it was a contradiction.

If you overheard your daughter, she could still change her mind. You don’t believe she could surprise you. Too bad for your birthdays.

 

[Duane1966]

Before fall, no concupiscence. After yes, for everyone.

What does baptism do? Is a baptized person in a better state than an unbaptized person in relation to man before the fall? Until you understand that, you will not understand that canon.

Aquinas and Augustine both believed that grace, like our fallen nature, could not be resisted although it could be. They thought it was a paradox when really it was a contradiction.

You misread both of them. From New Advent:

Man remains free, even under the action of grace

The second principle, the affirmation of liberty even under the action of efficacious grace, has always been safeguarded, and there is not one of his anti-Pelagian works even of the latest, which does not positively proclaim a complete power of choice in man; “not but what it does not depend on the free choice of the will to embrace the faith or reject it, but in the elect this will is prepared by God” (De Prædest. SS., n. 10). T… Julian of Eclanum, denying the sway of concupiscence, conceives free will as a balance in perfect equilibrium. Augustine protests: this absolute equilibrium existed in Adam; it was destroyed after original sin; the will has to struggle and react against an inclination to evil, but it remains mistress of its choice (Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, III, cxvii). Thus, when he says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity…But there is one work of Augustine, dating from the year 397, in which he clearly explains his thought — a work which he not only did not disavow later on, but to which in particular he referred, at the end of his career, those of his readers who were troubled by his constant affirmation of grace. For example, to the monks of Adrumetum who thought that liberty was irreconcilable with this affirmation, he addressed a copy of this book “De Diversis quæstionibus ad Simplicianum,” feeling sure that their doubts would be dissipated. There, in fact, he formulates his thoughts with great clearness. Simplician had asked how he should understand the Epistle to the Romans 9, on the predestination of Jacob and Esau. Augustine first lays down the fundamental principle of St. Paul, that every good will comes from grace, so that no man can take glory to himself for his merits, and this grace is so sure of its results that human liberty will never in reality resist it, although it has the power to do so. Then he affirms that this efficacious grace is not necessary for us to be able to act well, but because, in fact, without it we would not wish to act well. From that arises the great difficulty: How does the power of resisting grace fit in with the certainty of the result? And it is here that Augustine replies: There are many ways of inviting faith. Souls being differently disposed, God knows what invitation will be accepted, what other will not be accepted. Only those are the elect for whom God chooses the invitation which is foreseen to be efficacious, but God could convert them all: “Cujus autem miseretur, sic cum vocat, quomodo scit ei congruere ut vocantem non respuat” (op. cit., I, q. ii, n. 2, 12, 13).

Is there in this a vestige of an irresistible grace or of that impulse against which it is impossible to fight, forcing some to good, and others to sin and hell? It cannot be too often repeated that this is not an idea flung off in passing, but a fundamental explanation which if not understood leaves us in the impossibility of grasping anything of his doctrine; but if it is seized Augustine entertains no feelings of uneasiness on the score of freedom.** In fact he supposes freedom everywhere, and reverts incessantly to that knowledge on God’s part which precedes predestination, **directs it, and assures its infallible result. In the “De Done perseverantiæ” (xvii, n. 42), written at the end of his life, he explains the whole of predestination by the choice of the vocation which is foreseen as efficacious. Thus is explained the chief part attributed to that external providence which prepares, by ill health, by warnings, etc., the good thoughts which it knows will bring about good resolutions. Finally, this explanation alone harmonizes with the moral action which he attributes to victorious grace. Nowhere does Augustine represent it as an irresistible impulse impressed by the stronger on the weaker. It is always an appeal, an invitation which attracts and seeks to persuade. He describes this attraction, which is without violence, under the graceful image of dainties offered to a child, green leaves offered to a sheep (In Joannem, tract. xxvi, n. 5). And always the infallibility of the result is assured by the Divine knowledge which directs the choice of the invitation.

If you overheard your daughter, she could still change her mind. You don’t believe she could surprise you. Too bad for your birthdays.

But every answer you have given, does not address the question. Does foreknowledge of what someone else will do, mean they were not free to do something else?

To say …we have to sin takes the free will away from us. You have to take each temptation at a time to see my point. If I am free to turn away from it, then all the temptations added up are free to be turned away from. Trent was just wrong to define what it did.

The part that you fail to understand is that neither Trent, nor I, said you have to sin. We just say you will sin at some point.

Are you saying without baptism, you can resist all temptation all the time?

 

[Usagi]

Before fall, no concupiscence. After yes, for everyone. Aquinas and Augustine both believed that grace, like our fallen nature, could not be resisted although it could be. They thought it was a paradox when really it was a contradiction.

Or, just possibly, you think it’s a contradiction when actually they are right and it is a paradox?

If you overheard your daughter, she could still change her mind. You don’t believe she could surprise you. Too bad for your birthdays.

Pretty sure we’re using the parent as analogous to God here. True, a human parent cannot ordinarily have infallible knowledge of future behavior, but God does and we know that that does not violate free will. Knowing is not forcing.

Now, I see what your issue is here, and I agree it’s troubling. If we are free enough to resist any single temptation, we could at least theoretically resist every one, yet Trent’s canon says that no one can. I don’t think your objection is fatal to Catholic teaching, though. Most every time the Church talks about our ability to resist temptation or choose the good, she is referring to something we can do with God’s grace, not unaided. So long as grace is also resistible, we remain free, and so long as no one is actively denied the offer of sufficient grace for salvation, the fate of those who refuse that grace and willingly remain in their sins is not unjustified. That only a tiny few (Our Lady, at least, and some would say John the Baptist) were granted the exceptional grace to bring their wills so in line with God’s that they committed no actual sins in their lifetimes is a special gift, but not an injustice to the rest of us – and not a denial of either their free will or ours.

I mean, I don’t think, if you somehow did choose to resist temptation every single time you faced it in life, God would make you sin just to make Trent correct. But thennI don’t think that’s how it works anyway. If I am faced with a temptation and God offers me the grace to resist it, then my will has two options. I can freely cooperate with God’s grace and avoid sinning – but I have not done so unaided. Alternatively, I can resist the grace and freely choose to indulge in the sin – in which case I have exercised my unaided human will, but I have also sinned. Both options are exercises of free will, and neither violates Trent’s statement. The only situation in which your objection comes into play is if I make every single such decision without even the offer of God’s grace, and nevertheless choose the good every time. I don’t think that happens, mainly because I don’t think even a person in a state of mortal sin faces such choices without any offer of divine grace.

 

[thinkandmull]

What does baptism do? Is a baptized person in a better state than an unbaptized person in relation to man before the fall? Until you understand that, you will not understand that canon. You misread both of them. From New Advent:

But every answer you have given, does not address the question. Does foreknowledge of what someone else will do, mean they were not free to do something else?

The part that you fail to understand is that neither Trent, nor I, said you have to sin. We just say you will sin at some point.

Are you saying without baptism, you can resist all temptation all the time?

Yes, without baptism you can resist all temptation all the time. That is what it means to be free. Baptism doesn’t change free will, nor did the fall. Foreknowledge doesn’t change that. either. How do YOU know everyone will sin? Because of foreknowledge or because of the force of fallen nature? See you deny free will, have again and again. Read the New Advent article on predestination. You are saying what the Thomists say about God’s grace but applying it to fallen nature. Both counts are against free will and are thus heretical

 

[Duane1966]

Yes, without baptism you can resist all temptation all the time. That is what it means to be free. Baptism doesn’t change free will, nor did the fall. Foreknowledge doesn’t change that. either. How do YOU know everyone will sin? Because of foreknowledge or because of the force of fallen nature? See you deny free will, have again and again. Read the New Advent article on predestination. You are saying what the Thomists say about God’s grace but applying it to fallen nature. Both counts are against free will and are thus heretical

I have read it, more than once. I have never once denied free will. My saying you will sin, does not mean you did not have the choice not to sin. It is the reality that at some point, you will choose to sin. You believe foreknowledge of someone’s actions, means they have no free will. I know that without a special grace from God, at some point you will give in to temptation, and choose to sin. YOU WILL EXERCISE YOUR FREE WILL, AND CHOOSE TO SIN. My foreknowledge of this in no way denies that you have free will. My knowledge that you cannot go through this life without sinning, does not in any way entail that I am denying you have free will. Mathematically, when taken as a whole, the chances that you, exercising your damaged free will, will always choose not to sin throughout your life becomes nil. You have a better chance of flipping a coin a million times and it coming up heads every time. It could happen, but won’t.

I am denying that our free will is intact, as you try to state. Trent also denies this in Chapter I of Session VI. Why do you feel our free will was not damaged in the fall?

 

[fhansen]

How could you know infallibly what your daughter will do if she is free? Before the fall we were free as we are now, but without internal concupiscence. I think my interpretation of Trent is the only theologically valid one. I too have had an experience of Thomistic “free will”. Let me explain. One time I made a choice. It felt free and surely it was free. It felt however as if there was grace on one side that made me do the good act. It was irresistible, but there was still the temptation on the other side. How can it be irresistible and yet free? It can’t. I afterwards realized that it wasn’t grace I was feeling but it was part of myself working with the unfelt grace. Augustine and Aquinas had experiences like this there whole lives and thought that the irresistible pulse that was driving them to good was grace and yet it was really themselves, the grace being unfelt. This is the only way to safeguard the holy doctrine of free will and the doctrine that God is just

God simply knows our choices-He can’t help it; He’s omniscient and exists outside of time with its sequence of events. So, in terms of free will, it doesn’t even matter if God exists and foreknows our choices or not- we have free will either way.