I think Paul* could’ve *said that man was unconscious or asleep; those term are also used for the dead-with the need for reawakening-and in any case either would’ve served well enough. And the Church does affirm that man is unable to rise and turn to God and cooperate with Him on his own anyway. She only says that once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.I agree thinkandmull, and fhansen, … man is free. But, for whatever reason I’m not sure why you do not recognize that as a free man his choices are only within the parameters of his sinful nature. Man can choose all day long and his choice is free, free within the parameters of his ability as a human being. In that sense only is he free. However in a spiritual sense man is DEAD … not dead to the ability to make choices, but dead to make a spiritual choice for God.
Listen to what the Church at Ephesus learned about this: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins… Eph. 2:1 … even when we are dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved,) and raised us up together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, v5,6 Couple that that with 1st. Cor. 2:14,15 where the Apostle Paul said “The natural man (a man who does not have the Spirit of God) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.” Natural, unconverted men, can make choices all day long, and their choice is free, but they are unable to know anything spiritually, and thus their will, still unviolated, will not make a choice that it cannot discern.
When the Church fathers (centuries later) decided man’s will was not totally dead or depraved, their decision transformed Paul’s claim to deadness. It would have been better for Paul to say that the Ephesians were merely in trespasses and sins. But he used the word dead, which whether metaphorically or literally, is still dead. Man’s ability to connect with God (spiritually) is dead in every way that the word can suggest. To water this point down is to find oneself arguing against one of the founders and framers of Christianity.
But where does that leave us? … St. John gave us the answer, “Jn 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
“Man is free” was not clear enough.The pope should have condemned both sides. Its unfortunate that he didn’t. The Church has never condemned all sex change procedures but it should. Any position that denies free will is not Catholic. Thomist say they believe in free will then forget about free will and propose opposite doctrines. If you focus your mind on how the faculty of free will works you will realize that it can’t be reconciled with determinism, either from grace or fallen nature. Man cannot be made to freely do something is the bottom line. Molinism proposes in place a ridiculous theory. The truth is that man is free and God has foreknowledge. That’s it. We don’t have to postulate that God is somehow responsible for people going to hell like these two theories propose. Free will, foreknowledge. Not God deciding who will get the infallible grace or who will be put in the infallibly determined situation
Augustine also famously said, “He who made you without your consent will not save you without your consent.”Okay… my last comment before I go to dinner with my wife.
I agree the Church sometimes doesn’t know. But whether or not they accept or reject any view is not any of my concern. The one-million dollar question is: Does the natural man desire to know God! if he does then he can “will” to seek. But the Church at Ephesus accepted Paul’s answer. Man’s desire to know God is dead in trespasses and sins. Augustine said “fallen man has a free will but lacks liberty.” On the surface it seems like a strange distinction. How could anyone have a free will and still not have liberty? Augustine was saying fallen man has not lost his ability to make choices. The sinner still is able to choose what he wants; he can still act according to his desires. Yet because his desires are corrupt he does not have the royal liberty of those set free unto righteousness. Fallen man is in a serious state of moral bondage. That state of bondage is called original sin.
Sorry have to go for now.
The divine commandments mentioned are more than moral laws; it includes accepting Jesus as Savior. That can only come from grace. See the context of John 15. But the idea mentioned by others that we *always *follow our strongest urge yet we remain free is an absurd contradiction“Man is free” was not clear enough.
Council of Carthage, against Pelagius:
Can. 5. It has likewise been decided that whoever says that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason: that what we are ordered to do through free will, we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even if grace were not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him he anathema. For concerning the fruits of His commands the Lord spoke not when He said:“Without me you can accomplish with greater difficulty,” but when He said: “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5].
That decision was a no brainer thoughBut the Church isn’t bound to condemn or accept* anyone’s* theories-yours, mine, or even Aquinas’s. And the reluctance to formally reject any particular viewpoint can just show the Church’s exacting, responsible side. Sometimes she just doesn’t know; some things remain cloaked in a degree of mystery. And yet she did positively affirm that man’s will is not uninvolved.
wasn’t for CalvinThat decision was a no brainer though
As Catholics we assent to the dogmas:The divine commandments mentioned are more than moral laws; it includes accepting Jesus as Savior. That can only come from grace. See the context of John 15. But the idea mentioned by others that we *always *follow our strongest urge yet we remain free is an absurd contradiction
tgGodsway here. I’m not sure who in the Church said “once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.” I’ve seen no pattern of this anywhere in scripture. St. John on the other hand was clear when he said how the newly found child of God was " … not the will of man." John 1:13 There is a call to discipleship but that should not be confused with new birth.I think Paul* could’ve *said that man was unconscious or asleep; those term are also used for the dead-with the need for reawakening-and in any case either would’ve served well enough. And the Church does affirm that man is unable to rise and turn to God and cooperate with Him on his own anyway. She only says that once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.
The blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven, this is willful rejection. (Matthew 12:31-32) They must persevere unto the end.tgGodsway here. I’m not sure who in the Church said “once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.” I’ve seen no pattern of this anywhere in scripture. St. John on the other hand was clear when he said how the newly found child of God was " … not the will of man." John 1:13 There is a call to discipleship but that should not be confused with new birth.
You’ve never read of the branches that are grafted but can be cut back off, seed that takes root but later withers and dies, those who’ve tasted of the heavenly gift but later rejected it, turning back away from God, or the constant admonishments to believers to be vigilant, keep oil in their lamps, refrain from sin, be perfect, be holy, remain faithful, remain in Christ, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, persevere, strive, work out ones salvation with He who works in us, invest ones talents-all generally with loss of place in the Kingdom at stake? Might want to read a bit less selectively maybe.tgGodsway here. I’m not sure who in the Church said “once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.” I’ve seen no pattern of this anywhere in scripture. St. John on the other hand was clear when he said how the newly found child of God was " … not the will of man." John 1:13 There is a call to discipleship but that should not be confused with new birth.
These have probably been listed, but here’s where the Church speaks, from the Council of Trent first:tgGodsway here. I’m not sure who in the Church said “once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.”
He’s talking about natural birth, a husband’s decision, vs regeneration.tgGodsway here. I’m not sure who in the Church said “once God calls man to life, man can still resist and reject the call.” I’ve seen no pattern of this anywhere in scripture. St. John on the other hand was clear when he said how the newly found child of God was " … not the will of man." John 1:13 There is a call to discipleship but that should not be confused with new birth.
You have asked and you shall receive:To fhansen: Augustine was the anomaly of the Roman Catholic Church in his day. Will you sight where (in his writings) you got this quote? It does not sound like him at all. I would like to see the quote in its context.
To thinkandmull, … where in John 15 do you find a call to eternal life? I see a call to discipleship, and, I do not believe this call is one in the same with eternal life.
Your statement: But the idea mentioned by others that we always follow our strongest urge yet we remain free is an absurd contradiction.
How so? Are you saying that free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition? a posture of neutrality with absolutely no bias? I hope not.
Free will must have two impulses, and not even God can predict (aside from foreknowledge) which one will be consented to. If the strongest always wins by its power there is no free will. As for John 15, read verse 4 and the contextTo fhansen: Augustine was the anomaly of the Roman Catholic Church in his day. Will you sight where (in his writings) you got this quote? It does not sound like him at all. I would like to see the quote in its context.
To thinkandmull, … where in John 15 do you find a call to eternal life? I see a call to discipleship, and, I do not believe this call is one in the same with eternal life.
Your statement: But the idea mentioned by others that we always follow our strongest urge yet we remain free is an absurd contradiction.
How so? Are you saying that free will is the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition? a posture of neutrality with absolutely no bias? I hope not.
If we are judging by everyday experience, though, then surely we cannot insist on absolute freedom of the will? We obviously have impulses and habits and so forth that can powerfully incline our wills in one direction or another. That is why we are taught to develop the virtues over the vices, and why even the Church allows that habitual sins may not carry full culpability, because the will is weakened against them.Free will must have two impulses, and not even God can predict (aside from foreknowledge) which one will be consented to. If the strongest always wins by its power there is no free will. As for John 15, read verse 4 and the context
The quote is thoroughly Augustine, thoroughly Catholic, and thoroughly reflective of the core of the Christian Gospel. It was from "De Trinitate (On the Trinity), Book 15, Chap 18:To fhansen: Augustine was the anomaly of the Roman Catholic Church in his day. Will you sight where (in his writings) you got this quote? It does not sound like him at all. I would like to see the quote in its context.
I didn’t say all temptations are equal. You can’t say that man always follows his strongest impulses and then say “oh but he is free!”. Calvin’s position made God into a monster Who didn’t really want His whole family to make it homeIf we are judging by everyday experience, though, then surely we cannot insist on absolute freedom of the will? We obviously have impulses and habits and so forth that can powerfully incline our wills in one direction or another. That is why we are taught to develop the virtues over the vices, and why even the Church allows that habitual sins may not carry full culpability, because the will is weakened against them.
We are free to resist such urges, yes, but often that relies on the help of God’s grace, not pure willpower. I don’t think it is consistent with reality to insist that we must always be equally able and likely to take any path available, and that free will is meaningless if we can’t.