Free Will? Did the Church Change its Teaching

[trickster]

I had a very interesting class yesterday in Greek Philosophy. We are now moving into the neo-platonist period and talked mainly about the patristic period and Plotinus. One of the things our professor said is that originally the church did not believe in free will, that God had everything thought out. The co-existence of free will was heresy. He said that the church modified this teaching, but he also said that he could not p(name removed by moderator)oint at what time in church history this change happened.

Does anyone know the history of the church’s teaching on free willl…was it originally heresy…but has been adjusted to its present form …where we do have free will…

Bruce

 

[TheSurvivor]

The Church does not change her teachings; where your professor got this I have no idea, perhaps some charitable fraternal correction is in order.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The Church does not change her teachings; where your professor got this I have no idea, perhaps some charitable fraternal correction is in order.

The “Church” seems to have rethought her “teaching/s” on limbo.

Limbo was never taught as a dogma, doctrine or anything such as that, I would say, but it was definitely spoken of.

I would say that “limbo” is not the only thing that has been rethought.

Actually, some of what Peter was doing was rethought and changed, might not be called a “teaching” but it was discussed in the bible.

“Teaching” is not limited to just words, it can also be actions.

 

[gilliam]

The Manichaean heresy believed in predestination. But it was a heresy

Here is a resource for Free Will in Church history
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Free_Will

 

[Tom_Baum]

The Manichaean heresy believed in predestination. But it was a heresy

Here is a resource for Free Will in Church history
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Free_Will

Paul speaks of “predestination” in the bible, so it might be a “heresy” but it is also a teaching of Paul in the bible.

I would say that “predestination” is simply another way of saying that God Is Omniscient.

I do NOT look at “predestination” as anyone being a “puppet on a string”.

Paul’s writing is not the only thing in the bible concerning predestination or God knowing beforehand what will happen.

 

[gilliam]

Paul speaks of “predestination” in the bible, so it might be a “heresy” but it is also a teaching of Paul in the bible.

I would say that “predestination” is simply another way of saying that God Is Omniscient.

I do NOT look at “predestination” as anyone being a “puppet on a string”.

Paul’s writing is not the only thing in the bible concerning predestination or God knowing beforehand what will happen.

God knowing what will come before it happens doesn’t mean necessarily that mankind does not have free will. It just means God knows what choices you will make.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

God knowing what will come before it happens doesn’t mean necessarily that mankind does not have free will. It just means God knows what choices you will make.

Right.

It’s not GOD who is making an individual choose something.

Suppose you’re going out on a date. You and your date are strongly attracted to each other. The entire time you’re together, at ANY point (assuming your date was willing) you could choose to sin sexually. Equally, at any point of that time, you could choose NOT to sin sexually.

Now let’s say that you choose to sin (tsk tsk).

Obviously God knows you will make this choice (but He also knows that you had umpteen chances NOT to make the choice). Did God MAKE you sin because He knew that on November 12, 2014, you DID choose to sin?

Think about it. REALLY think about it. Did God’s knowledge of your sin CAUSE you to sin? If you think it did, HOW did it cause you to sin? You weren’t forced into sin, were you?

If you are able to say, “well gee, I guess that HE didn’t make me sin, I chose that all by myself”, then you’ll see why we indeed have Free Will and that it does not contradict God’s omniscience (or any other of God’s attributes) in the slightest.

 

[Tom_Baum]

God knowing what will come before it happens doesn’t mean necessarily that mankind does not have free will. It just means God knows what choices you will make.

You should read what I wrote, which was, “I do NOT look at “predestination” as anyone being a “puppet on a string”.” and also, “I would say that “predestination” is simply another way of saying that God Is Omniscient.”

I NEVER said anything about man NOT having free will.

 

[Origen52]

The “Church” seems to have rethought her “teaching/s” on limbo.

Limbo was never taught as a dogma, doctrine or anything such as that, I would say, but it was definitely spoken of.

I would say that “limbo” is not the only thing that has been rethought.

Actually, some of what Peter was doing was rethought and changed, might not be called a “teaching” but it was discussed in the bible.

“Teaching” is not limited to just words, it can also be actions.

Limbo has never been part of church dogma.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is the history of the Church’s teaching on free will in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Certainly in Genesis God gives Adam and Eve a choice, and holds them accountable for their choice. He also gives Cain a choice and holds him accountable. One cannot be punished for one’s sins, unless one is guilty, and one cannot be guilty unless one has freely chosen evil over good. I don’t believe this teaching of the Church has changed and that it is consistent with Genesis.

There have been minor differences in various theologians interpreting the doctrine of free will, but that is not to say that the doctrine itself ever changed. At no point did substantial change come about until John Calvin, a heretic, produced an iron doctrine of predestination that is totally against the traditional teaching of the Church.

 

[dmar198]

Three very early Catholics who insisted on free will were St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and St. Clement of Alexandria.

150 A.D. - St. Justin Martyr devotes a chapter to free will in his book, Dialog with Trypho Chapter 141, which can be accessed here: newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm The chapter is titled “Free-will in men and angels.” He also mentions it in First Apology Chapter 46 and Second Apology Chapter 7.

180 A.D. - St. Irenaeus devotes a chapter to free will in his book, Against Heresies Book IV Chapter 37, which can be accessed here: newadvent.org/fathers/0103437.htm The chapter is titled “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.”

~180 A.D. - St. Clement of Alexandria devotes a chapter to free will in his book, Recognitions Book 5 Chapter 6, which is titled “Free-Will” and can be accessed here: newadvent.org/fathers/080405.htm and also in Book 10 Chapter 12, which is titled, “Astrology Baffled by Free-Will” and can be accessed here: newadvent.org/fathers/080410.htm

These men wrote in parts of the Church that were very far away from each other, Irenaeus in France, Justin Martyr in Italy, and Clement of Alexandria in Egypt. From this it appears that free will was a universal doctrine in the early Church. I don’t know where that professor got his idea that the early Church believed differently than the modern Church on this point.

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t think church teaching has changed:

As I understand Catholic teaching is that we don’t have free-will when it comes to initial faith - that is a gift from God and we are to be humble that we even have the opportunity. This also precludes us from gloating - for God may have other plans for others that seemingly don’t have faith. But, once we have faith, we are free to reject it, and free to reject grace.

In that light, you can seen that Catholic teaching throughout history had been consistent - only that what is being discussed (initial vs sustaining faith) changes.

We Lutherans also go in circles about free-will, and it’s quite complicated. With us, the running joke is that we seem to have free-will only when we’re thinking about free-will.

 

[dmar198]

As I understand Catholic teaching is that we don’t have free-will when it comes to initial faith - that is a gift from God and we are to be humble that we even have the opportunity.

The Catechism says that man even has free will in coming to initial faith: “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love.” (CCC 2002)

 

[Tom_Baum]

Limbo has never been part of church dogma.

I wrote, “Limbo was never taught as a dogma, doctrine or anything such as that, I would say, but it was definitely spoken of.” and “Actually, some of what Peter was doing was rethought and changed, might not be called a “teaching” but it was discussed in the bible.” and also, ““Teaching” is not limited to just words, it can also be actions.”

I did not say that “limbo” was taught as dogma but that it was a teaching and I also said that some of what Peter taught by word and action was also “modified”.

Jesus told us very clearly what the “mission” of His Church is.

This “mission” is, as Jesus told us, that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against IT”.

The CC teaches that the CC is not bound by what many think the CC is bound by.

One of which is that there are those who are “members”, so to speak, of Jesus’s Church who have never been officially baptized.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Here is the history of the Church’s teaching on free will in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Certainly in Genesis God gives Adam and Eve a choice, and holds them accountable for their choice. He also gives Cain a choice and holds him accountable. One cannot be punished for one’s sins, unless one is guilty, and one cannot be guilty unless one has freely chosen evil over good. I don’t believe this teaching of the Church has changed and that it is consistent with Genesis.

There have been minor differences in various theologians interpreting the doctrine of free will, but that is not to say that the doctrine itself ever changed. At no point did substantial change come about until John Calvin, a heretic, produced an iron doctrine of predestination that is totally against the traditional teaching of the Church.

Have you ever read John Calvin’s “iron doctrine of predestination”?

I haven’t, so I can not comment one way or the other.

As far as what I consider “predestination”, I already wrote in a prior post, “I would say that “predestination” is simply another way of saying that God Is Omniscient.”

Would you say that God “knows” everything about someone before they are even created or that God is not Omniscient concerning us humans?

I am NOT saying that we are “puppets on God’s strings” but that even tho we freely make our decisions, God “knows” what decisions that we will make.

God is either Omniscient or God isn’t, there is NO such thing as partial Omniscience.

 

[oldcelt]

Have you ever read John Calvin’s “iron doctrine of predestination”?

I haven’t, so I can not comment one way or the other.

As far as what I consider “predestination”, I already wrote in a prior post, “I would say that “predestination” is simply another way of saying that God Is Omniscient.”

Would you say that God “knows” everything about someone before they are even created or that God is not Omniscient concerning us humans?

I am NOT saying that we are “puppets on God’s strings” but that even tho we freely make our decisions, God “knows” what decisions that we will make.

God is either Omniscient or God isn’t, there is NO such thing as partial Omniscience.

Exactly…and omniscience carries with it a heavy burden if one is the creator. The Christian God is believed to have created each one of us individually. That would mean that He has created multitudes knowing that they would be condemned by there actions in life. He is complicit with their destruction. Further, He uses sins like rape and pre-marital sex to work His creation of some. A bit of a conflict, don’t you think, given His omniscience?

 

[dmar198]

omniscience carries with it a heavy burden if one is the creator. The Christian God is believed to have created each one of us individually. That would mean that He has created multitudes knowing that they would be condemned by there actions in life. He is complicit with their destruction.

I don’t think that follows. Can you explain what you mean by complicit? The first thing that came to my mind was, God cooperates with their destruction. But I thought of this counter-example that I’d like your (name removed by moderator)ut on: every year my church offers a free Thanksgiving dinner for free to all comers. We announce it, put notices and flyers out, and try to reach everybody we can in the city, inviting them all to come for free. But we have no reason to believe that everyone who hears will actually come. Call it reasonably confident foreknowledge. Now, if we know in advance that some people won’t come, are we complicit in their non-attendance? I don’t think so. We did what we could to invite them, but they didn’t show up for their own reasons. Do you think that’s a decent analogy for God’s situation?

Further, He uses sins like rape and pre-marital sex to work His creation of some. A bit of a conflict, don’t you think, given His omniscience?

I don’t think so. If you know that someone did something bad, and you bring something good out of it anyway, I think that’s a holy action, and it’s what I would expect a good God to do. Do you think that’s a reasonable analogy for God’s situation?

 

[benjohnson]

The Catechism says that man even has free will in coming to initial faith: “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love.” (CCC 2002)

But even here (I think) we see God’s will come before our own (thankfully) - as the CCC has God’s initiative coming first, with man’s response coming secondary.

 

[oldcelt]

I don’t think that follows. Can you explain what you mean by complicit? The first thing that came to my mind was, God cooperates with their destruction. But I thought of this counter-example that I’d like your (name removed by moderator)ut on: every year my church offers a free Thanksgiving dinner for free to all comers. We announce it, put notices and flyers out, and try to reach everybody we can in the city, inviting them all to come for free. But we have no reason to believe that everyone who hears will actually come. Call it reasonably confident foreknowledge. Now, if we know in advance that some people won’t come, are we complicit in their non-attendance? I don’t think so. We did what we could to invite them, but they didn’t show up for their own reasons. Do you think that’s a decent analogy for God’s situation? I don’t think so. If you know that someone did something bad, and you bring something good out of it anyway, I think that’s a holy action, and it’s what I would expect a good God to do. Do you think that’s a reasonable analogy for God’s situation?

None of what you have said excuses an all-knowing creator. If I create a deadly machine and let it loose upon humanity…I would be complicit in any harm it caused. The same applies to any creator.

 

[dmar198]

None of what you have said excuses an all-knowing creator. If I create a deadly machine and let it loose upon humanity…I would be complicit in any harm it caused. The same applies to any creator.

Hang on, I think you may be changing the subject a bit. I’d be glad to talk about whether God created a deadly machine and set it loose on us after you say whether you think the Thanksgiving analogy I gave earlier is a good analogy to God’s situation. Do you think it’s a reasonable analogy for offering salvation and some people not accepting it?