Free will? I dont think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter phil3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My belief is that god know all the decisions I will make, all the things that might happen to me. There are an infinite number of decisions I can make and god know them all. When I make one he can put a check mark beside it. I have believe this way since I was a little boy and will think this way until I die.
 
Gorgias said:
if God originally chooses the “better” one and then changes His mind, it means that He “moved” from “better” to “worse.”
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Due to the free will of humans, the situation may change and now the better choice is different from what it was before. Also, the infallible Scriptures tells us:

Exodus 32:14
So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
 
phil3 said:
My belief is that god know all the decisions I will make, … When I make one he can put a check mark beside it.
I have believe this way since I was a little boy and will think this way until I die.
Click to expand...
Phil3, you may don’t know, this is as follows the teachings of the Catholic Church on the subject.
.
The Council of Sens (1140) condemned the idea that free will is sufficient in itself for any good. Donez., 373.

Council of Orange (529)
In canon 20, entitled that Without God Man Can Do No Good. . . Denz., 193; quoting St. Prosper.

In canon 22, says, “ No one has anything of his own except lying and sin. Denz., 194; quoting St. Prosper.

.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide dogma)

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9. 31. ST I-II:112:3. 32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being …

.
THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY

The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. (Hi is a Catholic apologist.)
Page 84. St. Thomas properly explains the chain of causality:

"It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God."
.
CCC 2022; The divine initiative (supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul) in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.

.
CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions.
.
St. Thomas teaches that God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3.
.
Nothing that is outside of God’s creating, sustaining, and governing will.
.
As God himself operates in our wills, we are freely cooperating with His graces, without even knowing it.

We FREELY will what God wills us to will, and we FREELY do what God wills and causes us to do.
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Due to the free will of humans, the situation may change and now the better choice is different from what it was before.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but God would have known about the change, so no “better choice” is available. 😉
AlNg said:
Also, the infallible Scriptures tells us:

Exodus 32:14
So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Click to expand...
The inerrant (not “infallible”) Scriptures are not all meant to be taken strictly literally. Often, you’ll find anthropomorphisms in there. (The error that literalistic fundamentalists (and often, non-believers!) make, with respect to Scripture, is that every word must be treated as if it were meant to be taken as literal language.)
AlNg said:
What does inerrant mean? how would it differ from infallible?
Click to expand...
Inerrant vs infallible…
 
Gorgias said:
The inerrant (not “infallible”)
Click to expand...
There is not too much difference according to the online dictionary.
The online dictionary gives:
inerrant: incapable of being wrong
infallible: Incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
 
AlNg said:
There is not too much difference according to the online dictionary.
Click to expand...
That’s what happens when you use a general-purpose dictionary to look up the jargon of a specialized field. You get bad results. 😉

Did you click on the link and see how they’re defined in the context of Catholic theology?
 
Gorgias said:
Did you click on the link and see how they’re defined in the context of Catholic theology?
Click to expand...
You are going to find a lot of people who will believe that a word means what the dictionary says it means and not what a poster on CAF says it means.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
You are going to find a lot of people who will believe that a word means what the dictionary says it means
Click to expand...
And when you use the dictionary’s definition in a way that doesn’t reflect the usage of the term, you’ll find a lot of people who see through that. 😉
AlNg said:
and not what a poster on CAF says it means.
Click to expand...
🤣 Ad hominem? Really?
 
Gorgias said:
And when you use the dictionary’s definition in a way that doesn’t reflect the usage of the term, you’ll find a lot of people who see through that
Click to expand...
I maintain that it is perfectly fine to use a word with the meaning that the dictionary gives to that particular word. And to further back up my opinion, I notice that according to an article posted on CAF that this word is commonly used that way by many others.
 
AlNg said:
I maintain that it is perfectly fine to use a word with the meaning that the dictionary gives to that particular word.
Click to expand...
When one is speaking about a specific subject, then words with multiple meanings should be understood as having the meaning related to that specific subject, especially if it differs from ordinary dictionary definitions. For example, the word “proof” has many different meanings. So what the specific meaning is depends on whether you are talking to a mathematician, a distiller, or an attorney about their particular fields.
 
AlNg said:
I maintain that it is perfectly fine to use a word with the meaning that the dictionary gives to that particular word.
Click to expand...
Right. And it doesn’t bother you that you’re using it incorrectly in conversation?
AlNg said:
And to further back up my opinion, I notice that according to an article posted on CAF that this word is commonly used that way by many others.
Click to expand...
Gee… maybe the raison d’etre for the article was to clear up that confusion, and help people understand and use the terms properly…? 🤔
whatistrue said:
For example, the word “proof” has many different meanings. So what the specific meaning is depends on whether you are talking to a mathematician, a distiller, or an attorney about their particular fields.
Click to expand...
Right – ridiculing a baker because “proofing” his dough is nonsensical in non-axiomatic systems will earn you nothing but a fistful of flour thrown in your direction… 🤣
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
And it doesn’t bother you that you’re using it incorrectly in conversation?
Click to expand...
Please prove that the online dictionary is incorrect in its definition of the word infallible and that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are wrong when they commonly say that the Bible is infallible which is in accord with the definition given in the online dictionary.
 
AlNg said:
Please prove that the online dictionary is incorrect in its definition of the word infallible
Click to expand...
Cite the definition, please.

Moreover, please note that I’m not saying “the dictionary is incorrect”; I’m saying that you are using the wrong definition in this context.
AlNg said:
that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are wrong when they commonly say that the Bible is infallible which is in accord with the definition given in the online dictionary.
Click to expand...
They don’t say it’s infallible, either. They say it’s inerrant, just as I’m saying. 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Cite the definition, please.
Click to expand...
It has already been cited:
AlNg said:
The online dictionary gives:
inerrant: incapable of being wrong
infallible: Incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
Click to expand...
Gorgias said:
They don’t say it’s infallible, either. They say it’s inerrant, just as I’m saying.
Click to expand...
You are so wrong again.
Gorgias said:
Did you click on the link and see how they’re defined in the context of Catholic theology?
Click to expand...
The link shows you are incorrect.
Here’s what we read in the link you posted:
"Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. "
The writer goes on to disagree with its use in this way. But that is just his opinion.
I don’t see any reason to believe that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are incorrect in using the word infallible as it is defined in the online dictionary.
Gorgias said:
I’m saying that you are using the wrong definition in this context.
Click to expand...
You have not proven that it is wrong to use infallible as I have used it and as Evangelicals and as Fundamentalists have used it in this context. What you have given is only an erroneous opinion and nothing else.
 
AlNg said:
It has already been cited:
Click to expand...
Nope. I’m looking for a citation, not just a cut-and-paste. Which dictionary? What URL?

Thanks!
AlNg said:
You are so wrong again.
Click to expand...
Show me, then.
AlNg said:
"Evangelicals and Fundamentalists commonly say the Bible is infallible. "
The writer goes on to disagree with its use in this way. But that is just his opinion.
Click to expand...
Right. When someone says something that you agree with, it’s “truth”. When someone says something that you don’t agree with, it’s just “opinion.” Got it.

You have many opinions. 😉
AlNg said:
You have not proven that it is wrong to use infallible as I have used it
Click to expand...
Cite your source and we can continue the discussion. If you do not, it’s just an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. That and a quarter can get you a cup of coffee… 🤣
 
AlNg said:
You have not proven that it is wrong to use infallible as I have used it and as Evangelicals and as Fundamentalists have used it
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that even if the Holy Spirit revealed all truth to some non-Catholics, they would still be like, “that’s not what I found on Wikipedia…”

It is frustrating to know even a small amount of the truth, beauty, and depth of Christianity, as found in the only Church Jesus created for us, and to realize how difficult it is for all to understand, or to be willing to remove their stubbornness for a moment, and truly listen to what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell them, and has been their whole life.

Non-Catholic: Surely you cannot be serious.

Jesus: I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top