Free will in heaven?

[Confessor01]

Snerticus,

Logically speaking, you have to fit in one of those two categories.

Libertarianism basically maintains that at a given moment, a person is truly capable of making more than one choice (he has an absolute ability to make more than one choice). Compatibilism basically maintains that at a given moment, a person is capable of making only one choice, although he has a counterfactual ability to make more than one (i.e., if his desires were different, then he would act differently).

Seeing as libertarianism and compatibilism are based on contrary statements, it follows that a person must fit into one category or the other. (Presumably you could deny that choice is possible in the first place, but I’m pretty sure you don’t.) Also, there are certainly nuances within the categories of libertarianism and compatibilism, but it is still true that one person must be in the two of the two larger categories if he believes in choice.

That being said, you affirmed that humans have an absolute ability to make more than one choice at a given moment, but you affirmed that God cannot possibly sin because He would never want to. In the latter affirmation, therefore, you are stating that God’s choices flow from His desires (His wants), thereby stating a compatibilist notion.

In order to be a consistent libertarian, one must say both that it is possible for God to sin and for people in heaven to sin. However, seeing as an argument could possibly be made for a difference between God’s freedom and ours (though I think it ultimately fails), I generally just bring up the argument regarding humans’ sinning in heaven to make my point.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

So do we all agree that once we get to heaven there is no more free will?

There will be free will in Heaven and in Hell.

The logic is this…

The Adam and Eve story is a hypothetical portraying how ungraced mankind would handle each and every moral decision in the absence of grace – really, really badly.

That isn’t because in the absence of grace we lack free will. Rather, when we are ungraced, what Adam and Eve do in the hypothetical is what each of us will always do with our free wills in the context of life which includes 6 trillion living cells in each human body screaming at the free will, “WHEN DO WE EAT???!!!”

Portraying that we are each of us “sin machines” who will always make the bad, selfish decision with our free will, in the absence of grace, is the reason why the Adam and Eve story exists.

On the other hand, in Heaven, the cry of existence, “WHEN DO WE EAT!!!” will not be there. When, after judgment, God asks us, “Do you accept eternal happiness with Me in Heaven?,” and we say, “YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS!!!” and every selfish whim of our imperfect, needful physiologies is satisfied, I suspect that our personalities will be yanked out of time in a special way, when we touch God in the Beatific Vision in a special way, so that that “YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS!!!” will become one great big “now” in our love relationship with God, forever.

…something like that.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

In Heaven there will be Truth. There is no room for un-Truth. If one desires free will and Lies there is a place for that and it is not Heaven.

 

[onenow1]

I’m afraid I do not see how this statement is really relevant.

Hi Conffessor.

A passing thought knowing Calvin was indeed a Catholic who disagreed with Luther.

It seems you are using Calvin as a stepping stone for your comments of course I could be wrong >

Anyway Jesus is the way the truth and the life, as he is one with the Father, so to, must we be in communion with Jesus in the Trinity.

We will indeed have free will in heaven, just as Jesus, human nature certainly does.

We know this because, Jesus, said to the Father your will be done not mine.

We will no longer be in enslavement to sin, and be free from concupiscence.

We will stil have our intellectual capacity so as Jesus said yes to the Faher we will say yes to Jesus.

Slavery to sin is the crux of the matter all throughout the bible.

Hope I made some sense here.

Peace, and God Bless onenow1opcorn:

 

[itinerant1]

There’s a lot of talk about how freedom to choose evil is slavery, etc., and that those who have experienced the beatific vision will never want to sin, etc., but these all seem to circle around the crucial question:

In heaven, is it possible for one to sin?

If so, then seeing as heaven is everlasting, it follows that since every possibility will be actuated, all will eventually be damned.

If not, then how can you say we are truly free or loving? If we don’t have the ability to do otherwise (at least as a possibility), then we are not behaving freely, according to the definition of free will.

How do Catholics (or any free-willists/non-Calvinists) hurdle the horns of this dilemma?

The mere freedom to choose evil is not slavery. But choosing evil leads to a slavery of the person. In what sense is it slavery? When we choose what is morally evil that action forms a habit. In may take a single act or several repeated acts for the habit (habitus) to be acquired. Evil habits are called vices, while good habits are called virtues. Vices can have such a strong influence or power over us making us significantly disposed to continue committing the sinful act. Our freedom has diminished, and we are as slaves. We are no longer able to do the good that we choose. Only grace can free us of this condition.

On the other hand, morally good acts develop a corresponding habit or virtue. For example, it may take repeated acts of almsgiving to develop the habit or virtue of charity. Virtue has a power over us by disposing us to morally correct behaviour. Are we then slaves to the good? In a manner of speaking only. We must take a look first at the nature of will.

This is a critical point: the will is oriented to the good in general. But we do not apprehend the good in general in this life. Under the dynamic of this orientation we choose particular goods in this life. Reason and judgement are what make free will possible. Animals lack reason, and so are move toward the objects of their natural appetites by their sensory estimative powers and instinct.

Man has the ability to choose between various courses of action. He makes a judgement about these course of actions. Now the critical point here is that he is capable of reflecting on his own judgement. No animal possesses the ability of self-reflection. Herein lies man’s capacity for free choice.

He can choose what is morally good or what is morally evil. Appetite follows knowledge. And since the will is oriented towards the good in general we can only choose a course of action by choosing a particular good. Being (as desirable) is the object of the will. Everything that exists insofar as it exists is good. Hence, even when choosing an immoral course of action we are not choosing evil in itself, we are desiring some good in the object. For instance, if one chooses to use harmful narcotics, the choice is morally wrong because of the harmful effects of the narcotics. But the drug user does not choose the evil in the situation, he is choosing the good of pleasure derived from the narcotic. In summary, when we sin, we are fixated on some good in the object, but since the various circumstances of the act involve evil and some disorder, it is morally wrong.

The ability to choose between various courses of action, some of which may be sinful, is only possibile as long as we perceive only particular goods to choose from. Once we are in direct knowledge or union with the good in general, which is God Himself, is the will confirmed in the object which has been its earthly longing and desire. Since this Beatific Vision is the fulfillment of our human nature as God created it and elevated it, the question of the possibility of turning away from this Happiness, our last end, once we have reached it, is moot. When we understand the nature of reason, knowledge, appetite or will, we begin to see the issue of whether we are free to sin in Heaven is a psuedo-problem, but nonetheless a question well worth exploring for what we can learn about ourselves and God.

All men desire happiness. However, many are mistaken as to in what happiness consists. Some choose pleasure, others wealth, others choose power or honour, and so on. While they error in their choice of in what happiness consists they are still making their choices under the will’s orientation to the good in general. Hence, they still desire God, but they are completely unaware of the fact. We find our completion and fulfillment, Happiness, in the Beatific Vision.

 

[Confessor01]

Peter Dawson,

It appears you are reverting to a Calvinistic philosophy of the will to explain how we can always avoid sin. For now, I’ll stick with one question to try to get my point across:

If it is permissible for God to give enough grace such that someone always chooses good, then why doesn’t God just give grace to everybody right now?

---

onenow1,

Pointing out that we can have free will because Jesus also has it does not solve the question. It just postpones the question: How can Jesus have free will in heaven? (Please note that if you answer, “Because He’s God,” then you cannot use Him as a reason why humans other than Christ are able to have free will in heaven.)

Also, pointing out that Jesus said, “your will be done not mine,” shows not that Jesus has free will, but that He made a choice. And once we establish that choices are possible, we cannot immediately infer free will lest we beg the question. There are different ways to view human freedom, namely free will (libertarianism) and compatibilism (the latter is implied in Calvinism).

---

itinerant1,

Near the end, you said, “Since this Beatific Vision is the fulfillment of our human nature as God created it and elevated it, the question of the possibility of turning away from this Happiness, our last end, once we have reached it, is moot. When we understand the nature of reason, knowledge, appetite or will, we begin to see the issue of whether we are free to sin in Heaven is a psuedo-problem, but nonetheless a question well worth exploring for what we can learn about ourselves and God.”

Tell me if my recap is correct: Since our wills are disposed towards the good, and because the Beatific Vision is, basically, the “highest good,” then our wills will be disposed fully to that. And if our wills are disposed fully to that, then it’s ludicrous to speak of the possibility to sin, for no one would want to in the presence of God.

Is that accurate? If so, I’ll respond in the next post.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter Dawson,

It appears you are reverting to a Calvinistic philosophy of the will to explain how we can always avoid sin. For now, I’ll stick with one question to try to get my point across:

If it is permissible for God to give enough grace such that someone always chooses good, then why doesn’t God just give grace to everybody right now?

Your “if” premise inaccurately describes reality, in a few different ways.

Grace must be “chosen.” Therefore, it can’t ever in-and-of itself be such that someone always chooses God. That either make it compulsive, which denies the realty of grace, or it leaves a question unanswered – which is your real problem.

The key to Heaven is not the grace. We have that now.

The key to Heaven is the change conditions. We WON’T have six trillion cells screaming, “WHEN DO WE EAT!!!” And I suspect that somehow we will exist more like God does – outside the frame of time – so there will be no chronological progression within which to change from a graced to an ungraced state. I don’t think that we can fully understand or explain this thought.

 

[grannymh]

We WON’T have six trillion cells screaming, “WHEN DO WE EAT???!!!” .

 

[itinerant1]

Peter Dawson,

It appears you are reverting to a Calvinistic philosophy of the will to explain how we can always avoid sin. For now, I’ll stick with one question to try to get my point across:

If it is permissible for God to give enough grace such that someone always chooses good, then why doesn’t God just give grace to everybody right now?

That is a good question, so I thought I would interpose my answer. God gives us the amount of grace sufficient for His purpose and plan. Life on earth is a test. We are tested as to whether we will love God first and foremost or love things more than God. It is a greater thing if we freely choose to love God. Christ showed us the way to the Father by giving us the two greatest commandments. Following these commandments is how we merit eternal life. But oh! The angst!

The angels too, had a test of their love for God. We are told that one third of the angels turned away. Out of sinful pride, they wanted to be God, instead. The fall of the angels is very difficult to comprehend because they made their choice in full knowledge of what they were doing and in full knowledge of the consequences. Also, their wills were not influenced by passions as are human wills. That is why their choice is irrevocable.

And once we establish that choices are possible, we cannot immediately infer free will lest we beg the question.

This does not beg the question because choice implies free will. We cannot say that we chose an action unless it was done freely. Without free will there is no choice, just acts determined by antecedant events. Choice and free will are largely synonymous.

itinerant1,

Near the end, you said, “Since this Beatific Vision is the fulfillment of our human nature as God created it and elevated it, the question of the possibility of turning away from this Happiness, our last end, once we have reached it, is moot. When we understand the nature of reason, knowledge, appetite or will, we begin to see the issue of whether we are free to sin in Heaven is a psuedo-problem, but nonetheless a question well worth exploring for what we can learn about ourselves and God.”

Tell me if my recap is correct: Since our wills are disposed towards the good, and because the Beatific Vision is, basically, the “highest good,” then our wills will be disposed fully to that. And if our wills are disposed fully to that, then it’s ludicrous to speak of the possibility to sin, for no one would want to in the presence of God.

Is that accurate? If so, I’ll respond in the next post.

This is basically correct. I would add one qualification. Not only would one not want to sin while in the presence of God, but one is incapable of sin. The inability to sin appears to contradict free will but when united to God in the Beatific Vision the will finds its highest freedom in this confirmation in the Good. I can only elaborate on this by a lengthy discussion on the nature of the will, how God moves the will without compromising its freedom, and how rational appetite (the will) follows knowledge. Unfortunately, my time for CAF is running short.

 

[Confessor01]

Peter Dawson,

If grace must be chosen, then is it possible in heaven to choose to reject it? If not, why is it possible to reject it now?

---

itinerant1,

Choice implies free will only when you can demonstrate a Calvinist philosophy of the will (compatibilism) is false. Freedom does not imply philosophical libertarianism (free will).

To say that the will is disposed towards the good so much that it cannot possibly turn away from it is to say that we choose actions because we want to do them. And this is a strictly compatibilist notion of the will.

If you want to explain how you can affirm the inability to sin can fit in a libertarian schema, then please do. Take your time.

 

[itinerant1]

Grace must be “chosen.” Therefore, it can’t ever in-and-of itself be such that someone always chooses God. That either make it compulsive, which denies the realty of grace, or it leaves a question unanswered – which is your real problem.

The key to Heaven is not the grace. We have that now.

I would like to complicate this discussion a bit more.
It can be risky to assert something as always the case as in, “it can’t ever in-and-of itself.” For example, it is theologically correct to say the Virgin Mary freely consented to be the Mother of God. Yet, it also maintained by Catholic theologians that the grace of God infallibly secured Mary’s consent. This clearly illustrates the complexity of the subject.

I believe it was Prosper of Aquitaine who explained how even free choice itself is a grace. St. Augustine deals with this difficult topic in his work “Grace and Free Will.”

Calvin, though, missed the mark on a number of points, especially with his doctrine of double predestination.

 

[itinerant1]

Peter Dawson,

If grace must be chosen, then is it possible in heaven to choose to reject it? If not, why is it possible to reject it now?

Response itself to grace is a grace. Why we can reject heaven now in this life I covered in any earlier post. It is because we make choices of particular goods under the dynamic of the will’s orientation to the good in general. When the intellect is in union with God, the will finds its fulfillment. Will cannot be understood apart from knowledge. Appetite always follows knowledge. The will is called the rational appetite because reason is what makes willing possible. In Heaven, we have direct knowledge of God’s essence. The will inclines necessarily upon the soul’s union with God in the Beatific Vision.

To state this in another way, man necessarily desires beatitude. But man in this life can choose between different forms of beatitude. For instance, he can even choose to find happiness in a life of pleasure. Hence, the hedonist errors in regard to in what happiness or beatitude consists. And this is simply his elective power, or free will following a judgment made by the intellect.

Every particular good that man chooses has some deficiency and fails to satisfy because no particular good exhausts our capacity of conceiving the good. No particular good completely satifies the will or entices the will irresitibly. Our freedom is derived from the ability of the intellect to conceive the universal. We do not perceive the universal good in this life. When the universal good or God is grasped by the intellect in the next life the will is irresitibly enticed. Will follows knowledge. To know God is to love Him irresitibly.

itinerant1,

Choice implies free will only when you can demonstrate a Calvinist philosophy of the will (compatibilism) is false. Freedom does not imply philosophical libertarianism (free will).

To say that the will is disposed towards the good so much that it cannot possibly turn away from it is to say that we choose actions because we want to do them. And this is a strictly compatibilist notion of the will.

If you want to explain how you can affirm the inability to sin can fit in a libertarian schema, then please do. Take your time.

The inability of the Blessed to sin is explained above in reference to the intellect’s direct vision of the universal good.

I’m not inclined toward libertarianism, indeterminism, anti-determinism, and so on. These doctrines all have some points I disagree with. I am not sure what you understand by “compatibilism”. There are certainly both true and false points in Calvin’s doctrine. In the interest of time I will provide a quote that explains the Thomist view which I follow:

“The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man’s will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man --who is by nature a free cause–to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

(This explanation particularly corrects the errant views of Luther and Calvin regarding predestination.)

 

[Confessor01]

itinerant1,

1. There are a few things you are saying which you deem as “complexities,” yet in my estimation I cannot see how they are not blatant contradictions. Please keep in mind that if one wishes to say, “It is true that P, and it is false that P,” then it would be absurd to praise that person for his complexity. Likewise, if certain dogmas cannot be distinguished from such blatant contradictions, then they ought be rejected. It is not pious to reject the laws of logic. Jehovah is a God of knowledge and not irrationality. I am not saying at the moment that certain Catholic dogmas are contradictions. But I nonetheless desire that you and any onlooking readers would realize that we ought not hold to any contradictory beliefs.

Response itself to grace is a grace.

Then why is not everyone saved? If you wish to respond that it is because some people reject grace, then why would they not be given the grace to respond adequately?

In other words, it is a contradiction to assert both that the response is itself fully gracious, and yet that grace can be resisted. You are saying on one hand that it is sufficient unto salvation, and on the other you are saying that only when conjoined with the proper human response it is sufficient. This is not “complex” or “paradoxical”; it is contradictory. Please explain how this might be absolved.

1. As one of your explanations in resolving the contradiction posed above, you said the following:

To state this in another way, man necessarily desires beatitude. But man in this life can choose between different forms of beatitude. For instance, he can even choose to find happiness in a life of pleasure. Hence, the hedonist errors in regard to in what happiness or beatitude consists. And this is simply his elective power, or free will following a judgment made by the intellect.

This answer can prompt two responses out of me, the first of which deals with the mechanics (and in my opinion, the impossibility) of free will; and the second deals with the sufficiency of divine grace. I’ll stick with the latter for now:

If man chooses between types of beatitude, then why would his proper choice (viz. of choosing Jesus as the proper form of beatitude) be deemed as solely from the grace of God? And if it is solely from the grace of God, then why wouldn’t everyone choose the right beatitude?

1. You obviously have a large knowledge of how the will, reason, the intellect, pursuing happiness, etc. are all related. And I enjoy reading those sections of your response. However, please be sure to stay on the topic. If the contradictions posed above cannot be resolved by your explanations, then your explanations are, unfortunately, in vain.
2. You later posted a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia that supposedly represents the Thomistic view:

“The Dominican or Thomist solution, as it is called, teaches in brief that God premoves each man in all his acts to the line of conduct which he subsequently adopts. It holds that this premotive decree inclines man’s will with absolute certainty to the side decreed, but that God adapts this premotion to the nature of the being thus premoved. It argues that as God possesses infinite power He can infallibly premove man --who is by nature a free cause–to choose a particular course freely, whilst He premoves the lower animals in harmony with their natures to adopt particular courses by necessity. Further, this premotive decree being inevitable though adapted to suit the free nature of man, provides a medium in which God foresees with certainty the future free choice of the human being. The premotive decree is thus prior in order of thought to the Divine.” (Catholic Encyclopedia)

At the moment, I’m having trouble understanding exactly how this differs from the Reformed view of man’s will. For instance, your quotation states, “[T]his premotive decree inclines man’s will with absolute certainty to the side decreed.” I ask you, does man choose how to have his will inclined? If so, then God is not “premotively decreeing” anything. If not, how can you believe in free will? Or, to put it another way, if God pushes every person with His “premotive decree” to act exactly as He desires, then why is not everyone saved?

The quote mentions often that man is “free” and has a “free nature,” but it does not explain how he has any control over his choices in the way that all non-Reformed theologies demand.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by onenow1
Methinks God lays down the rules ! Who is Calvin? Was he a catholic at one time ?

I’m afraid I do not see how this statement is really relevant.

CCC.1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. “God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts

As an example: Genesis. 4: 7, If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

Peace, and God Bless, onenow1 Dinner time