Free will in heaven?

[Confessor01]

I’m not sure what you are asking. Give me an example.

Snert

I’m basically giving the definition of free will. As an example, would you say that I am free to drink my Diet Mountain Dew if and only if I had the option of not drinking it – if and only if I had the ability not to drink it?

 

[Snerticus]

I’m basically giving the definition of free will. As an example, would you say that I am free to drink my Diet Mountain Dew if and only if I had the option of not drinking it – if and only if I had the ability not to drink it?

You mean like if you were anesthetised in the middle of a surgery? You wouldn’t be free to do anything but be unconcious, but you’d still have free will nonetheless. Just because your body has stopped working doesn’t mean your free will has. If your soul stopped working, that’s a different story…

You’re using “free” in two different contexts here. Free will is not the same as free. And “free” itself has many different connotations:

free 
***–adjective ***
1.enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: *a land of free people. *
2.pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty: *They were thankful to be living on free soil. *
3.existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government: *the free nations of the world. *
4.enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5.exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one’s will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
6.able to do something at will; at liberty: *free to choose. *
7.clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor: *The highway is now free of fallen rock. *
8.not occupied or in use: *I’ll try to phone her again if the line is free. *
9.exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): *free from worry; free of taxes. *
10.having immunity or being safe (usually fol. by from): *free from danger. *
11.provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: *free parking; a free sample. *
12.given without consideration of a return or reward: *a free offer of legal advice. *
13.unimpeded, as motion or movement; easy, firm, or swift.
14.not held fast; loose; unattached: *to get one’s arm free. *
15.not joined to or in contact with something else: *The free end of the cantilever sagged. *
16.acting without self-restraint or reserve: *to be too free with one’s tongue. *
17.ready or generous in giving; liberal; lavish: *to be free with one’s advice. *
18.given readily or in profusion; unstinted.
19.frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar.
20.unrestrained by decency; loose or licentious: *free behavior. *
21.not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: *The ship was given free passage. *
22.of, pertaining to, or characterized by free enterprise: *a free economy. *
23.that may be used by or is open to all: *a free market. *
24.engaged in by all present; general: *a free fight. *
25.not literal, as a translation, adaptation, or the like; loose.
26.uncombined chemically: *free oxygen. *
27.traveling without power; under no force except that of gravity or inertia: *free flight. *
28.Phonetics. (of a vowel) situated in an open syllable (opposed to checked ).
29.at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of): *to be free of a friend’s house. *
30.not subject to rules, set forms, etc.: *The young students had an hour of free play between classes. *
31.easily worked, as stone, land, etc.
32.Mathematics. (of a vector) having specified magnitude and direction but no specified initial point. Compare bound1 (def. 9).
33.Also, large. Nautical. (of a wind) nearly on the quarter, so that a sailing vessel may sail free.
34.not containing a specified substance (often used in combination): *a sugar-free soft drink. *
35.(of a linguistic form) occurring as an independent construction, without necessary combination with other forms, as most words. Compare bound1 (def. 11).
36.without cost, payment, or charge.
***–adverb ***37.in a free manner; freely.38.Nautical. away from the wind, so that a sailing vessel need not be close-hauled: *running free. *
***–verb (used with object) ***39.to make free; set at liberty; release from bondage, imprisonment, or restraint.40.to exempt or deliver (usually fol. by from).41.to relieve or rid (usually fol. by of): *to free oneself of responsibility. *42.to disengage; clear (usually fol. by from or of).

 

[Confessor01]

Snerticus, I’ll just try to get to the point.

Do you think the Calvinist conception of freedom is tenable? If not, what conception of freedom would you put in its place?

 

[Snerticus]

Snerticus, I’ll just try to get to the point.

Do you think the Calvinist conception of freedom is tenable? If not, what conception of freedom would you put in its place?

Ahhh, therein lies the problem. I’m not familiar with the Calvinist conception of freedom. The only thing I’d been exposed to that was “supposedly” Calvinist was when a Baptist sarcastically said to me “Wouldn’t that be great if we could sit around smoking pot all day because we knew we were saved like the Calvinists believe?” Honesly, I thought they were hypocritical for saying that and I didn’t have any idea if the Calvinists believed that or not, so I chose not to answer. I just laughed uneasily and walked away.

So no, I’m not familiar with Calvinist or any other specific Protestant point of view. As a matter of fact, I get many Protestant denominations confused with each other… IOW I don’t know Protestant history or the differences between denominations very well.

But anyway, if you’d care to describe the Calvinist conception of freedom and enlighten me on it, I’d be one step closer to understanding these things, and then perhaps answer your questions.

In any case, I have to go to sleep… I work nights and have to get up in about 8 hours so I won’t be able to respond until later tonight or tomorrow AM.

Snert

 

[Confessor01]

Ahhh, therein lies the problem. I’m not familiar with the Calvinist conception of freedom. The only thing I’d been exposed to that was “supposedly” Calvinist was when a Baptist sarcastically said to me “Wouldn’t that be great if we could sit around smoking pot all day because we knew we were saved like the Calvinists believe?” Honesly, I thought they were hypocritical for saying that and I didn’t have any idea if the Calvinists believed that or not, so I chose not to answer. I just laughed uneasily and walked away.

So no, I’m not familiar with Calvinist or any other specific Protestant point of view. As a matter of fact, I get many Protestant denominations confused with each other… IOW I don’t know Protestant history or the differences between denominations very well.

But anyway, if you’d care to describe the Calvinist conception of freedom and enlighten me on it, I’d be one step closer to understanding these things, and then perhaps answer your questions.

In any case, I have to go to sleep… I work nights and have to get up in about 8 hours so I won’t be able to respond until later tonight or tomorrow AM.

Snert

All right, the fog is clearing. I’m glad we can get pushing towards a better understanding.

I’ll try to be brief:

Calvinists believe that God predestines everything that occurs, including the fact that you’re reading this, every thought anyone has ever had, every single particle moving in the universe, etc. All has been decreed by God. (The usual objection at this point is, Then how can we be held responsible if our actions are foreordained? But that is a rabbit trail I would not like to go on at the moment. Suffice it to say for now that Romans 9:19 anticipates the exact objection.)

Seeing as everything is decreed by God, including all our actions, it follows that we don’t truly have the ability to do other than we actually do, absolutely speaking. The Calvinist operates with a compatibilist view of the will, which is defined essentially as

An action is free if and only if the agent performing it acts in accordance with his strongest desires.

Almost all non-Calvinist Christians operate with a libertarian view of the will, which is defined essentially as

An action is free if and only if the agent performing it could have done otherwise.

So, the difference between the two is that for the libertarian/non-Calvinist, free actions require the absolute ability to do otherwise, whereas for compatibilists/Calvinists, free actions require the counterfactual ability to do otherwise (e.g. I could have done otherwise if my desires were different). Libertarianism in this respect (i.e. as opposed to political libertarianism) is identical to the notion of free will that the vast majority of people believe.

Alright, when you get the chance, please tell me what I have said, if anything, is unclear.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, All
Opinion: Jesus in the garden of Gethesmne, said not my will but yours.

In the garden of Eden God gave a command to be obedient ! Evidently a condition of free will.

In Genesis 4, God tells Cain sin [Satan] is crouching at the door.

Satan will not exisit in heaven, no tempter no problem

We only have a very,very ,small glimpse if at all what heaven will be like.:yup:

Remember " Eye has not seen and Ear has not Heard, what the Father in heaven has prepared for those who love Him.

CC. # 1734 Responsibilty for our acts.

Peace, and God Bless onenow1opcorn:

 

[Confessor01]

onenow1,

1. Commands of obedience do not imply free will. They do imply moral responsibility and therefore some conception of freedom, but not necessarily libertarian freedom (i.e. free will). Admittedly, the libertarian conception of freedom is the only conception consistent with Roman Catholicism, or with any non-Calvinistic Christianity.
2. Even if there’s no tempter in heaven and we get to see God “face to face,” according to the idea of free will, we must have the possibility of doing evil. And in that case, seeing as heaven is infinite, it is a guarantee that the possibility is actuated and we will be in heaven.
3. is quite a contradiction for those holding to free will and heaven, I believe.

 

[onenow1]

onenow1,

1. Commands of obedience do not imply free will. They do imply moral responsibility and therefore some conception of freedom, but not necessarily libertarian freedom (i.e. free will). Admittedly, the libertarian conception of freedom is the only conception consistent with Roman Catholicism, or with any non-Calvinistic Christianity.
2. Even if there’s no tempter in heaven and we get to see God “face to face,” according to the idea of free will, we must have the possibility of doing evil. And in that case, seeing as heaven is infinite, it is a guarantee that the possibility is actuated and we will be in heaven.
3. is quite a contradiction for those holding to free will and heaven, I believe.

Quote= onenow1. Methinks God lays down the rules ! Who is Calvin? Was he a catholic at one time ?

Peace.onenow1

 

[Confessor01]

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

Peace.onenow1

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

 

[Snerticus]

All right, the fog is clearing. I’m glad we can get pushing towards a better understanding.

I’ll try to be brief:

Calvinists believe that God predestines everything that occurs, including the fact that you’re reading this, every thought anyone has ever had, every single particle moving in the universe, etc. All has been decreed by God. (The usual objection at this point is, Then how can we be held responsible if our actions are foreordained? But that is a rabbit trail I would not like to go on at the moment. Suffice it to say for now that Romans 9:19 anticipates the exact objection.)

Seeing as everything is decreed by God, including all our actions, it follows that we don’t truly have the ability to do other than we actually do, absolutely speaking. The Calvinist operates with a compatibilist view of the will, which is defined essentially as
An action is free if and only if the agent performing it acts in accordance with his strongest desires.
Almost all non-Calvinist Christians operate with a libertarian view of the will, which is defined essentially as
An action is free if and only if the agent performing it could have done otherwise.
So, the difference between the two is that for the libertarian/non-Calvinist, free actions require the absolute ability to do otherwise, whereas for compatibilists/Calvinists, free actions require the counterfactual ability to do otherwise (e.g. I could have done otherwise if my desires were different). Libertarianism in this respect (i.e. as opposed to political libertarianism) is identical to the notion of free will that the vast majority of people believe.

Alright, when you get the chance, please tell me what I have said, if anything, is unclear.

I think it’s clear enough, but I guess throughout our conversation I may show that perhaps I don’t understand fully.

So, I think I am in what you call the libertarian view of the will. There is a caveat here: I am by no means a scholar or theologian or any advanced type of apologist. I am what I consider to be the average Catholic who attains to hold to the best of their faith as possible. Given that, I may make mistakes and this conversation is by no means one of my strongest points. So I can only say what I know or extrapolate from what I know. Mistakes are bound to happen.

That said, so you believe that as long as you go with your strongest desires, that’s free will? If so, I assume it’s because God has preordained you to do certain things and that your soul would naturally follow what has been preordained, thus the “strong desires” for God’s will? Is this correct? I’m just trying to understand, so if I’m wrong, please clarify…

Thanks,
Snert

 

[Confessor01]

I think it’s clear enough, but I guess throughout our conversation I may show that perhaps I don’t understand fully.

No problem.

…] That said, so you believe that as long as you go with your strongest desires, that’s free will? If so, I assume it’s because God has preordained you to do certain things and that your soul would naturally follow what has been preordained, thus the “strong desires” for God’s will? Is this correct? I’m just trying to understand, so if I’m wrong, please clarify…

Yes, I would say that we always act according to our strongest inclinations. Insofar as we act in accordance with our wills, we are acting freely. We do not have to “choose” our will, or anything – we just have to act in accordance with how we want to act.

This is perfectly compatible with instances of our “doing what we don’t want to,” by the way. For instance, if a child dislikes vegetables but knows that if he doesn’t eat them his mother will punish him, he may eat the vegetables because he dislikes the vegetables less than his mother’s scorn – and therefore he is still acting in accordance with his strongest desire, how he wants to act.

Otherwise, if people were not ultimately “swayed” by their strongest desire (as with libertarianism), then their actions would be without specific motives, entirely arbitrary. And if people’s actions were without motives or intents, then morality would be entirely destroyed.

(I realize the last paragraph is brief, but in my opinion it is crucial. Please tell me if anything I said was unclear.)

 

[Snerticus]

Okay, I think I understand.

How does temptation fit in with your view of free will?

Also I have another unrelated question. The Church (I’m referring to Catholic whenever I say this) teaches that only man has free will, not animals. What is your view on animals having free will? It would seem to me that since animals always do what their strongest desires tell them that in your view animals have free will (speculation on my part). In my understanding of the Church’s view on free will, animals always do God’s will; whether their actions seem good or bad to us, it’s always God’s Will. To me, the animal’s instinct is God’s Will and determines what it does or does not do. Humans, by contrast, have “gut feelings” or “hunches” that may or may not be God’s Will, and we act on them accordingly. Since God created everything good, animals, plants and even inanimate objects do God’s Will, whereas man is set apart from all of God’s earthly creation and is the only creature capable of going against God’s Will.

Thoughts?

I have to go to work again soon, so if I don’t post anymore tonight, I’ll get back tomorrow…

Snert

 

[Confessor01]

Temptation would occur whenever something appeals to our sinful nature. Ultimately, if our godlier desires “outweigh” our sinful desires, we will overcome the tribulation. It’s kind of awkward to state, because it’s not merely some passive or spectatorial event, but yet it’s not as if we have some insuperable power to overcome everything on our own power.

Regarding animals, I was just reading an essay on Jonathan Edwards last night that spoke of animals and freedom. I just looked and couldn’t find the exact quote, but basically the point was that both man and animal act according to compatibilist freedom, but men have a more complex situation as image-bearers of God. They have an obligation to obey Him and to act off of the innate knowledge they have of Him. Since sin pervades man’s being, moreover, the structure of His desires are much more intricate than animals.

Otherwise, I’m glad you mentioned God’s will. In Reformed theology, there is a distinction to be made in speaking of the “will” of God – it can be spoken of either preceptively or decretively. The preceptive aspects of God’s will are basically His commandments. The decretive aspects are what He ordains to occur, i.e. what actually occurs, or divine Providence. (See Romans 9:19 for a Biblical use of “will” in this sense.)

With that in mind, I would agree that all animal actions are in accord with God’s decretive will (just as every particle in the universe moves in accord with His decretive will). Seeing as animals have no sense of duty or obligation to the law of God, I would say they cannot act in accord with the will of God preceptively speaking – but they also can’t sin, either. Consequently, I would agree with you when you say that man “is the only creature capable of going against God’s Will,” so long as you understand that I’m referring to God’s will in the preceptive sense.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From another most or less unrelated thread we start with the usual blurb about how free will is such a wonderful gift from God:

I then pointed out that the gift goes away when we die:

To which was replied:

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

Free will in what sense ?​

The Blessed are not free to reject God - not because they lack free will of one sort, but because they lack FW of another sort. They are confirmed in grace, & are free to belong to God entirely. This means they are free from the sort of FW that is not freedom at all, but is slavery to sin. To choose evil, is not freedom - its an abuse of freedom. The purpose of free will is communion with God - not the doing of what takes our own unbridled & undirected wills, but the freedom to live as we are meant to love by the fact of our being designed as human creatures. It is we who are not free - not the Blessed Who live in God.

 

[Confessor01]

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?

 

[Tomster]

I understood the first sentence. You think there will be free will in heaven.

The second paragraph means?

We Catholics are, as a matter of fact, great believers in evolution, but we do not trouble ourselves so much about the evolution of the past, for, whatever it has been, it has only historical interest; we cannot change it now. What has been, has been. We believe in the only evolution that really matters, the evolution which we are actually undergoing, and in which our own freewill plays a part. Because on this earth we are evolving beings, evolving according to God’s supernatural plan towards a life with union with him, our mortal life is essentially imperfect. Because we are imperfect, our life here is one of longing, seeking, hoping for the future. All this will one day end. We will not always be dissatisfied with what we have and are. Our eternal existence will not be one of endless craving, and not yet possessing, a waiting for something beyond; the fullness of our being will come at last, and our life will be one of tranquil possession. That sacred restlessness which necessarily marks even the holiest life on earth, precisely because it has not reached the term and purpose of its existence, will pass away. We cannot picture to ourselves a life without some unfulfilled desires, yet reason tells us that, in the consummation of all things, unfulfilled desires are an impossibility for those who have received their reward exceeding great, in the possession of God. Their whole being is saturated . The question: “Do you lack anything? Is there still anything you need?” would, if put to the lowliest of the saints, provoke a smile and the answer, " How could I, since I have God!"

 

[Tomster]

I understood the first sentence. You think there will be free will in heaven.

The second paragraph means?

A further thought which will aid us is that the love between God and ourselves will be mutual. God is not merely a picture to be looked at, a scene to be contemplated; God is personal, and he returns the gaze we cast upon him. God is a living God, not a mere effulgence of impersonal glory, however great. Our soul will be joined to God in mutual affection; he will ever whisper in our ears: “I HAVE CHOSEN YOU,” and we will answer, however humbly, " and I have chosen you." Our union in heaven is the outcome of our free deliberate acts on earth, continued in eternity. These transports, of course, will be mental, spiritual, without any physical emotion, and without that exhaustion which on earth follows the outpouring of mere natural human affections; but they will on that account be only the more intense. When after the Resurrection we will possess our bodies again, even our glorified flesh will no doubt share in the exaltation of our spirit, and experience a sweetness, indescribable to us now but corresponding to our state of soul, and unaccompanied by that fatigue which is caused by continued emotion here.

 

[Snerticus]

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?

I think a better question is not “is possible to sin in Heaven?”, but “is it possible for God to sin?”. Then, according to the answer given, we would be better prepared to answer the sin in Heaven question.

Personally, I think that God can do anything He wants, and therefore although He *could *sin if He so chose to, will never sin because He doesn’t want to. It goes against His entire being. So therefore the same will be with us in Heaven.

I liken it to us: as perfectly healthy humans we certainly can dimember our own bodies by cutting off our legs and arms and it would still be quite possible to live, but it goes totally against our very being, not to mention a few other most unpleasant side effects. Asking if God could sin or if we could sin in Heaven is like asking if we could cut off our limbs. Under normal everyday circumstances, why would a perfectly healthy adult, sound in both mind and body, want to dismember themselves? It’s absolutely unthinkable! Same with sin in Heaven.

At least that’s my take on it. Does the catechism say anything about it? I’ve tried searcing it for any reference to free will in Heaven or evil and Heaven but could find nothing. Any other reference in church documents?

Maybe someone could call up CAL sometime and ask this question. Or perhaps look it up or ask in the Ask the Apologist section to see what they say?

Snert

 

[Confessor01]

Snerticus,

Saying that God doesn’t sin because He never wants to, and therefore we cannot sin because we wouldn’t want to, does not avoid the dilemma. In that case, you’re trying to avoid it by switching from a libertarian philosophy of the will to a compatibilist philosophy (i.e., towards a Calvinist view of the will).

 

[Snerticus]

Snerticus,

Saying that God doesn’t sin because He never wants to, and therefore we cannot sin because we wouldn’t want to, does not avoid the dilemma. In that case, you’re trying to avoid it by switching from a libertarian philosophy of the will to a compatibilist philosophy (i.e., towards a Calvinist view of the will).

I don’t see how.

That’s kind of like someone telling me I’m conservative rather than liberal. Well, perhaps to them I am, but I don’t consider myself either, although I may sway more to the conservative side. In my own view I’m neither and don’t like to be put in those categories at all. This is why I changed from the Democratic party to the Independent party, because I dislike both the Democratic label and the Republican label, even though I might behave like a Republican to many. I don’t want to be affiliated with either. I want to have the views I have and don’t want a label. Independent seemed to be the best party because unfortunately I have to choose a party to vote.

Besides, I’m not the one putting myself into those free will categories. I agreed with one of your views but that doesn’t mean I myself believe there are only two categories or any categories at all for that matter when it comes to free will. There may be umpteen more views or categories that could be held on the matter. I’d prefer not to put free will into categories myself, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t. I respect the fact that you have your own ideas about free will, but I myself don’t have to hold to them just as you don’t have to hold to mine.

I’m sorry, though, if I don’t fit into the categories you proposed.

Snert