Free Will in Heaven

[Tarsier]

I’ve been struggling with some philosophical questions lately, and one of them is related to the idea of free will as it might exist in Heaven (assuming it does).

I’ve never understood that, by reaching Heaven, one loses free will, and reading various Catholic sources, it seems I’m correct in this as long as free will is properly understood. Rather than the ability to freely choose good or bad, free will is the ability to make fundamental choices.

Before baptism, man is slave to sin, but being freed from that he can truly make a fundamental choice toward the greatest good. Sometimes, while still alive, we have choices before us that each contain degrees of good (some of them tied to sinful actions) and we might make a choice of a lesser good (since we see indistinctly, as in a mirror - 1 Cor 13-12).

But in Heaven, we will be in the beatific vision, directly exposed to the greatest and most perfect good and able to discern it clearly, so our will still acts freely in making a fundamental choice, but is unable to resist a constant and eternal choice of God and his love, as it will be so obviously a fulfillment of our longing.

So, this is my understanding in a nutshell, presented for thoughts and feedback if anyone sees where I am in error or where I could have been more precise or nuanced.

Thank you.

 

[po18guy]

It does not exist in heaven. It did, with the creation of the angels, but their irrevocable decision to serve God, or to oppose Him, was a one-time decision. A will which opposes God, which is not fully conformed to His will is, by definition, impure. Thus, according to John in the Apocalypse, it cannot enter the Kingdom.

 

[Tarsier]

It does not exist in heaven. It did, with the creation of the angels, but their irrevocable decision to serve God, or to oppose Him, was a one-time decision. A will which opposes God, which is not fully conformed to His will is, by definition, impure. Thus, according to John in the Apocalypse, it cannot enter the Kingdom.

Thanks. Regarding the angels, some within the early Church (e.g. Ignatius and Clement) speculated that the angels did not possess the full beatitude of heaven at the time of their choice.

As to the rest of your answer, I appreciate your thoughts, though I’m not sure that it contradicts my articulation. Note that I specifically defined free will not as “opposing God”, but as the ability to make a fundamental choice [edit: I prefer “a fundamental choice toward good”]. And, as God presents himself to us as perfectly and fully as he does in the beatific vision, our souls are efficaciously drawn to it and freely choose him through all eternity.

So, in this explanation, one would be acting freely, but not be impure and, thus, excluded from Heaven.

It would be similar to the Thomist teaching of efficacious grace acting in harmony with free will in the souls of the elect, right?

 

[Ad_Orientem]

It depends how you define “free will”.

St. Mary the Mother of God was not only sinless but incapable of sin during her earthly life, because her will was confirmed in grace. Does that mean she did not have “free will”? I think she did have it, because we celebrate her fiat to be the Mother of God - “Be it done to me…” If this were a forced action, it would not be free nor virtuous. But it was fully her choice, and therefore an act of virtue. Still, she would not have chosen otherwise because of the degree of grace she had. I think the same applies to the saints in heaven.

 

[Tarsier]

It depends how you define “free will”.

St. Mary the Mother of God was not only sinless but incapable of sin during her earthly life, because her will was confirmed in grace. Does that mean she did not have “free will”? I think not, because we celebrate her fiat to be the Mother of God - “Be it done to me…” If this were a forced action, it would not be free. But it was fully her choice. Still, she would not have chosen otherwise because of the degree of grace she had. I think the same applies to the saints in heaven, and as you point out, because of the Beatific Vision.

Exactly. Thanks for articulating it better than I. I have some follow-up thoughts - leading to my struggle, but might let this peculate for a bit to see if there are other thoughts.

 

[po18guy]

So, in this explanation, one would be acting freely, but not be impure and, thus, excluded from Heaven. It would be similar to the Thomist teaching of efficacious grace acting in harmony with free will in the souls of the elect, right?

But, freedom reaches it pinnacle, its perfection in the complete and unreserved conformance of our wills to God’s. The only possible use for free will in heaven would be to depart from God, to oppose God, to serve the self, to be less than perfect - to err. First, God would not permit that in his Kingdom, or the gates would never have been closed to man. Our wills are frozen at the moment of our bodily death. So, free will in heaven is a contradiction in terms. God does not possess free will - only Divine will. He is immutable, unlike the Islamic perception of God, in which God’s will can and does change.

 

[seagal]

But, freedom reaches it pinnacle, its perfection in the complete and unreserved conformance of our wills to God’s.** The only possible use for free will in heaven would be to depart from God, to oppose God, to serve the self, to be less than perfect - to err.** First, God would not permit that in his Kingdom, or the gates would never have been closed to man. Our wills are frozen at the moment of our bodily death. So, free will in heaven is a contradiction in terms. God does not possess free will - only Divine will. He is immutable, unlike the Islamic perception of God, in which God’s will can and does change.

No, this statement is in error. Free will was not created so we could choose wrongly. It was created so we could choose, period. In heaven we still have the ability to choose, but, as with Mary, we would always want to choose the good. That’s different from having our wills removed.

Imagine being with your beloved, whom you love above all else. You want nothing more to please her, everything you do is for her (I’m assuming “her” because of your username). You could freely choose to lie, cheat, abuse her, but you don’t. In fact you love her so much that just the thought of her being hurt in any way causes you distress. Imagine how much more you would love God in heaven.

 

[Tarsier]

But, freedom reaches it pinnacle, its perfection in the complete and unreserved conformance of our wills to God’s. The only possible use for free will in heaven would be to depart from God, to oppose God, to serve the self, to be less than perfect - to err. First, God would not permit that in his Kingdom, or the gates would never have been closed to man. Our wills are frozen at the moment of our bodily death. So, free will in heaven is a contradiction in terms. God does not possess free will - only Divine will. He is immutable, unlike the Islamic perception of God, in which God’s will can and does change.

I believe seagal is correct here that this is not accurate. It is a misunderstanding of free will. In a secular sense, maybe (i.e. “I am free to do whatever I want.”) However, the classic definition of free will is that we are “freed” from the bondage of sin (Romans 6:18, John 8:34) and our will is free to fundamentally choose good. We fail to do this perfectly during our temporal lives, even after becoming members of the Church, because (as I cited earlier) we see indistinctly, but in Heaven we will see clearly and be exposed to the beatific vision.

(Just a question - if God’s will was not free, by what was it bound?)

I don’t mean to be argumentative po18guy, but if your understanding is correct, it denies one of the classic articulations of predestination, that of St. Thomas, which shows a similar cooperation between God’s sovereign will and free will among the elect. The earlier example of Mary’s sinless, but free, cooperation is also a powerful anecdotal support.

I don’t really want to continue arguing over a matter of semantics (as we seem to be approaching “free will” with different definitions), as I have a bigger point to move to, but if I’m wrong in this understanding, I would appreciate some citations to help me. Are there Scripture verses, Catechism references, etc. that demonstrate that our will is “frozen” at death, that God’s will is not free (while I agree that, yes, it is divine) or that the Scriptural definition of free will is such a balanced ability to choose evil over good that we would opt for this, even in Heaven?

Several Catechism references are important here, but his one seems most fitting:

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

Note the language of the Church is not that free will goes away or that our will is frozen, but that it is perfected when directed toward God. “Directed toward” implies the free will is an active part of our experience of the beatitude. We freely love God as he freely loves us.

 

[Wesrock]

But in Heaven, we will be in the beatific vision, directly exposed to the greatest and most perfect good and able to discern it clearly, so our will still acts freely in making a fundamental choice**, but is unable to resist a constant and eternal choice of God and his love, as it will be so obviously a fulfillment of our longing**

The will in Heaven freely moves towards God, but more than that, finds its ultimate end and completion in God. And, once it has the beatific vision, once it has that knowledge, it will always freely choose that highest, perfect, completing good over anything less because the will was specifically designed to seek the Ultimate Good and Ultimate Truth as it’s end. It’s what we were made for. It’s one of those things that, once you have it, you will always freely choose it, because it is that prefect and infinite. It is not finite. It will never grow stale. You will not eventually become bored with it or come to feel there’s still more out there. That only happens with finite goods, with things that are not God.

I find the term “unresistable” to have a negative connotation, as if we are being forced against our will. As if we’re being fooled.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t really want to continue arguing over a matter of semantics (as we seem to be approaching “free will” with different definitions), as I have a bigger point to move to, but if I’m wrong in this understanding, I would appreciate some citations to help me. Are there Scripture verses, Catechism references, etc. that demonstrate that our will is “frozen” at death, that God’s will is not free (while I agree that, yes, it is divine) or that the Scriptural definition of free will is such a balanced ability to choose evil over good that we would opt for this, even in Heaven?

Saint Thomas argued that the direction of our will was “locked” at death. That is, the animal appetites that pulled us one way or another disappear, and all that’s left is for the will to be set on a choice of direction. All the interference in our will that our appetites cause, pulling us in multiple directions, disappear. There is just it and the Intellect. If the will chose something other than God, those lesser goods of life, it is in that direction forever. Not just as one choice, but a perpetual willing of that other end. It’s part of Saint Thomas’ understanding for the justification for eternal punishment. It’s not just for the finite choices of life, but a perpetual willing of that evil by the soul. Likewise, if we chose God, our will will make its free choice towards that highest good in perpetuity. But it is a perfectly satisfying good.

 

[Tarsier]

Unable to resist seems like the wrong word choice, as if anyone would want to resist. We are designed to pursue THE GOOD. There is, in a sense, a hole to be filled, that can only be filled by the perfect good. This doesn’t mean we always make ethical choices. But in every choice I make, I am pursuing a good. That good might very well be a physical or emotional pleasure, and it might be very disordered if I put that pleasure above the lives of others. The pleasure is good in itself, what would mak my choice evil is if I pursue a lower good to the detriment of a higher good.

Anyway, I’m getting off track. We may be disordered in life, but all our choices are designed to fill that hole within us. To seek to fill it. Only God can fill it perfectly. Once we have that perfect good, once we are complete, that push in us to fill that absence is satisfied.

Phrasing this as something to resist (or mind control) is wrong. It’s everything we need and want. It’s not something we think we need and want, like so many things in this world, where we think we are being fulfilled, but something true. The will makes the choice towards this good because it is clearly and obviously the highest good.

I’m rambling. Let me do this right: The will in Heaven freely moves towards God, but more than that, finds its ultimate end and completion in God. And, once it has the beatific vision, once it has that knowledge, it will always freely choose that highest, perfect, completing good over anything less because the will was specifically designed to seek the Ultimate Good and Ultimate Truth as it’s end. It’s what we were made for. It’s one of those things that, once you have it, you will always freely choose it, because it is that prefect and infinite. It is not finite. It will never grow stale. You will not eventually become bored with it or come to feel there’s still more out there. That only happens with finite goods, with things that are not God.

I think that is a fair clarification. I meant “unable to resist” in that God’s presence is so attractive to our souls (i.e. "My wife, my love, I am unable to resist your beauty.), but I like your phrasing better. More precise (and probably correct).

 

[Tarsier]

Saint Thomas argued that the direction of our will was “locked” at death. That is, the animal appetites that pulled us one way or another disappear, and all that’s left is for the will to be set on a choice of direction. All the interference in our will that our appetites cause, pulling us in multiple directions, disappear. There’s nothing to pull the will in various directions. There is just it and the Intellect. If the will chose something other than God, those lesser goods of life’s it is in that direction forever. Not just as one choice, but a perpetual willing of that other end. It’s part of Saint Thomas’ understanding for the justification for eternal punishment. It’s not just for the finite choices of life, but a perpetual willing of that evil by the soul. Likewise, if we chose God, our will will make its free choice towards that highest good in perpetuity. But it is a perfectly satisfying good.

That’s interesting and helpful, though I think your nuances make this more palpable than the earlier explanation that our wills are frozen. The frozen description, presented as it was without qualifiers, implied that we were “locked in” somehow and not freely loving God.

As you present it, it is not so much that we are locked against making bad choices, but rather the “interference” of those temptations is not present in Heaven and our will perpetually chooses the good that is God. That said, the free will is still present and (as stated before) freely choosing God without being bound to the sin from which those interferences come.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe seagal is correct here that this is not accurate. It is a misunderstanding of free will. In a secular sense, maybe (i.e. “I am free to do whatever I want.”) However, the classic definition of free will is that we are “freed” from the bondage of sin (Romans 6:18, John 8:34) and our will is free to fundamentally choose good. We fail to do this perfectly during our temporal lives, even after becoming members of the Church, because (as I cited earlier) we see indistinctly, but in Heaven we will see clearly and be exposed to the beatific vision.

(Just a question - if God’s will was not free, by what was it bound?)

I don’t mean to be argumentative po18guy, but if your understanding is correct, it denies one of the classic articulations of predestination, that of St. Thomas, which shows a similar cooperation between God’s sovereign will and free will among the elect. The earlier example of Mary’s sinless, but free, cooperation is also a powerful anecdotal support.

I don’t really want to continue arguing over a matter of semantics (as we seem to be approaching “free will” with different definitions), as I have a bigger point to move to, but if I’m wrong in this understanding, I would appreciate some citations to help me. Are there Scripture verses, Catechism references, etc. that demonstrate that our will is “frozen” at death, that God’s will is not free (while I agree that, yes, it is divine) or that the Scriptural definition of free will is such a balanced ability to choose evil over good that we would opt for this, even in Heaven?

Several Catechism references are important here, but his one seems most fitting:

Note the language of the Church is not that free will goes away or that our will is frozen, but that it is perfected when directed toward God. “Directed toward” implies the free will is an active part of our experience of the beatitude. We freely love God as he freely loves us.

“active” is the key word. Love isn’t slavery but liberation from ourselves. Without love we are in hell trapped within ourselves. In heaven we have infinite freedom not solely to conform to moral laws but to contribute to the glorification of God by creating original works of richness, beauty, humour and originality in every type of activity such as philosophy, theology, mathematics, science, art, music, drama, poetry, fiction and, of course, intercession for those who are still on earth or in purgatory. Life doesn’t come to an end in heaven but is perfected in every respect…

 

[tonyrey]

No, this statement is in error. Free will was not created so we could choose wrongly. It was created so we could choose, period. In heaven we still have the ability to choose, but, as with Mary, we would always want to choose the good. That’s different from having our wills removed.

Imagine being with your beloved, whom you love above all else. You want nothing more to please her, everything you do is for her (I’m assuming “her” because of your username). You could freely choose to lie, cheat, abuse her, but you don’t. In fact you love her so much that just the thought of her being hurt in any way causes you distress. Imagine how much more you would love God in heaven.

An infinite source of inspiration to be creators of enthusiasm and contentment in stark contrast to the view that heaven must be a dull place.

 

[tonyrey]

But, freedom reaches it pinnacle, its perfection in the complete and unreserved conformance of our wills to God’s. The only possible use for free will in heaven would be to depart from God, to oppose God, to serve the self, to be less than perfect - to err. First, God would not permit that in his Kingdom, or the gates would never have been closed to man. Our wills are frozen at the moment of our bodily death. So, free will in heaven is a contradiction in terms. God does not possess free will - only Divine will. He is immutable, unlike the Islamic perception of God, in which God’s will can and does change.

Our wills are only frozen with regard to evil but in every other respect we enjoy the glorious freedom of the children of God.

 

[tonyrey]

It depends how you define “free will”.

St. Mary the Mother of God was not only sinless but incapable of sin during her earthly life, because her will was confirmed in grace. Does that mean she did not have “free will”? I think she did have it, because we celebrate her fiat to be the Mother of God - “Be it done to me…” If this were a forced action, it would not be free nor virtuous. But it was fully her choice, and therefore an act of virtue. Still, she would not have chosen otherwise because of the degree of grace she had. I think the same applies to the saints in heaven.

There must certainly have been an element of choice; otherwise she wouldn’t have been responsible. God knows everything** regardless of time or place and**, in human terms, “rewarded” her for her decision.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve been struggling with some philosophical questions lately, and one of them is related to the idea of free will as it might exist in Heaven (assuming it does).

I’ve never understood that, by reaching Heaven, one loses free will, and reading various Catholic sources, it seems I’m correct in this as long as free will is properly understood. Rather than the ability to freely choose good or bad, free will is the ability to make fundamental choices.

Before baptism, man is slave to sin, but being freed from that he can truly make a fundamental choice toward the greatest good. Sometimes, while still alive, we have choices before us that each contain degrees of good (some of them tied to sinful actions) and we might make a choice of a lesser good (since we see indistinctly, as in a mirror - 1 Cor 13-12).

But in Heaven, we will be in the beatific vision, directly exposed to the greatest and most perfect good and able to discern it clearly, so our will still acts freely in making a fundamental choice, but is unable to resist a constant and eternal choice of God and his love, as it will be so obviously a fulfillment of our longing.

So, this is my understanding in a nutshell, presented for thoughts and feedback if anyone sees where I am in error or where I could have been more precise or nuanced.

Thank you.

I think a more nuanced explanation is that free will is the ability to make all choices except those between what is good and what is evil (which is probably what you mean by a fundamental choice.)

 

[Wesrock]

I’d be very careful with the word “rewarded.” He prepared her for her task, which was a supreme grace, and He would know His preparation would pay off.

“Reward” might not be entirely inappropriate, so long as we don’t go so far as to say she merited the Immaculate Conception.

I think, anyway.

 

[Tarsier]

I think a more nuanced explanation is that free will is the ability to make all choices except those between what is good and what is evil (which is probably what you mean by a fundamental choice.)

Yes, that’s what I meant. I think I might have clarified in an earlier edit that it is a “fundamental choice” toward good. But either way, I appreciate you contributing that qualifier.

 

[Tarsier]

So I suppose I started this conversation in a backward sort of way. Sometimes I bring extremes of situations into a conversation earlier to isolate a principle in order to ask how that principle interacts with less extreme situations. In this case, Heaven is the extreme in our relationship with God and exposure to his grace/love. I don’t think there is disagreement there.

Regarding free will, even though another poster comes at the word with a slightly different definition, it seems everyone in the thread agrees that in Heaven we freely cooperate with God, and we do so in a way that is superior to our cooperation during our temporal lives, even after receiving sanctifying grace. Everyone also agrees that we will not choose evil or sin in Heaven.

This is applicable to the discussion of predestination. I’ll say at the start that my struggles recently aren’t per se about predestination (indirectly, probably), as I understand that once we accept certain definite (i.e. God is a sovereign agent, man has free will, and somehow these two interact in the salvation journey of the elect).

I think I’m correct that there are several schools of thought to which one can subscribe, including the Thomistic, Augustinian, Molinist. A Thomist puts more emphasis on God’s sovereignty, that we might not fully understand God’s decision as to who is among the elect, but that they freely cooperate with an abundance of grace (efficacious, to quote Jimmy Akin’s TULIP essay), whereas those who are not among the elect receive sufficient grace. The Molinist position puts more emphasis on free will and “Middle knowledge”, wherein God gives greater grace to individuals based on his knowledge of how they would react to such an offer if it occurred under certain situations. I know that both of these positions, as well as others, have problems to the extent that we ultimately are intellectually limited in resolving the matter fully.

Also, I am not aware if there is a school of thought on the matter (that is acceptable with Catholic doctrine) that predestination is simply God foreseeing who will say yes to grace, putting an even heavier emphasis on free will than Molinism does, as the variable of contingent conditions isn’t a part of the equations. If there is, I would appreciate clarification. I do, however, see people articulate predestination this way, and it seems a bit off-center from what I’ve read in the matter and from various Scriptural evidences (which I can provide), but I’m happy to stand corrected.

Nutshells are insufficient, but are mine way off? If not, I’ll throw the specific nature of my struggle into the conversation. If I’m incorrect on the above, that may resolve the matter myself.

Let me be clear that, by introducing my actual question in stages, I’m not trying to set anything up in an unfair way, but just to isolate the points that exist in my mind and to make sure that the conversation doesn’t go off in too many tangents, which is why I wanted us to get to a happy place on the Heaven question before moving on. I’m really having a struggle with a few concepts, and I’m hoping the wise contributors here might give some insight for my continued prayer and contemplation of at least one of them.