Free Will in Heaven

[Tarsier]

By the time we’ve gotten to heaven our wills are already oriented to the greatest good-without benefit of the Beatifc Vision; apparently justice, itself, demands this. We’re asked here; we’re drawn here to orient ourselves with that Good, to align our wills with His, to the greatest extent possible with whatever gifts we’ve been given, as we’re being tested and sifted and refined. Purgatory may well be necessary in order to finish the process of perfecting our wills but in any case God wants us to own this orientation, after which He crowns it with the BV which finally confirms and consummates and rewards all of our grace-aided striving. No sinners enter heaven according to Scripture; the primary leg-work is done before heaven even if the reward is what finally, fully, captivates us and absolutizes our fidelity to God.

Yes, but what about the case of, through a Thomist interpretation of predestination, those who are given enabling (efficacious) grace before the Beatific Vision? Is this a violation of that justice or an example of our free wills cooperating with a grace that always achieves its end?

Is Mary a violation of that justice? I understand, as the earlier poster said, that she was the mother of the Redeemer, but if “justice demands it”, was the immaculate conception of Mary unjust?

Do neither Mary nor the elect own their salvation in the way you described?

 

[fhansen]

Yes, but what about the case of, through a Thomist interpretation of predestination, those who are given enabling (efficacious) grace before the Beatific Vision? Is this a violation of that justice or an example of our free wills cooperating with a grace that always achieves its end?

Is Mary a violation of that justice? I understand, as the earlier poster said, that she was the mother of the Redeemer, but if “justice demands it”, was the immaculate conception of Mary unjust?

Do neither Mary nor the elect own their salvation in the way you described?

Mary, while blessed with a special grace for the benefit of us all, was nonetheless capable of sin just as Adam was, and just as we are even after being restored to that state of sanctifying grace that both began their lives with. And the Church recognizes that all grace can be resisted, that even “predestination” hinges on our choices, our wills.

 

[Tarsier]

Mary, while blessed with a special grace for the benefit of us all, was nonetheless capable of sin just as Adam was, and just as we are even after being restored to that state of sanctifying grace that both began their lives with. And the Church recognizes that all grace can be resisted, that even “predestination” hinges on our choices, our wills.

I agree. However, you would also agree that in both cases, Mary and the elect (again, according to Thomistic thought), a greater amount of grace was directed to the individuals to the extent that Mary was empowered to do something no other human being (besides Christ incarnate) was capable - rejecting sin totally - and the elect, while capable of rejecting grace, do not do so and all end up in Heaven.

And that this doesn’t violate any sense of justice.

 

[fhansen]

I agree. However, you would also agree that in both cases, Mary and the elect (again, according to Thomistic thought), a greater amount of grace was directed to the individuals to the extent that Mary was empowered to do something no other human being (besides Christ incarnate) was capable - rejecting sin totally - and the elect, while capable of rejecting grace, do not do so and all end up in Heaven.

And that this doesn’t violate any sense of justice.

The elect are not elected as per Calvinism. Their elect status is the result of God’s foreknowledge of their choices. Also, our salvation is both an individual and a corporate affair. The grace bestowed on Mary is bestowed on us all as it reaches and benefits us all. God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Tarsier]

The elect are not elected as per Calvinism. Their elect status is the result of God’s foreknowledge of their choices. Also, our salvation is both an individual and a corporate affair. The grace bestowed on Mary is bestowed on us all as it reaches us all. God works in mysterious ways.

This is not correct. You may personally believe that predestination is only a result of foreknowledge, but we explored the premise of my question and the Catholic schools of thought on it earlier in this thread. Please re-read the section in this thread regarding Thomistic understanding of election. God’s predestination of the elect is not merely a “foreknowledge” of their choice.

You might also find this article by Jimmy Akin helpful. Then, my question remains as to whether justice is violated.

Regarding Mary, I never said contrary. I understand that A) God works in mysterious ways and B) the grace bestowed on Mary reaches all of us, but it doesn’t reach us in the same way. Mary was “filled with grace” in a way no other human was which allowed her to do what no other human (aside from Christ) did, which was to avoid sin. According to the earlier poster, it “appears” to be a violation of justice for us to have free will and to be exposed to such powerful grace to as to be drawn efficaciously to it and away from sin. Do you feel that, were we all “filled with grace” as Mary was, that it would be a violation of justice?

 

[fhansen]

This is not correct. You may personally believe that predestination is only a result of foreknowledge, but we explored the premise of my question and the Catholic schools of thought on it earlier in this thread. Please re-read the section in this thread regarding Thomistic understanding of election. God’s predestination of the elect is not merely a “foreknowledge” of their choice.

You might also find this article by Jimmy Akin helpful. Then, my question remains as to whether justice is violated.

Regarding Mary, I never said contrary. I understand that A) God works in mysterious ways and B) the grace bestowed on Mary reaches all of us, but it doesn’t reach us in the same way. Mary was “filled with grace” in a way no other human was which allowed her to do what no other human (aside from Christ) did, which was to avoid sin. According to the earlier poster, it “appears” to be a violation of justice for us to have free will and to be exposed to such powerful grace to as to be drawn efficaciously to it and away from sin. Do you feel that, were we all “filled with grace” as Mary was, that it would be a violation of justice?

Rather than going back I’ll offer the teaching from the catechism. I don’t know if it was already presented but I *do *know that the CC has never formally embraced the Thomistic view of predestination.

*600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
**
As for Mary, there was simply never *a guarantee that she would not sin. She was born the same way as Adam-without sin. It was her choice-her fiat- that we so admire her for.

 

[Tarsier]

Rather than going back I’ll offer the teaching from the catechism. I don’t know if it was already presented but I *do *know that the CC has never formally embraced the Thomistic view of predestination.

*600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
**
As for Mary, there was simply never *a guarantee that she would not sin. She was born the same way as Adam-without sin. It was her choice-her fiat- that we so admire her for.

Thanks. I know the CC hasn’t formally embraced Thomism, but it accepts it as a valid view. Because it is a valid view, it discounts the blanket claim that predestination is just a foreknowledge. However, the Thomistic view is in complete conformity with the Catechism:

Thomists agree that all moments in time are immediately present to God.
Thomists agree that our “free response” to God’s grace cooperates with efficacious grace.
Thomists agree that God permits acts that flow from the blindness of some.

From none of this follows that God’s selection of the elect is simply foreknowledge. Even the Molinists don’t accept that, as they incorporate Middle knowledge to show an orchestration of all possible situations wherein one might accept or not.

Also, I know that Mary, like Adam, was born without original sin. However, at least Pope John Paul II’s understanding of the doctrine is more than that she just chose not to sin, but “that Mary, free from original sin, was also preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was granted to her in order to fill her entire life.”

So, again, it was a specific act of grace that, in cooperation with her free will, kept her sinless.

So my question remains - would it have been impossible for God to have granted others that same level of grace? I’m not saying he should have. I’m refuting the idea that it would not have been impossible. Are you saying it would have been?

In other words, the whole point of my thread is that we need to stop basing a popular apologetics argument on what God “could not have done”?

 

[fhansen]

Thanks. I know the CC hasn’t formally embraced Thomism, but it accepts it as a valid view. Because it is a valid view, it discounts the blanket claim that predestination is just a foreknowledge. However, the Thomistic view is in complete conformity with the Catechism:

Thomists agree that all moments in time are immediately present to God.
Thomists agree that our “free response” to God’s grace cooperates with efficacious grace.
Thomists agree that God permits acts that flow from the blindness of some.

From none of this follows that God’s selection of the elect is simply foreknowledge. Even the Molinists don’t accept that, as they incorporate Middle knowledge to show an orchestration of all possible situations wherein one might accept or not.

Also, I know that Mary, like Adam, was born without original sin. However, at least Pope John Paul II’s understanding of the doctrine is more than that she just chose not to sin, but “that Mary, free from original sin, was also preserved from all actual sin and that this initial holiness was granted to her in order to fill her entire life.”

So, again, it was a specific act of grace that, in cooperation with her free will, kept her sinless.

So my question remains - would it have been impossible for God to have granted others that same level of grace? I’m not saying he should have. I’m refuting the idea that it would not have been impossible. Are you saying it would have been?

In other words, the whole point of my thread is that we need to stop basing a popular apologetics argument on what God “could not have done”?

Even if we consider Pope John Paul’s comment to be perfectly consistent with Catholic teaching (and it may not be, necessarily) and regardless of how we look at predestination, in Catholic thought the will of man is never totally excluded-that’s what the argument has been about all this time, of course, God’s sovereignty vs man’s free will. In any case I think we always need to keep in mind the fact that grace is resistible. Man’s justice depends not only on God’s granting it-but also hinges on our willingness to accept and embrace it. God “covets” our ownership of His justice. Anyway, as a sidenote, Mary’s preservation from all actual sin could still include her willingness to refrain from it.

 

[Tarsier]

Even if we consider Pope John Paul’s comment to be perfectly consistent with Catholic teaching (and it may not be, necessarily) and regardless of how we look at predestination, in Catholic thought the will of man is never totally excluded-that’s what the argument has been about all this time, of course, God’s sovereignty vs man’s free will. In any case I think we always need to keep in mind the fact that grace is resistible. Man’s justice depends not only on God’s granting it-but also hinges on our willingness to accept and embrace it. God “covets” our ownership of His justice. Anyway, as a sidenote, Mary’s preservation from all actual sin could still include her willingness to refrain from it.

fhansen, thank you for your reply. It gives me a chance to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding. See points:

-I agree that John Paul’s comments may/may not be in line with Church teaching (they weren’t infallible), but the fact that Mary, out of the billions of us who have lived, is the only one who manage to say no to sin everytime is pretty consistent with it, so as for my own personal spiritual journey, I’m going to side with JPII (unless I am presented with some evidence that his teaching is contrary to Catholic doctrine). I have no problem if you feel otherwise.

-You wrote: “In Catholic thought the will of man is never totally excluded-that’s what the argument has been about all this time.” I agree about the will of man, but I underlined the part I did because you are not correct here. I’ve never ever claimed (and nobody on this thread has, to my recollection) that the will of man is not totally involved. In fact, I stated several times that, even in cases of the elect (according to Thomistic thought), the free will of man cooperates fully with a grace that is so powerful (“enabling grace”, as Akin calls it) that the soul is drawn to choose it freely. So my apologies if I seemed a little testy with my replies to you, but I was answering for things I never claimed, and this mischaracterization of the nature of this discussion (it has never been an argument) illustrates that. If I (or anyone else) ever claimed the will of man was not involved totally, please refer me to that.

-While it is fine to say that “grace is resistible”, according to Thomistic thought, enabling grace never is resisted. The soul is drawn to it, as the grace is efficacious in what it intends to do. You may not buy into Thomistic thought, but the mere fact that it is allowed within the framework of Church teaching shows the possibility that there exists a type of grace that “always” has the intended effect. Again, I refer you to Akin’s article.

-Finally, your point about Mary is my point, too. The fact that Mary could have been reserved from sin while willingly refraining from it is exactly the point I have been making to show that there is no contradiction that prevents an omnipotent God from extending that same thing to others. As you pointed out (and as I pointed out several times before), our free will cooperates fully with grace, even if that grace is as powerful as it will be in the Beatific Vision.

To clarify your earlier statement, the whole point of this conversation was clarified several points earlier. Rather than being about whether or not man’s will is totally involved (which it always is - you an I agree), it was about whether a fairly common apologetics argument about sin/evil is really valid.

I’m not an atheist. I’m not challenging God’s omnipotence (rather, I’m defending it). I’m not questioning his wisdom if he had some purpose greater than my understanding in granting us free will. I’m not claiming Mary was some kind of marionette, acting without free will.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, thank you for your reply. It gives me a chance to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding. See points:

-I agree that John Paul’s comments may/may not be in line with Church teaching (they weren’t infallible), but the fact that Mary, out of the billions of us who have lived, is the only one who manage to say no to sin everytime is pretty consistent with it, so as for my own personal spiritual journey, I’m going to side with JPII (unless I am presented with some evidence that his teaching is contrary to Catholic doctrine). I have no problem if you feel otherwise.

I’m tellin’ you , Mary was perfectly free to sin, and we’re perfectly free to say no to it now.

-You wrote: “In Catholic thought the will of man is never totally excluded-that’s what the argument has been about all this time.” I agree about the will of man, but I underlined the part I did because you are not correct here. I’ve never ever claimed (and nobody on this thread has, to my recollection) that the will of man is not totally involved. In fact, I stated several times that, even in cases of the elect (according to Thomistic thought), the free will of man cooperates fully with a grace that is so powerful (“enabling grace”, as Akin calls it) that the soul is drawn to choose it freely. So my apologies if I seemed a little testy with my replies to you, but I was answering for things I never claimed, and this mischaracterization of the nature of this discussion (it has never been an argument) illustrates that. If I (or anyone else) ever claimed the will of man was not involved totally, please refer me to that.

I was referring to the centuries-old predestination argument.

-While it is fine to say that “grace is resistible”, according to Thomistic thought, enabling grace never is resisted. The soul is drawn to it, as the grace is efficacious in what it intends to do. You may not buy into Thomistic thought, but the mere fact that it is allowed within the framework of Church teaching shows the possibility that there exists a type of grace that “always” has the intended effect. Again, I refer you to Akin’s article.

Grace is resistible-from the beginning. That’s what the “drama” of creation, the Fall, and this life is all about. Anselm, I believe, concluded in his Q&A dialogue with his student that Adam sinned because he willed to sin, simplistic as that may sound-and profound as it probably is. We’re here to learn to do otherwise, to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God; the will is the “prize”, so to speak. Otherwise God may as well have just stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the reprobate to begin with and avoided all the evils that have ensued since the Fall.

-Finally, your point about Mary is my point, too. The fact that Mary could have been reserved from sin while willingly refraining from it is exactly the point I have been making to show that there is no contradiction that prevents an omnipotent God from extending that same thing to others. As you pointed out (and as I pointed out several times before), our free will cooperates fully with grace, even if that grace is as powerful as it will be in the Beatific Vision.

To clarify your earlier statement, the whole point of this conversation was clarified several points earlier. Rather than being about whether or not man’s will is totally involved (which it always is - you an I agree), it was about whether a fairly common apologetics argument about sin/evil is really valid.

I’m not an atheist. I’m not challenging God’s omnipotence (rather, I’m defending it). I’m not questioning his wisdom if he had some purpose greater than my understanding in granting us free will. I’m not claiming Mary was some kind of marionette, acting without free will.

To put it simply I just believe, in the end, that God is infinitely just-and fair.

 

[Tarsier]

I’m tellin’ you , Mary was perfectly free to sin, and we’re perfectly free to say no to it now.

Good thing we’re in agreement here and I’ve never said differently!

I was referring to the centuries-old predestination argument.

I don’t agree that this was the basis of that argument. The schools of thought on both ends of the spectrum accept the point you claim is the basis of the argument.

Grace is resistible-from the beginning. That’s what the “drama” of creation, the Fall, and this life is all about. Anselm, I believe, concluded in his Q&A dialogue with his student that Adam sinned because he willed to sin, simplistic as that may sound-and profound as it probably is. We’re here to learn to do otherwise, to choose good over evil, life over death, God over no God; the will is the “prize”, so to speak. Otherwise God may as well have just stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the reprobate to begin with and avoided all the evils that have ensued since the Fall.

I’m not sure the last sentence is the only other possible option. And, again, I’ve never said grace is irresistible (and I linked to an essay where that word choice is specifically rejected), but that it is presented in such an attractive manner to the soul of the elect that it is efficaciously chosen through free will. I really can’t defend the points you are arguing against because I never made those points. Please be fair to what I’ve said.

To put it simply I just believe, in the end, that God is infinitely just-and fair.

Exactly what I and everyone on the thread has said or implied! Glad to have someone else in agreement.

 

[fhansen]

Good thing we’re in agreement here and I’ve never said differently!

I don’t agree that this was the basis of that argument. The schools of thought on both ends of the spectrum accept the point you claim is the basis of the argument.

I’m not sure the last sentence is the only other possible option. And, again, I’ve never said grace is irresistible (and I linked to an essay where that word choice is specifically rejected), but that it is presented in such an attractive manner to the soul of the elect that it is efficaciously chosen through free will. I really can’t defend the points you are arguing against because I never made those points. Please be fair to what I’ve said.

Exactly what I and everyone on the thread has said or implied! Glad to have someone else in agreement.

But it still seems that you’re asking if God is *just *in His dealings with us if some are given more grace than others. Anyway, I don’t mean to be argumentative-maybe I’ve just “dialogued” too many times on this stuff with Calvinists. And you seem to have a better handle on the matter than I do but either way I’m sure the determinism vs free will debate will rage on-it’s not easily resolved.

 

[Tarsier]

But it still seems that you’re asking if God is *just *in His dealings with us if some are given more grace than others. Anyway, I don’t mean to be argumentative-maybe I’ve just “dialogued” too many times on this stuff with Calvinists. And you seem to have a better handle on the matter than I do but either way I’m sure the determinism vs free will debate will rage on-it’s not easily resolved.

Thank you for asking. No, I’m not questioning whether God is just. The whole point of the thread, as I mentioned earlier, was my roundabout way of asking whether a very particular apologetics argument is valid. I’ll restate it quickly here as I’m fixing supper:

Why is there evil/sin in the world? Because God wanted to provide us with the free will to freely choose to love him. While God is omnipotent, he is not capable of self-contradiction. It might very well be that free will is logically incompatible with a sinless and void-of-evil existence for God’s creation, binding God to create a world that allows sin for the greater good of free will.

I am arguing that it places an unfair and unjustifiable limitation on God’s omnipotence to say he was bound to create the type of world he did due to avoidance of self-contradiction. However, I do believe that the argument is salvageable if we change “had to” to “decided to” in our mindset:

Whether or not we understand God’s reasoning for creating the type of world he did, God has motivations for creating a world that allowed sin and evil. We may not fully understand how his perfect mercy and justice were at play in this lifetime.

I think your comment that the “debate will rage on” is exactly why I’m struggling with what I perceive to be too much of a nice and tidy answer to the problem of evil.

Or something like that. Gotta go or the chili will burn …