Free Will in the light of Scripture

[RobHom]

If you think about it, Roman Catholicism does the exact same thing in regards to infants. Roman Catholicism teaches infant baptismal regeneration. When the baby is baptized according to Roman Catholicism, the baby is born again apart from the free will of the infant.

I don’t think you grasp the Catholic view of Baptism… Go here to read about it…especially where infants are concerned…and why they are baptized.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#II

*1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53 *

God doesn’t save us apart from us freely choosing Him. God grants us spiritual eyes to see Him, enabling us to freely choose Him. Who would not freely choose Christ once that are able to see who He really is.

I agree with your first sentence, and the second I have no problem with… But the problem is in the last sentence. While it sounds good, it isn’t realistic, and tends to deny that Free Will exists, but at the same time…reality dictates that many do freely choose not to follow Christ…even if they are able to see who he really is… Sadly…

 

[Reformed]

I have consider the “OP”…but the problem is that my response is not limited to “personal views”. Here is the basis for my conclusions, as it is the sum of what I have learned in my life regarding this subject.

saintaquinas.com/Justification_by_Grace.html

You will find this paragraph…and it pretty well sums it up:

**St. Paul warns us that justification and sanctification are a life-long process, and we should be vigilant not to turn against God and lose our justification. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews is particularly powerful, “For if we sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries (Hebrews 10:26-27).” Paul assures us that those who take justification of grace for granted and continue to rail against God and defy cooperation with grace can lose their justification. Paul also warns Christians to be vigilant, “But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway”. Paul tells us that he himself must resist the temptations of the flesh lest he be cut away from the Body of Christ. **

Seems that “Free Will” is a definite according to scriptures.

I think you posted a Roman Catholic paper on the issue. Please let me know when you want to discuss the Scriptures on this issue.

 

[tGette]

I think you posted a Roman Catholic paper on the issue. Please let me know when you want to discuss the Scriptures on this issue.

Can we agree that in Scripture when God forgives our sins He then forgets our sins?

I promise I am tying this in with the thread topic!

 

[ncgolf]

If you think about it, Roman Catholicism does the exact same thing in regards to infants. Roman Catholicism teaches infant baptismal regeneration. When the baby is baptized according to Roman Catholicism, the baby is born again apart from the free will of the infant. God doesn’t save us apart from us freely choosing Him. God grants us spiritual eyes to see Him, enabling us to freely choose Him. Who would not freely choose Christ once that are able to see who He really is.

Originally Posted by Reformed
For God would know beforehand that the majority of humanity could not choose life in Christ if left to their own free will.

You did not answer the question … does God choose for people or not. A simple yes or no with your reasoning would suffice. Should be an easily answered question for you. I didn’t write, “if left to their own free will.” Please explain.

Babies, while having a free will, are not in position to exercise it. Baptism marks you as one of Christ’s whether one chooses to follow later is another question.

I would rather not quibble about the special cases … mental impairment being another but let’s focus on adults who do have the ability to either choose yes or no. Lets say you and me and any one else on this thread.

Based on your posting does God choose over and above your will?

 

[Reformed]

Can we agree that in Scripture when God forgives our sins He then forgets our sins?

I promise I am tying this in with the thread topic!

I’m not sure He forgets it like an old man loosing his memory. I believe God does not hold our past, present, and future sins against us since Christ paid the price for our sins (believers) at Calvary.

Romans 4

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

 

[Philthy]

Would you like to explore the concept of apparent free will according to the Scriptures? … we are not puppets… For a deeper study, please consider the articles on the subject.

We are not robots!

I’d enjoy this discussion very much. Can we start with a definition of terms regarding the OP?

• What is a will?
• What is a will that is not free? Please provide a simple, clear example of a totally captive will.
• What is a will that is perfectly free? Please provide a simple, clear example of a perfectly free will.
• Are there degrees of freedom of the will? Y or N, and if Y, please provide an example of an imperfectly free will.
• In the context of this discussion, how are we not robots?
  This should be a good starting point for discussing free will and moral choice. Next we need to articulate what you mean by “according to Scripture”. Do you mean simply supporting our understanding of Scripture through the use of reason?

 

[Reformed]

Originally Posted by Reformed
For God would know beforehand that the majority of humanity could not choose life in Christ if left to their own free will.

You did not answer the question … does God choose for people or not. A simple yes or no with your reasoning would suffice. Should be an easily answered question for you. I didn’t write, “if left to their own free will.” Please explain.

Babies, while having a free will, are not in position to exercise it. Baptism marks you as one of Christ’s whether one chooses to follow later is another question.

I would rather not quibble about the special cases … mental impairment being another but let’s focus on adults who do have the ability to either choose yes or no. Lets say you and me and any one else on this thread.

Based on your posting does God choose over and above your will?

The Bible is very clear on the doctrine of election. The words elect and chosen are all through the OT and NT. Do you deny the doctrine of election? Start with Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 before you answer. Did the disciples choose Jesus. Did the Apostle Paul choose Jesus? Did Abraham choose God? How about King David? There is a theme that they were set apart at birth, chosen before the foundation of the world. They all were enabled to freely come to God because God enabled them and called them to Himself. Why was Peter able to confess Jesus as the Christ? God chooses some sinners and passes over the rest. I think you need to consider the truth of divine judgement, mercy and grace. Do you want to plead fairness to God? Be careful, you might get what you ask for. God may just give you what you deserve.

2 Corinthians 4

The Light of the Gospel

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

[Reformed]

I’d enjoy this discussion very much. Can we start with a definition of terms regarding the OP?

• What is a will?
• What is a will that is not free? Please provide a simple, clear example of a totally captive will.
• What is a will that is perfectly free? Please provide a simple, clear example of a perfectly free will.
• Are there degrees of freedom of the will? Y or N, and if Y, please provide an example of an imperfectly free will.
• In the context of this discussion, how are we not robots?
  This should be a good starting point for discussing free will and moral choice. Next we need to articulate what you mean by “according to Scripture”. Do you mean simply supporting our understanding of Scripture through the use of reason?

That is a very wise posting. I think we all need a meeting of the minds when we use the word “Free will”. Do you mind posting the official Roman Catholic position on “Free will”? I think the official Roman Catholic position will be closer to what I believe than possibly what many Roman Catholics think “Fee will” means. I know Rome rejects being Pelagius or even Semi-Pelagius. So, is Roman Catholicism Augustinian in regards to “Free Will”?

 

[Philthy]

That is a very wise posting. I think we all need a meeting of the minds when we use the word “Free will”. Do you mind posting the official Roman Catholic position on “Free will”? I think the official Roman Catholic position will be closer to what I believe than possibly what many Roman Catholics think “Fee will” means. I know Rome rejects being Pelagius or even Semi-Pelagius.

OK, settle down and get control of yourself! You are the OP - state YOUR position on each of the topics and, if there is disagreement from the Catholic perspective we’ll let you know. I am working my way through the exceedingly tedious topics from the website you linked.

So, is Roman Catholicism Augustinian in regards to “Free Will”?

Appreciate that questions like this are so subjective that they are counterproductive. I will say this much: Augustine was a catholic priest and bishop. The Catholic Church declared him a Saint and Doctor of the Church. You can assume that his writings reflect the Church. Unfortunately this says very little with respect to how you and I personally interpret his writings and how the Church interprets them. Interpretations are subjective.

 

[tGette]

I’m not sure He forgets it like an old man loosing his memory. I believe God does not hold our past, present, and future sins against us since Christ paid the price for our sins (believers) at Calvary.

Romans 4

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

So…is that a YES or NO?

From a Calvinist stand-point…once we seek God’s forgiveness and repent of our sins…does God still remember our sins in some backlog or archive of our sins or is His recollection of our forgiven sins abolished so we can never be admonished?

 

[ncgolf]

Did the disciples choose Jesus.

I will respond in full but initially … yes Jesus did choose the 12 why then this uttered by Jesus in John 6:70, “Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?””

 

[ryanoneil]

Part of God’s will is allowing us free will. Even those who are chosen can deny Jesus.

Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory. This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim. 2:10-13)

Those who are chosen may obtain the salvation if we persevere but if we deny him he will deny us.

 

[RobHom]

I think you posted a Roman Catholic paper on the issue. Please let me know when you want to discuss the Scriptures on this issue.

I used a Roman Catholic source that used scripture to explain the Catholic position…as noted in the article. There really isn’t much to “discuss”. Man has Free Will. Catholics have believed that for just about “forever”…

 

[Reformed]

Part of God’s will is allowing us free will. Even those who are chosen can deny Jesus.

Therefore, I bear with everything for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, together with eternal glory. This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. (2 Tim. 2:10-13)

Those who are chosen may obtain the salvation if we persevere but if we deny him he will deny us.

LOL… how about those who were never chosen in the first place?

 

[Reformed]

I used a Roman Catholic source that used scripture to explain the Catholic position…as noted in the article. There really isn’t much to “discuss”. Man has Free Will. Catholics have believed that for just about “forever”…

The term free will needs to be explained because Rome rejects Pelagius’ view on free will. In addition, when I state Roman Catholicism is semi-pelagius…everyone gets bent out of shape. So, what does Rome mean by free will?

 

[RobHom]

That is a very wise posting. I think we all need a meeting of the minds when we use the word “Free will”. Do you mind posting the official Roman Catholic position on “Free will”? I think the official Roman Catholic position will be closer to what I believe than possibly what many Roman Catholics think “Fee will” means. I know Rome rejects being Pelagius or even Semi-Pelagius. So, is Roman Catholicism Augustinian in regards to “Free Will”?

Here is an article that discusses Augustine’s views on “Free Will”. I think that as a whole…or at least in a majority…Catholics understand this as it is, though some may not necessarily articulate it in the same words.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1282

Whether or not the Catholic Church is “Augustinian” in this issue I do not know…maybe, maybe not. But here are some links to items in the Catechism that give the writ on it all.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a1.htm#brief

This one I think is more definitive:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a3.htm

 

[tGette]

From a Calvinist stand-point…once we seek God’s forgiveness and repent of our sins…does God still remember our sins in some backlog, or archive, of our sins or is His recollection of our forgiven sins abolished so we can never be admonished for them?

Please…a simple YES or NO will suffice.
Or at least a succinct answer!

 

[RobHom]

The term free will needs to be explained because Rome rejects Pelagius’ view on free will. In addition, when I state Roman Catholicism is semi-pelagius…everyone gets bent out of shape. So, what does Rome mean by free will?

The term “Free Will” to Catholics, by definition…is that we are fully capable of making all decisions…to include choosing eternal damnation… Below is some of the second link in case you haven’t had time to read it…its some of the salient points:

**I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

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.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32 **

Hope that helps

 

[Reformed]

The term “Free Will” to Catholics, by definition…is that we are fully capable of making all decisions…to include choosing eternal damnation… Below is some of the second link in case you haven’t had time to read it…its some of the salient points:

**I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

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.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

1737 An effect can be tolerated without being willed by its agent; for instance, a mother’s exhaustion from tending her sick child. A bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action, e.g., a death a person incurs in aiding someone in danger. For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.

1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.32 **

Hope that helps

I believe mankind is morally responsible and wiil be judged. However, it sure seems your source makes mankind captain of his fate. Roman Catholicism sure seems semi-pelagius. Why does Rome deny being semi-pelagius when it’s clear that Rome is synergistic and not monergistic.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I believe mankind is morally responsible and wiil be judged. However, it sure seems your source makes mankind captain of his fate. Roman Catholicism sure seems semi-pelagius. Why does Rome deny being semi-pelagius when it’s clear that Rome is synergistic and not monergistic.

Semi-Pelagius is condemned the Early Church Council. The Catholic Church does not condone semi-pelagius beliefs.

The word, Pelagianism comes from Pelagius. This belief Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius (ad. 354 – ad. 420/440). It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which God called very good), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.

Furthermore, Pelagianism is condemnation as a heresy at several local synods, including the Council of Diospolis[2]. It was condemned in 416 and 418 at the Councils of Carthage.[3] These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431, although it was not considered a major act of that council. Its strict moral teachings were influential in southern Italy and Sicily, where Pelagianism was openly preached until the death of its follower Julian of Eclanum in 455. As a movement, Pelagianism ceased to exist after the 6th century although its ideas continued to cause disputes.

In more recent times, the word has been used in the Reformed Protestant camp to designate anyone who deviates from the Augustinian or Calvinist doctrines of sin and grace, most notably Arminians. Many Arminians disagree with this generalization and believe it is libelous to Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the many other Arminians who maintain original sin and the total depravity of the human race.

This doctrine is more Arminian than Catholic.

I have seen you write about comparing Catholic theological views of salvation as being Semipelagianism. That is an erroneous statement.