How can a person have free will and yet God is in control?

[Trurl]

I think that it would be out of consideration to equate the actions or to be more precise “act” of a creator with the actions of creatures. It would seem that a creature would be so ontologically separated from the Creator that this type of consideration would be out of the question.

To paraphrase the old saying: “an action is an action is an action”. There is no ontological difference between the action of the creator and the action of the created - the only difference is that the creator has a greater degree of freedom to act. And with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.

 

[Trurl]

Free will simply means that we can freely choose to love God and keep His commandments or not.

We can pray to God to act to prevent bad things from happening to other people but He in no way controls them. If I get your phrasing right, He may intervene to avoid you being mugged. You might just have the unexplained desire to take a different route one day. For others, He may act to intervene in a number of ways.

Well said. No one would be aware that there was an interference at all, so there would be no undesirable “side-effects”.

God’s control over things covers a wide area. But He does allow evil to happen, for now.

There is no logical “necessity” to allow evil to happen.

 

[Trurl]

Because you’re under an obligation to stop a crime and God is not, perhaps?

Fallacy of special pleading.

 

[NeoScotist]

To paraphrase the old saying: “an action is an action is an action”. There is no ontological difference between the action of the creator and the action of the created - the only difference is that the creator has a greater degree of freedom to act. And with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.

"There is no ontological difference between the action of the creator and the action of the created "

wait, are you saying that an ex-nihilo action by an immaterial being is the same as that of me pushing a ball with my hand? now, that is interesting.

 

[NeoScotist]

Fallacy of special pleading.

rotfl:

If God is under obligation he’s not free, for instance.

Oh, and why your belief that god is under obligation, not be a case of special pleading?

 

[DCNBILL]

To paraphrase the old saying: “an action is an action is an action”. There is no ontological difference between the action of the creator and the action of the created - the only difference is that the creator has a greater degree of freedom to act. And with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.

Note that the act of creating is only possible with the Creator while any actions of the creature are only possible within the participation of the creating act, there is a huge difference in the two. I understand your difficulty in understanding this concept of Creator and creature, Maybe by analogy. If I make a chair please explain my responsibility to the chair?

 

[Trurl]

If God is under obligation he’s not free, for instance.

Of course not. Do you know ANYTHING about catholicism? According to catholicism God is UNABLE to do any evil (while according to protestats, God is ABLE but UNWILLING to do evil acts). As such God is not free at all.

 

[NeoScotist]

Of course not. Do you know ANYTHING about catholicism? According to catholicism God is UNABLE to do any evil (while according to protestats, God is ABLE but UNWILLING to do evil acts). As such God is not free at all.

you’re not grappling with the point made, is God under obligation towards his creature and why?

I know Catholicism well enough, thanks. Certainly It is logicallly possible for God to doevil. It is metaphysically possible for God to do or permit all sorts of physical evil (just read the bible). What God cannot do is to sin. And if you know about your Catholicism well enough, “sin” for God only applies to the first half of the Decalogue and breaking his promises…you’re welcome.

so, why aren’t you the one making special pleading

 

[PJM]

=james_neville;10041080]Im sorry if this is in the wrong forum, not sure which one this would come under. I was wondering what is the churches stance on the aspect of Free will and God’s control over everything?

e.g. If we ask God for protection from bad things happening from other people, would he not have to control them in some way and thus remove their Free Will?

Hi James, GREAT questions!

The Lesson to be grasped is the absolute need for man to seperate what can “can /could” God do [has the ability and Power to do]; from what God Obligates Himself NOT to do…EVER.

Once God determined to CREATE humanity in His “own image”** [Genesis 1:26-27];** God committed Himself to Never taking back, what He knowingly gave to us.

If we can grasp how man emulates our God, it’s light may shed some light on my above comments.

John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth"

So God Triune is “Spirit and Truth” [Jesus alone has TWO full and Perfect Natures “God AND man.” How then can man emulate God?

Space limits a fuller discussion, but of the BILLIONS of things in the Universe that we know about; only **ONE, only humanity has the essential attributes to rationalize and to choose to love or hate.

In order to do so requires a mind [not speaking here of the brain]; a intellect [not our “I.Q.”]
and a FREEWILL; which all are permnately attached to man’s SOUL.

EACH OF THESE LIKE GOD HIMSELF ARE “SPIRITUAL THINGS”. And Also like God Himself as such they too are ETERNAL. So this then explains the “HOW” we alone of all created things, can choose to love or hate God; our Creator.

WHY did God choose to do this is the next question?

Deu.30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live”

Eccl.11:14 “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches, are from God.”

The precise reason for man’s Creation is found in Isaiah 43: verses 7 AND 21

Isa.43 Verses 7 and 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." AND the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”

The term “MIGHT” is the vivible key to right understanding. “MIGHT” means that it IS in an absolute sense, and HAS TO BE our freewill choice! God can and does OFFER His Grace BUT limits Himself in doing so, in order that the attributes provided to man alone CAN BE FREELY EXCERCISED.

God Created humanity and the ENTIRE Universe FOR HUMANITY so that we would have the ability to discover God in His Creation. Some do; others choose to ignore the obvious.

SO NOW BACK to the top:

WE MUST SEPERATE WHAT GOD COULD CHOOSE TO DO FROM WHAT GOD LIMITS HIMSELF FROM DOING IN ORDER TO HONOR AND RESPECT THE WAY HE MADE US. This NOT to say that He does not protect us Each of us has a Gardian Angel to do just that [W/O] interferring with our freewills. And the holy Spirt stays with us so long as we remain W/O unconfessed, unforgiven Mortal sins.

GOD CAN’T CAUSE EVIL, but does PERMIT it to TEST our love and committement to Him. Amen

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course not. Do you know ANYTHING about catholicism? According to catholicism God is UNABLE to do any evil (while according to protestats, God is ABLE but UNWILLING to do evil acts). As such God is not free at all.

God is both unable and unwilling to do evil because doing evil is both logically (it is a sub-par act that contradicts absolute goodness) and morally (as a choice it is a choice only a morally inferior will would make) inconsistent with God’s omnibenevolence. As such, God is absolutely free to act according to his nature as Absolute Goodness because directly willing evil is logically and morally inconsistent with his nature.

The argument is tantamount to claiming that God is not free because he is not free to choose not to be God, as if at once being and not being God can be reconciled with the law of non-contradiction.

 

[fhansen]

It is a custom of many posters around here to evade a hard question by asking something else. I decided that I will only answer their question when they already answered mine. Sounds fair?

If so, give me a reasoned reply to: “should we value the freedom of the rapists over the freedom of the victims?” or “are we correct to interfere and limit (take away) the freedom of the criminals?”.

If this is not fair, in your eyes, then there is no reason to continue.

We should interfere. We’re even compelled to interfere by the God who ordinarrily won’t interfere in human affairs.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is a custom of many posters around here to evade a hard question by asking something else. I decided that I will only answer their question when they already answered mine. Sounds fair?

If so, give me a reasoned reply to: “should we value the freedom of the rapists over the freedom of the victims?” or “are we correct to interfere and limit (take away) the freedom of the criminals?”.

If this is not fair, in your eyes, then there is no reason to continue.

Certainly we all believe women should be protected from rape ( men and boys too ) and indeed, we think all people should be protected from crime as commonly understood. What we object to is that you blame God that these things happen. That is completely gratuitous and highly insulting to us.

You know Catholic teaching on such things. But you disagree with this teaching and put the blame on God. So you either hate God because he didn’t create the world to suit you or deny his existence. Let’s take your position. Say God does not exist. Now what? Now who are you going to blame for the evil in the world?

 

[Trurl]

We should interfere. We’re even compelled to interfere by the God who ordinarrily won’t interfere in human affairs.

There you go. So there is a moral imperative that in certain circumstances one is obliged to interfere and the motivation is / should be “love”. Since catholics maintain that there is an ABSOLUTE morality, it means that this imperative is applicable to everyone, God included. The word “absolute” cannot be redefined to mean: “such imperative is applicable to everyone, EXCEPT God”, and unfortunately this is exactly what happens. Time and again there is this “cop out”, that God is a special case, the usual considerations are not applicabe to God (even though we were created in God’s image - meaning, that we are moral beings) - but nevertheless it is maintained that the rules are ABSOLUTE. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Trurl]

What we object to is that you blame God that these things happen.

Since ULTIMATELY God is responsible for EVERYTHING, that “blame” is well placed.

That is completely gratuitous and highly insulting to us.

I see no reason to get insulted. But if you like to be insulted, that is your personal problem. Don’t blame others for it.

Let’s take your position. Say God does not exist. Now what? Now who are you going to blame for the evil in the world?

No one. The so called “problem of evil” does not exist if one does not believe in some - allegedly “good” and “loving” deity.

 

[bogeydogg]

It is a custom of many posters around here to evade a hard question by asking something else. I decided that I will only answer their question when they already answered mine. Sounds fair?

If so, give me a reasoned reply to: “should we value the freedom of the rapists over the freedom of the victims?” or “are we correct to interfere and limit (take away) the freedom of the criminals?”.

If this is not fair, in your eyes, then there is no reason to continue.

I can’t answer the question because you are holding an accusation against God based upon a contradiction. Jibberish is impossible to answer cogently.

 

[NeoScotist]

There you go. So there is a moral imperative that in certain circumstances one is obliged to interfere and the motivation is / should be “love”.

Fulfilling an obligation pre-ssuposes love towards God.

Remove God, we’re all atheists for the next example. what if I’m not motivated towards loving my jerk of a neighbor (hypothetical example) does that absolve me from full-filling my obligations towards his well being. Can I feed his dogs broken glass?
Thinking about obligation, how does that even make sense in a Godless world? uh, oh.

Since catholics maintain that there is an ABSOLUTE morality,
** it means** that this imperative is applicable to everyone, God included. The word “absolute” cannot be redefined to mean: “such imperative is applicable to everyone, EXCEPT God”, and unfortunately this is exactly what happens.

Nonsense, no catholic has ever defined “absolute morals,” as applicable to everyone including God. This is your invention. BTW, what the heck is “ABSOLUTE morals?” Except for not hating God or blasphemy I cannot think of any commandment that applies to everyone, everywhere, all the time.

You seem extremely knowledgeable about catholicism. can you help us with the meaning of “ABSOLUTE morals” and how it is a binding catholic belief?

But can God can be under obligation towards his creatures? no, If God were under obligations towards his creatures, then duty would be prior to God which is a logical impossibility.And if duty towards creature were identical with God, then God would not be free. We give arguments arguments for our position, you do not even bother to refute them…who is using special pleading, again?

 

[yokunoponga26]

Hi there

I have a friend; he said “I am free to choose whatever I want”. One day he “chose” drugs to ease his pain from his problems. Not long after he became an addict. Soon, he lost his job, got divorce, and everyone seems to hate him because of his addiction. One day, out of desperation of drugs he stole someone’s money and got caught and jailed…

But today he had changed, he turned to God (read bible, live a Christian life etc…) and his life seems to recover.

And so, I thought we are free to choose, and that is why Jesus came to earth to plant the commandments into our heart so that we could CHOOSE WISELY…

Pardon my english~~~ hehe

 

[fhansen]

There you go. So there is a moral imperative that in certain circumstances one is obliged to interfere and the motivation is / should be “love”. Since catholics maintain that there is an ABSOLUTE morality, it means that this imperative is applicable to everyone, God included. The word “absolute” cannot be redefined to mean: “such imperative is applicable to everyone, EXCEPT God”, and unfortunately this is exactly what happens. Time and again there is this “cop out”, that God is a special case, the usual considerations are not applicabe to God (even though we were created in God’s image - meaning, that we are moral beings) - but nevertheless it is maintained that the rules are ABSOLUTE. You can’t have it both ways.

God gives humankind freedom by not forcing them to love, by allowing us to decide whether or not His will or some other will is done on earth, by allowing each of us to decide for ourselves whether or not love will reign in our actions. The fact that His will is not done on earth is due to the abuse of said freedom. The fact that he allows so radical a freedom and doesn’t prevent the evil that results is admittedly not perfectly understood, except in light of the fact that, via the incarnation, He even allowed the worst of human atrocities to be perpetrated on Himself, suffering in any case as we all do or even more so.

The Catholic faith teaches that goodness and purpose and reason lie at the very core of the universe in some manner, and that we’re all compelled to follow this-or should be so compelled-and that a greater good will ultimately come from the evil that was given the freedom to have its way for awhile-evil that we’ll all experience to one degree or another during the course of our lives- and that, in the end, justice will prevail for all who’ve suffered.

 

[Trurl]

Fulfilling an obligation pre-ssuposes love towards God.

Irrelevant opinion.

Thinking about obligation, how does that even make sense in a Godless world? uh, oh.

Sure.

Nonsense, no catholic has ever defined “absolute morals,” as applicable to everyone including God.

Ah, redefining the word “absolute” (as opposed to “relative”) now. How predictable it was.

But can God can be under obligation towards his creatures?

Yes, every creator has obligation toward its creation - as long as the creation is a sentient being.

no, If God were under obligations towards his creatures, then duty would be prior to God which is a logical impossibility.

The laws of logic are also “prior” to God.

 

[Trurl]

The fact that he allows so radical a freedom and doesn’t prevent the evil that results is admittedly not perfectly understood…

The understatement of the year.

…and that a greater good will ultimately come from the evil…

There is also a teaching that one cannot do evil so that good may come out of it. Does it not bother you that these are totally contradictory teachings?