If God is omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to create an environment in which everyone retains free will, but still goes to heaven?

[Magnanimity]

It’s unfortunately hard to get much traction around these parts on the issues you’re raising. I tried over in this thread ( Do you believe there is a real hell? Poll) for a few weeks. I was doing it in a slightly different way though—defending the Von Balthasarian “dare to hope” that all will be saved, in the end.

I like that you and RealisticCatholic and BadgerHoney are pressing this issue. It’s one that needs to be pressed.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Without free will, there would be no evil. Without evil, there would be no suffering. Without punishment, there would be no justice.

 

[Magnanimity]

This is a very good question. In these matters, those who believe in everlasting punishment frequently cite some sort of a free will defense as justification. And yet, what seems to be advocated is a libertarian view of human freedom. I would love to know where these folks are getting that conception. It doesn’t come from Sts Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or any other intellectual giant of the Catholic Faith who themselves argue for some form of compatibilism with a strong emphasis on divine government and predestination. So, where exactly is this libertarian freewill defense coming from? It’s very curious…

 

[joseie]

The OP reminds about a cleaver question.Can God make a stone so big that he can’t lift it?

 

[AlbMagno]

I haven’t read all the thread, but to the people answering “it makes no sense” I ask you a question:

Do we retain our Free Will in Heaven?

Because I’ve heard people describe such instance as a situation in which we retain our Free Will but it “aligns” itself perfectlly to God’s Will, making us perfectly good. This is very similar to what the OP is describing.

And if the answer is no, then why give us Free Will in the first place if He would remove it in Eternity? Wouldn’t all our spiritual learning and growing become stagnant if we loss our Free Will in Heaven?

 

[Gorgias]

Being “free” does not mean that we can do anything and everything that we want, our freedom is always limited. (By the way, the expression “free will” is undefined, some people take it as “freedom of action based upon the will”, others consider it pure freedom to “will” something, regardless of the ability to actually act on it. But that is another question.)

That is another question… but it’s not a difficult one. Anyone who suggests that free will must mean “freedom to do whatever one wishes” is expressing an illogical tautology. After all, it could be boiled down to saying “if I jump off a cliff, I’m unable to fly, and therefore, I don’t have free will.”

Present all sorts of dilemmas, where both choices are correct, and you have free will, and no wrong choices.

Why does free will require a lack of ‘wrong choices’? That, too, is a misunderstanding – it conflates license with free will.

That is how real love is manifested.

In a human context, sure. But, the stakes are much higher in the present context being discussed. Here, “present human life on earth” is only a small part of the scenario. So, any attempt to equate ‘allowing human death’ with ‘not a loving parent’ is an error of scope. It would be much the same as if I were to claim that a loving parent wouldn’t allow his child to fall when learning to ride a bike. You’d laugh at that suggestion and retort, “but there’s good in learning to ride! And, the temporary pain of a fall is part of the greater good of the process of becoming a bike-rider!” And you’d be right. Similarly here, equating death with a deficiency on God’s part is short-sighted.

Finally, it would be ridiculous to assume that God acted capriciously or randomly. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that God did foresee the outcome, and wanted it to happen.

Actually, you’re missing one possibility (and perhaps that’s why you’re missing the point): it’s possible that God wants to allow human agency and thereby permit secondary causation.

People’s decisions are at least partially influenced by their environments.

Agreed, but you’re tilting at windmills, I’m afraid. You’re acting as if there’s one absolute standard – an objective test that you must score an ‘A’ on or else you fail. That’s not the case at all. Although there are differences in sitz im leben among individuals, God doesn’t sit up there with a giant scorebook, saying “aww… you were born to drug addict mother… so sorry you only scored a 55 on the test – you lose!”

 

[Gorgias]

Do we retain our Free Will in Heaven?

Because I’ve heard people describe such instance as a situation in which we retain our Free Will but it “aligns” itself perfectlly to God’s Will, making us perfectly good. This is very similar to what the OP is describing.

That only happens, though, because we experience God directly – the Beatific Vision – and are perfect in heaven.

The question, then, is “why allow life on earth? why not create directly to heaven?”, and the answer remains: because God wished to create humans who exercise agency and thereby, have the opportunity to freely choose Him.

 

[AlbMagno]

Thanks. To exercise agency is to have Free Will? I didn’t understand that.

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks. To exercise agency is to have Free Will? I didn’t understand that.

Just to make sure I’m not understood: I’m not making the claim that free will means “able to perform a certain act”, but rather, “able to choose a course of action” (whether that course of action is able to be performed or not). It’s not the act; it’s the will to choose an act. That exercise of agency is what I’m talking about…

 

[laylow]

The question, then, is “why allow life on earth? why not create directly to heaven?”, and the answer remains: because God wished to create humans who exercise agency and thereby, have the opportunity to freely choose Him.

If the consequence of not choosing him is eternal torture and torment then he was not freely chosen, rather he was chosen to avoid consequence. I don’t love my dad just so he doesn’t beat the hell out of me.

 

[laylow]

Is there free will in Heaven or not?

 

[Magnanimity]

If it is the nature of a human to have some manner of self-caused choice (and it seems to be) then yes, free will in heaven, albeit a compatibilistic free will. In a way, I’ve understood the OP and @RealisticCatholic and @BadgerHoney to have been asking and reasoning in this thread: why would the free-will possessed in heaven not have been what was installed in the first place? Why this intervening period of significant suffering and evil? But maybe I’ve misunderstood them…

 

[laylow]

If it is the nature of a human to have some manner of self-caused choice (and it seems to be) then yes, free will in heaven, albeit a compatibilistic free will. In a way, I’ve understood the OP and @RealisticCatholic and @BadgerHoney to have been asking and reasoning in this thread: why would the free-will possessed in heaven not have been what was installed in the first place? Why this intervening period of significant suffering and evil? But maybe I’ve misunderstood them…

If there is free will in Heaven, then free will can’t be the answer to why we have this short period of trials and suffering. (Which is the reason why I think the OP asks a great question)

It also makes the idea that people will or can not reject God once in Heaven problematic for several reasons. A few being:

1. Angels rejected God while being in his presence
2. Adam and Eve rejected God, while living in paradise and being in God’s presence

 

[calvinh]

My question is, what leads you to ask all of this? Clearly this is a pretty important question to you.

I have been raised Roman Catholic, and I want to ensure that whatever religion I follow has no chinks in its armor. I will default to Catholicism until I find that it fails. If I am to be a Catholic, I must be able to give reasons and hold my own in a debate. What better way to do that than to search for answers to my questions?

 

[Gorgias]

If there is free will in Heaven, then free will can’t be the answer to why we have this short period of trials and suffering.

I would respond that this isn’t a “short period of trials and suffering”, and that this misperception of what human life on earth is, seems to be coloring your view of the question.

This is an opportunity to live in a physical framework (the universe) as a physical person. To be ‘physical’ necessarily means that there is ‘change’, and therefore, there isn’t a single or immutable type of ‘human experience’. It also means that there will be experiences and situations that are ‘better’ and others that will be ‘worse’.

This, then, isn’t a period of trial and suffering – rather, it’s a time to live life on this earth, exercising free will, and learning (hopefully, learning to love God!).

Therefore, you’ve got the right answer (“free will”) but the wrong question (“why trial and suffering?”).

It also makes the idea that people will or can not reject God once in Heaven problematic for several reasons.

No, not really.

1. Angels rejected God while being in his presence

The Church teaches that the angels did not enjoy the ‘Beatific Vision’, and therefore, they were able to make a free choice.

1. Adam and Eve rejected God, while living in paradise and being in God’s presence

Two problems with this notion:

• It requires a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 2. (The Church doesn’t require that interpretation.)
• It assumes that they were in the ‘Beatific Vision’. The Church teaches that this is not the case.

 

[Magnanimity]

@laylow, that is entirely correct. Free will cannot be an adequate answer to this current reality. Unfortunately, it is some times posited as an adequate solution to the problem of evil and suffering.

I’m going to leave aside the interesting question regarding the angels. (St Thomas Aquinas argued that as the angels do not exist temporally (as you and I do), once their minds are made up, they cannot be unmade. So, their decision to not be in the presence of the Good may be an everlasting one, at least that’s how he argued.)

But, as for humans and the story of the garden of Eden, it isn’t so simple as “Adam and Eve rejected God.” That’s not, precisely, what happened. Both of them were “deceived,” so they cannot bear full culpability in themselves for their actions. And, again, it was not a rejection of God. It was much more nuanced than that. There was some pride, there was some “I’ll do what I want,” but a wholesale rejecting of their Creator is not what happened.

But, I suppose you’re wondering whether similar actions (like nuanced disobedience deserving of some
negative consequences) may be possible in Heaven when you have attained the beatific vision. Is that really what you’re asking?

 

[Gorgias]

Free will cannot be an adequate answer to this current reality. Unfortunately, it is some times posited as an adequate solution to the problem of evil and suffering.

Sadly, this opinion is often asserted as the answer to this question. However, have you ever noticed that it’s never provided with any proof or argument? It’s always “nah… that just can’t be the answer!”

No, it means that we have no free will IN THAT RESPECT.

That just doesn’t hold up to reason. So, according to that kind of thinking, I have free will to walk up a cliff, free will to step off the cliff, but no free will in the consequences?

You’re not talking about free will – you’re talking about the physical nature of the human being and the acts that a human can perform.

On the other hand, if there is only one flavor available, then you can “will” (desire) to have a different flavor, but to call that “free will” is ridiculous.

I can will to have the ice cream, and I can will to not have the ice cream. Free choice. What’s ridiculous is to constrain the definition illogically.

To allow “minor” negative outcomes (to teach something useful) is not the same as allowing “fatal” outcomes, where the word “fatal” is not restricted to “mere death”.

Death followed by eternal life isn’t “fatal”.

Moreover, even if you believe in the afterlife, you still would not allow your child to make a lethal mistake and rationalize: “No big deal… she just got sooner into that afterlife”.

Again… ‘error of scope.’ You’re attempting to assign a merely human perspective onto God.

“Possibly”, “perhaps” and “maybe” are not arguments. They are the last refuge of the incompetent apologist who ran out of arguments, but does not have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Wow. Seriously?

You were talking about possibilities. You missed one, and therefore, improperly analyzed the situation. I’m not talking “maybe’s” or “perhaps’es”. I’m telling you that you’ve unreasonably skipped one case. No “maybe” about it.

How would you KNOW that?

The Church teaches it. Jesus taught it.

Is this another example of your “omniscience”?

No. It’s an example of “knowledge”.

And since not everyone will pass the test, is that freedom “worth” the eternal damnation of those who fail the test?

Remember – damnation is nothing more than receiving what one wishes for (i.e., eternity without God). The Church teaches that this is the primary effect of ‘damnation’. So, in a very real sense, it is ‘worth it’ to those who choose it!

 

[steve-b]

Allow me to rephrase my question, with slight alterations. God could have created humanity in such an environment that there is clearly no reason to choose anything but to pursue His gifts while also giving us the ability to choose for ourselves. Why wouldn’t he? Is it because it wouldn’t be as satisfying to have us choose Him due to our common sense, rather than thought out discernment?

Think of it a bit differently.

Could you ask that of ANY college or university, … just give me a degree of my choosing, without going to class, without being tested for my knowledge of the subject, just give me a degree because I like your school, and because I ask for it… How would that go over?

 

[StephieNorthCo]

As an engineering hiring manager, I sure would.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Could you ask that of ANY college or university, … just give me a degree of my choosing, without going to class, without being tested for my knowledge of the subject, just give me a degree because I like your school, and because I ask for it… How would that go over?

If everyone would get treated like this? Who would care?

AND

the degree would mean nothing.