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

[Gorgias]

To speak of “free will” there must be at least two different ways to achieve that goal

I disagree. Even in the presence of “I choose to do this” or “I choose not to do this”, there is a free choice (even if only one way to do it is present). In other words, there are two options.

Please substantiate what you’re claiming. Baldly stating it as truth doesn’t cut it (quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur).

They are inseparable. You cannot “will” something that is impossible to achieve.

That’s why your construct – which requires one to be able to will anything – is absurd!

This shows that you don’t even understand the problem.

I will try to explain one more time. The question was NOT whether to have an ice cream or not, it was to be able to select a specific flavor which you desire (say: chocolate).

No… this shows that you refuse to engage the problem. Please, please, please substantiate why your requirement (two or more options) is a reasonable one. Otherwise, you’re simply stating as an axiom something that is arbitrary.

Do you understand the not so subtle “nuances”?

I do: the nuance here is that you refuse to admit the choice between “yes” and “no” as a choice, and want to force an artificial requirement of “yes to this” and “yes to that”. You haven’t substantiated why this must be so. In fact, you’ve kinda assented to my point, by admitting that there’s choice “in that respect.” That means that there actually is choice, my friend. Maybe not the kind of choice you want… but still, a choice.

Nope. You did not present a third alternative, you just said that possibly / maybe there is a third alternative.

Please re-read what I wrote. I said that you missed one possibility (that is, that God wants to allow human agency), not that ‘maybe’ there’s a third possibility.

Too bad that you confuse “faith” with “knowledge”. Read up on Hebrews 11:1.

Read a bit further in Hebrews 11, friend. There’s lots of knowledge there that’s known through faith. What Jesus teaches, we know through faith.

 

[Gorgias]

One cannot “choose” if there is no option, or if there is only one option. Without choice there is no “freedom”. Is that NOT obvious? Axiomatically obvious?

One chooses the option available, or chooses not to accept the option. Is that not obvious?

I remember that someone said this: “The free will of a rape victim was not violated by the rapist, since she always has the option to lay back and enjoy the experience”. Maybe not the choice she prefers, but a choice nevertheless??? Is that kind of “free will” you have in mind?

No. But hey… nice straw man.

Clear as a whistle

Yes, it is! You did not recognize this as one of the possibilities of your construct. That was an error.

And let me point out: everything that you say about God’s desire is speculation. And an incorrect one, at that.

Not according to the teachings of Christ and inshrined in the Bible.

After all God cannot “desire”.

God does not have emotions. That does not imply that God does not have desires for humans.

No. You believe through faith. Which is fine… but you should not confuse “knowledge” with “beliefs”.

Seriously? Do I need to quote Hebrews 11 back to you?

By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God

Knowledge that the order of the universe comes by the word of God. Knowledge through faith.

By faith Noah, warned about what was not yet seen, with reverence built an ark

Knowledge of the flood. Knowledge through faith.

Seriously. Please read the Scriptures you want to cite, prior to citing them.

 

[thistle]

Fair enough. In that case, though, it could be that someone who does terrible things could still go to heaven if they do those terrible things only because of the influence of the environment around them.

No. They would only be saved if they repent their sins and die in a state of grace.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, well the various reasons why a free will defense isn’t adequate are easy to come by.

First, God has immediate providence over all things (Aquinas, ST, P. 1, Q. 22, Art. 2-3)
Second, people are predestined to eternal life by God. (Aquinas, ST, P. 1, Q. 23, Art. 1)

As I have said, folks seem to have quite a high view of the nature and extent of human freedom on this forum, but the Church does not advocate a libertarian view of free-will. God acting as a primary cause of your salvation has to be taken into account. So, you are “free” in the sense that the arrow flying through the air hurling towards its mark is free (after the archer, God, shot it).
How free does that analogy make you feel? (It’s Aquinas’ own analogy in his treatment of predestination in the ST.) :man_shrugging:t2:

 

[steve-b]

Why can’t God make it so that, despite our free wills, we are still able to live our lives in such a way that everyone voluntarily accepts God’s grace?

That is programming, thus free will is not really free.

 

[Fets]

To be honest, I think that our world is such a place. We live in a world with free will, and there really is no good reason not to choose God.

 

[calvinh]

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?

But your analogy falls apart when you take into account that your analogy must include that the college must want everyone to get a degree.

 

[Gorgias]

How do you choose if there is no option which allows what you wish to achieve? Just shrug and let the rapist have his fun?

Again, you’re confusing ‘act’ and ‘will’.
BadgerHoney:

Straw man??? Ah, yes. The OTHER “cop-out” when the apologist runs out of actual arguments, but does not want to admit it. How typical.

“Cop-out”? Nah. What’s typical, though, is the ‘playbook’ of weak examples – you know, like the one where ‘rape’ is supposed to prove that ‘free will’ doesn’t exist? How typical…
BadgerHoney:

“Possibilities” STILL don’t count.

sigh . whatever. Call it ‘option’. Call it ‘argument’. Call it whatever makes you happy. It’s still something you didn’t consider, and that’s why your assertion failed.

the various reasons why a free will defense isn’t adequate are easy to come by.

No, not really. Let’s look at your arguments:

Magnanimity:

First, God has immediate providence over all things (Aquinas, ST, P. 1, Q. 22, Art. 2-3)

Does this mean that God does not allow secondary causation? Of course not. What does it mean? From ST I.22.3:

Two things belong to providence – namely, the type of the order of things foreordained towards an end; and the execution of this order, which is called government.

So, God knows all the types of things (which is the first) and “He governs things inferior by superior” (the second). What is the effect of this governance? Aquinas explains that it is that “the dignity of causality is imparted even to creatures.”

Take a minute and re-read that last quote. Aquinas is literally saying that God’s providence is what gives us free will – that is, the ability to cause things on our own.

Magnanimity:

Second, people are predestined to eternal life by God. (Aquinas, ST, P. 1, Q. 23, Art. 1)

In ST I.23.2, we read, “predestination is a kind of the type of the ordering of some persons toward eternal salvation… [but] the execution of this order is in a passive way in the predestined. The execution of the predestination is the calling.”

So, ‘predestination’ doesn’t thwart free will, either: it merely calls people to the end that God wishes for them.

Magnanimity:

So, you are “free” in the sense that the arrow flying through the air hurling towards its mark is free (after the archer, God, shot it).
How free does that analogy make you feel?

Aquinas is talking about something different there, of course. Arrows are incapable of hitting their mark on their own power, so they need a bow to point them in that direction. (Whether they hit it, however, depends on the construction of the arrow.) In humans, there is an ‘ordering’ toward the goal of eternal life; but, whether we ‘hit the mark’ or not depends on our own actions.

Additionally, your analysis here is somewhat flawed. If we do not have free will and cannot cause our own actions, then your take on things means that God causes persons to be damned. Calvin might have agreed with you; the Catholic Church does not.

 

[laylow]

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!).

I could go with that, if nearly all of the estimated 250,000+ years of human existence wasn’t spend in the agony of failed births, diseases, natural disasters, lack of adequate food and water, birth defects,etc. Most of these are not caused by human “free will” actions. If humanity more resembled the trials and challenges of the modern privileged teen, then I could possibly be on-board with this “opportunity” as you define it.

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

It assumes that they were in the ‘Beatific Vision’. The Church teaches that this is not the case.

So the Beatific Vision alters free will so that humans now cannot transgress against God? How can they truly love God if they cannot go against?

 

[laylow]

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?

That is one of the questions I have, yes.

 

[Magnanimity]

Additionally, your analysis here is somewhat flawed. If we do not have free will and cannot cause our own actions, then your take on things means that God causes persons to be damned . Calvin might have agreed with you; the Catholic Church does not.

I’m very sad to report to you (because St Thomas Aquinas is my intellectual hero and I admire him immeasurably) that according to him, God does cause persons to be damned. My own opinion as to why such a supremely subtle and nuanced mind as St Thomas’ would have advocated such an ugly viewpoint is that the belief in an everlasting place of punishment and torment was the consensus gentium at the time, regarding Hell.

I quote him here.

I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

-ST P.1, Q.23, A.3

Now, I know what you might think to yourself–oh this just means that God permits the person to follow his own will and fall into sin. However, Aquinas’ answer to the first objection he raises in the article (which would be everyone’s initial objection and is honestly the reason for this thread) is as follows:

Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.

To this, Aquinas sadly replies,

Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobate them.

And there you have it. It’s a heartbreaker to me. I follow Aquinas on so much, but I cannot follow him here. That reply to the objection that we all would have is quite honestly repulsive. And, unfortunately for you, much closer to Calvin than you seem to want it to be. Simply put, God wills that some would have eternal life and wills that others do not.

 

[Magnanimity]

@Gorgias, So, whatever celebrating you want to do of your own limited freedom (" the ability to cause things on our own") in the end, it is the will of God that determines. It is His will to impart grace to you to give you Life. And it is also His will to withhold that grace from you, to cause eternal separation. This is not God “wishing” anything. It is God causing it, even with your secondary causation accounted for.

So, again, a free will defense is inadequate.

P.S. You missed Aquinas’ point in the archer and arrow portion, so I’ll just quote him in response to your misunderstanding that you hit the mark by your “own actions.” Eternal life is not attainable by your own power–so God must direct/lead you to it, as the archer does with the arrow. He says,

The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (I:12:4). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God.

 

[Magnanimity]

It is a good question, and I’ve often wondered it myself. I haven’t studied enough on the beatific vision to see what the reasons might be to believe that that state of affairs is so qualitatively different from the innocence of Adam/Eve so as to prevent a “falling away” in Heaven. Besides Aquinas, I’m not sure what great thinkers of the Church have written much about it…
Wish I could be more help. Maybe others here have more to share on that issue.

 

[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?

But your analogy falls apart when you take into account that your analogy must include that the college must want everyone to get a degree.

When God desires all to be saved, is everybody then saved regardless of the requirements that go along with being saved?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When God desires all to be saved, is everybody then saved regardless of the requirements that go along with being saved?

Why should there be a requirement to be saved? If love would be unconditional (as it should be) then there would be no special requirement. Real, unconditional love would create everyone directly into heaven.

Re: Love

The answer is simple

The one who saves gave us a condition.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. [Jn 14:15]

IOW, there are conditions for us.

AND

If we don’t keep the commandments? Lots of scripture passages give the consequences for that.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Re: Love

The answer is simple
The one who saves gave us a condition .
“ If you love me, you will keep my commandments. [Jn 14:15]
IOW, there are conditions for us.
AND
If we don’t keep the commandments? Lots of scripture passages give the consequences for that.

That is the problem. All I can do is repeat what I said before. True love is unconditional, it does not give out “commandments”.

And all I can do is give the information, properly referenced. What one does with it is up to them.

 

[Gorgias]

It is His will to impart grace to you to give you Life. And it is also His will to withhold that grace from you, to cause eternal separation.

Umm… we could get into a really interesting discussion on ‘sufficient’ and ‘efficacious’ grace here…

So, again, a free will defense is inadequate.

If we think that it’s only free will, operating on its own? Sure. But who said that?

You missed Aquinas’ point in the archer and arrow portion

No, I really didn’t. Aquinas is stating that the arrow, itself, is incapable of flinging itself in the direction of the target. Therefore, it needs an archer to point it toward the target. That’s all he’s saying here. God directs us toward our ‘end’. But, we’re rational creatures, and therefore, we sin (very literally, we ‘miss the mark’). Aquinas isn’t saying “God fires some arrows into the target and some intentionally into the ground.”

No. The WILL without the ability to ACT on that will is just “pie in the sky”.

Says you. There are philosophers with a whole lot more cred out there who would define free will devoid of ‘ability to act’. I think I’m gonna believe them over you.

“A terrorist holds your family captive and demands that you detonate a bomb. If you refuse, he will kill your children one at a time. Are you “free” to refuse?

Yes, you are. You seem to be asking a different question: “faced with a difficult choice, is there one option that seems better?” Yes, there is. There is still a choice. This discussion is getting better and better – you’ve moved from straw man arguments to red herrings! What will you throw into the mix next?

When you are caught, and brought to justice, you present the defense

And now, you’ve added additional irrelevant elements: not only ‘duress’, but also, ‘culpability’!

To say that a person has a free will doesn’t necessarily imply that they have the facility to exercise it equally at all times. When I’m sleeping, I may turn to the left or to the right – would we say that these are “free will” decisions? Of course not!

And, persons may experience situations that force a decision that’s made in a timeframe or in a context that is far from ideal, and might be different than the decision that would have been made given more time or less stress. Does that mean that the person has no free will? Of course not – it merely means that his decision has been forced by external circumstances.

Moreover, the question of culpability is also irrelevant. Judges (Gorgias-like or not) aren’t asking questions of ‘free will’ – they’re asking objective questions of criminality of actions and subjective questions of culpability.

So… nice try. But, no dice. ‘Stress’ and ‘culpability’ don’t prove that free will doesn’t exist.

 

[Gorgias]

If only you would understand that “rape” - which is a FORCED action takes away the free will of the victim.

If only you would understand that ‘rape’ – which is a FORCED action takes away the free will ability to act of the victim.

There… fixed that for ya. You’re welcome.

If something is merely possible, it does not have to be taken into account.

It is merely possible that you’re correct. Therefore…

 

[Gorgias]

I could go with that, if nearly all of the estimated 250,000+ years of human existence wasn’t spend in the agony of failed births, diseases, natural disasters, lack of adequate food and water, birth defects,etc.

Let’s be clear – I’m not saying that all those things don’t happen… I’m saying that you’re characterizing life on earth improperly. Life includes trials and suffering, but the telos of life on earth isn’t ‘trials and suffering’.

Most of these are not caused by human “free will” actions.

Interestingly, Catholic theology would make a distinction between ‘natural evils’ and ‘moral evils’. The latter result from “human ‘free will’ actions”, as you note. Natural evils, however, are another story. This link might make interesting reading for you, as you consider the difference between the two (as well as whether God is morally culpable for the presence of natural evils.

So the Beatific Vision alters free will so that humans now cannot transgress against God?

No, I wouldn’t say that it ‘alters’ free will. Rather, being in the presence of the source of all Goodness, our free wills operate in the way God designed them – in concord with Him.

How can they truly love God if they cannot go against?

That’s quite an odd question. Are you really defining ‘love’ in terms of the lack of its presence?

I’m very sad to report to you (because St Thomas Aquinas is my intellectual hero and I admire him immeasurably) that according to him, God does cause persons to be damned.

I’m very sad to report to you that Aquinas isn’t saying what you think he’s saying. Either you misunderstand the meaning of the word ‘reprobate’ or you seem to fail to distinguish between ‘cause’ and ‘effect’. The verb ‘to reprobate’ (reprobare) in the Latin, means to “reverse approval” for someone or something. In other words, God isn’t causing damnation, He’s merely allowing it, as your quote shows: “reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin”.

God doesn’t cause damnation, He merely judges it justly. The analogy is a good one – when a judge pronounces a verdict on a criminal, does he cause the criminal act, or does he merely assess it justly? You seem to be claiming the latter. That doesn’t hold up to reason.

Your note on Objection 1 continues to misrepresent Aquinas. Objection 1 says “God can’t love someone and yet condemn him”, and Aquinas merely responds “God doesn’t guarantee eternal life to all”. To claim that his response here means “God causes the sin that damns” is to misread Aquinas grievously.

Simply put, God wills that some would have eternal life and wills that others do not.

In all charity… keep working on understanding what Aquinas is saying.

 

[Magnanimity]

God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobate them.

No @Gorgias, the point Aquinas makes above is inescapable. God, according to Aquinas here, does not love everyone enough to grant them all eternal life. He does not wish/will/lead all to eternal life, only some.

God’s grace leading to eternal life is a gift, plainly not earned as we all know. So, the question for Aquinas (and you and every other person who believes in humans enduring in an everlasting Hell) is why would He only extend His grace to some and not others?

You seem to consider yourself as richly understanding Aquinas (and I not). But when I read an expert on Aquinas (e.g., Rev Garrigou-Lagrange) his answer to this question is that the only possible reason for this disparity between how He extends grace to some and not others is that God loves some more than others. Cut and dry, that is it. And that is a bizarre belief. That’s what some disordered humans do—love some of their children more than others. I fail to see how an infinitely loving and perfect God would have the disposition of a disordered parent.

So, why do you think he only extends his saving grace to some and not all? You cannot answer “because of the person’s sin.” That is backwards. God’s grace is not a response to our actions—it’s extended freely because He is (first) a loving God.

You say, “ If we think that it’s only free will, operating on its own? Sure. But who said that?”

Precisely, you. You employ a free will defense to rationalize how it is that some are destined for eternal life and others are reprobate. I take Aquinas at his word—God wills some goods to all people, just not the good of eternal life to all people. You are left to answer the question of why God seems capricious. But your only answer seems to be, “because free will!” Good luck with that @Gorgias.