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

[Latin]

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.

All those who are familiar with catholic Soteriology knows, free will is not the answer to the question because unaided/ “un-programed” will leads EVERYONE TO HELL!

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence and the Scripture explains.

Life everlasting promised to us, (Romans 5:21); but unaided we can do nothing to gain it (Rom.7:18-24).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

.
Phil.2:13; For it is God who works in you BOTH to WILL and to ACT in order to fulfil his good purpose.
.
2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace PRECEDES, PREPARES, and ELICITS the free response of man.

God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. … (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3).

.
God’s graces does NOT hinders our free wills, God’s efficacious graces enlightens our minds and we always freely choose the good.
.
God’s will is immutable; therefore, God’s will always accomplished.
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

Empty references to unknown philosophers do not count as arguments .

Nor do your empty philosophies count as arguments.

The libertarian definition of free will still rests on three legs

Ahh, finally! A substantiation of your arguments! OK… so why should I accept the libertarian definition?

Not that I like to play a “numbers game”, but I suspect that more philosophers subscribe to the “libertarian” model of free will

Then why do you even mention it?

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.

That’s your interpretation of what Aquinas is saying. I can tell you what I think of it, or I can tell you what the doctrine of the Catholic Church (in contradistinction of it) is… but I think you already know what I’m going to assert, right? You’re misinterpreting the Angelic Doctor.

You seem to consider yourself as richly understanding Aquinas (and I not).

Nah. I think I might adequately understand Aquinas, in general. I think that, in this case, you’re misinterpreting him. Just one guy’s opinion…

But when I read an expert on Aquinas (e.g., Rev Garrigou-Lagrange)

Well… you gotta admit that G-L is a controversial theologian, no?

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.

Agreed. His grace extends to all. Not all accept and cooperate with it, however.

You employ a free will defense to rationalize how it is that some are destined for eternal life and others are reprobate.

Nope. Now you’re falling into Badger’s error – will isn’t act. The two are distinct. Our actions damn us, not our will. Remember the sheep and the goats? Christ doesn’t ask “did you will to help?”… He asks about our actions. And so, my “only answer” isn’t “because free will”.

 

[calvinh]

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.

The thing about this is that the Church teaches that God’s love is unconditional, the only thing that changes based on your sin is your getting into heaven or not, not God’s love.

 

[Magnanimity]

So, it’s free will plus action? But that would be to put the cart before the horse—God’s grace extending to you is not in response to you doing/believing anything (Eph 2:8-10). It is a gift willed by God…

Look, I get it. One has to do gymnastics with Thomism to make sense of all this. Your strained attempts to address my queries here and those of your other interlocutors illustrate the supreme difficulty raised by the OP, Badger and myself. My own solution is to fully accept Aquinas’ views on divine governance and predestination. I simply reject the belief that God loves some more than others. I also reject the infernalist position that Hell is an everlasting punishment (as Von Balthasar does), I dare to hope that all will, in the end, be saved—that Hell will eventually be emptied of human souls. Aquinas’ position I’m defending Hell either minimizes God’s Love for all or is an affront to justice itself. So for me, I don’t see a problem, for you however…muchísimas problemas. But peace be with you!

 

[Gorgias]

But that would be to put the cart before the horse—God’s grace extending to you is not in response to you doing/believing anything (Eph 2:8-10). It is a gift willed by God…

Who said that action precedes grace? Good works of supernatural virtue are a response to grace!

My own solution is to fully accept Aquinas’ views on divine governance and predestination.

Nah. It seems to me that you’re taking Aquinas’ views and trying to make them say something he wasn’t trying to say. That’s what happens when you attempt to characterize Doctors of the Church as saying things that contradict Church teachings. You start making unsupportable claims. And sadly, that’s the thin ice you’re on, at the moment.

I also reject the infernalist position that Hell is an everlasting punishment (as Von Balthasar does), I dare to hope that all will, in the end, be saved—that Hell will eventually be emptied of human souls.

Umm… pardon? You’re saying that you believe in apokatastasis? Oh – that explains why you disagree with the Church: you support a heretical doctrine! OK… it all makes sense now! It would have been a lot easier to understand your position if you’d have led with that assertion!

(Incidentally, Von Balthasar did not endorse apokatastasis… although he does hope that all might be saved. There’s a subtle difference there. Perhaps, if you started a thread on apokatastasis, we might discuss the nuance that you’re not acknowledging here…)

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

God is all-powerful, but He is not powerful enough to create a falsehood. Why? God is infinite Truth. It is the same thing with evil. God is all good. He cannot create something is not good. To do so would mean that God is not God … God is not good. Without free-will, man cannot be in the image and likeness of God. Man could not know God. Man would be a simple animal, incapable of sin, but also being incapable of love … incapable of true happiness. Here is a link to a blog that deals with the topics discussed above. How God made creation Good.

 

[Magnanimity]

No again @Gorgias. You do not seem to be a very careful reader of my replies.

1. I stated that I followed the Von Bathasarian dare to hope, and
2. you’re aware that he didn’t advocate
   apokatastasis,
3. then it follows that you have no reason for believing that I advocate apokatastasis.

As I said above, I have expressed my views on this subject at length in a separate thread. You are welcome to peruse them there.

Your comment on the order of works and grace has nothing to do with the question of why God wills his grace leading to eternal life to some and not others. I am left to assume you have no answer, unless it’s the Thomistic answer, which is repugnant as it entails that God loves some more than others. One last time, I will quote the universal doctor of the Church on this issue, “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.” It really could not be any more plain…:man_shrugging:t2:

And on the contrary, the entire reason why I have been quoting St Thomas Aquinas is exactly because he is representative of Church teaching! The fact that you would think that the reason I have been quoting him is because I am trying to characterize him as contradicting Church teaching is further evidence that you are simply not paying attention to my replies. I have been doing the very opposite of what you suggest.

I wish you well @Gorgias. I’m not sure why you put so much effort into the replies, as I wish you’d put more effort into trying to grapple with your interlocutor before you reply.

But oh well, I will dare to hope that it hardly matters and that God’s Love will be irresistible to you and that you will enjoy eternal life with Him (along with every other human that He loves, which is every human ever ). Peace be with you!

 

[Gorgias]

Except I explained all the words in the definition of free will - and how the definition makes sense.

Actually, you didn’t. Aside from saying “this other thing doesn’t make sense”, the only thing aside from your definition was:

The force can be physical or psychological. It can also be the result of “brain washing”.

What is NOT meaningless is that libertarian view is rational

You can see that this doesn’t provide a justification or argument for your position, right? Right?

It’s pretty sad that I had to spell it out for you.

It’s called ‘debate’, Badger. You can’t just say “I believe X, so therefore you must accept it as true.”

As for the “why”, because it is the only rational definition.

You can see that this isn’t an argument… right?

it follows that you have no reason for believing that I advocate apokatastasis.

Let’s review what you actually wrote – and not what you say you wrote. (That’s the fun part of threads… we can actually go back and see what you wrote. )

I dare to hope that all will, in the end, be saved—that Hell will eventually be emptied of human souls.

That’s the very definition of apokatastasis – namely, that Hell, having human souls, will eventually be emptied of them and they will attain to heaven.

Not sure how you can make it any more clear that you support apokatastasis.

(However, I see your point that, while you believe that both you and VB hope for universalism, you aren’t saying that he believes in apokastasis.)

the entire reason why I have been quoting St Thomas Aquinas is exactly because he is representative of Church teaching!

The problem is… you’re misrepresenting what he wrote. And then, misrepresenting it, you’re claiming that he supports doctrines contrary to the Church. You can see the issue there, right?

I’m not sure why you put so much effort into the replies

Because it’s clear what you’re trying to do with Aquinas’ words, and it’s pretty unpalatable.

 

[Vico]

edward_george1:

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?

A person expresses charity or malice only through free will, therefore to manifest the image and likeness of God it is necessary to freely choose charity. Only a person that does that, such as to die in that state of sanctifying grace, can receive the Beatific Vision. And there is greater or lesser glory based upon the merits received during life.

 

[phil19034]

Because that’s not free will and it’s not love.

Love is a choice. God is Love and is all about love.

God gave us the ability to love. And since love is a choice, if we we all naturally loved one another, then it wouldn’t be love.

I hope I’m making sense.

 

[phil19034]

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

Or the question: “Can God make a round square?”

 

[phil19034]

Is there free will in Heaven or not?

Yes and no.

Our wills are set in stone at the moment of our death. So if our wills are aligned with God, we go to heaven (or purgatory). If our wills are not aligned with God… then…

 

[Magnanimity]

We are allowed to hope that no human is eternally damned @Gorgias, which is the only thing I said. I spoke nothing about the certainty of a restoration of a primordial condition, the fate of the angels, etc. I said I followed the Von Balthasarian belief on this, which is not apokatastasis.

Take care buddy

 

[Gorgias]

We are allowed to hope that no human is eternally damned @Gorgias, which is the only thing I said.

Actually, you talked about “hell being emptied”. Not “hell being empty”, but emptied – as in “it was populated, but now is not.”

That’s apokatastasis, whether you want to deny that it is or not. (And, that’s not following Von Balthasar, either.)

Perhaps you misspoke when you mentioned “hell being emptied”? If so, then your pleas of having been misunderstood make sense. It was just a careless turn of phrase that happened to also be the precise definition of something you don’t believe…

 

[Magnanimity]

Actually, you talked about “hell being emptied”. Not “hell being empty”, but emptied – as in “it was populated, but now is not.”

Wrong again @Gorgias. Apokatastasis entails a restoration of all things to their primordial good state. That is the teaching. I have no problem believing in the persistence of places like hell and purgatory. I also don’t have a problem believing that angels can persist indefinitely in hell, because like Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, once an angel’s mind is made up that is it. There is no possibility of change because angels are fully actualized.

von Balthasar’s belief is limited to humans. It rejects the irrational belief that an everlasting punishment could possibly be fitting for any finite crimes. It also fully accepts that God’s mercy endures forever and that he desires that all men will be saved and will come to a knowledge of the truth. In this, God’s will will not be thwarted. There is an irresistible quality to love. And the love of an infinite Being will, in the end, be irresistible to all people.

But I may start a new thread in which these topics can be fully explored.

 

[Gorgias]

Wrong again @Gorgias. Apokatastasis entails a restoration of all things to their primordial good state.

It also entails the concept of hell as a temporary, not final, destination. That’s what makes it heresy.

von Balthasar’s belief is limited to humans. It rejects the irrational belief that an everlasting punishment could possibly be fitting for any finite crimes. It also fully accepts that God’s mercy endures forever and that he desires that all men will be saved and will come to a knowledge of the truth. In this, God’s will will not be thwarted.

Been a while since I read him. I don’t recall him suggesting that those who go to hell only do so temporarily. Perhaps you can quote the passage where he says differently?

If all he’s saying is that he hopes all are saved – without saying that those who are condemned are condemned only temporarily – then he’s not claiming apokatastasis (which is what I think the case is). Unless you make the statement that “those in hell do not leave”, then you kinda are claiming apokatastasis.

I get the feeling that you believe it, but knowing it’s a heretical doctrine, simply don’t want to say it out loud. But, feel free to demonstrate that this is not your belief.

 

[laylow]

Yes and no.

Our wills are set in stone at the moment of our death. So if our wills are aligned with God, we go to heaven (or purgatory). If our wills are not aligned with God… then…

It obviously can’t be both yes and no, since they are opposite, Boolean concepts.

There in lies the problem with the idea. If there is Free Will in Heaven, then it was possible to make creation in Heaven in the first place and they could still “love” God. If there is not Free Will in Heaven, then it wasn’t that important in the first place.

 

[leonhardprintz]

The relationship between God, and time, and how his timeless acting in the world harmoniously integrates with Free Will, is a mystery so deep that I doubt even the highest angels are capable of accounting for it.

And before that you have the mystery of what we humans truly are. We know it first hand, but there’s so much about ourselves we keep finding out. I don’t feel I truly know what it means to be human.

And I’d have to answer that before I could even approach answering the question posed in the OP.

 

[laylow]

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’.

Well, tell that to 99% of humanity throughout history. I’m guessing if they could, they would vehemently disagree with you.

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.

I’ll take a look at the link. I have read many faith-based explanations and theodicies and have not found them satisfying to the problem. I suppose why not read another attempt?

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.

Which is different than how they did on earth, hence “altered.” What would be a better word, adjusted? changed? transformed?

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

I meant that many say you cannot Love someone (or thing) without the option of going against it (or hating it). If in Heaven, people can’t go against God, then by this logic, can they still truly love him?

 

[laylow]

Well said! And one of these days it might be fun to investigate what the word “love” means in conjunction with God? How do we “love” God? It cannot be “Eros”, it cannot be “Agape” or “Filia” or “Storge”.

It is said that God is love. Is it possible to love “love?”