Is free will an essential part of human nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CrossofChrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
With this act of disobedience came the birth of mankind’s “evil” inclination, which is not only directed toward sinful behavior but also toward survival in the form of finding food to eat, working, sexual behavior, and other forms of positive aggression provided it is not abused. Whether they commit sinful behavior or simply try to survive, humans would no longer live in a Garden of Eden with all their needs provided for.
Click to expand...
That is essentially the Catholic definition of concupiscence. From the catechism:

2514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.301 In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.
 
meltzerboy said:
Human nature means that we are tempted to commit sin; but since we have free will, it is possible for us to resist temptation. I would imagine that the will of the human “side” of Jesus, according to Christian belief, would be strong enough to consistently resist falling into sin. Besides, as granny points out, Jesus’ human will submits to His divine will.
Click to expand...
Strong enough is not complete when it comes to eternal life. For a short life, strong enough can do the job. Moreover the sin either was impossible or possible, which I think you believe in the first case, since you believe that Jesus was perfect hence he cannot commit sin since it was impossible.
 
meltzerboy said:
How do you interpret the meaning of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Click to expand...
May I assume that you are referring to Genesis 2: 15-17, which clearly states the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? (Information source. CCC, 396; CCC, 1730)

The reason some people have so much difficulty with the simple meaning of that famous tree is that they ignore the basic foundation for determining the tree’s meaning.

Step one.
Accepting that there is only one God Who is the Creator. Therefore, there cannot be two equal God’s.

Step two.
Accepting that a human person, as a created creature, is not a God.

Step three.
Accepting that God, as Creator, can interact with His creatures, including human beings.

Step four.
Using common sense, one can determine what a human creature has to do in order to actually live in a real relationship with his Creator.

Genesis 1: 24-31 will also be useful in figuring out the interpretation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. However, these verses will be fully developed in the good news from Jesus Christ. Please see the traditional interpretation of Genesis 3: 15 given in CCC, 410-411. Also, refer to chapter 14, Gospel of John, in which Jesus promises the Holy Spirit.

Philosophically speaking, it is a lot of fun differentiating between knowing and experiencing. Personally, I see the author of the first three chapters of Genesis as a down-to-earth practical philosopher who goes straight to the heart of explaining the Garden’s environment. (Genesis 1:1)
 
CrossofChrist said:
Is the capability to choose both good and evil an essential part of human nature? If yes, then wouldn’t it have been possible for Christ to commit sin, if he truly took on our humanity?
Click to expand...
Back to the beginning. Christ was like us in all things, save for sin. This was because He did not suffer from concupiscence. Thus, He was both able and completely willing to conform His human will to His divine will, which was the Father’s will. Indeed, in the hypostatic union, we don’t know what His human will experienced as a result of that union, but it was so powerful, so pure, so desirable that His human will considered no other path.
 
po18guy said:
Back to the beginning. Christ was like us in all things, save for sin. This was because He did not suffer from concupiscence. Thus, He was both able and completely willing to conform His human will to His divine will, which was the Father’s will. Indeed, in the hypostatic union, we don’t know what His human will experienced as a result of that union, but it was so powerful, so pure, so desirable that His human will considered no other path.
Click to expand...
👍

I was over-thinking when I started this thread. Does this sound about right?:

God created all humans except Christ as people journeying toward the beatific vision. Because we didn’t have this vision when we were made, and because God wanted us to be free creatures, we have the ability to choose both good and evil. Christ, because he always has the vision of God and is perfectly united to God, attains perfect freedom by only being able to choose good.
 
CrossofChrist said:
Is the capability to choose both good and evil an essential part of human nature? If yes, then wouldn’t it have been possible for Christ to commit sin, if he truly took on our humanity?
Click to expand...
How God could create a being not knowing what is its nature?
 
Bahman said:
How God could create a being not knowing what is its nature?
Click to expand...
I realize that this is very difficult to understand. In fact, total understanding is near impossible because we are not omniscient.

However, once one is able to accept the fact that God exists as transcendent, super-natural, Spiritual Being, without restrictions, Catholic doctrines follow neatly in a row. Jesus Christ is True God, the Second Person of the Divine Blessed Trinity; consequently, He knows His own nature. Because Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Divine Blessed Trinity, as God, He is the Creator. As God, the Creator, He knows what human nature is.

Because Jesus Christ, as God, does not have material/physical restrictions, He can assume “pure” unadulterated human nature without restrictions. Pure or basic human nature has the essential principles or elements of intellect and free will. Consequently, Jesus Christ’s assumed human nature has human intellect and human free will.

What is difficult to grasp is that Jesus Christ is One Divine Person with two distinct natures, human and divine.

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 464.
**464 **The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.
 
CrossofChrist said:
Yes, I’m aware. But if free will consists of the ability to choose both good and evil, then Christ didn’t have free will.

I’m not disputing the fact that Christ assumed human nature, but a common form of apologetics that tries to account for evil by claiming that if we couldn’t choose to do evil we wouldn’t have free will. A truly free will consists of being perfectly united to God, and anything less is not true freedom. OTOH, we lose freedom and become “slaves to sin” when we choose something that is wrong.

I probably should’ve made my objective clearer when I started the thread.
Click to expand...
Anyone who sees God loves God totally. There is a person who has seen God, in fact is one with God, in fact is God. This person has two natures, but this person, in both his natures loves this God whom this person saw (and sees). This is the “goal” the “End” the “telos” of this person, to be one with the object of his love - there is no freedom there, no “choice” involved with your vision of supreme happiness.
This person, however, also has what we term “free will”, which is the ability to choose actions that can act as means to the end of achieving unity with the beloved. Jesus made all his choices founded on being united with his Father, and because of God’s love for us, made all his choices that would enable us to be one with him in love.

When we “sin”, we are actually in love with something we call “good” that we mistakenly think will bring happiness, and we make choices to unite ourselves to temporal, material, things. We do not use our reason in an ordered manner, knowing that what is temporal will fail us in our need of happiness.

When we “catch sight of God” by seeing and hearing Jesus in his Church, we begin to fall in love with a new and eternal source of happiness, and we begin to choose to do things that will unite us to Jesus (repent, ask to be joined to him in baptism, commune with him) while also choosing not to do other actions that the world, the flesh, the devil put in front of us with lures of temporal pleasure and happiness, trying to get us to fall in love with what is not God.

Jesus did not sin because he knew whom he loved. He “chose” not to turn stones to bread, he chose not to throw himself off the temple, he chose not to bow down to Satan. All the “things” that Satan showed him as desirable (food, honor, power) were not his Father whom he loved, and they could not give unity with his Father.

What do you love? You will “choose” actions that unite you to them and “choose” to ignore actions that keep you separate from them.

John Martin
 
Jesus Christ, even though he had assumed a human nature, could not sin, even in principle, because he was created in full possession of the Beatific Vision and those who enjoy the Beatific Vision cannot, even in principle, sin. Also, christ was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, he was God and God cannot, even in principle, sin.

The idea that Christ could have sinned was condemned at the Fifth General Council of Constatinople. This Council condemned the teaching of Theodor of Mopsuestia, which asserted that Christ only became completely impeccable after the Resurrection. It follows from this that He was always impeccable. This is a constant teaching of the Church, continuously maintained by faithful Theologians, both Catholic and Non-Catholic.

Linus2nd
 
Here’s how I’ll answer this.

We must differentiate the types of freewill.

Absolute freewill and the common freewill.

I think your question deals with the regular notion of freewill which can be defined as “the freedom to act or not to act, in this way or in that way.”

Absolute freewill is freedom in the purest sense which is the ability to choose and love God.

That’s the very reason we say a drug addict is enslaved by illegal drugs and therefore not free. He was free in choosing to take drugs but we know from experience there comes a certain point where he can no longer part from it. Lord of the Rings has a lot of symbology regarding this.

Evil enslaves as it numbs our senses and distorts reality.

Freewill is free if it can see freely and therefore always freely chooses the Good which is God.

Evil is enslaving since it cannot escape from unreality and therefore is not free.

Another point, Socrates argued that if we are wise enough we will never choose evil over good. Did he mean the wiser we are the less free we become? He means the opposite, the wiser we are the more free we become.

Evil is untruth.
If Truth is free and Evil is untruth
Therefore, Evil is unfree.

Truth shall set you free.
Jesus is the Truth.
Therefore, Jesus is free.
 
How he could assume human nature without the ability to do sin?
Click to expand...
Father Brian Mullady of EWTN spent an entire program on this issue.

Jesus in his human nature had the Beatific Vision. It could not be otherwise; he had divine personhood.

The Beatific Vision does not take away free will,
but it is essentially impossible for a soul that already possesse the infinite goodness of God to turn away from it. It’s like someone refusing to accept the Powerball lottery winnings. It ain’t gonna happen. Infinitely more unlikely is it to turn away from God when we are already participating in his divine nature.
Or consider someone who has an illness that will make him blind if he doesn’t accept a simple cure from the doctor, ***and he refuses the cure! *** :bigyikes: It ain’t going to happen. :cool:

I know certain people who lurk around here will insist that’s denial of free will. It isn’t, but we’ll never convince the lurkers. They don’t want to believe anything.
 
Human free will is the ability to seek God as the ultimate Good.

That sounds essential to me. 😃

Information source: CCC, 1730
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top