Is Our Own Free-Will Over-Rated? What About God's Will?

[Camron]

Does anyone else feel that explanations involving free-will somehow lacks something crucial?

What I mean by this is that it often posited that we must be allowed to choose in favor of God in order to be saved.

In one sense where I drastically disagree in this area is with the subject of infant baptism. It seems clear that these children are indeed saved by the grace infused into them by baptism, and this salvation is indeed, as far as we can tell, not a result of the baptized child’s faith—it is a result of the baptism only.

Another area where this “choosing for God” seems to break down is in the topic of our own creation. Indeed, we have not chosen to be created by God. God created us and, as far as we can tell, gave us no choice as to whether we wanted to be created or not. This is very similar to how we have no choice over who our parents will be.

I’ve also often heard if said that God had to allow us to make mistakes so that we could truly know love, but I partially question this too.

First of all, God, Who knows all things past, present, and future (and even knows all possible things that could have, should have or would have happened if things had gone differently), certainly doesn’t need to do this in order to know that we love Him. Indeed, He would already know this in advance without even having to create us in the first place.

Second of all, from our own human perspective, it’s already been noted that we most certainly do not appear to have any choice as to whether we are created or not. There is no free-will from the human perspective involved in this “decision” at all, just as the universe itself had no “choice” in being created. God created it according to His will, just as He created us according to His will.

So why create us without giving us a choice as to whether we want to be created or not (no free-will involved) and then force our salvation to be based on the choice we make for or against God (total based on our free-will).

Why is it that our very existence is not based on our free-will but our salvation is totally based on our free-will?

But going forward one step further, it doesn’t even seem to make sense that God would place so much emphasis on our own free-will especially when He apparently never even gave us a choice as to whether we wanted to have a free-will to begin with. Indeed, we have NO CHOICE but to have to MAKE A CHOICE, which is where I think Original Sin works into the picture: **being left locked into the prison of having to use our free-will to make choices between Good and Evil in this life. **

I’ve also heard that God really wouldn’t truly love us if He didn’t give us a choice. This too is something that I do not understand, precisely because, when we reach our ultimate goal in heaven to be with God, we clearly will not have a choice to sin against God. So if indeed God really wouldn’t truly love us if He didn’t give us a choice, then what is going on in heaven—is God hating us because He’s not giving us a choice to sin?

Even in our ordinary life we can see where this argument seems to fall apart. If a parent says to his child to not cross the road without parental supervision lest they will be in danger of being hit by a car, would the parent be justified in totally ignoring the child just because their child decided to cross the road without them? Would the parent truly be able to say that they loved this child by allowing them the freedom to make mistakes to the point of death?

On the spiritual level there are even more questions such as, “How exactly does intercessory prayer work if the person being prayed for doesn’t believe?”

Saint Francis of Assisi has said, “**Make me an instrument of Your peace.”**A nd in saying this he seems to be asking God to do with him as God sees fit, relinquishing his own will so that God’s Will may prevail.

Even the passage from the Bible in Luke 22:42 which says, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” clearly points to this same message.

It’s the same message in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom Come…Thy Will be Done…”

This same theme is found throughout the Bible many times.

This doesn’t seem to be our will. It appears to be about God’s Will.

I also don’t think that we choose God. I think that God chooses us-- regardless of what we want or don’t want to do.

And, to be honest, we really don’t seem to have a choice when it comes to God’s Will either: At death, there is either Heaven (perhaps after Purgation if required), or Hell. And there are no other options that I am aware of from the Catholic perspective:

1. If you do God’s Will then there is Heaven.
2. If you do not do God’s will (and move instead according to your own will instead) then there is Hell

Is this really a choice?

See the “yet not my will, but yours be done” quoted from Luke 22:42 for further context.

Anyway, I’m hoping for some clarification on this matter. It’s a topic that has been irking me for some time precisely because I don’t think that many of the “free-will” arguments adequately address the whole factor of “God’s Will” into the equation we very well.

Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

[StCsDavid]

Does anyone else feel that explanations involving free-will somehow lacks something crucial?

What I mean by this is that it often posited that we must be allowed to choose in favor of God in order to be saved.

In one sense where I drastically disagree in this area is with the subject of infant baptism. It seems clear that these children are indeed saved by the grace infused into them by baptism, and this salvation is indeed, as far as we can tell, not a result of the baptized child’s faith—it is a result of the baptism only.

I’m sure the rest of your post is lovely, but if someone writes more than a couple of paragraphs I tend to lose track of things. My bad not yours.

So to answer your question regarding infant baptism, the presumption is that we are destined for an individualistic relationship with God, when in point of fact, our relationship is communal. It is the desire of the parents that their child be part of the communion that makes up the mystical body of Christ. The child at some future date can always opt out and exercise his free will not be part of this communion.

Secondly, the presumption is that faith is an intellectual decision when scripture indicates that it is a substance. Hebrews 11:1 reads “Faith is the hypostasis of all that is hoped for.” What does that Greek work hypostasis mean? It gets translated to the Latin substantia. Translated to English we get substance.

 

[AJ85]

We are created in the image of God, which means that we have free will.
God is both the Loving Parent and the Just Judge.

 

[UndertheRadar]

First of all, it needs to be said that free will does not enable a man to do anything he wills to. His free will is limited to his physical, mental, emotional, and moral capacity, and may not act outside of these faculties.

Here are my answers to some of the free will questions that are of my opinion:

In the case of the infant, they have not been given free will yet because they have not developed any of the faculties that are necessary for free will to exist. God, being just, knows this and allows someone to exercise their free will in the baby’s stead. When they attain the free will, they may act according to their judgment.

In the case of God not allowing us to choose our existence, I will reiterate that free will does not mean that man has a choice in everything. He is free to act as he is using his faculties to exercise his free will. Man’s free will is within the guidelines set by the Creator. And if he doesn’t have his physical, emotional, etc., then how can he exhibit his free will?

He apparently never even gave us a choice as to whether we wanted to have a free-will to begin with.

As for the above quote, this does not appear to me to be a sound statement. Supposing that God gave us a choice to have free will, but did not give us free will until we chose to, then what would allow us to choose free will? We would have to have free will to choose free will.

Free will existed before the fall of creation. God wanted us to choose Him. To me, it would not make sense to create something that automatically loves you. I mean, what would have more meaning; a robot that was programmed to tell you it loved you or a child who of his own will admires and loves you?

Heaven is a continuation of our free will. It is the reward of our free will on earth.

 

[myredeemerlives]

Do you feel that you do not have free will? You know you do… God places before us two choices… life or death.

Now remember that in the beginning it was Adam who sinned and brought sin into this world. That was NOT God’s doing! Remember God had given Adam all power and authority over the earth, and he chose to hand that over to Satan when he sinned against God so now Satan has the power over this world. So if you choose to follow the world, you chose punishment and death. It’s just the way it is!

We have a choice to make, choose life or choose death… if we choose life are we going against our free will? If we choose God’s will over our own are we losing our free will?

No! We must willfully choose God and follow Him by our own will so that we may find life.

To you it may seem like you really have no choice, and you are right… because you know the alternative. But look how many who are not choosing that way?

By their own free will they will perish.

 

[Camron]

I just wanted to note before I responded to all these really good posts that I’m not denying that we have free-will. I know we do have free-will-- and have dedicated a very large amount of research into various mind-related books before to demonstrate this. One example can be found here.

Anyway, I would also like to note that I’m not saying that our free-will is irrelevant to our salvation either. Clearly our free-will is involved in our salvation to some degree. But sometimes it’s not—and sometimes I think people are crossing over from one area to another without making a clear distinction between the two very different perspectives.

My point is that I think that various arguments that posit free-will as a solution to deeper theological issues regarding our salvation (and what God demands of us in order to be saved) are often exaggerated beyond the limits of what they actually explain. There clearly are examples where our free-will is simply not as important as God’s will. And there are clearly examples where our free-will makes no difference whatsoever regarding our salvation too.

In all the examples I gave in my first post, I see a clear pattern where sometimes our free-will is required and sometimes our free-will is not required at all. This is really what I want to examine further: the dangers of exaggerating the value of our free-will beyond what is historically accepted within the frameworks of Catholic theology.

One very big danger I see in these kinds of explanations is a lessening of “God’s Omniscience” in order to make “free-will decisions” more important than they really are. In short, the emphasis seems to be more man-centered than God-centered in my opinion.

Again, I’m not saying that free-will is not important. Nor am I saying that our free-will does not exist. I am simply saying that it is not as important as God’s will is. I’ll address this further below by responding to the posts above later tonight.

Thanks.

 

[Camron]

I’m sure the rest of your post is lovely, but if someone writes more than a couple of paragraphs I tend to lose track of things. My bad not yours.

No problem.

So to answer your question regarding infant baptism, the presumption is that we are destined for an individualistic relationship with God, when in point of fact, our relationship is communal. It is the desire of the parents that their child be part of the communion that makes up the mystical body of Christ. The child at some future date can always opt out and exercise his free will not be part of this communion.

Either way, the child clearly does not have the free-will to choose God, and yet they are saved. In this sense the child’s free-will does not appear to be the deciding factor of their salvation.

Secondly, the presumption is that faith is an intellectual decision when scripture indicates that it is a substance. Hebrews 11:1 reads “Faith is the hypostasis of all that is hoped for.” What does that Greek work hypostasis mean? It gets translated to the Latin substantia. Translated to English we get substance.

Ok. I tend to picture God’s grace as God’s life within us. Faith is indeed the substance of things not seen. God is not seen except through Christ, who is the image of the invisible God.

It’s an interesting point. But I’m not sure how this relates to questions regarding free-will though.

 

[Camron]

We are created in the image of God, which means that we have free will.
God is both the Loving Parent and the Just Judge.

I think that being created in the image God means that we have the free-will to do good. I don’t think God has a choice when it comes to doing evil, which is the image I think we were created in.

I’m also guessing that when God offered His Divine fatherhood to us (the grace to transform us into the Sons and Daughters of God), we took this Divine offer and abused it, twisting it around against God, effectively abusing the free-will to do good and instead did evil by proclaiming ourselves to be gods without acknowledging God Himself.

I’m convinced that God knew in advance that we would do this too.

 

[Camron]

First of all, it needs to be said that free will does not enable a man to do anything he wills to. His free will is limited to his physical, mental, emotional, and moral capacity, and may not act outside of these faculties.

I agree with this to some extent. There are many factors in this life that we simply have no control over.

Having said that, free-will has allowed the prophets and saints to pray to God for miracles to happen-- effectively allowing them to work well past the normal physical, mental, emotional, and moral capacities of ordinary men (cf., Samson, David, Elijah, Moses, Peter, Paul, etc.)

This kind of comes to the next point…

Here are my answers to some of the free will questions that are of my opinion:

In the case of the infant, they have not been given free will yet because they have not developed any of the faculties that are necessary for free will to exist. God, being just, knows this and allows someone to exercise their free will in the baby’s stead. When they attain the free will, they may act according to their judgment.

So then free-will matters none at all to the infant, at least in regards to their choice as to whether they shold be baptized or not-- until they are of the age that they can act reasonably

In the case of God not allowing us to choose our existence, I will reiterate that free will does not mean that man has a choice in everything.

Agreed. But if free-will is really as important as some claim, then this seems to be a major stumbling block (at least to me it appears that way). There really isn’t a choice here precisely because God created humanity to know and love Him. If indeed free-will is as important as some claim then it seems reasonable that one would have a choice in whether they were to even exist or not. And yet we most certanly do not have a choice regarding this.

And this is where the idea breaks down even further: In order to make this choice in the first place one has to presumably already exist and likewise already have a free-will too.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

I’m not saying that free-will isn’t important. It is important. I’m just saying that it is not as important as some claim.

He is free to act as he is using his faculties to exercise his free will. Man’s free will is within the guidelines set by the Creator. And if he doesn’t have his physical, emotional, etc., then how can he exhibit his free will?

And yet he can be saved without any recourse to his own free-will at all if he is baptized as an infant.

Again, free-will is not that important for our salvation. God’s will is.

As for the above quote, this does not appear to me to be a sound statement. Supposing that God gave us a choice to have free will, but did not give us free will until we chose to, then what would allow us to choose free will? We would have to have free will to choose free will.

Actually, you understand what I’m saying perfectly.

Now let me ask you a question: Can God choose to do evil?

I think most would answer no to this, although some might disagree with me.

Either way, God cannot willingly choose to do evil. And I think this was the image that we were originally created in, without the ability to choose to do evil. However, I think that, when God freely offered His Divine Parenthood to us (offering the grace to make us into the Sons and Daughters of God) we abused this grace and made ourselves into our own false gods, thinking that we knew better than God Himself.

In other words, I don’t think that God gave us the choice between good and evil. If indeed He is all good, then how could He offer us something evil?

For example, Luke 11:11 says, “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Now if this is an analogy of God the Father, does this really match the description of God offering people a choice between good and evil?

Is God really offering us snakes and scorpions in the Garden of Eden?

No. I don’t think so anyway. I think that God offered us good things and I think this whole concept that God wanting us to “choose” between good andis evil is extremely flawed and almost entirely **human centered **.

I don’t think God wanted us to choose between good and evil. I think God demanded us to do that which is considered good (and didn’t give us any choice at all to do evil).

And he certainly didn’t engage in some experimental test trying to determine our course of action either. He already knew what we were going to do (because He already knows the future too).

See what I mean?

Free will existed before the fall of creation.

I disagree. I don’t think free-will existed until the fall of creation. Prior to the fall all things moved according to God’s will alone. I think free-will is a result of the fall.

This is not to say that God cannot use the evil done in order to still accomplish His will. Of course He can still do this. But this is not what he intended even if he knew it would happen. God really does desire all people to be saved even though He knows full well (in advance) that some will not be saved.

This also isn’t to say that I think that free-will is totally evil. I just think it’s exceptionally ambivalent toward God, containing the potential to do both good and evil-- with a tendency toward sin (concupiscence) as a result of the Original Sin. Our own free-will (which changes with the wind on some days) is not what God is asking us to place our hopes on. God’s own will (which does not change) is what God is asking us to place our hopes on.

God wanted us to choose Him…quote]

And yet baptized infants do not choose God. And yet they are saved even though they do not choose God—someone else chooses God for them.

If God is indeed our Father in Heaven could He not also chose Himself for us, just as our own earthly Fathers do?

And if He did, what exactly would be so wrong about this, since He is indeed a loving Divine Father who infinitely cares for us?

To me, it would not make sense to create something that automatically loves you.

And yet when a baptized infant passes away to be with God that infant automatically loves God in heaven.

So what’s the difference-- and why exactly is automatically loving God such a bad thing, especially if God specifically created us to know and love Him?

I mean, what would have more meaning; a robot that was programmed to tell you it loved you or a child who of his own will admires and loves you?

I think a human that was blessed with God’s grace to automatically love God, like Adam, Eve and Mary were, means far more to God than a robot that was programmed to tell Him it loved Him does. A robot has no soul for one thing. A human does.

And if indeed all people are created in the image and likeness of God, all these people knowing and loving Him (exactly like He created them for the purpose of) would mean infinitely more to God than the multitude of sinners who throw themselves into hell by failing to do His will.

I will note that Adam and Eve, even though they were initially blessed with God’s grace to automatically love God, did not retain this grace.

Mary, on the other hand, just like her Son, did retain the grace to automatically love God. And she’s considered the queen of heaven according to our Catholic understanding of her. So, again, what’s the difference-- and why exactly is automatically loving God such a bad thing, especially if God specifically created us to know and love Him?

Heaven is a continuation of our free will. It is the reward of our free will on earth.

And yet we will have no free-will to sin in heaven.

 

[StCsDavid]

Either way, the child clearly does not have the free-will to choose God, and yet they are saved. In this sense the child’s free-will does not appear to be the deciding factor of their salvation.

I would posit that the child’s free-will is freer than mine. He can more freely choose God than I can. The child doesn’t yet know any alternatives to God. In my way of looking at things the child is hindered by lack of lived experience in a fallen world to choose a life of sin. Oh that I could have that problem.

We are all created to be with God. That, in a sense, is our natural state, which is where the baby exists. Perhaps the substance of faith, leavened by the saving grace of baptism simply amplifies the will to exist in the natural state of being with God. That’s just conjecture on my part.

 

[UndertheRadar]

First of all, I will admit that I have a hard time reading the very long posts, so I didn’t make all the way through.

Again, free-will is not that important for our salvation. God’s will is

Our salvation has been paid for in Christ’s death upon the cross. Our ability to choose to share in this gift is dependent upon our free will. So I don’t think that free will is overrated.

In other words, I don’t think that God gave us the choice between good and evil. If indeed He is all good, then how could He offer us something evil?

Classic question. God is not capable of evil. He did not create evil. In fact, evil is not an object because God created everything, and He is incapable of evil. It should be noted that evil is the abscence of good. Here is where free will comes in. Free will has caused evil. In the beginning, man had free will to choose to follow the good that God created. He didn’t, and submitted himself to Satan, who is evil. Christ the Redeemer came back to submit man back to God. Now free will allows us to choose God, or choose the devil. Our salvation is based upon the choices that we make through free will.

I disagree. I don’t think free-will existed until the fall of creation. Prior to the fall all things moved according to God’s will alone. I think free-will is a result of the fall.

Then how can Lucifer’s choice to deny God explained? I understand what you are saying, but free will caused the fall of creation. It was our choice that allowed evil (the absence of good) into the world. God did not create evil just as He did not create Hell.

It sounds like to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are having a problem with the fact that our free will must be directed toward God. As creation was intended, there was no Hell. God created man in His own image, so naturally what would be good for us are the things of God. So yes, our free will is intended to be directed toward God but because it is what is good for us.

 

[Spirithound]

The first thing I need to say is that I don’t know what sources you’re working from, and I certainly can’t get in your head to see your interpretation of those sources and doctrines, nor what you think the extent of the effect our free will has on our salvation. Anyways, I’ll try to analyze at least some of your work

What I mean by this is that it often posited that we must be allowed to choose in favor of God in order to be saved.

Another area where this “choosing for God” seems to break down is in the topic of our own creation. Indeed, we have not chosen to be created by God. God created us and, as far as we can tell, gave us no choice as to whether we wanted to be created or not. This is very similar to how we have no choice over who our parents will be.

I’m not sure that this should really be in the same basket. We only have free will that is proper to us as fallen beings. Another poster noted that we do have restrictions on us. He noted physical limitations, and I would say that (name removed by moderator)ut about our creation is not proper to us, creating is proper to God. Again, I don’t know your expectations or your sources, so I can’t evaluate whether someone has “made too much” out of the idea of free will.

I’ve also often heard if said that God had to allow us to make mistakes so that we could truly know love, but I partially question this too.

First of all, God, Who knows all things past, present, and future (and even knows all possible things that could have, should have or would have happened if things had gone differently), certainly doesn’t need to do this in order to know that we love Him. Indeed, He would already know this in advance without even having to create us in the first place.

If God’s only interest was knowing whether we would love Him, then that would be sufficient. However, He wants us to actually love Him, and that requires our actual creation and free will.

I’ve also heard that God really wouldn’t truly love us if He didn’t give us a choice.

I disagree. God loves all His creation.

Saint Francis of Assisi has said, “Make me an instrument of Your peace.”

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

“Thy Kingdom Come…Thy Will be Done…”

This doesn’t seem to be our will. It appears to be about God’s Will.

It’s about both. It’s about God’s Will being perfect, and us wanting our wills to be conformed to His. St. Francis retained his free will in asking God to give him the graces to conform his will to God’s. Jesus, similarly, had a human free will which naturally did not want to die, but He aligned His perfectly ordered human will to His Divine Will. Recall Matthew 26: 53; “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”. This shows that Jesus still retained His free will, but chose to continue on this path.

I also don’t think that we choose God. I think that God chooses us-- regardless of what we want or don’t want to do.

Well that makes you a Calvinist, my friend.

 

[KingAlfred]

“Does anyone else feel that explanations involving free-will somehow lacks something crucial?”

Not at all. I believe the average Christian is bombarded with temptations to sin constantly, and that that reality is inescapable. It’s a consequence of our fallen nature. We are constantly tempted to abandon God and reach for the lethal indulgences of this world. We constantly want to make ourselves into gods, by grasping at power, weilding it through moral corruption. Without God, we are but beasts. To have Him, we must choose Him over our bestial existence. He gave us the power to partake in our own salvation. He will only save those who know, love and serve Him.

 

[Camron]

Eh…Calvinist? :nope:

I’m starting get the feeling that many here are not actually reading what I’m saying. :banghead:

Anyway, I’ll reply more tonight. :bounce:

 

[Camron]

Do you feel that you do not have free will?

No. I know I do have a free-will. I’m not arguing against the existence of free-will. Free-will does exist. I have no doubt it exists and that I have one.

That’s not the point of this discussion at all.

I guess I hadn’t made this clear enough before.

I’m only arguing against how important our free-wills are compared to God’s will and the final outcome of our salvation, which isn’t as much as some people claim.

Clearly there are many who are saved in Christ through their baptism that have, for all we know, no idea that they are even saved. Their free-will is not involved in their salvation at all. And God has no problem with this whatsoever.

You know you do… God places before us two choices… life or death.

God did not offer death to us. He offered us eternal life.

It was the devil, who, through his envy, brought death into the world.

God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of His own eternity, but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.

Now remember that in the beginning it was Adam who sinned and brought sin into this world. That was NOT God’s doing!

Actually, I think it was the devil that brought death into the world. Then Adam, participating in the devil’s original sin, brought death to humanity. And I think you’re right—this was NOT God’s doing.

Remember God had given Adam all power and authority over the earth, and he chose to hand that over to Satan when he sinned against God so now Satan has the power over this world. So if you choose to follow the world, you chose punishment and death. It’s just the way it is!

Exactly. I agree.

When Adam chose to move according to his own free-will (which I think Adam created, not God—because God created Adam moving according to God’s own will), Adam sinned against God and left us in the state of Original Sin. I have no problem with this. I do, however, have a problem with people claiming that God created Adam with a free-will that could so easily rebel against God, creating them specifically for the purpose of choosing between god and evil. This was not the purpose behind our creation. If Adam sinned it was because Adam was moving according to his own will and not God’s will.

God did not create our free-will. We did.

We have a choice to make, choose life or choose death… if we choose life are we going against our free will? If we choose God’s will over our own are we losing our free will?

No doubt we have a choice to make now—because of free-will. But we didn’t have a choice before the fall either. God demanded that we trust Him and specifically warned what would happen if we failed to do so…He never gave us a choice.

No! We must willfully choose God and follow Him by our own will so that we may find life.

Correct. And we cannot willfully choose God (and follow Him by our own will so that we may find life) unless we are moved by the Holy Spirit to do so.

This is not happening by our own-will. This is happening because God is doing it through us and we are NOT resisting His will. Our wills, which most certainly do exist, must be brought into harmony with God’s will. And in order to this we must be docile to the motion of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, while, yes, I do agree that our free-wills are important, I am stressing that they are important only insofar as we are docile to the motion of the Holy Spirit.

To you it may seem like you really have no choice, and you are right… because you know the alternative. But look how many who are not choosing that way?

I am all too aware of how many are choosing the wide path that leads to destruction

By their own free will they will perish.

Yes, and they are doing this according to their own free-will—not God’s. And if in fact human free-will is indeed the culprit behind our sins, why on Earth are people touting it as being so important when God clearly has no problem whatsoever saving people who have NOT chosen Him according to their own free-will, such as in the cases of intercessory prayers and infant baptisms for example?

There are actually too many situations where God does indeed save people through the actions of others even though those who are saved have absolutely no idea that God is working in them vicariously through other agents.

 

[Camron]

The first thing I need to say is that I don’t know what sources you’re working from, and I certainly can’t get in your head to see your interpretation of those sources and doctrines, nor what you think the extent of the effect our free will has on our salvation. Anyways, I’ll try to analyze at least some of your work

Here’s where it started from…

I’ll try to keep it short…

I’m not sure that this should really be in the same basket. We only have free will that is proper to us as fallen beings. Another poster noted that we do have restrictions on us. He noted physical limitations, and I would say that (name removed by moderator)ut about our creation is not proper to us, creating is proper to God. Again, I don’t know your expectations or your sources, so I can’t evaluate whether someone has “made too much” out of the idea of free will.

My point is that if free-will is not required for the salvation of a baptized infant then why are we stressing that free-will is so strictly required for an adult (or some person of reasonable age). If God has no problem saving baptized infants and children then why is He so determined to ensure that people choose Him as an adult (or some person of reasonable age)?

Actually, people are not just saying free-will is required. They’re saying free-will is necessary.

But free-will is not necessary for our salvation. God’s will is.

If God’s only interest was knowing whether we would love Him, then that would be sufficient. However, He wants us to actually love Him, and that requires our actual creation and free will.

But He could already know this in advance without actually creating us. God knows all things and He doesn’t have to perform experiments on humanity in order for us to figure out whether we love Him or not (I will again note that the focus in the explanation given is, I think, improperly focused on us and not properly directed toward God). There’s no way of getting around that fact that He already knows this even if He doesn’t actually create us. He already knows this.

And, as stated already, there are indeed many who are indeed saved who lack the free-will required to have the kind of faith required to actually love Him (c.f., baptized infants).

I disagree. God loves all His creation.

I agree with you.

It’s about both. It’s about God’s Will being perfect, and us wanting our wills to be conformed to His. St. Francis retained his free will in asking God to give him the graces to conform his will to God’s. Jesus, similarly, had a human free will which naturally did not want to die, but He aligned His perfectly ordered human will to His Divine Will. Recall Matthew 26: 53; “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”. This shows that Jesus still retained His free will, but chose to continue on this path.

I’ll come back to this later because I think I see some agreement here and a potential area where I might indeed be seriously misunderstanding something critical. Let me read this over more before respond.

Well that makes you a Calvinist, my friend.

No. Actually I am not a Calvinist. I am Catholic, specifically Roman Catholic. And I’ve been Catholic since the day I was baptized in our Catholic Church when I was only still an infant.

I have never suggested that humans suffer from total depravity in the same exact sense as the Reformed Church does. I do believe, however, that, because of the fall of Adam, human beings cannot do anything out of God’s love, not unless God gives him the necessary grace to do so. This is a sound Catholic teaching too.

I am not talking about unconditional election either. I think that God calls all people to salvation. It’s their “free-will” which often prevents them from receiving salvation though—not vice versa. I am certainly not talking about any kind of double predestination. And I fully believe that, sadly, a person can lose their salvation too.

As I already alluded to above, I’m not talking about limited atonement or irresistible grace. I do not believe that God only calls a specific few people. I believe that He calls all people. Plus, I do believe that a person can lose their faith (salvation) too. The Bible says that grace can be resisted. This resistance, by the way, is the result of our own free-will—not God’s.

I have not talked anything about the perseverance of the saints either. This part should be clear by now.

Now, if you don’t mind, please don’t insult me by calling a Calvinist again. I despise any Calvinist theology which specially says that some people are saved and some people are damned regardless of what they do or don’t do, effectively reducing God to a little monster that cares nothing for the feelings and efforts of humanity—which is not at all what I was talking about.

God does care about our free-will, precisely because He’s trying to change our wills to be in accordance with His own and He knows that we will have a difficult time letting go of our own desires. I know that He already knew this in advance too. And I am also convinced that whatever He does offer us, so long as we do not resist His will, His will is going to be sufficient to save us, whichever way He chooses for us to be saved.

When I said, “I also don’t think that we choose God. I think that God chooses us-- regardless of what we want or don’t want to do.” I meant that God calls all people regardless of whether they want to be called or not. I am stating quite clearly that I believe that God’s grace is in some way offered to all people (even if those ways are currently unknown to us) so that ALL PEOPLE have the chance for salvation.

And, yes, God does choose us. And, no, we don’t choose Him.

And when people act according to their own free-will instead of God’s Will, then they are damning themselves by rejecting the universal call that God has sent out to all people.

I don’t think that I can make this any clearer. I am not a Calvinist.

 

[Spirithound]

Please accept my apologies. I was not trying to insult you.
The way this is phrased, however, does seem to lend itself to irresistible grace, although certainly not double-predestination. It can also be consistent with Catholic theology by acknowledging we can reject God’s relationship, which you do.

I also don’t think that we choose God. I think that God chooses us-- regardless of what we want or don’t want to do.

Reading your profession of faith, so to speak, which truly is straight-up Catholic, I can better understand your position here, and I think I agree somewhat with you. It is God who initiates the relationship, but it still seems to me that we must accept that relationship, but only insofar as we are able. So, a baby would not be required to really consent himself, but from an adult, to whom more is given, more is expected. After that, we agree that it is possible to lose salvation, but God always tries to reinitiate, and we must accept again.

My point is that if free-will is not required for the salvation of a baptized infant then why are we stressing that free-will is so strictly required for an adult (or some person of reasonable age). If God has no problem saving baptized infants and children then why is He so determined to ensure that people choose Him as an adult (or some person of reasonable age)?

Actually, people are not just saying free-will is required. They’re saying free-will is necessary.

But free-will is not necessary for our salvation. God’s will is.

But He could already know this in advance without actually creating us. God knows all things and He doesn’t have to perform experiments on humanity in order for us to figure out whether we love Him or not (I will again note that the focus in the explanation given is, I think, improperly focused on us and not properly directed toward God). There’s no way of getting around that fact that He already knows this even if He doesn’t actually create us. He already knows this.

God knows that some-hypothetical-one would love Him, but God doesn’t just want to know theoretically, He wants the love itself!

Peace

 

[Camron]

Please accept my apologies. I was not trying to insult you.

No problem and thank you. I too apologize if I pushed back too hard against the Calvinism statement.

The way this is phrased, however, does seem to lend itself to irresistible grace, although certainly not double-predestination.

I honestly think that God’s will is going to be accomplished regardless of whether we obey Him or not. I’m not talking about salvation. I’m talking about God’s will, which although related are not necessarily the same thing. The hardest part of this kind of discussion is simply acknowledging that God’s will does involve the sad truth many souls will be damned to hell of their own volition, precisely because they have failed to follow God’s will.

It can also be consistent with Catholic theology by acknowledging we can reject God’s relationship, which you do.

True, we do acknowledge that we can reject God’s relationship, which is mostly due to our own wills and not God’s will, even if it is God’s will that any who transgress His will to the point of being a mortal sin ultimately lose their salvation.

Reading your profession of faith, so to speak, which truly is straight-up Catholic, I can better understand your position here, and I think I agree somewhat with you. It is God who initiates the relationship, but it still seems to me that we must accept that relationship, but only insofar as we are able. So, a baby would not be required to really consent himself, but from an adult, to whom more is given, more is expected. After that, we agree that it is possible to lose salvation, but God always tries to reinitiate, and we must accept again.

I agree with that too. My only point is noting that we must subjugate our wills to God’s will, be docile to the Holy Spirit, effectively moving by the Spirit of God. This doesn’t mean that we are robots. It means that we are in such close proximity to God’s Spirit (walking with God) that the will of the person (which really does exist and is still free to choose) is effectively coupled with God’s will, being nearly indistinguishable from God’s will.

God knows that some-hypothetical-one would love Him, but God doesn’t just want to know theoretically, He wants the love itself!

And this is why I think it is sufficient to say that God created us to know and love Him. This is really very simple and does not need to get any more complicated in my opinion.

We certainly do not need these ad hoc explanations about God testing us, forcing us to choose between good and evil. We’re not lab rats. God created us in His own image and demanded that we love Him precisely because He loved us enough to create us and share His love with us. We love because God first loved us. And He incarnated among us to let us know this in Person.

I think that this is why infants who are baptized at an early age are the perfect candidates for salvation, precisely because they have most likely not developed a free-will to the point that they can reject God. God’s love still shines from them even if they themselves do not know God on a personal level.

Either way, He never gave us a choice about this demand for love either. He specifically said that if we disobeyed His demand we would die—there is no choice involved here. It’s a warning, a warning that many people fail to heed.

This is why it seems to me that our own free-wills are often over-rated in these kinds of discussions and that we should looking more toward God’s will. Considering that many can be saved without freely acknowledging God via their will, it needs to be stressed that our free-wills are not as important as many seem to think they are. It’s God’s will that counts in the end.

Peace

And may the Lord’s peace rest upon you as well.