Still Seek Answer: Free Will

[Greg_McPherran]

**The created cause is subordinated to the Divine, in such a manner, however, that its own causality is not abrogated **

 

[itsjustdave1988]

More stuff from Dr. Ott …

3. The Relationship of the Divine Will to Evil

a) Physical Evil

God does not (per se) desire physical evil, for example, suffering, illness, death, that is not for the sake of the evil or as an aim. Wis. I, 13 et seq.: “For God has not made death: neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living For He created all things that they might be.” However, God wills physical evil, natural evil as well as punitive evil, per accidens, that is, as a means to a higher end of the physical order (for example, for punishment or for moral enlightenment). Ecclus. 11, 14: “Good things and evil, life and death, poverty and riches are from God.” Cf. Ecclus. 39, 35 et seq.; Am. 3,6.

b) Moral Evil

Moral evil, that is, sin, which according to its nature is a revolt against God, is willed by God neither per se nor per accidens, that is neither as an end nor as a means to an end. The Council of Trent has condemned as heretical the contrary doctrine of Calvin D 816, cf. Ps. 5,5; “Thou are not a God that willest iniquity.” God simply permits sin (permissive solum; D 816), because He has consideration for man’s freedom (Ecclus. 15, 15 et seq.), and because He possesses the wisdom and the power to cause good to arise from evil. Gn. 50, 20; “Ye thought evil against me, but God turned it into good.” Cf. Augustine, Enchiridion II. In the final end, moral evil will serve the supreme aim of the world, the glorification of God, in as much as it reveals His mercy in forgiving and His justice in punishing.

When Holy Writ says that God hardens man in evil (Ex. 4, 21; Rom 9,18) the intention is not to represent God as the proper originator of sin. The hardening is a punishment which consists in the withdrawal of grace. Cf. St. Augustine, In Ioan. tr. 53, 6: “God blinds and hardens in such a fashion, that He deserts and does not help” (Ott, ibid., pg 45-46)

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Your question itself betrays much. First off, you start off with the assumption that the process is random–“suppose half choose God and half reject him”–and then marvel that it is random!

That you do not know why something happens or cannot predict when something will happen does not mean the process is random. It means only that you don’t understand the mechanism of the process.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

I think instead of “random” you probably meant “arbitrary.” It may seem that way on the surface. However, God does not harden a persons heart unless as a punishment for prior sin. And remember that when God “hardens” one’s heart, this simply means that he withdraws from that person, His grace.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I certainly assent to the Church teaching that we have free will. I think there is a depth of understanding that the light of grace can bring us.

I think the best way to see what I am saying is to consider the sin of Eve and let’s walk through the process:

Satan tempted Eve. Eve listened and chose wrongly.

Now, I ask:** Why did not God give Eve the grace to choose rightly?**

cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

“Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, …”

Also, Oh happy fault which gave us so great a redeemer.

Let’s just take it one step at a time:

Why did not God give Eve the grace to choose rightly?

(not that I am questioning God in any way, I am illustrating my point so that you may see what I am saying.)

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I await a response to the previous post. Thank you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

Why did not God give Eve the grace to choose rightly?

Why do you believe God didn’t? Grace is not irresistible. You sorta presume it to be irresistible by the question that you ask. You seem to assume that since Eve sinned, God didn’t give her the grace to choose good. That’s an incorrect assumption, according to Catholic theology.

Eve was completely justified by sanctifying grace upon creation. She was well-equipped (not irresistibley equipped) to choose good. God doesn’t want his humans to be robots. He wants loving children. He made them in his image and likeness, which necessarily means that we have true free will. You cannot love unless you can choose freely to love or not to love, otherwise, love is meaningless.

Eve was given both created and uncreated grace from God. Uncreated grace: by and *act *of God, she was told not to eat from the forbidden fruit. Created grace: God infused into her soul sanctifying grace, making her completely and intrinsically righteous. She was free from concupiscience. She was not made merely natural, but she was really made holy. Yet, she was also made with free will. Holy angels can sin (Satan). Holy humans can sin (Adam and Eve). Eve was given the supernatural grace to choose good.

I believe you take quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas without considering the context of his theology. Keep in mind what else he wrote: “… It is written (Ecclus. 15:14): “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”; and the gloss adds: “That is of his free-will.” Ianswer that**,** Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (ST), I, 83, 1)*. *

You also fail to distinguish between supernatural good and natural good, as St. Thomas does. Observe, “man, by his natural powers alone, can love God more than himself and above all things. … in a state of perfect nature, could by his natural power, do the good natural to him without the addition of any gratuitous gift, though not without the help of God moving him.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, *ST, *IIa, 109, 3).

Note: “God moving him” refers to the common way in which God impels everything to move (concursus Dei naturalis), as the Causa Prima of all creatures.

Here’s some more Catholic theology for you to consider …

“The Catholic doctrine of grace stand between two extremes. … it defends the absolute necessity of *gratia elevans, *and the moral necessity fo *gratia sanans. *… it defends man’s natural capacity to act in the sphere of religion and morals without grace. … Catholic theology distinguishes sharply between a natural and a supernatural order, between a natural and a supernatural religion and morality.” (Ott, ibid, 233).

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Thanks Dave,

We’re making more progress and we are addressing the heart of my question.

“Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God’s commandments, …”

itsjustdave1988:

Grace is not irresistible.

I dare say - wrong! This is where I disagree.

Grace, by it’s very definition is irresistible - otherwise it’s not grace. When light comes into a dark soul, the dark soul had no control over whether God gave light to him. Grace, by its very definition, enables one to do good. When you’re lying dead in your sins you have no control if God decides to give you life and light. It’s God decision.

Step by step logic:

1. Grace enables one to do good.
2. To resist grace is bad.
3. Therefore you need grace even to not resist grace.

Please show me the flaw in the above logic, step by step.

Thank You,
Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

I dare say - wrong! This is where I disagree.

Then I’d dare say your views are heretical, as your thesis is contrary to infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Either you accept private interpretation of Scripture as your rule of faith (Protestant), or you submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, even if you as of yet do not understand them. Which will it be?

Observe,

The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible. (de fide**) **

The Council of Trent declared against the reformers: If any on says that man’s free will, moved and awakened by God, does in no manner co-operate when it assents to God, Who excited and calls it, thereby disposing and preparing itself to receive the grace of justification; and (if any one says) that it cannot dissent if it wishes, but that, like some inanimate thing, it does nothing whatever, and only remains passive, let him be anathema. D 814.

Innocent X condemned as heretical the following proposition of Cornelius Jansen: “In the condition of fallen nature interior grace is never resisted.” D 1093, cf. D 797, 815 et seq., 1094 et seq.

Holy Scripture stresses both the human factor of the freedom of the will, and the Divine factor of grace. The numerous admonishments to penance and to good works presuppose that grace does not abrogate the freedom of the will. The freedom of the will as against grace is expressly affirmed in Dt. 30, 19; Ecclus. 15, 18; 31, 10; Mt 23, 37 : “How often would I have gathered together thy children, and thou wouldst not:” Acts 7,15 : “You always resist the Holy Ghost.” The co-operation of grace and free will is stressed by St. Paul. 1 Cor 15, 10: “By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace towards me has not been void, but I have laboured more abundantly than all they. Yet not I but the grace of God with me” (…). Cf. 2 Cor. 6, 1 ; Phil. 2, 12 et seq.

St. Augustine, to whom the opponents of this doctrine appeal, never denied the freedom of the will in relation to grace. In defense of the freedom of the will he wrote, in the year 426 or 427, the work, De gratia et libero arbitrio, in which he seeks to instruct and to appease those, “who belive that free will is denied, if grace is defended, and who so defend free will, that they deny grace and maintain that grace is given according to our merits” (1,1) Justification is not only a work of grace, but at the same time a work of the free will: “He who created thee without thy help does not justify thee without thy help” (Sermo 169, 11, 13). When St. Augustine comments that we necessarily do that which pleases us more (… Expositio ep. ad Gal. 49), he is not thinking of a superior good or evil pleasure, which precedes and determines the decision of the will, as the Jansenists declare, but of a superior pleasure which is included int eh decision of the will.

The freedom of the will under the influence of grace is the necessary presupposition for the meritoriousness of good works.

(Ott, ibid., 246-247)

 

[Greg_McPherran]

itsjustdave1988:

Greg,Then I’d dare say your views are heretical, as your thesis is contrary to infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church.

Either you accept private interpretation of Scripture as your rule of faith (Protestant), or you submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, even if you as of yet do not understand them. Which will it be?

Observe,

Hi Dave,

I already stated that I accept. I only speak for the sake of argument because it still seems like something is wrong here. We are talking freely on a web site - I’m not making a solemn profession of faith here. I will avoid such expressions from now on and keep to the questions.

Would you address my logic sequence?

Thank You,
Greg

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Augustine’s statement on the joy of the will itself are very thought provoking.

See, I think you think I am falling into the Protestant faith vs works and other traps. I am not at all. My thoughts on grace do not lead me at all the think that we are free to sin etc, rather my thoughts on grace lead to desire to submit and unite to God. My real stumbling area is that is seems we are trying to say two things at once and that bothers me. On the one hand, we accept predestination to heaven, but then on the other hand, we say it’s your fault if you don’t get there. This makes no sense at all to me. How can you be blamed for not getting to heaven when you were not predestined to be there? My questions are related to these concepts.

You have definitely helped me so far and I am grateful.

At any rate, if you would walk step by step through my logic question (earlier post) I would be grateful.

Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

I already stated that I accept.

Then your speculative theological opinions ought to be bound within the dogmatic framework of the Church. There may not be a satisfactory explanation. Yet, as I said earlier, if it is your purpose to eradicate all the mystery from our holy religion, you’ll surely be disappointed.

I understand what you are saying. It also seems to me that what is proposed by the Spanish Dominican, Domingo Banez (1529-1604), [Thomist view], appears contradictory. That’s why I have a hard time accepting it, and prefer instead the explanation of the Spanish Jesuit St. Luis de Molina (1535-1600) [Molinist view].

Let me summarize the two views and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

The other concept that no one ever seems to understand about my questions is this:

Two people have free will. One choose rightly and the other chooses wrongly?

Why? Why did the one choose wrongly? If he chose wrongly he must have been missing some needed ingredient of information that would lead their thought process to make the right choice. Do you see what I am saying? No man is above his own thought process.

Let’s say for example a man decides to steal $50. A priest tells the man that it is a sin. The man decides he doesn’t care and he actually wants to sin.

Why would this man want to sin? This is some kind of defect with the man, but ultimately why is it his responsibility that he has this defect? If he wasn’t predestined to heaven and this was one of his choices that sent him to hell, why is he responsible for that? He was never predestined for heaven from before he was born. How is that his responsibility?

Thank You Sir,
Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Keep in mind too, the following Catholic doctrine:

Even in the fallen state, man can, by his natural intellectual power, know relgious and moral truths. (de fide)

For the performance of a morally good actions Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide).

In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order. (de fide).

In the condition of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without restoring grace … to fulfill the entire moral law and to overcome all serious temptations for any considerable period of time (Sent. certa.)

Despite men’s sins God truly and earnestly desires the salvation of all men. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

God gives all the just sufficient grace … for the observation of the Divine Commandments. (de fide)

God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficient grace … for conversion. (Sent. communis.)

God gives all innocent unbelievers … sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (sent. certa)

God, by Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (de fide).

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, had predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (de fide)

**The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell (de fide). **

The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven. (de fide).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The guilt of the man who sins can be understood as follows:

Since fallen man, by his natural gifts alone, can know religious and moral truths, he can know, although not easily, what he ought to do and not do, religiously and morally speaking. He does not require sanctifying grace to perform morally good acts. He has been given all the gifts he needs to know what to do.

Let’s say he’s an innocent unbeliever who has led, up to this time, a moral life. In addition to the natural gifts that God has given him to lead a moral life, God also gives to him (gratuitously, not because of any act of his) supernatural grace sufficient to achieve eternal salvation. Yet, by his own choice of free will, in our scenarios, let’s say he rejects this sufficient grace. He remains an unbeliever, and over time, he inevitably falls into mortal sin, dying unrepentently. If so, he had opportunity for eternal life and by act of free will, chose to reject the grace God gave him.

I see no injustice, randomness, or arbitrariness in the above scenario. Why did he choose to reject God’s grace? I dunno. I suppose every sinner has their own answer to that question. I know that I have sufficient grace to reject sin, yet sometimes I place temporary and bodily reward above spiritual and eternal reward.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

The discussions, too often animated and needlessly sharp, turned on this point: How does it happen that, although God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, some are to be saved, and must thank God for whatever merits they may have amassed, whilst others will be lost, and will know that they themselves, and not God, are to be blamed?

Perhaps we shall never know, in this world, how a just and merciful God provides in some special manner for the elect and yet sincerely loves all men. The celebrated Congregatio de Auxiliis (q.v.) did not forever put an end to the controversies, and the question is not yet settled.

I also refer to Romans 9:19-20:
You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker,“Why have you created me so?”

It’s exciting because if you read the above, I am not alone in my perplexity over this! Apparently, the real answer to my question is that Paul says not to talk back to God and the Church says we still don’t have an answer. This concerns me a bit.

The answer to my question is that we don’t have an answer. Perhaps I could propose advancements in theology in this area.

Other mysteries and questions I have related to this also relate to God’s mercy. All mercy is undeserved. If you believe in Jesus that is an underserved gift. If you never hear of Jesus but live a decent moral life and get to heaven it is an undeserved gift.

How do we know for sure that God does not have mercy on all humans and everyone goes to heaven? I.e. How do we know for sure that anyone goes to hell? How do we know that God in His infinite mercy does not allow all to Heaven?

After all, all mercy is undeserved, whether it’s the mercy of accepting Jesus or mercy on a sinner still unrepentant at death? Is there any limit to God’s mercy?

Thank You,
Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

A detailed description of the Thomist and Molinist views can be found here:

Catholic Encyclopedia - Controversies on Grace
newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

How do we know for sure that God does not have mercy on all humans and everyone goes to heaven? I.e. How do we know for sure that anyone goes to hell? How do we know that God in His infinite mercy does not allow all to Heaven?

Because this proposition, called Universalism, was also condemned by the Church.

… the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declares: “Those (the rejected) will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil.” D 429. Cf. D 40, 835, 840. A Synod at constantinople (543) rejected the Apocatastasis [universal restoration] of Origen. D 211.

(Ott, ibid., 481)

I agree that the correct answer is not fully understood. However, the wrong answers are with infallible certainty, rejected by the Church.

We are free to hold various theological viewpoints regarding this topic within Catholicism, excepting those that have been condemned by the Church.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Dave,

I am a faithful Catholic and I believe we have free will (admittedly, quite a mystery to me). Augustine’s statement related to the joy of the will itself choosing rightly touched very closely to the insights that I have been having. Namely that it is a grace or an essential aspect of grace to have full consciousness that you are doing God’s will. This also relates to Paul urging to discern God’s will.

Alas, these questions like the trinity are high above. You have given me excellent information and have been very patient. I am most grateful. By all means, if you have further thoughts, I welcome them anytime. In the meantime, I plan to continue reading, contemplating, and praying about these deep questions.

Very Best Wishes,
Greg

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Greg,

Thanks for the discussion and may God bless your studies.