What is so important about free will?

[Neoplatonist]

There are a lot of arguments in our attempts to understand Catholic theology that hinge on the axiom of free will. “It had to be thus and so in order to preserve the role of free will,” and a hundred variations on the theme. My question is two fold:

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?
2. If our free will is so sacrosanct, why do we only get to have it for 70 years (or 13 or 3) before it is permanently suspended in favor of eternal bliss or damnation?

Please; I know at least one of you will throw out some variant of, “Because God is awesome and he made it that way, so it must be awesome.” Let’s consider that base covered and look at alternatives. Same for “Are you saying you know better than God?”

If our function in life is just to end up loving God completely or be condemned to a lake of fire and worm-gnawing forever, why not just create us filled with love and simpler intellects?
Why even both with the option of Hell? Is the love so much better for him to receive if there are also some souls screaming in agony for all eternity? Surely not.

If our function is to learn and grow, then, learning and growing seems a wondrous good in and of itself, so why do we only get to do it for 70 years? How is learning and growing by some better if there are millions upon billions who can never learn and grow beyond the moment of damnation?

There are other examples, but this should give those of you who are serious the shape of the engagement. Free will does not seem an intrinsic, highest good on its own. What is its telos, and how could that telos only/best be accomplished by temporary free will with a crazy-high fail rate?

I really hope this will be awesome…

 

[davidv]

There are a lot of arguments in our attempts to understand Catholic theology that hinge on the axiom of free will. “It had to be thus and so in order to preserve the role of free will,” and a hundred variations on the theme. My question is two fold:

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?
2. If our free will is so sacrosanct, why do we only get to have it for 70 years (or 13 or 3) before it is permanently suspended in favor of eternal bliss or damnation?

Please; I know at least one of you will throw out some variant of, “Because God is awesome and he made it that way, so it must be awesome.” Let’s consider that base covered and look at alternatives. Same for “Are you saying you know better than God?”

If our function in life is just to end up loving God completely or be condemned to a lake of fire and worm-gnawing forever, why not just create us filled with love and simpler intellects?
Why even both with the option of Hell? Is the love so much better for him to receive if there are also some souls screaming in agony for all eternity? Surely not.

If our function is to learn and grow, then, learning and growing seems a wondrous good in and of itself, so why do we only get to do it for 70 years? How is learning and growing by some better if there are millions upon billions who can never learn and grow beyond the moment of damnation?

There are other examples, but this should give those of you who are serious the shape of the engagement. Free will does not seem an intrinsic, highest good on its own. What is its telos, and how could that telos only/best be accomplished by temporary free will with a crazy-high fail rate?

I really hope this will be awesome…

1. The true good is agape (love). It is only possible if our will is free to chose others over ourselves.
2. 70 year is apply time to demonstrate whether we will serve God or ourselves.

The highest good is God, who is Love. So, free will is not the highest good. However without free will the highest good is not attainable.

 

[Neoplatonist]

But once we are judged, free will goes away, so it would no longer be agape, right?

At the same time, if the damned can never be redeemed, why not just blink them out of existence? How does the state of eternal suffering add to the love God gives or receives? Once they can no longer change, what purpose is served? Are they just there like heads on gate posts to serve as a terrifying warning to the rest of us?

 

[davidv]

But once we are judged, free will goes away,

Not true. Free will is a permanent gift.

so it would no longer be agape, right?

False. Based on a false premise.

At the same time, if the damned can never be redeemed, why not just blink them out of existence? How does the state of eternal suffering add to the love God gives or receives? Once they can no longer change, what purpose is served? Are they just there like heads on gate posts to serve as a terrifying warning to the rest of us?

God is perfect. His creatures exist as the result of His goodness. Nonexistence is not good, therefore God cannot remove anyone from existence any more than He could make a square circle.

Do you understand the consequence of sin? These comments suggest that you don’t.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Not true. Free will is a permanent gift.

If the soul can no longer turn toward God or away from Him, then it can’t be free will, which you said was how we are able to turn toward God. What does it mean to say it is free if it can no longer change or choose?

God is perfect. His creatures exist as the result of His goodness. Nonexistence is not good, therefore God cannot remove anyone from existence any more than He could make a square circle.

God sustains us by the act of will at every moment. Are you saying his will is not capable of change?

Do you understand the consequence of sin? These comments suggest that you don’t.

Probably not. I’m hesitant to claim I understand most things. What is it about the consequence of sin that you think means eternal suffering must be true in order for the possiblity of a metaphysics centered on love to follow?

 

[oldcelt]

Not true. Free will is a permanent gift.

False. Based on a false premise.

God is perfect. His creatures exist as the result of His goodness. Nonexistence is not good, therefore God cannot remove anyone from existence any more than He could make a square circle.

Do you understand the consequence of sin? These comments suggest that you don’t.

The longer paragraph I had never heard. Non-existence is not good. Where would somebody find that?

So far as the bolded portions, it is a bit confused biblically. At one point it talks of fire burning forever, etc., etc. Then there is, The Wages of sin is death.

 

[davidv]

If the soul can no longer turn toward God or away from Him, then it can’t be free will, which you said was how we are able to turn toward God. What does it mean to say it is free if it can no longer change or choose?

This is not based on my understanding of what free will means.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

God sustains us by the act of will at every moment. Are you saying his will is not capable of change?

Absolutely. God is immutable.

Probably not. I’m hesitant to claim I understand most things. What is it about the consequence of sin that you think means eternal suffering must be true in order for the possiblity of a metaphysics centered on love to follow?

Sin is the turning away from God, despite the knowledge that God is the only source of eternal happiness. Since we were made to live eternally with God, our turning away is cause of the suffering of being separated from God is the natural consequence of sin.

 

[Frankenfurter]

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?

So that mankind can contribute to creation. God created man to be able to share in the act of creation. God left room in creation for our contributions.

1. If our free will is so sacrosanct, why do we only get to have it for 70 years (or 13 or 3) before it is permanently suspended in favor of eternal bliss or damnation?

I believe this is incorrect. If those in purgatory are aware of their situation and desire to be in heaven, they have not lost their free will. I have not never heard this claim before regarding catholic theology that we loose free will.

Indeed some of the most valuable and precise gifts are fleeting. Free will is a gift, even if I only have it for a short time, it is a valuable gift from God. Thank you Father. Amen.

 

[jochoa]

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?

When one always freely chooses to be patient and kind for God, one adds a factor of infinite joy without causing any disturbance in existence, and that is amazingly Good!

1. If our free will is so sacrosanct, why do we only get to have it for 70 years (or 13 or 3) before it is permanently suspended in favor of eternal bliss or damnation?

Because it doesn’t take long to determine which state you are in.
There are only three (Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell).
In Heaven, people always want to follow the rules and always follow the rules.
In Purgatory, people want to follow the rules, but make mistakes in following them for various reasons, and are in a process of perfecting living according to the rules.
In Hell, people either do not want to follow the rules, and therefore don’t follow the rules, or people follow the rules, but don’t want to.

Thanks for sharing the very interesting questions! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t know what “bound itself definitively” would mean in 1732, do you?

1733 How are we “more free” by doing good? Then from 1734 it would seem to follow that with “more freedom” our acts would somehow be “more voluntary.” That then comes back to 1732 where we (and angels?) would (still) have (more?) freedom to choose good or evil. Interesting.

Yeah, I remember the medievals developing the “immutability” part. It sure makes it hard to make sense of all the different varieties of talk in the Bible and in Church teachings about interacting with the person of God.

With respect to “turning away from God”: Why is this so different than a child turning away from a parent? What I mean is, they turn away, at some point they become aware of their suffering and sadness without their harmony with the parent, and they turn back. The extent to which human parents are not open to that we consider a shortcoming, rather than a virtue or a necessary feature of giving their child freedom.

Getting back to the heart of the question, though:
Being told that God is the only source of eternal happiness is hardly “knowing” it, anymore than being told that mother knows best is hardly “knowing” that either. This is made all the more difficult for the child who perhaps never sees their father, or doesn’t feel loved (being told by others that he is loved is also not “knowing” it). Why would a system with the goal of raising loving children have the greatest success rate by allowing eternal failure?

 

[gavanhe]

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?

Free will is the only way we have of choosing or not choosing to follow and love Our Lord. Without the facility of freewill we may as well have been created as robots or automatons. Our Lord desires us to love and serve Him freely.
I for one could not come up with a scheme alternate to the one we were created in which also invloves suffering. The obvious answer is that this is and was the perfect scheme.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Those in heaven have used their free will to permanently earn heaven. Those in hell have used their free will to permanently damn themselves. The rules of the game are set. The strong players win and the lazy cheaters lose. We needn’t worry about God’s justice and his mercy. They will prevail where and when needed.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Free will is the only way we have of choosing or not choosing to follow and love Our Lord. Without the facility of freewill we may as well have been created as robots or automatons. Our Lord desires us to love and serve Him freely.
I for one could not come up with a scheme alternate to the one we were created in which also invloves suffering. The obvious answer is that this is and was the perfect scheme.

But by what reasoning can we think it could it only be accomplished by the existence of “permanent” suffering?

Come on, we have goals for our students as well, and if we want them to succeed, we put systems in place to help those who are failing. Even we are compassionate enough and clever enough to come up with alternatives to just failing them once and for all. Surely a mind as brilliant as God’s could come up with an even better model.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Those in heaven have used their free will to permanently earn heaven. Those in hell have used their free will to permanently damn themselves. The rules of the game are set. The strong players win and the lazy cheaters lose. We needn’t worry about God’s justice and his mercy. They will prevail where and when needed.

So if that’s the model God uses, it would seem we should pattern our morality along the same lines. Good is good, right? So from now on anyone who fails a test is toast. No re-takes. Anyone who misses the med school exam? Too bad. No do-overs. Want to change your major in college, too late. Want to appeal your court case, nope. On and on. They had time, they could have chosen differently. Clock was ticking and finally ran out. Does that sound like the most compassionate system we could come up with? If not, then why think God could not also come up with something better?

The reason is that our goal is not ‘hold them accountable for their decisions’, we have a subsequent goal we aim at toward which holding them accountable for their decisions is a useful tool. With students, it is a sound education. With students and children, it is character formation. But why education? Why character formation? Is our goal for our children not so they can attain real happiness? How does a system with permanent, unredeemable failure help us get the maximum number of them to attain the maximum of their potential abilities and experience the greatest happiness?

 

[fhansen]

There are a lot of arguments in our attempts to understand Catholic theology that hinge on the axiom of free will. “It had to be thus and so in order to preserve the role of free will,” and a hundred variations on the theme. My question is two fold:

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?

Our very justice depends on it. To the extent, with the help of grace, that we freely choose the good, that we choose God, to the extent that we freely align our wills with His, to the extent the we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, our justice is greater. That’s what God is after in us, that’s why He allowed Adam to freely fall, that’s what it means to say that He created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection” as the Catechism puts it, as we gradually grow into agreement with His perfect wisdom-and so into communion with Him-and consequently begin to know His happiness.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Our very justice depends on it. To the extent, with the help of grace, that we freely choose the good, that we choose God, to the extent that we freely align our wills with His, to the extent the we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, our justice is greater. That’s what God is after in us, that’s why He allowed Adam to freely fall, that’s what it means to say that He created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection” as the Catechism puts it, as we gradually grow into agreement with His perfect wisdom-and so into communion with Him-and consequently begin to know His happiness.

Sure, I’ve seen this as one possible answer. Let’s explore this a little bit:

1.What does it matter if our justice is greater, though? What end does that serve?

2.Do we create children so they will love us? Certainly we also want that, but isn’t there more to it than that? It always makes God seem like some primadonna who needed to create adoring fans for herself.

3.Even given that, why would he care that we love him, since he is really so much farther from us than we are from our own children? As is mentioned a few places, we are like lowly worms compared to him. Who among us would create a bunch of ants or worms for the sake of them growing to love us? (Calls to mind Sebastian from Blade Runner, interestingly enough.)

4.Happiness makes sense. Certainly we want our children to experience happiness - that comes closer and seems less self-serving than merely “to love us.”

5.Now the question is: how does the possibility of unredeemable suffering help us become more happy or more loving? That is, could not more of his children become more happy and more loving if there were always some opportunities that remained open to them to learn from their mistakes? Are there really no experiences God could give them, with the creative brilliance of an infinite mind, that would sparkle enough to catch their eye momentarily?

6.If the higher purpose is to achieve love and happiness, could there not be a mild, temporary suppression of free will to at least halt the downward spiral of sin-addicted soul? We do the same for children and, as long as they are set back on their free-willing feet, we consider it nurturing, not oppression. If the goal of free will is to help them achieve love and happiness, why would we allow them (L & H) to be sacrificed to it (FW)- that’s the cart before the horse.

 

[glendab]

Hello Neoplatonist. You asked some interesting questions but I’m assuming you want answers that will all relate to the original one: Why free will is so important.

My question is two fold:

1. What is the good served by free will that can only be accomplished by preserving our free will?..2) If our free will is so sacrosanct, why do we only get to have it for 70 years (or 13 or 3) before it is permanently suspended in favor of eternal bliss or damnation?..If our function in life is just to end up loving God completely or be condemned to a lake of fire and worm-gnawing forever, why not just create us filled with love and simpler intellects?
   Why even both with the option of Hell? Is the love so much better for him to receive if there are also some souls screaming in agony for all eternity? Surely not…If our function is to learn and grow, then, learning and growing seems a wondrous good in and of itself, so why do we only get to do it for 70 years?..Free will does not seem an intrinsic, highest good on its own. What is its telos, and how could that telos only/best be accomplished by temporary free will with a crazy-high fail rate.

Some of your questions after your main point are silly so I won’t answer them. Your first though is answered quite simply: Jesus Christ.

Imagine for a good few minutes a life without your free will as a total slave, not only in body but mind. You’d have no questions to ask because your thoughts would only be parroting of the master of them. You wouldn’t be a happy little human being for very long at all. Your life would be spent to give happiness and satisfaction to another being, not yourself. You’d be a commodity instead of a person. Your personhood, your basic human dignity is tied to having free will.

There is also this to consider: without your free will you cannot make the choice for Christ. That is the good that you asked about.

The ultimate good is to choose Christ in such a way that heroic virtue becomes your ONLY option. Your will united to God’s will. A union that is so complete that you spend your life doing good for His sake. A different type of slavery in which your human dignity is elevated by God to His likeness. Your telos, your self-realization would be satisfied only by completion in Christ. Your thinking and priorities would be Christ centered; Christocentric.

Your second question is different and it is a question from a mind that has compromised this choice already and is trying to find a reason to subordinate it’s own desires to that which is the ultimate good. Or in other terms your sins are speaking for you. Bliss for you has already been defined most likely by sins of the fleshy variety. Without an encounter with Jesus, how can you know the difference between Heaven and purely human pleasure? You can’t if all your human experience of pleasure is that - purely human experience. The only way you can begin to understand it is to ask others what they believe about Heaven.

I can only say this, whatever it is that you’ve decided on your own to give your free will to, isn’t God obviously. I can only hope you survive your choices and find Him at the end of your journey.

Glenda

P.S. I suggest you find some Jesuits to talk to about things.

 

[glendab]

Hello Neo - I’m lazy so I won’t type the rest of your name.

I don’t know what “bound itself definitively” would mean in 1732, do you?..Yeah, I remember the medievals developing the “immutability” part. It sure makes it hard to make sense of all the different varieties of talk in the Bible and in Church teachings about interacting with the person of God. QUOTE]

I’ve answered your question in my first post on this thread. I hope you read it.

By binding one’s will so completely to God’s, by achieving this “union” as it is described by the mystics, one’s whole being is centered on God and nothing separates us from the love of God as is expressed by St. Paul in one of his epistles. Other Saints have described it. It is yours for the reading if you explore the writings of the Saints. It can’t be given except by God and one’s human will utilized to beg this sanctification from Him. Only He can give holiness. Some of us try for it. CCC 1732 hints at this unification of a soul with Him in this life that sin is no longer desired and is immediately dismissed by the soul already united to Him. All sin is negated at the level of thought, those acted upon being eliminated by the work of the soul to achieve this. This is the bliss the Saints speak of. It is a foretaste of Heaven. But it cannot happen without the gift of free will God gives.

Glenda

 

[Frankenfurter]

So if that’s the model God uses, it would seem we should pattern our morality along the same lines. Good is good, right? So from now on anyone who fails a test is toast. No re-takes. Anyone who misses the med school exam? Too bad. No do-overs.

If you have been to confession, you already know that this is not how God works at all.

Having been a lost sheep, saved by Christ, all I can do is give thanks humbly to God for his love. He never gives up on me. I am inspired by his love. I will try harder.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Hello Neo - I’m lazy so I won’t type the rest of your name.
Neoplatonist;11647915:

I don’t know what “bound itself definitively” would mean in 1732, do you?..Yeah, I remember the medievals developing the “immutability” part. It sure makes it hard to make sense of all the different varieties of talk in the Bible and in Church teachings about interacting with the person of God. QUOTE]

I’ve answered your question in my first post on this thread. I hope you read it.

By binding one’s will so completely to God’s, by achieving this “union” as it is described by the mystics, one’s whole being is centered on God and nothing separates us from the love of God as is expressed by St. Paul in one of his epistles. Other Saints have described it. It is yours for the reading if you explore the writings of the Saints. It can’t be given except by God and one’s human will utilized to beg this sanctification from Him. Only He can give holiness. Some of us try for it. CCC 1732 hints at this unification of a soul with Him in this life that sin is no longer desired and is immediately dismissed by the soul already united to Him. All sin is negated at the level of thought, those acted upon being eliminated by the work of the soul to achieve this. This is the bliss the Saints speak of. It is a foretaste of Heaven. But it cannot happen without the gift of free will God gives.

Glenda

If I understand you correctly, your answer is that God’s highest goal in creating us and giving us free will is so that we can freely choose to set it aside and be completely filled with his will instead.

That certainly seems consistent with a lot of writings in the tradition. It would help me understand the frame of your thoughts if you could try explaining how creating someone else for the highest goal of having them be completely and utterly in love with you and wish to freely give up all of their own interests or desires just to be filled with your will instead a) would make sense in terms of anything else we think of as ‘good’, and b) would amount to something more than a kind of self-adoration.

Hopefully your great experience in reading the saints will give you the ability to translate it down for me so I can make sense out of it.