What is so important about free will?

[Charlemagne_III]

No one “earns” heaven.

You can’t say that. That is heresy. You might as well say no one earns hell.

We have free will and God’s grace is a gift we do not earn. But heaven is a place we must strive to be, and we earn it by freely cooperating with God’s grace and being a friend of God.

 

[Tom_Baum]

You can’t say that. That is heresy. You might as well say no one earns hell.

We have free will and God’s grace is a gift we do not earn. But heaven is a place we must strive to be, and we earn it by freely cooperating with God’s grace and being a friend of God.

Not only can I say it, I did.

In a way, I have said, “no one earns hell” because what I have said numerous times is that if one were to “wake up in hell”, so to speak, they will come to the realization that they built it themself and that they have no one to blame but themself for being there.

I have also said that hell is not some monolithic place that God created and that the metaphor of “sheol” is quite apt since “sheol” is the “dump”, hell being the “garbage of our lives and the ramifications of the garbage of our lives”.

By “garbage”, I mean sins and as you know Jesus took our “sins” to the cross.

There was a lot more going on at the cross that the physical aspects of the crucifixion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Friendship with God and being a holy person are the same thing.

I agree.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. An atheist who rejects God, even while having compassion for others for the sake of compassion rather than self interest, still does not qualifiy as holy. Friendship with God must be a conscious thing, not just doing something God wants us to do while at the same time denying the source of our wanting to be compassionate … God.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

Above all God wants our friendship, and above all we should want His.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Maybe it would be easier to think that God doesn’t condemn anyone to hell. Those there chose to go.
2. Why would Christians ever believe an absence of suffering is a sign of God’s love? That certainly didn’t hold for Jesus…

The rejection of the need for suffering is self-deception.

 

[Contarini]

I agree.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. An atheist who rejects God, even while having compassion for others for the sake of compassion rather than self interest, still does not qualifiy as holy. Friendship with God must be a conscious thing

I’m not sure how you know this.

If the “God” a person knows is an idol, then denying that idol may be an implicit affirmation of the true God.

Or it may not. Only God knows for sure.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not sure how you know this.

I’m not sure how you don’t know it. Read Matthew 10:32-33. I believe that’s in reference to a conscious choice to reject the Son of God. If you think it refers to someone else, tell me who.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not sure how you don’t know it. Read Matthew 10:32-33. I believe that’s in reference to a conscious choice to reject the Son of God. If you think it refers to someone else, tell me who.

It pretty obviously refers to followers of Jesus who deny their faith in order to fit in to the prevailing culture.

It doesn’t refer to atheists, for whom rejecting Christianity generally means rejecting an oppressive, idolatrous view of God that is backed up by the culture they live in–for whom becoming atheists often means losing their jobs, losing their friends, and certainly becoming ineligible (for all practical purposes) for national political office (in the U.S.).

That passage is talking about people who deny what they know to be true out of fear of the gods of this age.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It pretty obviously refers to followers of Jesus who deny their faith in order to fit in to the prevailing culture.

It’s not obvious to me that Jesus is saying that. He’s not saying “Only my followers who reject me will I reject.” Why would they be his followers if they reject him? You’re not in the spin zone.

To follow your logic to its “obvious” conclusion, Jesus can only reject his followers?

So atheists have a free pass. They go straight to heaven no matter what their sins because they are not followers of Jesus and therefore do not have to repent their sins. Indeed, they are even capable of holiness when they reject the fountain of all holiness?

Are you admiring those who reject God for their bravery in doing so?

It isn’t phoney Christians the atheist rejects. It’s God himself.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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?

(1) The ultimate foundation for any understanding of freedom is the first person data. Current secular schools of thought also regard it as a sufficient definition. I am aware that I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, driven, controlled, taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision. This does admit of degrees depending on such things as age and circumstances. There is no other way for me to know I am free, to have an awareness of my freedom. This means that since my behavior is known by experience to be under my rational control, I am accountable and responsible for it.

The good preserved for those of us who maintain it is that it is philosophically true, minimally as a definition.

(2) Grace builds on nature as well as elevating and healing it. Divine revelation presumes and builds on this virtually universal human experience.

(3) Revelation makes known to us that our free choice here on earth for or against God, who is eternal and infinite, and His redeeming love are choices for eternity. Free will is, therefore, not permanently suspended after death, it is continued after death in its outcomes.

The good preserved for those of us who maintain it is that it is theologically true.

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?”

Wouldn’t think of it.

But you do have to make clear whether this is a theological or philosophical discussion. If it is theological, and you self-identify as a Catholic, you do have to admit that revelation is above reason although not contrary to it. We cannot prove philosophically why God chose to do all that He did. We can show that it does not involve a contradiction.

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.

Revelation sheds light on what we are–some of which can be grasped by the natural light of human reason, i.e., that: we are rational beings who are free as defined; we are religious beings; we are also flawed.

Our end (goal, destiny) in life, as revealed, is to love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves. There is no interpersonal love without freedom.

The first truth about Hell is that it fulfills the free choice reaffirmed and unretracted on earth to be without God. The imagery is secondary. The fact is freedom can even be self-destructive, even on earth.

God respects the freedom He created. Given that we are fallen creatures; and given that God sent Jesus to reconcile us to God; and given that He warned us that we should not, informed us why we should not, and empowers us that we may not make self-destructive choices (including the most self-destructive one), I find it hard to find a contradiction or fault in Christian eschatology.

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?

That we, like every higher life form that we know of, grow old and lose functions is a fact of life that revelation acknowledges, builds on, and addresses. Original sin is involved. This is a datum of revelation that fits the condition of life on earth.

We don’t know the number of the damned.

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?

Free will is a philosophical and theological fact. The value is in not denying a truth.

The telos of the will is happiness. Aristotle noted this. And Aquinas, as does Plato, makes it quite clear that regarding this we have no freedom.

We live inside our human nature and have to develop our philosophical anthropology from the same place . . . not, of course, to the exclusion of third person metaphysical considerations. Ditto for our theology of man.

So given the nature of man as a fact, how else could one achieve natural or supernatural happiness but by the appropriate exercise of our freedom?

 

[Contarini]

It’s not obvious to me that Jesus is saying that. He’s not saying “Only my followers who reject me will I reject.”

To whom is He speaking in that passage? Look at v. 5.

Why would they be his followers if they reject him? You’re not in the spin zone.

To follow your logic to its “obvious” conclusion, Jesus can only reject his followers?

Not necessarily–I’m responding exegetically since you appealed to exegesis. This passage is part of Jesus’ instructions to the Twelve, and specifically it’s a warning against being “afraid of them” (26-31).

Neither of us is an adherent of sola scriptura. So you have no excuse for jumping so quickly from exegesis to theology. I understand it when Protestant fundamentalists do this–they don’t know any better.

From this and other passages and from the Tradition as a whole, the Church has derived the position found in Lumen Gentium 14 and other passages: those who know the truth and reject it cannot be saved (unless they repent, of course). This doesn’t just apply to Jesus’ followers–it would apply to atheists whose consciences convict them that there is a God but who suppress that conviction.

That’s a broader position than the specific exegetical meaning of this passage.

So atheists have a free pass. They go straight to heaven no matter what their sins because they are not followers of Jesus and therefore do not have to repent their sins.

Of course not. Again, you ought to know better than to confuse “this passage isn’t talking directly about atheists” with “atheists are in no spiritual danger.” You’re the one who brought up this particular passage.

Indeed, they are even capable of holiness when they reject the fountain of all holiness?

I am not going to commit myself to any opinion on just how holy an atheist could or could not be. But I am going to commit myself to the opinion that atheists do not necessarily reject “the fountain of all holiness.” Many of them do not even have a conception that there is such a thing. The reality of God may not, for them be associated with the word “God” but with some other concept, flawed though that concept necessarily is.

Are you admiring those who reject God for their bravery in doing so?

No, I’m admiring those who reject false gods, especially when they don’t even have explicit knowledge of the true God to sustain and guide them in doing so.

It isn’t phoney Christians the atheist rejects. It’s God himself.

I don’t know how you can know this. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered an atheist who could describe accurately what historic Christianity means by the word “God.” It seems likely that an experiential knowledge of God of the kind that would bind the conscience is even rarer than an ability to describe verbally what the term means.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am not going to commit myself to any opinion on just how holy an atheist could or could not be.

Since you want a more authentic voice than mine, I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that’s not authentic enough, I give up.

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

And since Jesus himself refers to first commandment as the greatest commandment, the greatest sin should be the breaking of the greatest commandment. Now I anticipate you are going to say that the Commandment was only given to his followers … and therefore the atheist may ignore it with impunity?

More spin zone?

 

[Contarini]

Since you want a more authentic voice than mine, I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If that’s not authentic enough, I give up.

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

And since Jesus himself refers to first commandment as the greatest commandment, the greatest sin should be the breaking of the greatest commandment. Now I anticipate you are going to say that the Commandment was only given to his followers … and therefore the atheist may ignore it with impunity?

More spin zone?

No, not at all. But atheism, like heresy, has material and formal elements. What I’m saying is that just as a Christian who rejects some orthodox doctrine without knowing it to be true is a material but not a formal heretic, so someone who believes “there is no God” without having any genuine encounter with the true God is materially but not formally violating the First Commandment.

In fact, such an atheist may be keeping the Commandment to the best of their ability by rejecting the false gods which are all he/she knows.

I’m not disagreeing with what the Catechism says about “atheism.” I’m talking about “atheists.”

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m not disagreeing with what the Catechism says about “atheism.” I’m talking about “atheists.”

Well, I thought we were originally talking about whether atheists could be holy. And since the Catechism has pretty much settled that, I’m satisfied there’s not much more to say.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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 body and mind begin to wear out, and the galloping point for that is 70.

 

[Counterpoint]

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

This is a good question. I would say that it is important for a free will theodicy.

 

[Formosus]

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…

Well my fellow Platonist I will try to give you some decent answers.

1. The good that is served by free will is our ability to participate in the Good. Things can only participate in the Good in as much as they are able to receive it. Since we have free will, we are able to freely choose the Good. We can choose to seek likeness to God which is achieved through virtue ("Wherefore we ought to fly away from earth to heaven as quickly as we can; and to fly away is to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him, is to become holy, just, and wise. " Theaetetus 176a).
2. Thomistic metaphysics has the soul locked into a certain state after being separated from the body. So that whatever state one dies in, whether acceptance of God or rejection of His love, will be whatever state the soul is in. A soul that rejects God will flee from Him, one that accepts Him will go towards Him. That the soul needs the body to make use of its free will or some such thing. I don’t really know I am not a Thomist…

That said, I am an Origenist “heretic” and hold that our souls can still choose the Good even after death, that eventually we will all realize the Truth and choose the Good, even if our ignorance is painful for us in the short run. This view is supported by St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac of Syria, and the late +von Balthasar in modern times.

 

[michaelhager]

Let me try and simplify this…

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

If you could come up with a potion that REQUIRED someone to love you, how fulfilling would that love be after awhile? God gives us free will so that we can CHOOSE to love him which is so much more satisfying for both of us than forced love. You just have to think about that for a short time before it makes perfect sense.

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?

We are given free will for eternity. There is certainly documented free will in heaven, look at Satan and the fallen angels. They were with God but chose to be apart from him.

Heaven and hell? we have no idea what either really are. But we do know that to be in Heaven is to be in the presence of God and to be in hell is to be apart from Him. Is hell eternal fire and torment, or is the torment simply the complete absence of God? Once we are in the true glorious presence of God, why would we choose to be apart from His glory? It’s still a choice.

 

[romanlew]

Let me try and simplify this…

If you could come up with a potion that REQUIRED someone to love you, how fulfilling would that love be after awhile? God gives us free will so that we can CHOOSE to love him which is so much more satisfying for both of us than forced love. You just have to think about that for a short time before it makes perfect sense.

We are given free will for eternity. There is certainly documented free will in heaven, look at Satan and the fallen angels. They were with God but chose to be apart from him.

Heaven and hell? we have no idea what either really are. But we do know that to be in Heaven is to be in the presence of God and to be in hell is to be apart from Him. Is hell eternal fire and torment, or is the torment simply the complete absence of God? Once we are in the true glorious presence of God, why would we choose to be apart from His glory? It’s still a choice.

I like your answer on Heaven and Hell but where I struggle is with the notion of a truly Free Will - if one is faced with eternal fire and torment, I think very few would “freely” choose that. Maybe my definition of Free Will is simplistic or wrong. If a gun is held to my head and I am given an option to hand over my wallet or die, I have a choice but how free is that choice.

 

[Formosus]

Its not correct to think about heaven and hell as places. They are states of being. Hell is the soul’s desire to flee from God, whether out of a prideful guilt that refuses to seek forgiveness, or out of a vile hatred of the Good that only the most wicked could muster up. God doesn’t punish us for our sins, we punish ourselves by either choosing the Good or choosing lesser apparent goods.

Before I get “flamed” for this comment, it is in some ways akin to the Hindu karma, or the sort of impulses of the soul that Plato talks about in the Phaedo and Phaedrus. It is our soul’s choices and inclinations that decide where we go. The difference being that instead of reincarnating to some other life form that matches our impluses, we flee as far from God as possible based on how much disparity there is between our soul’s desires and the Good.

If hell is eternal and if anyone is “there,” it is only because of their own stubbornness and unwillingness to recognize the Good. It is the “unforgivable sin,” to refuse to ask for forgiveness for one’s sins.

 

[tonyrey]

Its not correct to think about heaven and hell as places. They are states of being. Hell is the soul’s desire to flee from God, whether out of a prideful guilt that refuses to seek forgiveness, or out of a vile hatred of the Good that only the most wicked could muster up. God doesn’t punish us for our sins, we punish ourselves by either choosing the Good or choosing lesser apparent goods.

Before I get “flamed” for this comment, it is in some ways akin to the Hindu karma, or the sort of impulses of the soul that Plato talks about in the Phaedo and Phaedrus. It is our soul’s choices and inclinations that decide where we go. The difference being that instead of reincarnating to some other life form that matches our impluses, we flee as far from God as possible based on how much disparity there is between our soul’s desires and the Good.

If hell is eternal and if anyone is “there,” it is only because of their own stubbornness and unwillingness to recognize the Good. It is the “unforgivable sin,” to refuse to ask for forgiveness for one’s sins.

Pride with the lust for power is a deadly combination…