What is so important about free will?

[michaelhager]

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.

Well, you’ve hit on the very basis of our faith. In a sense, the gun is being held to our heads. Yet we often choose to believe it is not loaded.

We are given instructions from God about how to behave, how to worship and how do obtain God’s favor. We are told to love our neighbors and do good works in His name, not to kill or commit adultery, steal or blaspheme, etc. He offers us the gifts of reconciliation and forgiveness through the Church and He asks us to remember all of these things and keep them close in our hearts.

These are the choices we freely make on Earth if we believe and desire to be with Him in eternity. So it’s not that people choose hell, it’s more about choosing to reject God among all of the temptations here on Earth. We know by these teachings what we must do. It is the world around us and the presence if the enemy that we falter and choose the wrong path.

It is most certainly about our free will.

 

[ericc]

=Neoplatonist;11647459]

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

To be human. Without free will, we are just animals or machines.

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?

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?

Amount of time given is relative. What is the purpose of more time? It doesn’t guarantee more time will change an evil person good. Same goes for reincarnation believers, more time does not mean the preferred outcome will happen. Given our fallen nature, there is a tendency to sin. So more time could lead to more sin in turns of quantum. It could also result in good turning bad as the devil will be given more time to ply his trade. More learning does not guarantee more holiness.

Do more wickedness comes from unread /unlearned people or from highly educated people? You allude with more and more learning, the opportunity to be saved is enhanced. As more and more people received more education, do we see a reduction in evil? Do you see kinder wars in each successive wars?

How about unlimited time? If you are given unlimited time for 2nd chances or reincarnation till you turn to good, then given sufficient time, free choice turns to unfree necessity and determinism (I am extracting liberally from Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics). If we are free, we can always refuse God. If ever it becomes necessary that we accept God, that acceptance becomes unfree.

If you believe that all should be saved eventually, then there is no hell to be saved from, then Jesus is not our Saviour, but only our teacher, prophet, guru or model. Free will and hell go together. With free will you can refuse God and choose evil. If the end point is always salvation, then there is no free will because you have no choice but to end up saved. If there is no hell, religious indifference follows. If salvation is automatic, Christ sacrificial death was a stupid mistake, a needless act. If there is no hell, then life’s choices no longer make an infinite difference.

The damned in hell do not enjoy hell, but they do will it, by willing self over God. Love is God’s essence, justice one of its works and mercy another. Hell is due more to love than to justice. Love created free persons who could choose hell. Hell is due to freedom, not necessity. God respects your choice.

 

[tonyrey]

To be human. Without free will, we are just animals or machines.

Amount of time given is relative. What is the purpose of more time? It doesn’t guarantee more time will change an evil person good. Same goes for reincarnation believers, more time does not mean the preferred outcome will happen. Given our fallen nature, there is a tendency to sin. So more time could lead to more sin in turns of quantum. It could also result in good turning bad as the devil will be given more time to ply his trade. More learning does not guarantee more holiness.

Do more wickedness comes from unread /unlearned people or from highly educated people? You allude with more and more learning, the opportunity to be saved is enhanced. As more and more people received more education, do we see a reduction in evil? Do you see kinder wars in each successive wars?

How about unlimited time? If you are given unlimited time for 2nd chances or reincarnation till you turn to good, then given sufficient time, free choice turns to unfree necessity and determinism (I am extracting liberally from Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics). If we are free, we can always refuse God. If ever it becomes necessary that we accept God, that acceptance becomes unfree.

If you believe that all should be saved eventually, then there is no hell to be saved from, then Jesus is not our Saviour, but only our teacher, prophet, guru or model. Free will and hell go together. With free will you can refuse God and choose evil. If the end point is always salvation, then there is no free will because you have no choice but to end up saved. If there is no hell, religious indifference follows. If salvation is automatic, Christ sacrificial death was a stupid mistake, a needless act. If there is no hell, then life’s choices no longer make an infinite difference.

The damned in hell do not enjoy hell, but they do will it, by willing self over God. Love is God’s essence, justice one of its works and mercy another. Hell is due more to love than to justice. Love created free persons who could choose hell. Hell is due to freedom, not necessity. God respects your choice.

:clapping: Those who deplore free will would soon complain if they were deprived of it - assuming that they knew what free will is!

 

[Neoplatonist]

To be human. Without free will, we are just animals or machines.

Amount of time given is relative. What is the purpose of more time? It doesn’t guarantee more time will change an evil person good. Same goes for reincarnation believers, more time does not mean the preferred outcome will happen. Given our fallen nature, there is a tendency to sin. So more time could lead to more sin in turns of quantum. It could also result in good turning bad as the devil will be given more time to ply his trade. More learning does not guarantee more holiness.

Do more wickedness comes from unread /unlearned people or from highly educated people? You allude with more and more learning, the opportunity to be saved is enhanced. As more and more people received more education, do we see a reduction in evil? Do you see kinder wars in each successive wars?

How about unlimited time? If you are given unlimited time for 2nd chances or reincarnation till you turn to good, then given sufficient time, free choice turns to unfree necessity and determinism (I am extracting liberally from Peter Kreeft’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics). If we are free, we can always refuse God. If ever it becomes necessary that we accept God, that acceptance becomes unfree.

If you believe that all should be saved eventually, then there is no hell to be saved from, then Jesus is not our Saviour, but only our teacher, prophet, guru or model. Free will and hell go together. With free will you can refuse God and choose evil. If the end point is always salvation, then there is no free will because you have no choice but to end up saved. If there is no hell, religious indifference follows. If salvation is automatic, Christ sacrificial death was a stupid mistake, a needless act. If there is no hell, then life’s choices no longer make an infinite difference.

The damned in hell do not enjoy hell, but they do will it, by willing self over God. Love is God’s essence, justice one of its works and mercy another. Hell is due more to love than to justice. Love created free persons who could choose hell. Hell is due to freedom, not necessity. God respects your choice.

But are they not suffering a life in hell as long as, and as intensely as, they turn away from God? You make it sound like it would all be neutralized if the sentence to Hell were not made irredeemably permanent at some point. Christ’s suffering and death is not rendered meaningless, for he will have still shown the way for countless belivers to avoid untold amounts and durations of suffering. Does the fact that we can always re-break a bone render the work our surgeon does today somehow meaningless? Fixing the bone now, even though we hold open the possibility of re-breaking it again along the way, the person whose blood, sweat, and tears helped us recover for a time, still deserves our respect and praise and affection.

The learning I refer to is not stuff like art history or biochemistry, but learning about God, morality, etc. The comparison to things like calculus is meant to provide analogical footing. Speaking of which:

If the student chooses to believe that 3 is larger than a google, how can we make sense out of saying he has chosen 3 over a google when, in fact, his belief indicates that he does not really understand one or the other - either the “3” or “google”? Why would this apply so differently to moral or metaphysical knowledge?

 

[ericc]

But are they not suffering a life in hell as long as, and as intensely as, they turn away from God? You make it sound like it would all be neutralized if the sentence to Hell were not made irredeemably permanent at some point. Christ’s suffering and death is not rendered meaningless, for he will have still shown the way for countless belivers to avoid untold amounts and durations of suffering. Does the fact that we can always re-break a bone render the work our surgeon does today somehow meaningless? Fixing the bone now, even though we hold open the possibility of re-breaking it again along the way, the person whose blood, sweat, and tears helped us recover for a time, still deserves our respect and praise and affection.

It is by choice that they turned away from God. Why are you unhappy about that? The suffering is from absence of God’s love which they chose. Self inflicted pain. Obviously I do not know whether when the damned got into hell do they regret not repenting and accepting God’s forgiveness. If they do, why are there still demons? Hell would be an empty place by now. Yes, salvation would be a joke if hell is temporary and freewill becomes meaningless because if I go by your reasoning all in hell would want to opt out of hell (this is an assumption). Christ’s suffering and death is rendered meaningless. One can thus say, Jesus, you don’t need to save me, since I would be out of hell/jail eventually. So meanwhile, let me do Satan’s bidding. All I need to do later is to tell you I am sorry (although in my heart I am not) and get me out of here? You are all Love and Mercy right? Meanwhile go and save others. God doesn’t do absurd things. God can not love sin. God is just. If you are just a tiny weeny little bit bad, purgatory will clean you up for heaven.

The learning I refer to is not stuff like art history or biochemistry, but learning about God, morality, etc. The comparison to things like calculus is meant to provide analogical footing.

How would one learn if they are addicted to sin? The more they sin, the more they embrace it. Because sin is pleasure, sin is power, sin is fun, sin is answerable to no one. I do what I like and as long as I don’t get caught/stopped, I would continue. Why would I stop? What I would ask of you is whether it is fair for God to let you sin against Him and for you to sin against others till you feel like repenting/stopping? It is good to have a limited life span. Genocides then will last a limited time for example. Abortions will last till menopause etc. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world will be stopped. Wicked Emperors of China have all searched for the elixir of life in order to live forever. And these are really cruel people. The world is lucky they don’t live forever.

If the student chooses to believe that 3 is larger than a google, how can we make sense out of saying he has chosen 3 over a google when, in fact, his belief indicates that he does not really understand one or the other - either the “3” or “google”? Why would this apply so differently to moral or metaphysical knowledge?

You are assuming sinners don’t understand the gravity of their errors. We have covered these in another thread I believe. Catholic Church teaching is that mortal sin is committed when you know full well the gravity of the sin and committed knowingly that it is against God’s command, not when you are clueless. You are pleading ignorance again. I am saying, sinners were not ignorant when they committed the sin. However, you don’t need to worry about this. God knows their hearts, not you or I. Anyway, which part of the 10 commandments they do not understand? Others do. Only the insane and mentally retarded may not which the Church and most legal societies accept as a valid defence. The Catholic Church does allow invincible ignorance. However, the Church has wisely defer that to God’s judgement. So you have nothing to worry about if the heart is pure and innocent. After all you trust God is just.

You seem to be seeking for a get out of jail card for those in hell. I am trying to see your motivation for this line of thinking. Perhaps what you failed to see is that those in hell exercised their choice to be there, regardless of the absence of God’s love, regardless of the consequences.

You call yourself a catholic. Therefore you must accept the teachings of the Church on all doctrines. Salvation is not universal or automatic. Jesus clearly talks about hell and its permanency. "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” You must repent to be saved BEFORE the due date. Judgement is immediate after due date. Therefore do NOT procrastinate!

 

[Neoplatonist]

Yes, salvation would be a joke if hell is temporary and freewill becomes meaningless because if I go by your reasoning all in hell would want to opt out of hell (this is an assumption). Christ’s suffering and death is rendered meaningless. One can thus say, Jesus, you don’t need to save me, since I would be out of hell/jail eventually. So meanwhile, let me do Satan’s bidding. All I need to do later is to tell you I am sorry (although in my heart I am not) and get me out of here?

How would one learn if they are addicted to sin? The more they sin, the more they embrace it. Because sin is pleasure, sin is power, sin is fun, sin is answerable to no one. I do what I like and as long as I don’t get caught/stopped, I would continue. Why would I stop?

You seem to be seeking for a get out of jail card for those in hell. I am trying to see your motivation for this line of thinking.

No, I’m not asking for a get out of jail free card. I thought I had covered this, but it bears saying again. I’m only asking for a get-out-of-jail-in-less-time-than-infinity card. Christ’s sacrifice would not be meaningless if it saves people from hundreds or thousands of years of suffering and grief.

The sinners would learn, they would have a consequence, they would stop because the soul can be capable of rehabilitation. The process of purification would become a part of them, too, a part of their history and self-identity, so it’s not as if they were magically granted a pardon at the moment of judgment.

You call yourself a catholic. Therefore you must accept the teachings of the Church on all doctrines. Salvation is not universal or automatic. Jesus clearly talks about hell and its permanency. "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” You must repent to be saved BEFORE the due date. Judgement is immediate after due date. Therefore do NOT procrastinate!

a. No, I don’t think I must. What I “must” do is follow my conscience.

b.If that were true about accepting everything, why wouldn’t the Pope just state ex-cathedra “everything in the Catechism” and be done with it?

c. Just because the church calls me to accept something doesn’t mean I can understand it, or reconcile it with the other things the church tells me to accept. Hence the process of trying to work through the seeming discordances.

d. Maybe your point is a good one and I need to seriously re-evaluate whether I can live with a faith that preaches love and peace on one hand while dropping down the heaviest hammer of infinite suffering and lakes of fire on the other. Honestly—there are some things my conscience just can’t accept.

 

[davidv]

No, I’m not asking for a get out of jail free card. I thought I had covered this, but it bears saying again. I’m only asking for a get-out-of-jail-in-less-time-than-infinity card. Christ’s sacrifice would not be meaningless if it saves people from hundreds or thousands of years of suffering and grief.

The sinners would learn, they would have a consequence, they would stop because the soul can be capable of rehabilitation. The process of purification would become a part of them, too, a part of their history and self-identity, so it’s not as if they were magically granted a pardon at the moment of judgment.

a. No, I don’t think I must. What I “must” do is follow my conscience.

b.If that were true about accepting everything, why wouldn’t the Pope just state ex-cathedra “everything in the Catechism” and be done with it?

c. Just because the church calls me to accept something doesn’t mean I can understand it, or reconcile it with the other things the church tells me to accept. Hence the process of trying to work through the seeming discordances.

d. Maybe your point is a good one and I need to seriously re-evaluate whether I can live with a faith that preaches love and peace on one hand while dropping down the heaviest hammer of infinite suffering and lakes of fire on the other. Honestly—there are some things my conscience just can’t accept.

A. You must follow a **well formed **conscience.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

B. Because that wouldn’t be true, and based on a. it doesn’t appear that it wouldn’t make any difference to you.
C. Why must you understand it to accept it? Do you have an infinite intellect?
D. This is a serious mischaracterization of the teaching.

 

[Neoplatonist]

A. You must follow a **well formed **conscience.
B. Because that wouldn’t be true, and based on a. it doesn’t appear that it wouldn’t make any difference to you.
C. Why must you understand it to accept it? Do you have an infinite intellect?
D. This is a serious mischaracterization of the teaching.

CCC 1782
Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moreal decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."

CCC1790
A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

So, following my conscience is the mandate-right or wrong. Working to educate my conscience is the motivation to try to come to terms with teachings that seem in conflict with it. Somehow shirking the duties therein by just subjugating the call of conscience to Church doctrine would be a grievous error and I would be condemned.

“Infinite intellect” pfft. No. Did the people who wrote the catechism? Or the pope? Or even all the saints and church fathers put together?

Besides, even if I were to set aside my will for “whatever the church teaches”, how would that be the preserving of the axiomatic sanctity of free will, which was the concern that launched this thread?

 

[Neoplatonist]

D. This is a serious mischaracterization of the teaching.

Can you clarify? Is it wrong that we are preached to about love and forgiveness or that eternal suffering and torment wait for us if we haven’t become good enough people by the time we die?

 

[davidv]

Can you clarify?

The only one “dropping the hammer” is the sinner. Not God nor the Church…

Is it wrong that we are preached to about love and forgiveness or that eternal suffering and torment wait for us if we haven’t become good enough people by the time we die?

Why do you think it is about becoming good enough? What about the humility to admit ones failings and offenses against God and neighbor? What about repentance?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . . .
Besides, even if I were to set aside my will for “whatever the church teaches”, how would that be the preserving of the axiomatic sanctity of free will, which was the concern that launched this thread?

I provided some thoughts in a post above on this concern of yours. Perhaps they may be of some help.

 

[ericc]

No, I’m not asking for a get out of jail free card. I thought I had covered this, but it bears saying again. I’m only asking for a get-out-of-jail-in-less-time-than-infinity card. Christ’s sacrifice would not be meaningless if it saves people from hundreds or thousands of years of suffering and grief.

The sinners would learn, they would have a consequence, they would stop because the soul can be capable of rehabilitation. The process of purification would become a part of them, too, a part of their history and self-identity, so it’s not as if they were magically granted a pardon at the moment of judgment.

What if they don’t want to get out? What if they prefer sin to God? This is what freewill is. A choice free from compulsion.

a. No, I don’t think I must. What I “must” do is follow my conscience.

Then you can start your own religion. Your conscience may change over time. It is a product of your upbringing, education, environment, experience. But you don’t have divine knowledge. So your new religion is subject to changes in your conscience which is ,well, man-made.

b.If that were true about accepting everything, why wouldn’t the Pope just state ex-cathedra “everything in the Catechism” and be done with it?

Everything in the catechism is not everything of the Catholic faith. I don’ t understand your point on “be done with it”. Be done with what? Not everything in the catechism need to be dogmatically proclaimed.

c. Just because the church calls me to accept something doesn’t mean I can understand it, or reconcile it with the other things the church tells me to accept. Hence the process of trying to work through the seeming discordances.

There are things in the Catholic faith that I don’t understand fully either. That doesn’t stop me from having faith that the teachings are true and to be followed. Christ gave the Church a guarantee that it will prevail against the gates of hell. If you do not believe the Church teachings, then you are not believing that the guarantee that Christ gave is good. Christ gave his mandate to the apostles to bind/loose stuff on earth/heaven. So the authority of the Pope and fellow bishops are ,what we call, good to go. In fact all of us are banking on their authority to do the proper teaching. Not on individual consciences. We defer to their Christ given authority. Christ says hell is eternal. He knows the details why this is so but we don’t. And so we believe. Your conscience may tell you that is not very good, but this is what Christ said. Now this is the power of free will that was given to us. What do you do with your free will after hearing Christ statement on the eternal hell? Will you be like those who couldn’t accept his hard saying when told to eat his body and go away?

d. Maybe your point is a good one and I need to seriously re-evaluate whether I can live with a faith that preaches love and peace on one hand while dropping down the heaviest hammer of infinite suffering and lakes of fire on the other. Honestly—there are some things my conscience just can’t accept.

You mean eternal suffering. Seems there is a difference between infinite vs eternal but my command of English is such that I haven’t grasp the finer point between the 2.

If you believe the words of Jesus, you don’t need to go religion shopping. The truth remains the truth even if you are uncomfortable with the truth. Even if you end up with another religion that you are comfortable with conscience-wise, does it make it any truer? You know deep inside, you were only escaping from the truth.

 

[miguel]

:clapping: It can be proved logically that egoism is destructive and self-destructive because
it causes unnecessary suffering and alienates others. Every vice incurs its own punishment and every virtue brings its own reward: divine justice is at the heart of existence.

This is really the bottom line for me. The question was asked why God doesn’t just annihilate those who reject him in this life. That would be too easy for the sinner. God’s justice is good. Hermann Goering ate cyannide thinking he could escape the justice system after WWII. There is no escape from divine justice. There is accountability for how we treat our brothers and sisters. If we thought there was no accountability, how many of us would do whatever the hell we want. The Communists were athiests. They thought there was no accountability also. And when they achieved political power, they did extreme damage…free will run amok. But there will be divine accountability. That’s good. God’s justice is good. The victims of all these atrocities in human history will have their day of justice. I’m very content with that. God Bless.