Free will or no free will?

[turnorburn]

There is enough confusion in your arguments Luther would have thrown them in the circular file.
God is not the author of confusion, Christ only spoke in parables to unbelievers am I to assume
your preaching to such a crowd.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

There is enough confusion in your arguments Luther would have thrown them in the circular file.
God is not the author of confusion, Christ only spoke in parables to unbelievers am I to assume
your preaching to such a crowd.

First of all, there is no confusion: Either you have the will to accept or reject God, as I believe, or you are damned to hell or saved before you're even born, as Calvinism teaches, you having no choice in the matter.

Second of all, who cares what Luther would have done. :-?

 

[Guest]

...can you will yourself to fly? no - you do not have wings.......

"Will" and "Ability" are two different things. I do not have the ability to fly. I do, however, have the ability to make choices in my life. Calvinist predestiantion doctrine denies my ablity to choose.

(BTW: If I have the "Will" to fly, I can build an airplane and fly. Where there's a will, there's a way.)

The "will" is affected by "ability".

They are interconnected. It is not an either/or arguement but a both/and.

 

[francisdesales]

To be honest, I have never heard of the concept that God has no free will, either in the bible or in the writings of the Father. It is implied throughout the Scriptures. Never does the bible even imply that God cannot freely do what He desires. That is really the crux of free will, the ability to do what one DESIRES - and who would think that God DESIRES to sin???

God is sovereign, absolutely, implies that God DOES have free will.

I know you did not copy that definition of free will from an authoritative source. The definition is true as far as it goes, but I would suggest that that your definition is incomplete. At least its an attempt to define free will. Thats something that should have been done long ago.

Yes, it is incomplete AND someone should have defined it better before. Definitions are part of why we can't seem to understand each other...

Certainly God is sovereign. Of course Calvinists take a high view of Gods sovereignty. God has the ability to sin, but he cannot have the desire to sin because it is not his nature to sin. Does God's nature restrict him from anything? Yes! Sin.

Yes, Calvinists do take a high view of God, but unfortunately, it takes away a free will act of God - giving to man free will. The paradoxes of Christianity should not be diluted. Both antithesis present in Scriptures should be maintained.

And how does your comments "take away" from God having free will???

Not being able to do something that I don't want to do does not impinge on free will!

On the other hand, does my former nature as an unbeliever restrict me from believing? Romans 6 says my former nature (6:6-the old man) is to be a slave of my sin nature (6:17).

That does not mean we CANNOT do good ever, or believe, for that matter. This Scritpure does not address belief. Being a slave to sin does NOT mean I MUST sin. Even a slave can occasionally do other than what their "master" or "nature" tells them. Calvin made a terrible misunderstanding of Scriptures that presumes man is DEAD and cannot do absolutely anything until regenerated. Ah well, at least he corrected Luther's idea that even after regeneration, we cannot do any good...

And of course, none of this impinges on God's sovereignty.

The term slave or servant in romans is the greek term doulos (bond slave). I was in total bondage to my sin nature. Ephesians says that I was dead in sin (2:1) and by nature a child of wrath (2:3). It was my nature to hate God and be angry with God.

Being dead to sin does not mean one is "dead" as in a dead body. Paul is speaking about spiritual relationships, not impossible tasks. I would ask you to consider reading Luke 15 and the Parable of the Prodigal Son to better understand the useage of being "dead". Jesus calls the son "dead". But the son returned. What was dead? The relationship of the son with the father, which the son killed by his sin. We are the same way. We have killed our relationship with God. Yet, the son returned, making a free choice to repent (with God's grace, no doubt). Jesus then calls the son "alive" again. The relationship was re-established. That is what it means to be "dead". You are confusing being dead in the body (which can do nothing) with dead in the spirit, which means one has no relationship with God - but certainly does not imply that we are beyond any help or ability to return.

I notice in Ephesians 2:4-5 that God did not change our nature after we believe. He changed our nature while we were dead in sin and trespasses. So then we believe not by the great power of our own self righteousness natures, but only because God, who is rich in mercy, changed our natures to believe.

Yes, we are indeed CHANGED. Not merely imputed. At least Calvinists remained Catholic here...

The natural man cannot believe, it is against his nature. 1 Cor 2:14 syas that "the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God." That is because we are dead in sin. Our natures are dead. We are slaves of sin.

See above. Being dead or of "sin nature" does not mean we are absolutely without the ability to turn to God with His graces that do not overwhelm nature. Augustine was clear that grace does not overwhelm nature. THUS, God chooses not to "drag" men without men. God must provide a tipping point that overcomes the SICK will of man. If man was truly "dead" in ability, then God's grace WOULD overwhelm man, which is not a teaching of the Church, including Augustine.

As I cannot fly like superman, because it is not within my nature... the natural man cannot believe because it is not within his nature. Will God judge the natural man even though unbelief is his nature? Certainly!

Word play... You want your cake and eat it as well.

God gives commands with the EXPECTATION that, with His grace, WE will obey... This implies we are NOT totally "dead" in ability.

I have to go now. I will again be away for a while and who knows what my interest will be when I return.

Very well. I suppose we can continue when you return.
Btw, I am reading about Calvinist mysticism and find it very much in line with Catholic mysticism in line with St. John of the Cross and "negative theology". It makes more sense of the Calvinist desire to remove ALL implements of worship in an effort to meet with the ONE. Naturally, this does not touch on some Calvinist theological speculations, but just the same, it was interesting to learn this.

Regards

 

[destiny]

Here is a visual image of someone with no free will on their way to work..




:D

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Here is a visual image of someone with no free will on their way to work..




:D

Love it!!

 

[tblaine74]

Free will skepticism simultaneously relies on propositions made from multiple points of reference. An argument composed of propositions offered from multiple points of reference at the same time naturally become meaningless in attempting to reconcile it with any one, or meaningful, point of reference. I cannot experience the other side of the mountain from the top and the bottom of the mountain at the same time. Yet, this is precisely what free will skepticism attempts to do. It is an attempt to stand atop the mountain of causation and speak about the world from the bottom of the mountain, or from the mouth of a particular self, which is precisely what one could not be atop such a mountain.

The problem with the free will question is that any definition of it is meaningless. If we cannot define the problem, then how will we demonstrate that it is anything? It seems the real problem then, is not with free will, but with our view of it.

 

[beloved57]

God gives commands with the EXPECTATION that, with His grace, WE will obey... This implies we are NOT totally "dead" in ability.

Gods commands He gives His elect, they will obey, its no doubt about.it.Gods commands are backed by His omniopetence..

And yes man by nature is totally dead in any kind of spiritual ability, hence why he needs to be born again..

 

[Catholic Crusader]

God gives commands with the EXPECTATION that, with His grace, WE will obey... This implies we are NOT totally "dead" in ability.

Gods commands He gives His elect, they will obey, its no doubt about.it.Gods commands are backed by His omniopetence..

And yes man by nature is totally dead in any kind of spiritual ability, hence why he needs to be born again..

I don't agree with that at all.

 

[mondar]

Here is a visual image of someone with no free will on their way to work..




:D

Love it!!

I peek into the board to see what is being said and I find apologetics has decended to the level of strawman caricatures of the hated Calvinists. I guess anythings fair when it comes to dealing with those stinking Calvinists. Doncha hate them?

Actually this reminds me of the Arminian Jack Chick tracts in which he makes caricatures of Roman Catholics. Would you "love it" if I posted a few of them on the board?

By the way, tell me. Do you believe man has a "free will" in heaven? Can we still sin in heaven? Or is God going to make puppets, or robots out of his in heaven anyway? Is God going to dehumanize us in heaven by making our natures incapable of sinning? Or does your concept of heaven still have sin nature and sin in it?

 

[mondar]

Francisdesales,
I dont have time to read your post closely atm. Need a little more time to read your post more closely.

Mondar

 

[Catholic Crusader]

...I guess anythings fair when it comes to dealing with those stinking Calvinists.

That is an ironic statement from someone who has posted so many false statements about my church and what we teach.

Doncha hate them?

Nope. I just dislike their false teachings

 

[mondar]

...I guess anythings fair when it comes to dealing with those stinking Calvinists.

That is an ironic statement from someone who has posted so many false statements about my church and what we teach.

Can you document where I misrepresented Roman Catholic teaching? Or is this just the normal attitude you have that any accusation goes when dealing with those hated Calvinists? Maybe if you increase the number of accusations against my intregity it might make you feel better about your own behavior?

Doncha hate them?

Nope. I just dislike their false teachings

So because you dislike the heresy and false teachings of Calvinists you approve of caricatures, sling unsubstantiated accusations, and just sling the word "false teaching" around? So there is no vitriol that is low enough that Calvinists dont deserve it?

CC, it is obvious that many of us here have some very different theological views. Maybe you are offended by people that believe something different then you and feel that especially Calvinists deserve your worse vitriol. I admit that I have seen some Calvinists that take the low road too. Neither am I perfect. How about if we work at some self control in what we write to each other. I felt the caricature is one of the most common misrepesentations of Calvinist theology around today. I did get sarcastic and am still being sarcastic, but in my previous statement I put a challenge and asked a question. You ignored the question. Is that because you can only focus on the lowlife issues and not the real questions?

So tell me. If Calvinism presents people as puppets because we say they are bound by their natures, what happens in heaven? Are we sinless? Does your view of heaven leave men as puppets or do you think there will be sin in heaven?

 

[Rick W]

How about if we work at some self control in what we write to each other.

I can delete the pic. If I delete the pic then all posts referring to it must either be edited or deleted. I post this publicly because other member's posts will be affected as well.

Is this agreeable?

 

[francisdesales]

So tell me. If Calvinism presents people as puppets because we say they are bound by their natures, what happens in heaven? Are we sinless? Does your view of heaven leave men as puppets or do you think there will be sin in heaven?

I won't address the other stuff you have brought up, but I will address this, since I have already answered it above...

Free will is not doing the possible but doing what is for our own GOOD.

Technically, it is the power of self-determination, which, in Christian theology, is not about "doing what I feel like" but "doing what is best for me" - which, of course, is union with God. Of course, this is in opposition to determinism or even worse, fate. Unfortunately, monergism leads to fatalism, a pagan concept.

In heaven, who will WANT to sin? There will not be a desire to sin because we will be fully human. No doubt, we will realize fully how sin separates us from God, and which human would want to leave the Beatific Vision, once they obtained it?

Regards

 

[mondar]

So tell me. If Calvinism presents people as puppets because we say they are bound by their natures, what happens in heaven? Are we sinless? Does your view of heaven leave men as puppets or do you think there will be sin in heaven?

I won't address the other stuff you have brought up, but I will address this, since I have already answered it above...

Free will is not doing the possible but doing what is for our own GOOD.

Technically, it is the power of self-determination, which, in Christian theology, is not about "doing what I feel like" but "doing what is best for me" - which, of course, is union with God. Of course, this is in opposition to determinism or even worse, fate. Unfortunately, monergism leads to fatalism, a pagan concept.

In heaven, who will WANT to sin? There will not be a desire to sin because we will be fully human. No doubt, we will realize fully how sin separates us from God, and which human would want to leave the Beatific Vision, once they obtained it?

Regards

DEFINITIONS
First, I have no idea where you got that definition of "free will" from. It would certainly not be the "free will" I am talking about. I am not sure why you define free will in that way, in fact your definition has little meaning to me.

I do not have sources, but as far as I know the history of the discussion on free will goes back to Pelagius and Augustine. Pelagius proposed that man can do either evil or good at any time. Augustine pointed to the doctrine of Original Sin and denyed that man can do good at any time.

Semi-Pelagianism developed out of this discussion. Now I am aware the the term "semi-Pelagianism" came up about the time of the reformation.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the term "free will" should in some way be associated with the concept of limitations on the concept of "original sin." When I speak of "original sin" I am referring to the headship of Adam for the whole human race. As Romans 5 says we all sinned in Adam, the first man. So we all died in Adam, and so sin spread to the whole human race. Adam rebelled, and so we are born rebellous creatures by nature. OF course the key word is "nature." Are we by nature rebels against God? The Calvinist says yes, the (I dont know what term to use--if I say semi-pelagian would that be offensive?) semi-pelagian agrees that original sin exists, but limits the extent to which original sin might extend. The semi-pelagian denies that sin nature does not affect the will when it comes to the issue of faith. Most semi-pelagians or arminians accept that the sin nature affects our desire to sin, but deny that it affects our rebellion.

So then, the concept of "free will" is actually limited by a small degree by semi-pelagians or arminians. It is limited in that we cannot choose to never sin. The augustinian or Calvinist take Original sin or sin nature one step further to say that man is not even spiritually alive enough to respond to the gospel, but he is totally spiritually dead (Romans 5 and Ephesians 2 both have the concept of death.) In other words the will of man is totally under the bondage of his sin nature in his spiritual decisions.

This does not mean that man cannot do those things which are good for him. Even Adams first sin had an element of an attempt to do that which is good for self. Adam thought he would be like God, knowing good from evil. He thought it would be good for himself. Adam did learn good from evil, but he knew it from the perspective of rebellion against God.

So then, I see man as being in bondage to his sin nature, and spiritually dead.

On the other hand, you use terms like "fatalism" and "determinism." While I am not a very good student of philosophy, and so may not have these concepts nailed down in detail... I do not see Calvinism as fatalistic. I do not see classic Calvinists as sitting out under a tree waiting for fate to happen. On the other hand, Calvinism might be "deterministic." While we might strive to accomplish our desires (will) may or may not have the ability to accomplish our desire. As far as "determinism" I would think that possible God has determined everything. I dont see that from Gods perspective that there are any renegade atoms that God is not in control of. He knew from the foundations of the earth where each atom would go, and how each atom would land.

Finally, you say that in heaven we will be "fully human." Does this mean that we are not yet 100% human at this time? I am not sure how that settles the question I raised. I understood the puppet caricature as suggesting that if we do not have free will now, we are not 100% human but are puppets. So then to be human, we must have absolute ability of free choice concerning God. To be human we must be able to either reject or accept God. Do we have these same choices in eternity in heaven? Even in Catholic doctrine, after purgatory, there is heaven. Can we fall from heaven in eternity? If someone, at least a few do not fall from heaven and go back to purgatory or even hell, can we say that we have free choice in eternity? If the equation "100% human = free will." Then how will we be 100% human in eternity future in heaven (or hell)? Maybe, just maybe the equation is wrong and the caricature is innaccurage.

I know I still have to go back and respond to your previous post. If things keep rolling, I may not get to it, but I do want to read it more carefully and probably respond.

 

[beloved57]

I don't agree with that at all.

Truth does not need your agreement to be truth..

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I don't agree with that at all.

Truth does not need your agreement to be truth..

Correct. But what you said is not true: Period.

 

[francisdesales]

I do not have sources, but as far as I know the history of the discussion on free will goes back to Pelagius and Augustine. Pelagius proposed that man can do either evil or good at any time. Augustine pointed to the doctrine of Original Sin and denyed that man can do good at any time.

Augustine said man can do no good at any time? Well, your are going to have to provide citations, please...

I quoted Augustine that says otherwise...

The idea is that man is so wounded that he cannot choose God without God's grace. Pelagius said grace wasn't necessary. But since God's grace does not overwhelm nature, it seems pretty evident that man is not dead, otherwise, a free will act to do good would BE A TOTAL OVERWHELMING OF MAN'S "NATURE"... Think about it. There must be something within us that God moves that IS good, otherwise, God's grace is indeed overwhelming nature.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the term "free will" should in some way be associated with the concept of limitations on the concept of "original sin." When I speak of "original sin" I am referring to the headship of Adam for the whole human race. As Romans 5 says we all sinned in Adam, the first man. So we all died in Adam, and so sin spread to the whole human race. Adam rebelled, and so we are born rebellous creatures by nature. OF course the key word is "nature." Are we by nature rebels against God? The Calvinist says yes.

So would Catholics - but that doesn't mean that we follow in every situation our "nature". It is "natural" to choose sin, but that doesn't mean we DO choose sinful acts on EVERY occasion. This is clear when one studies the pagan who SOMETIMES does good. How is this possible? Because God's Spirit HAS placed within man some abilities to choose good, even the fallen man can do so (if you consult Romans 2, it says that men have a law printed within themselves and the verses clearly point out that this man CAN obey that imprint of God)

, the (I dont know what term to use--if I say semi-pelagian would that be offensive?) semi-pelagian agrees that original sin exists, but limits the extent to which original sin might extend. The semi-pelagian denies that sin nature does not affect the will when it comes to the issue of faith. Most semi-pelagians or arminians accept that the sin nature affects our desire to sin, but deny that it affects our rebellion.

"Semi-Pelagianism" is a heresy, so your first question is a non-sequitar. You are confusing Catholics with Remonstrants.

We do believe that the unregenerated man's nature is affected by original sin and that the will is badly damaged. Not destroyed, however. WE both know that one must be perfect in the sight of God to "earn" heaven. Unless we are given the gift of grace, the unregenerated man, whether he is "wounded" or "dead" cannot get to heaven, since he must PERFECTLY follow God's will. That is not possible, and thus, Pelagianism is a grievious mistake. However, to say man can never do intermittent acts of love, moved by God to some degree, before regeneration, is not what the Bible teaches. Man cannot but do intermittent acts of kindness. And they cannot save, since one must be perfect. Thus, one must not posit that an unregenerated man is absolutely dead in ability to do good. The real world shows this to be false.

So then, the concept of "free will" is actually limited by a small degree by semi-pelagians or arminians. It is limited in that we cannot choose to never sin. The augustinian or Calvinist take Original sin or sin nature one step further to say that man is not even spiritually alive enough to respond to the gospel, but he is totally spiritually dead (Romans 5 and Ephesians 2 both have the concept of death.) In other words the will of man is totally under the bondage of his sin nature in his spiritual decisions.

I have already addressed the mistake of linking death of the body with spiritual death. Ephesians 2 is discussing our relationship, not our ability.

Consult the parable of the Prodigal son and see how Jesus uses the term "dead".

Does it preclude the son from repenting and returning to the father, to become "alive" again?

This does not mean that man cannot do those things which are good for him. Even Adams first sin had an element of an attempt to do that which is good for self. Adam thought he would be like God, knowing good from evil. He thought it would be good for himself. Adam did learn good from evil, but he knew it from the perspective of rebellion against God.

So then, I see man as being in bondage to his sin nature, and spiritually dead.

So after Adam sinned, he never performed a good act again his entire life.

Being in bondage is not an absolute. It means our way of life is directed towards sin and self. It is not a "black and white" statement that states that man absolutely in every case sins when given a choice.

On the other hand, you use terms like "fatalism" and "determinism." While I am not a very good student of philosophy, and so may not have these concepts nailed down in detail... I do not see Calvinism as fatalistic. I do not see classic Calvinists as sitting out under a tree waiting for fate to happen. On the other hand, Calvinism might be "deterministic."

Well, deterministic eventually leads to fatalism. If some other external force determines your fate without your input or ability, that is fatalism.

Again, Augustine never taught such things and the Council of Orange specifically stated that double predestination was an error. If God's graces overwhelmed man because man was dead and could do NOTHING, than Augustine would not have said that grace does NOT overwhelm nature. Aquinas noted that grace ADDS to nature.

Here is what you accuse us of...

God's grace + my response = "adding to salvation". Mathematically, it would be:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 +1 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001

Here is what Catholics teach...

God's grace + my response = All God's work

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, x 1 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

and IF I say "no"?

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 0 = 0

No salvation.

This is what we mean by cooperation. Without my input, I cannot get to heaven, because the answer will be "0". But my "yes" adds NOTHING to God's Work.

I do not earn salvation, nor do I add to it. But I CAN throw salvation away by refusing to accept the gift. God will later reward me for NOT throwing away the gift, not because I earned anything.

While we might strive to accomplish our desires (will) may or may not have the ability to accomplish our desire.

Having the inability to accomplish something does not affect my free will. Free will is based on having the ability to do something. Is my free will impinged upon because I cannot hold my breath for 10 days? Of course not. Free will presumes that I am able to do "x", and I can choose to do "x" or not do "x". Scriptures tell us that God commands men to choose "x". Scriptures also relate men saying they will choose "x".

As far as "determinism" I would think that possible God has determined everything.

You would say that ONLY if you have placed God into chronological time. God is outside of time and has not "decided" anything, as if God has a past. God lives in the one moment of being, no past, no future. One Now. To God, time is simultaneous, both the Fall of man and his subsequent redemption. To say "God has determined everything" is an anthropomorphic view of God that places God into time. Metaphysically, it is incorrect, and the Bible speaks this way because God has chosen to condescend to man so His Word and Will could be understood. But subsequent teachings by the Spirit has shown this way of thinking must give way to more mature ways of looking at God and how He acts.

I dont see that from Gods perspective that there are any renegade atoms that God is not in control of. He knew from the foundations of the earth where each atom would go, and how each atom would land.

The problem with this line of thinking is not allowing God to have free will. You cannot accept that God CAN give man free will, but rather, that God MUST overpower man from preventing man from "gumming up the plan". Your view of God must keep man down so he doesn't ruin everything that God has "already planned". Our view of God is magnanimous and is not afraid of His creation, giving man free will, knowing and seeing man's choices - while seeing the end of time simultaneously. It is not possible to "wreck" God's plan because God ALREADY SEES THE END!

Finally, you say that in heaven we will be "fully human." Does this mean that we are not yet 100% human at this time?

Yes.

I am not sure how that settles the question I raised. I understood the puppet caricature as suggesting that if we do not have free will now, we are not 100% human but are puppets.

False conclusion. Being fully human is to be like Christ. Christ came to show us a visible "representation" of God AND the goal that man must achieve to come into union with God. We must become like Christ to become fully human. We are not either fully human or puppets...

So then to be human, we must have absolute ability of free choice concerning God.

To be fully human means to have completely eliminated the desire to sin, to turn to the ways of the world. As long as we can give in to temptation of things of this world, things of the flesh, we remain a work in progress.

To be human we must be able to either reject or accept God.

No. To be human is to choose God. Always. That is what the saints strive to become - to become fully human in Christ Jesus so as to participate in the divine nature. The concept of theosis, divinization, recapitulation are all terms the Fathers used to describe what happens when God has "created a new man" and begins to make him human as he was meant to be. God did not make us with wounded (or dead, if you prefer) natures.

Do we have these same choices in eternity in heaven? Even in Catholic doctrine, after purgatory, there is heaven. Can we fall from heaven in eternity?

No, it is not possible. I think you are confusing free choice with free will, according to Augustine. Technically, we have "free choice" in heaven, but our free will is perfected by God and so we WILL not to leave God. Thus, our free will is freed completely in heaven. We have no impediments that keep us from freely choosing God, thus, we are freed to become what we were meant to be.

I know I still have to go back and respond to your previous post. If things keep rolling, I may not get to it, but I do want to read it more carefully and probably respond.

Ok.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.

Holy Moley

.