Free Will?

[point5]

In debating the problem of evil with my brother I started thinking about free will. Is it safe to say that if there is no free will (I of course believe there is free will), then the problem of evil is a valid proof against God, or at least God being perfectly good? I don't know maybe Im way off...but I just don't think suffering can be explained without free will, and punishment or justice.
Just a random thought.
-Kiel

[Guest JeffCR07]

you're right, it can't. The "no free will" argument is much the same as the "predestination" argument.

[b]The Predestiners say:[/b]

1.) God is All Knowing
2.) God is Eternal
3.) God is never wrong

these things being true, it logically follows that god knows [i]all[/i] the choices that we are going to make(point 1).Moreover, because God is eternal (point 2) he knows these things before we are born. Finally, God is never wrong (point 3), so these things are certain.

Thus, it logically follows that all the decisions we make are known by God before we are born, and, since he is never wrong, it is certain and irrevocable that we will make those decisions. Thus, man is Predestined, before birth, in all the choices he will make (no free will), and, as a result, his salvation, too, is predestined.

[b]Why that is wrong:[/b]

1.) God is Omnipotent (All Powerful)
2.) God is Eternal

These things being true, it logically follows that God, being all powerful (point 1), is not subject to anything other than himself. Thus, he cannot be bound, controlled, ordered, or confined by anything in the cosmos or out of it (also point 1). For this reason, Time does not apply to God, and he is Eternal (point 2). These things being true, it is a logical fallacy to say that God knows "before" you are born and that thus you may do it, because this binds God within the construct of Time.

Much better to say that God knows your actions as they were before you did them, as you were doing them, and after they had been done, all as one thing. For God is master of Time, not vise versa, and "before" "during" and "after" do not apply to him, who is the Unchanging Constant, as they do to us.

So, with regards to free will: Yes we have it, no we are not predestined.

also: yes, that was a tangent, lol

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[phatcatholic]

kiel's question still seems unanswered.

let me make sure i understand what ur asking. the common reply to the existence of suffering is free will. when we choose to do evil--this choice being our right as human beings--we cause pain and suffering in the world.

but what if we had no free will? what would come of suffering then, and who would be responsible?

well, w/o free will for all of humanity, God becomes a puppetmaster doing one of two things:

1. making us--forcing us--to do good and love him
2. making us--forcing us--to do evil and hate him.

since all of creation is the result of a generative love that is God's very essence--and when he created it he said "it was good"--it is against his nature to make evil beings, or to force people to do evil things. so, w/o free will, conclusion #1 is the only one we can draw.

under conclusion #1 there would be no evil, pain, suffering, or even death b/c we would all be puppets who are forced to do good and remain w/in the confines of his Will. remember that suffering occurs when we place ourselves outside of what God asks of us--but we would be unable to do this. hence, no suffering.

so, with or without free will, God is STILL not to blame for the suffering that exists in this world. that is a powerful statement, and i am curious to know what your brother will say in response.

keep us updated....

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 17 2004, 08:16 AM'] So, with regards to free will: Yes we have it, no we are not predestined.

also: yes, that was a tangent, lol

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff [/quote]
The Bible seems to disagree with you, Jeff.

Romans 8:28-31

[ICTHUS]

Predestination is a BIBLICAL FACT, I don't see how anyone may deny it, unless you want to throw Romans out of the Canon of Scripture.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 17 2004, 06:03 PM'] Predestination is a BIBLICAL FACT, I don't see how anyone may deny it, unless you want to throw Romans out of the Canon of Scripture. [/quote]
Predestination is a Catholic doctrine, but the understanding of that doctrine must coincide with the Magisterial pronouncements of the Church.

Edited June 18, 2004 by Apotheoun

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 17 2004, 03:48 PM'] ...when we choose to do evil--this choice being our right as human beings... [/quote]
This line caught my eye. We do not in any way, shape or form have the [b]right[/b] to do or to choose evil. We are allowed to make that choice, but we do not have a right to that choice.

Also, on predestination, a distinction must be made between predestination in the Catholic understanding and double-predestination, which is what Calvin taught.
In double-predestination, God creates people for the specific purpose of damning them. If you think about it, it really seems that that claim says that God is wasting His time. God doesn't create people for the purpose of destroying them.
Regarding Catholic presdestination, that's a topic that I'm not terribly familiar with and so, until I at least refresh myself on the topic, I won't comment on it.

In Christ,
Dave

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hey guys. I completely retract my previous statement. The word for what I wrote above is "wrong." I did a little bit of research, found the Magisterial teaching that deals with what I wrote, and, of course, I see the wisdom in it, and why I was wrong. If anyone is interested in how it works I'll just give you my source and type my thoughts on it.

[quote]But we must beware of conceiving the immutability of predestination either as fatalistic in the sense of the Mahommedan kismet or as a convenient pretext for idle resignation to inexorable fate. God's infallible foreknowledge cannot force upon man unavoidable coercion, for the simple reason that it is at bottom nothing else than the eternal vision of the future historical actuality. God foresees the free activity of a man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it. Whatever may promote the work of our salvation, whether our own prayers and good works, or the prayers of others in our behalf, is eo ipso included in the infallible foreknowledge of God and consequently in the scope of predestination (cf. St. Thomas, I, Q. xxiii, a. 8). It is in such practical considerations that the ascetical maxim (falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) originated: "Si non es prædestinatus, fac ut prædestineris" (if you are not predestined, so act that you may be predestined). Strict theology, it is true, cannot approve this bold saying, except in so far as the original decree of predestination is conceived as at first a hypothetical decree, which is afterwards changed to an absolute and irrevocable decree by the prayers, good works, and perseverance of him who is predestined, according to the words of the Apostle (II Pet., i, 10): "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election.[/quote] Thats from the Catholic Encylcopedia, entry on "Predestination," section A. subset 1 under the heading Catholic Dogma

So why was I wrong?

Proposition 1.) God is All Knowing
Proposition 2.) God is Eternal

All of the propositions that I made were correct, however, the conclusion that I drew was erroneous. Here is why: God, who knows us better than we know ourselves, can see all the decisions, choices, and leanings of our free will. God is Eternal and so, rather than seeing these things "before", "during", or "after" he sees them more perfectly: Eternally. Being that God Eternally knows everything that we do, it is only logical to assume that he Eternally sees all who are saved, definitively. Thus, God, in His Eternal Self, definitively knows all of those who, as we say, "will be saved"

Based on what I have learned, and where my logic is at this particular point. I fully embrace the Theory of Predestination post prœvisa merita which can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org under the "Predestination" entry, more specifically, Section III C. The text follows:

[quote]This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prœvisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. -- It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. II Tim., iv, 8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matt., xxv, 34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matt., xxv, 41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.[/quote]

Thanks for your help in dealing with a difficult issue.

PS, isnt it wonderful that the Magisterium is always right? lol

- Your Brother in Christ, who is tired, and really needs to go to sleep, Jeff

[ilovechrist]

jaja

when all else fails...

Magisterium rules!

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Jun 17 2004, 09:26 PM']This line caught my eye. We do not in any way, shape or form have the [b]right[/b] to do or to choose evil. We are allowed to make that choice, but we do not have a right to that choice.[/quote]
burke,

i think that in our words we are expressing two different nuances of this phrase[list]
[*]when we choose to do evil--this choice being our right as human beings--we cause pain and suffering in the world.
[/list]what i meant by this is surmised in paragraph 1738 of the Catechism:[list]
[*][b]1738[/b] Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. [b]The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person.[/b] This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.
[/list]the nuance you describe is surmised in paragraph 1740:[list]
[*][b]1740 [/b]Threats to freedom. [b]The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods." [/b]Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.
[/list]so, in our posts we are elucidating two different aspects of the freedom of man and therefore are essentially both right

pax christi,
phatcatholic