Recently a non-Catholic made this statement. Do all non-Catholics hold this position. Here are the choices as I see them:
A) Free will doesn't exist
B) Limited /conditional free will exists
C) Unconditional Free will exists
D) Something else entirely (Please explain)
Please support your position with one or more verses from scripture.
I am extending a courtesy ping to the Catholics. I am certain we will get few if any responses from the non-Catholics.
I assume you mean a Protestant version of Non-Catholic.
I know Calvinists believe in “predestination” which I believe fits into the description that “Free will doesn’t exist”
There is a certain consistency to the argument of an all-powerful God knowing in advance all things in the future and with a “plan” for each of us. I just don’t believe it.
I’m not a Calvinist and I believe that free will not only exists, but is essential to us and Him.
Wow! Now we understand why there is a problem with calling the Blessed Mother Blessed!! We have shown repeatedly, over and over, that the supports for loving the Blessed Mary are in scripture, in Luke. However:
If a person doesn’t understand that we have free will, then the incredible choice that the Blessed Mother made in her Fiat will never be appreciated! The incredible wrong basis for the extreme error makes much more sense now.
Also -the entire bible is about free will and people’s choices, we don’t need chapter and verse because the whole of salvation history is a recounting of the choices of the men and women in the drama. Chapter and verse would be impossible to pick out because the enitre text is the story of man’s choices towards God or away; although I have no doubts that specific verses could be found.
The actual question to ask is: prove from the bible that we don’t have free will.
While we are discussing it, it can’t be proved from the bible that it considers itself to be the only source of doctrine anyway!
Being “required” to provide Chapter and Verse is irrelevant! This does not somehow call into question the inerrancy of the bible and it can and should be used to prove doctrine. It simply means that it isn’t the ONLY way to prove doctrine.
It cannot be proved from the bible that the bible is the only source of doctrine; because the bible doesn’t say that.
If anything, the earliest Christians who were born Jewish would have always assumed an oral Talmudic type tradition to go along with written scriptures. The Talmud is the oral instruction that Moses received along with the Torah. The idea that the first Christians suddenly only used written scripture is actually ludicrous; especially since the settled canon wasn’t even written down in one place and the new testament epistles consisted of scattered letters across Asia Minor at first!!
The earliest Christians who were born Jewish would not have even been capable of conceiving of a religious tradition without an oral component and that didn’t suddenly vanish into thin air until Gutenberg came along! (Gutenberg’s first bible was a vulgate, anyway!)
I know- preaching to the choir - thanks for letting me have a rant.
Keep up the good work in apologetics verga- Truth - the gates of hell will NOT prevail although satan will certainly try.
Well as a responding non-Catholic, I'm already disproving your expectations, FWIW. And one of the main reasons I'm not a Catholic is, as a matter of fact, related directly to this question. Free will seems fairly important to me - without it, we're mere puppets who live, suffer and die solely for the amusement of an insane God. On the other hand, the disparity of initial birth conditions is so extreme that any concept of free will is reduced to how well we face difficulties which are sure to destroy us, versus having any hope of actually being on control of our lives.
That's why people who are so proud of how they've "built" their lives through hard work and discipline amuse me so much. They so easily discount those who have exhibited just as much - if not far more - of these attributes and still "failed" in the eyes of the world, for any number of reasons. No, in the end, free will can only mean the freedom of choosing our attitude towards our lives, as exhibited in our actions. That's it. The results are entirely up to God.
This isn't a "belief," it's a simple, obvious and enormously evident fact that exists in millions of ways all around us. And I'll prove it - do you have to pray and give thanks for your successes? Why, if YOU did it? Because in fact, you didn't do it. You made the proper effort, even a lot of effort. Even enormous effort. But you didn't make your success, and you know it. You know things could have gone the other way despite your efforts - you know it in your heart, mind and experience.
So success is a divine gift each and every time it happens. And yet, God's law also includes the simple fact that making right effort enormously increases the chance we will receive success in return, and studying what succeeds leads to even more probability of success in the future. So it's truly a mystery.
But is it "free will"? Because it's all we've got. Personally, I don't really care whether it's free will or not. It is what it is, and by acknowledging it and respecting it I become a better person. After all, it's not like anyone is going to survive this place, so what's the goal here? If living a certain way brings the most possibility of peace and prosperity and learning and happiness for myself and others - and prepares me more and more for facing whatever comes afterwards - then I call that the right path.
"Belief" is merely a word. How we live our lives is our true belief in God. And in the end, not knowing how things will turn out but still having to make proper effort, is that not the very definition of faith? So could this whole mystery be created by God in order to require us to learn what true faith is by having to live it? And learn compassion towards others dealing with difficulties despite their best efforts?
As for the philosophical definition, since determining the existence of "free will" as it is displayed in the world is inescapably dependent on understanding why the initial conditions are so different for each child born into this world, it's a term that simply cannot be determined philosphically unless you want to include reincarnation. There's just not enough in one single lifetime to explain those innate differences.
Now don't get your hackles up. Personally, I like reincarnation. Looked at from the soul's point of view, it means there's only one life with many chapters, and God wins over each soul no matter how long it takes for them to learn. And it explains free will plus different birth situations, and it doesn't get rid of hell or heaven. Granted, hell and heaven aren't eternal, so there's that. And ultimately the goal is union with God, not just living in a heavenly realm.
So I think it's beautiful, because it gets rid of the eternal punishment for limited sin thing and solves the birth differences thing. But I am also very aware that most Christians don't share my view and, fortunately, I have no need to try to convince them. Because in a very practical way, it's not necessary to live our lives properly. We still have to make the correct effort, on faith, and God still dishes out the results.
Oh yeah, here's the Bible verse required by the question: "This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 11:11-15)
"There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards."
"On Grace and Free Will" by St. Augustine of Hippo
It's not free.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
If man had free will, he could choose to come to God on his own, independent of any outside influence.
But he can't. No man can come to God unless God initiates the encounter. God does the drawing and the enlightening.
1 Corinthians 2:9-16 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
I do not think you appreciate the depth of your question.
How free is free? Does God even have complete freedom, so that He could lie? Do what degree were your choices constrained by nature and nurture? And what does God hold man accountable for, and according to what basis? Is man condemned for simply having a sinful nature, as Calvin taught of infants, or as in giving it is “according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.” (2 Corinthians 8:12)
My incomplete hypothesis (as a totality, most are sure facts):
In conversion, by God’s grace man does what he otherwise could not and would not do, as God draws and convicts souls, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8) opens hearts (Acts 16:14) and grants repentant faith. (Acts 11:18; Eph. 2:8)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32)
And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: (John 16:8)
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. (Acts 11:18)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:8)
In grace, God justifies the unGodly by faith, on Christ’s account and merit, yet it is a faith that effects obedience, which justifies them as being believers and who are fit to be rewarded for their faith in recognition of their character and works, but which is due to God’s working in the believer both to will and to do what is pleasing in His sight. (Phil 2:13)
But man can choose to reject the grace of God, and God can allow souls to do so, nor is God obligated to grant any man grace, or the same degree.
God even warns believers of an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God, making Christ of no effect, of no profit, and falling from grace, and drawing back into perdition, a true faith is one that perseveres. (Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:38; Gal. 5:1-4) Yet He also works to motivate believers to repentance, lest he be condemned with the rest of the world.
And while sinning and rejecting God calling him to repentance is in keeping with mans natural sinful disposition, yet God gives every man some grace to respond to light given, and to resist sins to some degree (at least initially) and know who the true God is. (Romans 1:19,20;2:14; Genesis 4:6-7,13)
By choice lost man can go from knowing who the true God is to becoming foolish by worshiping idols. And idolatry being the mother of sins. he can then go on to becoming increasingly darkened. (Romans 1:21-22)
Rejecting the light one has (obedience to which leads to more light) is in essence rejecting Christ, the Light which lighteth every man which cometh into the world, even if he never heard of the Lord, not being given that degree of grace. (Mark 4:23-24; John 12:35; John 1:9)
Man is not condemned for what he had no choice but to do, due to the actions of his ancestors, as this would be contrary to the word of God. (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)
Eternal damnation is for what man is personally culpable for, having not cooperated with the degree of light and grace given, though this can mean sins which he was unable to resist sin due to prior choices. (Romans 2:6,8; Revelation 20:13; Mark 12:40)