Free will and foreknowledge

Started by Michael, April 15, 2018, 12:30:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mono no aware

Thank you, James. I guess all I can say is that the loving father metaphor does not seem to be well sustained in an "I owe my children nothing / I'm in no one's debt" mode.  If the question can't be got at using first principles, then this is surely a "faith by grace required for understanding" problem and I'm willing to let it rest at that.  Pax.

Quaremerepulisti

I frankly don't have the answer regarding free will.  I think it remains an unsolved philosophical problem.  Perhaps the best answer is that we can control our wishes, though not our desires.  But it's not entirely satisfactory.

But I'll say this.

If Christianity is true, then d*mn straight God owes me something.  And all the more if He expects to be called Father, and Love.  If not, Christianity is the biggest lie ever foisted upon mankind.

Of course, as usual, religion loves to talk the talk, but cries foul when made to walk the walk.  It's all great when it can be used for purposes of power and manipulation, to get ourselves to beat ourselves on the head with how awful we are after all God has done for us, but all of a sudden after we bring up what God actually has done for us insofar as we can expect something from it, then it doesn't count, and how dare we expect something from God, Who "owes us nothing".

If it is really true that God-made-man died on the Cross for my salvation and that this sacrifice is of infinite value, and that Christ has willed (as it were) His merits over to me, then I have the same claim upon God that Christ does.  And if we have really and truly received the spirit of adoption, and if God really did so love the world as to not spare His own Son but deliver Him up for us all, and that He has, with Him, given us "all things", then I have the right to expect "all things".  I have the right to expect, not merely the graces which MIGHT lead me to salvation, but the graces which WILL lead me to salvation.  Not of course, because I have earned these all by my lonesome, but because Christ has earned them for me; and moreover, because that is what a good Father should do.

Don't bother to accuse me of "presumption" or to cite the Council of Trent on predestination or talk about "cooperation" with grace or any of the hackneyed other 1001 arguments that could be raised.  Above all, don't make me laugh by saying, Thomist-style, that Christ only merited salvation "in potency", or that He only merited the merits but not their specific application to specific individuals.  (Yes, you indeed paid the fine for your friend John, but see, he's still in jail because the "merits" of the payment haven't been "applied" to him.) 


james03

QuoteIf Christianity is true, then d*mn straight God owes me something.  And all the more if He expects to be called Father, and Love.  If not, Christianity is the biggest lie ever foisted upon mankind.

Shocking from you, and I mean this in sincerity, no rhetoric.  These are the words of a simpleton.

You don't know the difference between Mercy, Justice, and Charity?  If so, then why did you write such trash?

Precision is absolutely called for in this age of error.  The classic example is the term "Social Justice".  Hey, guess what, in a society of social justice, crippled people starve to death.  Add in mercy and Charity, and they don't.  So let's not scream about "Social Justice" as a big problem.

So yes, in JUSTICE God owes you absolutely nothing.  In Mercy and Charity He provides you with abundance, and even the Beatific Vision.

"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteThank you, James. I guess all I can say is that the loving father metaphor does not seem to be well sustained in an "I owe my children nothing / I'm in no one's debt" mode.

See the above.  In Justice He owes you nothing.  Through His Love He wants your salvation, and in Mercy He sends Graces.  He is properly called a loving Father.

Here's a good way to learn this.

Tonight, get on your knees and pray this:

"Father, treat me only in Justice.  Give me all that I deserve.  I only want Justice so suspend your Mercy and Charity.".  Good luck with that.  I hope you see the point.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Michael Wilson

If man truly has free will, then the graces that God gives us that are sufficient for salvation can also be thrown away; and if man doesn't have free will, then there is no point to all this discussion.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: james03 on November 11, 2018, 05:50:07 PM
Shocking from you, and I mean this in sincerity, no rhetoric.  These are the words of a simpleton.

You don't know the difference between Mercy, Justice, and Charity?  If so, then why did you write such trash?

Yes, I know the difference, thank you, and stand by what I wrote.

Now I ask you, if someone writes me into their will, am I entitled in justice to what is bequeathed to me after he dies?  Or do  I get it only due to the "mercy" and "charity" of the government?  If that is your answer, it is YOUR sense of justice which is awry.  Granted, I had no claim antecedent to his decision to write me in his will.  So in THAT sense it is mercy and charity.  However after the will is made it IS justice.  I have a claim IN JUSTICE to the government to execute the will as written.

Yet, this is precisely the analogy made (a will/testament) to the death of Christ in Scripture.  So no, I had no claim antecedent to the sacrifice of Christ in justice.  However, I do consequent to the sacrifice.

QuotePrecision is absolutely called for in this age of error. 

Absolutely.  So please have some.

That God owes me nothing simply in virtue of who I am, admitted at least on the supernatural level; that God owes me nothing taking into account the sacrifice of Christ, denied.  Or would you say that, even though I am legitimately arrested for a crime, that after someone else pays my bail (or fine) and therefore satisfies justice I am not owed my freedom?  If so, it is YOUR sense of justice that is awry.

QuoteThe classic example is the term "Social Justice".  Hey, guess what, in a society of social justice, crippled people starve to death.  Add in mercy and Charity, and they don't.  So let's not scream about "Social Justice" as a big problem.

This is why conservative Christians, who should in theory be the most concerned with the lot of the less fortunate, scream "SOCIALISM!!!" and "REDISTRIBUTIONISM!!!" whenever there is any question of government taxing the rich more and helping the less fortunate - because they have no right "in justice", so they say.  After all, the less-powerful simply have no claim whatsoever on the more-powerful, by this logic, except for commutative justice.

Catholic moral theology however includes a concept called distributive justice - what a society owes its members - and it will say that a society owes even its crippled members the opportunity to decently earn a living - and thus, in justice, yes, IN JUSTICE, it can require businesses, etc., to make accommodations for the handicapped - and yes, IN JUSTICE, it can fine them if they fail to do so.

Again, if you think it "unjust" and "Socialism" for the government to do this, it is your own sense of justice which is awry.


QuoteSo yes, in JUSTICE God owes you absolutely nothing.  In Mercy and Charity He provides you with abundance, and even the Beatific Vision.

Get your tenses correct.  He oweD me nothing prior to the sacrifice of Christ.  But now, He does owe me, due to what the sacrifice of Christ has merited in justice, and strict justice, for me.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: james03 on November 11, 2018, 05:53:01 PM
QuoteThank you, James. I guess all I can say is that the loving father metaphor does not seem to be well sustained in an "I owe my children nothing / I'm in no one's debt" mode.

See the above.  In Justice He owes you nothing.  Through His Love He wants your salvation, and in Mercy He sends Graces.  He is properly called a loving Father.

Oh please.  Does a father not owe his children anything?  Is it only through "love" and "mercy" that a father provides for his children?  How, then, can we call parents criminals who do not provide for their children?

Yet, apparently the most perfect Father of all does not owe His children a d*mn thing, and He can do anything He wishes to them without failing in duty or justice.

QuoteHere's a good way to learn this.

Tonight, get on your knees and pray this:

"Father, treat me only in Justice.  Give me all that I deserve.  I only want Justice so suspend your Mercy and Charity.".  Good luck with that.  I hope you see the point.

I challenge you.  I will say this prayer on the condition that if I am not struck down dead on the spot you will immediately concede the argument.



Tales

I hope this thread doesn't morph into economics.  Please resist the urge, folks!

Also I do not think it good to tempt God or induce other men to tempt God.

Arvinger

#113
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on November 11, 2018, 04:51:55 PM
Don't bother to accuse me of "presumption" or to cite the Council of Trent on predestination or talk about "cooperation" with grace or any of the hackneyed other 1001 arguments that could be raised.  Above all, don't make me laugh by saying, Thomist-style, that Christ only merited salvation "in potency", or that He only merited the merits but not their specific application to specific individuals.  (Yes, you indeed paid the fine for your friend John, but see, he's still in jail because the "merits" of the payment haven't been "applied" to him.)

That is incorrect understanding of the Atonement. Your argument is valid against the Reformed understanding of the Atonement, i.e. Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Your analogy - paying the fine for your friend - is a perfect example of penal substitution, for you bear financial punishment instead of John. In that case, it is indeed a problem, because if Christ bears punishment for us on the cross then all people He died for must necessarily be saved, for sending them to hell would mean that their sins were punished twice (first time in Christ, second time by sending sinner to hell). This is one of the reasons why Reformed theology holds to limited atonement and claims that Christ did not die for everyone (if He died for everyone, under penal substitution nobody could go to hell).

So, your argumnt is valid against Protestant doctrine of the atonement, but not against Catholic doctrine, which is Satisfaction Atonement, in which Christ does not bear punishment for our sins, but rather through self-sacrificial love undoes the effects of sin and reconciles us to God.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Arvinger on November 19, 2018, 10:27:37 AM
That is incorrect understanding of the Atonement. Your argument is valid against the Reformed understanding of the Atonement, i.e. Penal Substitutionary Atonement. ...

So, your argumnt is valid against Protestant doctrine of the atonement, but not against Catholic doctrine, which is Satisfaction Atonement, in which Christ does not bear punishment for our sins, but rather through self-sacrificial love undoes the effects of sin and reconciles us to God.


No, it's valid against any version of the atonement which has Christ meriting the salvation of all and makes the non-necessity of salvation depend on those merits not being "applied", whether punishment is brought into it or not - because the very concept of merit necessarily entails that of application - if I merit something for you, that entails the merits are applied to you.  Bringing in substitutionary vs. satisfaction atonement only refutes the specific example of a fine being paid because a fine is punitive.  But money can be paid for other things, and the base of the argument still stands.  Yes, I know John paid the bill for your carry out order in advance, "meriting" the food, but we won't give you the food because, you see, the merits haven't been "applied" to you.

You can argue that in reality what happens is that some refuse to go to the restaurant and pick up the order, rather than the restaurant failing to provide the food for those that do go.  But also then, in reality, John didn't actually merit the food for you - he wanted to do so and did what he was able to do, but was prevented by something outside of his control.  John merited the food for you conditionally on you going to the restaurant.  But God's actions can't be conditional on something else outside of Him - that would violate Divine sovereignty and aseity.

james03

QuoteI challenge you.  I will say this prayer on the condition that if I am not struck down dead on the spot you will immediately concede the argument.
Why would I concede the argument?  You'd go to hell.  There's a slight chance that you would be struck dead, but that would be unlikely.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

QuoteGranted, I had no claim antecedent to his decision to write me in his will.  So in THAT sense it is mercy and charity.
That's my point.

As far as salvation, even there we have no claim on God the Father; and we have been talking about the Creator, who is the Father.  Our Justice is Faith in Christ.  And yes we do have a claim via the New Covenant based on Faith.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

Michael

Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2018, 04:10:54 PM
Quit virtue signaling.  If you want to shreak against God, at least use a massacre the size of what the Chicoms did, or the Russians.
I could use a pinprick as well, since even that would be pointless suffering given that God could put everyone in heaven from the get-go.

Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2018, 04:10:54 PMThe argument from evil proves one thing: Free Will.  Free Will is the prime directive.

Free will = Random will. No responsibility.

Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2018, 04:10:54 PMI desire to romp with a bunch of whores.  It would be fun, and I'd like a few lines of coke to go with it.  I don't do that.
That's because you have stronger desires which outweigh the desire to snort coke. Perhaps you desire to not put your life in ruin, or you desire to not disobey God. 
Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2018, 04:10:54 PMYou freely choose one way or the other depending on how strong you are in the virtues.
If your virtues or lackthereof determine your choices, then your choices aren't free.

Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2018, 04:10:54 PMThe infinite regress falls on the side that denies Free Will.  Take the case of Trying Again.  You now will need another "decider machine" to counter the "decider machine" that chose to give up.  If you give up again, then try again, you will now need yet another "decider machine".  As you can see, this leads to an infinite regress, only limited by death.  Free Will exists.
I think Daniel responded to this well.

Quote from: james03 on April 15, 2018, 04:10:54 PM
QuoteBut worse than that, and the point of this thread, is the incompatibility of libertarian free will with divine (or any) foreknowledge. To have free will, X and ~X both have to be possible. Now if God knows I will do X, then doing ~X is only a perceived possibility, not an actual one. If it were actual, then it would be possible to change God's foreknowledge, which is absurd. But then I don't have free will, since doing ~X is not possible.

A complete blunder.  God is outside of time, and technically doesn't have "foreknowledge" -- He's already there.
If God timelessly knows our "future" choices, that means He could create an object before you are born, with all your actions written on it. You wouldn't be able to do anything not written on the stone, for that would prove God wrong. (These objects are called "freedom-denying prophetic objects" by the open theist Peter van Inwagen.)

Also, I think a tenseless theory of time rules out free will because it implies the universe is a static, frozen cube. Free will requires a genuine locus of indeterminacy that is then settled by an agent. Freezing (open) to frozen (closed). But on B-theory, the whole thing is eternally settled, forever in stone. It is one overall state, rather than a freezing state followed by a frozen one.

james03

QuoteIf God timelessly knows our "future" choices, that means He could create an object before you are born, with all your actions written on it. You wouldn't be able to do anything not written on the stone, for that would prove God wrong.
It's an interesting thought experiment with the change made.

However you now have different worlds, one without the stone, which God is viewing, and one with the stone.  So it is invalid if you believe in forms and matter.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"

james03

There are two concepts that you will have to understand in order to have an intelligent conversation:

1.  Free Will:  A Catholic does not mean randomness by this.  Instead this is a view counter to the Calvinist view that we are puppets.  Free Will means we are not compelled by God.  Catholics have no problem with the idea that upbringing will effect your choices.  A serial killer who was raped every day in his youth might be in heaven.  We don't know.  In fact, that is why we have the teaching on venial vs. mortal sin.

2.  Omnipotence:  This does not mean God is free to do anything, including creating a contradiction.  The limit on God is God Himself, which is Truth.  Therefore it is impossible for God to make a circle a square at the same time.  That would be a lie.  For the thought experiment you proposed, what you have set up are two IDENTICAL worlds that are DIFFERENT.  That's a contradiction, and therefore impossible.
"But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God (Jn 3:18)."

"All sorrow leads to the foot of the Cross.  Weep for your sins."

"Although He should kill me, I will trust in Him"