Philosophical Question on Free Will and Pelagianism

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:56 pm

I also agree with theJack that your Calvinist background is affecting how you see this.

Light of the East · **Posted:** Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:13 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Let me propose for you a different definition of what it means for the will to be free:

The will is free when nothing external to it constrains its choice from among the options available.

"From among the options available" is there to avoid U.S. Supreme Court "freedom," which is to define for yourself what you are. We are human, and there are some choices unavailable to us. I can't fly like a bird because I don't have wings, and if I added wings, I'd be less human. So, contra Justice Kennedy, there are some things that we simply are not able to choose, not because they're sin but because they're impossible.

With that understood, I'll switch to the simpler, "The will is free when nothing external to it constrains its choice." The sinner chooses to sin because of a defect internal to the will. Nothing outside of him prevents him from choosing not to sin. Mary's will doesn't have a defect, and so she is able--as the sinner is not, in the long run, absent grace--to choose consistently not to sin.

Okay. That helps a lot. So there is no external force which would keep him from exercising that will. What there is are forces which play upon the decision making role of the conscience, which can affect the choice, but do not hinder the choice from being made.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:45 pm

I don't think I agree with that, but then I'm not sure I know what you mean by "forces which play on the decision making role of the conscience."

Light of the East · **Posted:** Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:12 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

I don't think I agree with that, but then I'm not sure I know what you mean by "forces which play on the decision making role of the conscience."

Environmental circumstances such as growing up in a pagan society, pagan or unbelieving parents, demonic influence, heretical teachings and false religions, pornography and other government sanctioned immoralities passed off as being a "good," etc.

In other words, the things that tempt us and make our flesh twitch with desire.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:26 pm

Can I invite you to read this post? https://fatherhorton.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/255/ It may clarify a few more things for you.

Light of the East · **Posted:** Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:23 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Can I invite you to read this post? https://fatherhorton.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/255/ It may clarify a few more things for you.

Thank you again. Will most certainly read this.

As I mentioned, I think I have a correct grip on this now. But will read.

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:26 am

Light of the East wrote:

Well, that is the first time I have heard that. Usually, if I mention any questioning of the Immaculate Conception, I get blasted because it is de fide pronouncement from the Chair of Peter.

The fact that belief in the Immaculate Conception is necessary for salvation does not at all imply that the Immaculate Conception was "necessary".

Light of the East · **Posted:** Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:03 am

Peregrinator wrote:

Light of the East wrote:

Well, that is the first time I have heard that. Usually, if I mention any questioning of the Immaculate Conception, I get blasted because it is de fide pronouncement from the Chair of Peter.

The fact that belief in the Immaculate Conception is necessary for salvation does not at all imply that the Immaculate Conception was "necessary".

So Aquinas, who rejected the IC (as I understand it from reading), was not saved after all?

Yes, I'm being a bit of a gadfly here. I find it odd, to say the least, that such an important dogma was kept from the Church for 1854 years.

I should think that like the Eucharist, such an important doctrine would have been preached from the very beginning.

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:05 am

Light of the East wrote:

I find it odd, to say the least, that such an important dogma was kept from the Church for 1854 years.

What is the principled difference between 'keeping a dogma from the Church' for 1854 years and, say, 325 years, 381 years, 451 years, etc?

And the claim that Aquinas rejected the IC is, as Jimmy Akin points out, a half-truth. And it has been argued here repeatedly, especially by PED, that the principles behind the doctrine of the IC are fundamentally in accordance with St. Thomas' own theological principles, if they aren't simply his very principles.

Light of the East · **Posted:** Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:26 am

Closet Catholic wrote:

Light of the East wrote:

I find it odd, to say the least, that such an important dogma was kept from the Church for 1854 years.

What is the principled difference between 'keeping a dogma from the Church' for 1854 years and, say, 325 years, 381 years, 451 years, etc?

And the claim that Aquinas rejected the IC is, as Jimmy Akin points out, a half-truth. And it has been argued here repeatedly, especially by PED, that the principles behind the doctrine of the IC are fundamentally in accordance with St. Thomas' own theological principles, if they aren't simply his very principles.

In reference to your statement, I surmise that you are referring to the Council of Nicea, The Council of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon.

Nicea did not come up with a new doctrine. The deity of Christ, which was the main focus of the Arian heresy, was a teaching from the beginning. The purpose of the Council was to suppress the heresy, not to come up with something that had never been taught before. The whole purpose of the 7 ecumenical councils was, as I understand it, to investigate new teachings and determine if they were orthodox or heretical.

The declaration of the IC was not done in an ecumenical council. My understanding is that it is the CHURCH which is the "pillar and ground of truth," not the voice of an individual, even the Bishop of Rome who is the Head of the Church and the First Among Equals.

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:08 am

I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn't believe that the IC is a new doctrine either.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:24 am

You are quite correct.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:17 am

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/09 ... s.html?m=1

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:58 pm

If I can add something to your reading list ...

Aidan Nichols' There Is No Rose is the best non-technical (mostly) introduction to Mariology that I know of. As a bonus, he is extremely friendly to and appreciative of Eastern Christianity. I could try to summarize what he says on the Immaculate Conception, but I'd leave out something and the whole book is worth your while anyhow.

beng · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:08 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

With that understood, I'll switch to the simpler, "The will is free when nothing external to it constrains its choice." The sinner chooses to sin because of a defect internal to the will. Nothing outside of him prevents him from choosing not to sin. Mary's will doesn't have a defect, and so she is able--as the sinner is not, in the long run, absent grace--to choose consistently not to sin.

Something amiss here because, Adam, like Mary, has no defect also. Yet he sinned.

beng · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:12 pm

Btw, primus inter pares or first among equal is the teaching of Orthodox not Catholic.

beng · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:29 pm

Let me try something that might help Ed.

1. Those who are never justified, say a Hindu, can do supernatural work like giving alms etc. They can do this via actual grace. This is why what Cornelius did was pleasing to God (Acts 10:4).

2. Without grace (actual or sanctifying) we can not choose what is supernaturally good. Moral good (feed ourselves, not getting ourselves killed) is doable without grace.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:56 pm

beng wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

With that understood, I'll switch to the simpler, "The will is free when nothing external to it constrains its choice." The sinner chooses to sin because of a defect internal to the will. Nothing outside of him prevents him from choosing not to sin. Mary's will doesn't have a defect, and so she is able--as the sinner is not, in the long run, absent grace--to choose consistently not to sin.

Something amiss here because, Adam, like Mary, has no defect also. Yet he sinned.

Adam was able not to sin.

theJack · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:33 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

beng wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

With that understood, I'll switch to the simpler, "The will is free when nothing external to it constrains its choice." The sinner chooses to sin because of a defect internal to the will. Nothing outside of him prevents him from choosing not to sin. Mary's will doesn't have a defect, and so she is able--as the sinner is not, in the long run, absent grace--to choose consistently not to sin.

Something amiss here because, Adam, like Mary, has no defect also. Yet he sinned.

Adam was able not to sin.

Adam (or Mary) could have said, "I can not sin," but not, "I cannot sin."

[/ultimatetheologicalgrammarnaziftw]

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:48 pm

Adam and Eve were able not to sin; Jesus is not able to sin. Catholic theologians are divided over which camp Mary falls into, with the majority holding for "not able," though of course Jesus is not able to sin because He is God, whereas Mary "merely" enjoys a gift of extraordinary grace (if she is indeed not able to sin).

Philosophical Question on Free Will and Pelagianism

Who is online