Christianity Free will in theology

1 christianity

1.1 free in bible
1.2 catholic
1.3 orthodox christianity

1.3.1 oriental orthodox
1.3.2 eastern orthodox


1.4 differences of view between catholic , orthodox churches
1.5 protestant

1.5.1 arminianism
1.5.2 lutheranism
1.5.3 god , creation
1.5.4 predestination
1.5.5 anabaptism
1.5.6 calvinism
1.5.7 comparison of protestants


1.6 church of jesus christ of latter-day saints
1.7 new church

christianity
free in bible

the biblical ground free lies in ”fall” sin adam , eve occurred in “willfully chosen” disobedience god.

“freedom” , ‘free will” can treated 1 because 2 terms commonly used synonyms. however, there widespread disagreements in definitions of 2 terms. because of these disagreements, mortimer adler found delineation of 3 kinds of freedom necessary clarity on subject, follows:

(1) circumstantial freedom freedom coercion or restraint prevents acting 1 wills.

in bible, circumstantial freedom given israelites’ in exodus slavery in egypt.

(2) natural freedom (a.k.a. volitional freedom) freedom determine one’s own “decisions or plans.” natural freedom inherent in people, in circumstances, , “without regard state of mind or character may or may not acquire in course of lives.”

the bible, paralleling adler, views humanity naturally possessing “free choice of will.” if “free will” taken mean unconstrained , voluntary choice, bible assumes people, unregenerate , regenerate, possess it. examples, “free will” taught in matthew 23:37 , revelation 22:17.

(3) acquired freedom freedom “to live [one] ought live,” freedom requires transformation whereby person acquires righteous, holy, healthy, etc. “state of mind or character.”

the bible testifies need acquired freedom because no 1 “is free obedience , faith till freed sin’s dominion.” people possess natural freedom “voluntary choices” serve sin until acquire freedom “sin’s dominion.” new bible dictionary denotes acquired freedom “obedience , faith” “free will” in theological sense. therefore, in biblical thinking, acquired freedom being “enslaved sin” needed “to live jesus’ commandments love god , love neighbor.”
jesus told hearers needed made “free indeed” (john 8:36). “free indeed [ontós]” means “truly free” or “really free,” in translations. being made “free indeed” means freedom “bondage sin.” acquired freedom “freedom serve lord.” being “free indeed” (i.e., true freedom) comes “god’s changing our nature” free being “slaves sin.” , endowing “the freedom choose righteous.”

mark r. talbot, “classical christian theist,” views acquired “compatibilist freedom freedom “scripture portrays worth having.”

open theism denies classical theism’s compatibilist “freedom choose righteous without possibility of choosing otherwise.” qualifies true freedom. open theism, true libertarian freedom incompatibilist freedom. regardless of factors, person has freedom choose opposite alternatives. in open theist william hasker’s words, regarding action “within agent’s power perform action , in agent’s power refrain action.” although open theism contradicts classical theism’s “freedom choose righteous without possibility of choosing otherwise,” hasker allows jesus possessed , humans in heaven possess such freedom. regarding jesus, hasker views jesus “a free agent,” thinks “it not possible” jesus “abort mission.” regarding heaven, hasker foresees result of our choice “unable sin” because sinful impulses gone.

catholic

theologians of catholic church universally embrace idea of free will, not view free existing apart or in contradiction grace. st. augustine , st. thomas aquinas wrote extensively on free will, augustine focusing on importance of free in responses manichaeans, , on limitations of concept of unlimited free denial of grace, in refutations of pelagius.

the catechism of catholic church asserts freedom power, rooted in reason , . goes on god created man rational being, conferring on him dignity of person can initiate , control own actions. god willed man should left in hand of own counsel, might of own accord seek creator , freely attain full , blessed perfection cleaving him. section concludes role grace plays, working of grace holy spirit educates in spiritual freedom in order make free collaborators in work in church , in world.

latin christianity s views on free , grace contrasted predestination in reformed protestant christianity, after counter-reformation, in understanding differing conceptions of free important understand differing conceptions of nature of god, focusing on idea god can all-powerful , all-knowing while people continue exercise free will, because god transcends time.

the papal encyclical on human freedom, libertas praestantissimum pope leo xiii (1888), seems leave question unresolved relation between free , determinism: whether correct notion compatibilist 1 or libertarian one. quotations supporting compatibilism include 1 st. thomas (footnote 4) near end of paragraph 6, regarding cause of evil ( whereas, when sins, acts in opposition reason, moved another, , victim of foreign misapprehensions ), , similar passus suggesting natural, cause-and-effect function of human ( harmony natural inclinations , creator of , whom things moved in conformity nature ) near end of paragraph 8 (when considering problem of how grace can have effects on free will). on other hand, metaphysical libertarianism – @ least sort of possibility of reversing direction of 1 s acting – suggested reference well-known philosophical term metaphysical freedom @ beginning of paragraph 3 and, extent, contrasting comparison of animals, act of necessity , human liberty, means of 1 can either act or not act, or .

critique seems more or less support popular incompatibilistic views can found in papal documents in 20th century, no explicit condemnation, however, of causal determinism in generic form can found there. more these documents focus on condemnation of physicalism/materialism , stressing of significance of belief in soul, non-physical indivisible substance equipped intellect , will, decides human proceeding in (perhaps imprecise) way.

orthodox christianity
oriental orthodox

the concept of free of vital importance in oriental (or non-chalcedonian) churches, in communion coptic orthodox church of alexandria. in judaism, free regarded axiomatic. regarded having free choice in measure or follow or conscience or arrogance, these 2 having been appointed each individual. more 1 follows 1 s conscience, more brings 1 results, , more 1 follows 1 s arrogance, more brings 1 bad results. following 1 s arrogance likened dangers of falling pit while walking in pitch darkness, without light of conscience illuminate path. similar doctrines have found written expression in dead sea scrolls manual of discipline , , in religious texts possessed beta israel jews of ethiopia.

eastern orthodox

the eastern (or chalcedonian) orthodox church espouses belief different lutheran, calvinist, , arminian protestant views. difference in interpretation of original sin, alternatively known ancestral sin, orthodox not believe in total depravity. orthodox reject pelagian view original sin did not damage human nature; accept human nature depraved, despite man s fallenness divine image bears has not been destroyed.

the orthodox church holds teaching of synergy (συνεργός, meaning working together), says man has freedom to, , must if wants saved, choose accept , work grace of god. st. john cassian, 4th-century church father , pupil of st. john chrysostom, articulated view , eastern fathers embraced it. taught divine grace necessary enable sinner return unto god , live, yet man must first, of himself, desire , attempt choose , obey god , , divine grace indispensable salvation, not need precede free human choice, because, despite weakness of human volition, can take initiative toward god. .

some orthodox christians use parable of drowning man plainly illustrate teaching of synergy: god ship throws rope drowning man, pulls him up, saving him, , man, if wants saved, must hold on tightly rope; explaining both salvation gift god , man cannot save himself, , man must co-work (syn-ergo) god in process of salvation.

fyodor dostoevsky, russian orthodox christian novelist, suggested many arguments , against free will. famous arguments found in grand inquisitor chapter in brothers karamazov, , in work notes underground. developed argument suicide, if irrational, validation of free (see kirilov in demons) novel. argument presented in brothers karamazov s section rebellion suffering of innocents not worth price of free will, dostoevsky appears propose idea of apocatastasis (or universal reconciliation) 1 possible rational solution.

catholic teaching

illustrating human part in salvation (represented holding on rope) must preceded , accompanied grace (represented casting , drawing of rope), image of drowning man holding on rope cast , drawn rescuer corresponds closely catholic teaching, holds god, destined in love sons , conformed image of son , includes in eternal plan of predestination each person s free response grace.

the catholic church holds teaching free will, (the human person) capable of directing himself toward true … man endowed freedom, outstanding manifestation of divine image . man has free either accept or reject grace of god, salvation there kind of interplay, or synergy, between human freedom , divine grace . justification establishes cooperation between god s grace , man s freedom. on man s part expressed assent of faith word of god, invites him conversion, , in cooperation of charity prompting of holy spirit precedes , preserves assent: when god touches man s heart through illumination of holy spirit, man himself not inactive while receiving inspiration, since reject it; , yet, without god s grace, cannot own free move himself toward justice in god s sight (council of trent).

god has freely chosen associate man work of grace. fatherly action of god first on own initiative, , follows man s free acting through collaboration. catholics, therefore, human cooperation grace essential. when god establishes eternal plan of predestination , includes in each person s free response grace, whether positive or negative: in city, in fact, both herod , pontius pilate, gentiles , peoples of israel, gathered against holy servant jesus, whom anointed, whatever hand , plan had predestined take place (acts 4:27-28).

the initiative comes god, demands free response man: god has freely chosen associate man work of grace. fatherly action of god first on own initiative, , follows man s free acting through collaboration . since initiative belongs god in order of grace, no 1 can merit initial grace of forgiveness , justification, @ beginning of conversion. moved holy spirit , charity, can merit ourselves , others graces needed our sanctification, increase of grace , charity, , attainment of eternal life.

orthodox criticism of catholic theology

orthodox theologian vladimir lossky has stated teaching of john cassian, in east considered witness tradition, unable make himself correctly understood , interpreted, on rational plane, semi-pelagianism, , condemned in west . catholic church defends concept of faith , free these questioned in east conclusions of second council of orange. council not accepted eastern churches , catholic church s use of describing position , st cassian semi-pelagian rejected.

although catholic church explicitly teaches original sin not have character of personal fault in of adam s descendants , eastern orthodox nevertheless claim catholicism professes teaching, attribute saint augustine, bears not consequence, guilt of adam s sin.

differences of view between catholic , orthodox churches

various catholic theologians identify cassian teacher of semipelagian heresy condemned council of orange. while orthodox not apply term semipelagian theology, criticize catholics rejecting cassian whom accept orthodox, , holding human consent god s justifying action effect of grace, position shared eastern orthodox theologian georges florovsky, says eastern orthodox church understood god initiates, accompanies, , completes in process of salvation , rejecting instead calvinist idea of irresistible grace.

recently, catholic theologians have argued cassian s writings should not considered semipelagian. , scholars of other denominations have concluded cassian s thought not semi-pelagian , , instead taught salvation is, beginning end, effect of god s grace , held god s grace, not human free will, responsible pertains salvation - faith.

the orthodox church holds teaching of synergy (συνεργός, meaning working together), says man has freedom to, , must if wants saved, choose accept , work grace of god. once baptised experience of salvation , relationship god called theosis. mankind has free accept or reject grace of god. rejection of gifts of god called blasphemy of holy spirit (gifts of grace, faith, life). first defined teaching john cassian, 4th-century church father, , pupil of john chrysostom, , eastern fathers accept it. taught divine grace necessary enable sinner return unto god , live, yet man must first, of himself, desire , attempt choose , obey god , , divine grace indispensable salvation, not need precede free human choice, because, despite weakness of human volition, can take initiative toward god. .

some orthodox use parable of drowning man plainly illustrate teaching of synergy: god ship throws rope drowning man, pulls him up, saving him, , man. if wants saved, man must hold on tightly rope. explaining both salvation gift god , man cannot save himself. man must co-work (syn-ergo) god in process of salvation. god not predestine persons eternal life, rather because god, can see choose or not choose follow him.

protestant
arminianism

christians influenced teachings of jacobus arminius (such methodists) believe while god all-knowing , knows choices each person make, , still gives them ability choose or not choose everything, regardless of whether there internal or external factors contributing choice.

like john calvin, arminius affirmed total depravity, arminius believed prevenient grace allowed people choose salvation:

concerning grace , free will, teach according scriptures , orthodox consent: free unable begin or perfect true , spiritual good, without grace.... grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, , follows; excites, assists, operates will, , co operates lest in vain.

prevenient grace divine grace precedes human decision. exists prior , without reference humans may have done. humans corrupted effects of sin, prevenient grace allows persons engage god-given free choose salvation offered god in jesus christ or reject salvific offer.

thomas jay oord offers perhaps cogent free theology presupposing prevenient grace. calls essential kenosis says god acts preveniently give freedom/agency creatures. gift comes god s eternal essence, , therefore necessary. god remains free in choosing how love, fact god loves , therefore gives freedom/agency others necessary part of means divine.

this view backed in bible verses such luke 13:34, nkjv

o jerusalem, jerusalem, 1 kills prophets , stones sent her! how wanted gather children together, hen gathers brood under wings, not willing!”

here see jesus lamenting unable save jerusalem not willing. see whilst jesus wants save jerusalem respects choice continue on in sin despite saved.

lutheranism

lutherans believe although humans have free concerning civil righteousness, cannot work spiritual righteousness without holy spirit, since righteousness in heart cannot wrought in absence of holy spirit. in other words, humanity free choose , act in every regard except choice of salvation.

lutherans teach sinners, while capable of doing works outwardly good, not capable of doing works satisfy god s justice. every human thought , deed infected sin , sinful motives. luther himself, in bondage of will, people nature endowed free-will/free choice in regard “goods , possessions” person “has right of using, acting, , omitting according free-will.” however, in “god-ward” things pertaining “salvation or damnation” people in bondage “either of god, or of satan.”

as found in paul althaus’ study of luther’s theology, sin’s infection of every human thought , deed began adam’s fall sin, original sin. adam’s fall “terrible example” of “free will” unless god motivates virtuous behavior. humanity inherits adam’s sin. thus, in our “natural condition,” have inborn desire sin because person birth. luther noted, “adam sinned willingly , freely , him sin has been born cannot sin innocently voluntarily.”

the controversial term liberum arbitrium translated “free-will” henry cole , “free will” remains in general use. however, rupp/watson study of luther , erasmus chose “free choice” translation , provided rationale. luther used “free choice” (or “free-will”) denote fact humans act “spontaneously” , “a desirous willingness.” allowed “free-will” “power” humans “can caught spirit” of god. however, deplored use of term “free-will” because “grand, copious, , full.” therefore, luther held inborn faculty of “willingness” should “called other term.”

although our wills function of , in bondage our inherited sinful desires, luther insisted sin “voluntarily.” voluntarily means sin of our own free will. desire. long desire sin, our wills free sin. luther’s “bondage of will” sin. sinner’s “will bound, , remains will. repeatedly , voluntarily acts according it.” is, set free sin , righteousness requires “rebirth through faith.” rebirth of faith gives “true freedom sin,” is, wrote luther, liberty [freedom] good.”

to use biblical word important luther, set free sin , righteousness requires metanoia. luther used jesus’ image of , bad trees depict necessity of changing person change person wills , does. in jesus’ image, “a tree cannot bear bad fruit, , bad tree cannot bear fruit” (matthew 7:18). bad tree can produce bad fruit, before rebirth through faith, people in bondage sinful desires of hearts. can sin, albeit “spontaneously , desirous willingness.” given view of human condition, luther concluded that, without rebirth, “free choice” humans possess “not free @ all” because cannot of free inherent bondage sin.

thus, luther distinguished between different kinds of freedom: (a) nature, freedom act , (b) rebirth through faith, freedom act righteously.

god , creation

orthodox lutheran theology holds god made world, including humanity, perfect, holy , sinless. however, adam , eve chose disobey god, trusting in own strength, knowledge, , wisdom. consequently, people saddled original sin, born sinful , unable avoid committing sinful acts. lutherans, original sin chief sin, root , fountainhead of actual sins.

according lutherans, god preserves creation, in doing cooperates happens, , guides universe. while god cooperates both , evil deeds, evil deeds inasmuch deeds, not evil in them. god concurs act s effect, not cooperate in corruption of act or evil of effect. lutherans believe exists sake of christian church, , god guides welfare , growth.

predestination

lutherans believe elect predestined salvation. lutherans believe christians should assured among predestined. lutherans believe trust in jesus alone can of salvation, in christ s work , promises in certainty lies. according lutheranism, central final hope of christian resurrection of body , life everlasting confessed in apostles creed rather predestination. conversion or regeneration in strict sense of term work of divine grace , power man, born of flesh, , void of power think, will, or thing, , dead in sin is, through gospel , holy baptism, taken state of sin , spiritual death under god s wrath state of spiritual life of faith , grace, rendered able , spiritually and, especially, led accept benefits of redemption in christ jesus.

lutherans disagree make predestination source of salvation rather christ s suffering, death, , resurrection. lutherans reject calvinist doctrine of perseverance of saints. both calvinist camps, lutherans view work of salvation monergistic in natural [that is, corrupted , divinely unrenewed] powers of man cannot or towards salvation (formula of concord: solid declaration, art. ii, par. 71), , lutherans go further along same lines free grace advocates recipient of saving grace need not cooperate it. hence, lutherans believe true christian (that is, genuine recipient of saving grace) can lose or salvation, [b]ut cause not though god unwilling grant grace perseverance in whom has begun work... [but these persons] wilfully turn away... (formula of concord: solid declaration, art. xi, par. 42). unlike calvinists, lutherans not believe in predestination damnation. instead, lutherans teach eternal damnation result of unbeliever s sins, rejection of forgiveness of sins, , unbelief.

anabaptism

the anabaptist movement characterized fundamental belief in free of man. many earlier movements such waldensians , others likewise held viewpoint. denominations today representing view include old order mennonites, amish, , conservative mennonites.

calvinism

john calvin ascribed “free will” people in sense act “voluntarily, , not compulsion.” elaborated position allowing man has choice , self-determined” , actions stem “his own voluntary choosing.”

the free calvin ascribed people mortimer adler calls “natural freedom” of will. freedom 1 desires inherent in people.

calvin held kind of inherent/natural free in disesteem because unless people acquire freedom live ought being transformed, desire , voluntarily choose sin. “man said have free will,” wrote calvin, “because acts voluntarily, , not compulsion. true: why should small matter have been dignified proud title?” glitch in inherent/natural freedom of although people have “faculty of willing,” nature unavoidably (and yet voluntarily without compulsion) under “the bondage of sin.”

the kind of free calvin esteems adler calls “acquired freedom” of will, freedom/ability “to live [one] ought.” possess acquired free requires change person acquires desire live life marked virtuous qualities. calvin describes change required acquired freedom, “must wholly transformed , renovated.”

calvin depicts transformation “a new heart , new spirit (ezek. 18:31).” sets 1 free “bondage sin” , enables “piety towards god, , love towards men, general holiness , purity of life.”

calvinist protestants embrace idea of predestination, namely, god chose saved , not saved prior creation. quote ephesians 1:4 chose in him before creation of world holy , blameless in sight , 2:8 grace saved, through faith, , not of yourselves, gift of god. 1 of strongest defenders of theological point of view american puritan preacher , theologian jonathan edwards.

edwards believed indeterminism incompatible individual dependence on god , hence sovereignty. reasoned if individuals responses god s grace contra-causally free, salvation depends partly on them , therefore god s sovereignty not absolute , universal. edwards book freedom of defends theological determinism. in book, edwards attempts show libertarianism incoherent. example, argues self-determination libertarian must mean either 1 s actions including 1 s acts of willing preceded act of free or 1 s acts of lack sufficient causes. first leads infinite regress while second implies acts of happen accidentally , hence can t make better or worse, more tree better other trees because oftener happens lit upon swan or nightingale; or rock more vicious other rocks, because rattlesnakes have happened oftener crawl on it.

it should not thought view denies freedom of choice, however. claims man free act on strongest moral impulse , volition, externally determined, not free act contrary them, or alter them. proponents, such john l. girardeau, have indicated belief moral neutrality impossible; if possible, , 1 equally inclined contrary options, 1 make no choice @ all; if 1 inclined, slightly, toward 1 option, person choose 1 on others.

some non-calvinist christians attempt reconciliation of dual concepts of predestination , free pointing situation of god christ. in taking form of man, necessary element of process jesus christ lived existence of mortal. when jesus born not born omniscient power of god creator, mind of human child - yet still god in essence. precedent creates god able abandonment of knowledge, or ignore knowledge, while remaining god. not inconceivable although omniscience demands god knows future holds individuals, within power deny knowledge in order preserve individual free will. other theologians argue calvinist-edwardsean view suggests if human volitions predetermined god, actions dictated fallen of man satisfy sovereign decree. hence, impossible act outside of god s perfect will, conclusion non-calvinists claim poses serious problem ethics , moral theology.

an proposal toward such reconciliation states god is, in fact, not aware of future events, rather, being eternal, outside time, , sees past, present, , future 1 whole creation. consequently, not though god know in advance jeffrey dahmer become guilty of homicide years prior event example, aware of eternity, viewing time single present. view offered boethius in book v of consolation of philosophy.

calvinist theologian loraine boettner argued doctrine of divine foreknowledge not escape alleged problems of divine foreordination. wrote god foreknows must, in nature of case, fixed , foreordained; , if 1 inconsistent free agency of man, other also. foreordination renders events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes certain. [1] christian theologians, feeling bite of argument, have opted limit doctrine of foreknowledge if not away altogether, forming new school of thought, similar socinianism , process theology, called open theism.

comparison of protestants

this table summarizes 3 classical protestant beliefs free will.

church of jesus christ of latter-day saints

mormons or latter-day saints, believe god has given humans gift of moral agency. moral agency includes free , agency. proper exercise of unfettered choice leads ultimate goal of returning god s presence. having choice right or wrong important, because god wants society of type—those comply eternal laws. before earth created, dispute on agency rose level there war in heaven. lucifer (who favored no agency) , followers cast out of heaven rebelling against god s will. many mormon leaders have taught battle in heaven on agency being carried out on earth, dictators, influenced satan, fight against freedom (or free agency) in governments contrary of god.

mormons believe in limited form of foreordination — not in deterministic, unalterable decrees, rather in callings god individuals perform specific missions in mortality. foreordained can reject foreordination, either outright or transgressing laws of god , becoming unworthy fulfill call.

new church

the new church, or swedenborgianism, teaches every person has complete freedom choose heaven or hell. emanuel swedenborg, upon writings new church founded, argued if god love itself, people must have free will. if god love itself, desires no harm come anyone: , impossible predestine hell. on other hand, if god love itself, must love things outside of himself; , if people not have freedom choose evil, extensions of god, , cannot love them outside of himself. in addition, swedenborg argues if person not have free choose goodness , faith, of commandments in bible love god , neighbor worthless, since no 1 can choose them - , impossible god love , wisdom give impossible commandments.