The nature of free will
I just got off the phone with Dr. Scott Hahn a few minutes ago. I had called him up to discuss some ideas in his book Reasons to Believe, which I had reviewed a few days ago on this website. We started discussing salvation history (particularly the priestly kingship of Adam), jumped over to the idea of natural evil as understood by David Bentley Hart (whose book The Doors of the Sea I also once reviewed), got into discussion of Maximus the Confessor how parallels between his ideas and those of Cardinal Ouellet, and then rounded it off with a good discussion of ecclesiology. Whew! It was…exhilarating!
One key part of our discussion had to do with the exact nature of the sin of Adam and Eve, and just how free they would have had to be truly capable of whatever sin it was that they committed. Dr. Hahn made a passing reference to the monothelite heresy, and just how deadly it was to a Christian understanding of salvation. I could not agree more.
Just what was the monothelite heresy? It taught that while Christ had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, he only had one will. In some ways, the argument makes sense. After all, if Christ had two wills, a divine will and a human will, doesn’t that mean that he could have, at some point, made contradictory decisions? For many, it seemed that the only way Christ would possess unity in his action is if he had only one will (obviously, the divine one).
And yet…as I teach my students, if monothelitism is correct, it implies that human free will is actually a kind of disease. Having free will would actually be a kind of defect present in human nature that can never be truly elevated within the context of our divine adoption in God. Indeed, it would imply that human beings aren’t really capable of true moral goodness. After all, if Christ must exclude having a human will as part of his moral perfection, it implies that human free will never be capable of truly perfect love, *even if aided by grace*. In other words, according to monothelitism, all human love is somehow necessarily counterfeit.
Yuck.
What is worse, since Love is the very essence of the divine nature, it implies that we can’t ever *really* possess the indwelling of the Trinity in our souls, and we’ll never *really* be capable of participating in the divine nature when we are in Heaven. The best we’ll ever get is a kind of natural goodness, a kind of eternal “consumer love”, rather than a real participation in the total self-giving sacrificial love with which God loves us (and which was shown to us in Christ on the cross).
Double-yuck. Personally, I want the glory! And, happily for me (and all of us), God wants it for us. For the Church rejected monothelitism as a false vision of Christ’s nature. Jesus had a divine will, but he also had a human will. In this way we catch a glimpse of what it means to truly be free. Real freedom is the capacity to act in the most loving way possible, all the time. The divine will only ever points to that, and by having a human will Jesus also shows us that we humans are not automatically cut off from being able to act in the most loving way possible as well. Oh, it sure isn’t easy: that’s why we say that saints lived lives of “heroic virtue”.
Yes, my friends, Christianity is a religion for people who want to be heroes! But what is amazing is that this teaching of the Church actually means that, even in what appear to be just the simplest things, we can already live true heroism. Stuff as simple as telling the truth, staying faithful to your spouse, being moderate in your diet, not getting envious when good things happen to others, keeping your temper, and so on, are elevated to the status of true acts of worship of God.
Wow.
And that means one last thing: that holiness of life is for EVERYBODY. Not just for the nuns in the convents and the priests in the pulpits. If any life situation can be lived heroically, then we have a great opportunity — but also a great challenge. For if we can, in theory, love perfectly, then why don’t we?
Time to put our human will in Christ’s divine will! Amen!
Hi Fr. Dowd,
David Bentley Hart’s “The Doors of the Sea” is one of my favorite books on theodicy, and I acquired it as soon as it was published. I think it far superior (though different) than Lewis’s masterful “The Problem of Pain” and Kreeft’s very good “Making Sense out of Suffering.” Hart’s book was very insightful and has given me much to think about, but most troubling (and persuasive) was his assertion (if I remember correctly) that the felix culpa (as explained by Aquinas) was wrong, who said that because of Christ’s passion and death, we will be raised to a *higher* state than we would otherwise be had we never sinned in the first place. I may be misstating not remembering this correctly, but Hart persuasively argues that if Aquinas’ view were correct, God would somehow be deficient because he would have “rewarded” evil (so to speak) and thereby would have somehow been deficient the goodness of his original plan. Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding, but in any case, I couldn’t find your review of the book anywhere on this site to see if you touched on this. Can you post the link to this review (assuming it’s online?) Thx.
Dear Father Dowd.
Pax vobis!
Your book reviews are really wonderful.
Vis a vis Scott Hahn his Reason to Believe is one book down in my pile just below Theology and Sanity by Sheed, I’m sure it will be as enlightening as all his books are, at least for me. The Supper of the Lamb is the most moving so far. As you mentioned;“one cannot pray the rosary the same way as beforeâ€, to paraphrase a bit. It is equally true for assisting at the Sacrifice of the Mass, following the reading of the Supper of the Lamb.
His book on Opus Dei is, I just finished it last week, noted as you reviewed the Book on Opus Dei by Allen, his is from a personal perspective and quite informative, as you say though I might not be tempted to join,though one,certainly, is called to follow. I believe Brother Lawrence’s Practice of the Presence, is a precursor of the lifestyle, as is Ste Therese de Liseux, The Little Way.
Interestingly, you also mentioned your discussion of sin with Dr. Hahn and following that reading I went to the discussion on Le Christ, ideal du pretre, par Marmion , revue par le pere Morrier je crois, I’ve been reading, slowly over several months Marmion’s Christ, The Life of a Soul, In it on the chapter of:
2. Mortal sin destroys grace, the well spring of super –natural life.
It is the most powerful explanation of sin vis a vis God our Father the Son and us, that I’ve read so far. I would like to read or have it read on every Ash Wednesday.
One should preface it from the previous chapter where near the end it says†If we want to know what God thinks of sin,…..
I know you are very busy, but if you have time to critique a contemplation as explanation to a member of a study group I’ve been in for several years, as the only catholic,
we, i.e a special member and I have many “side†discussions on matters of faith and doctrine.
One lately arisen from a discussion on “limboâ€, i.e . where do the un-baptized go. I shortly thereafter sent him your article on the subject.
Unfortunatley, he focused on the “Immaculate Conception†a “difficult enough subject for catholics and also for the Greek Orthodox, for a while a Greek Orthodox priest was in the group also. Of course, the cry is “where is it in Scripture�
So I presented a bit of reflection, commencing actually with Scott Hahn’s “how full is fullâ€.
My friend called it fantasy and speculation among other points!
My response.
Briefly:
“Speculation and fantasy in Scripture: interpreted by men”.
For instance re: The Immaculate Conception:
Actually was long held but only recently given as a dogma by the Church.
From Scripture:
Lk 1 “Hail oh highly favored or full of graceâ€.
What can be more full than full? Highly favored doesn’t that mean favored in a special way different from all others. Elizabeth was “favored†but not in the same manner, though both were to carry an exceptional child.
She, as all Scripture proclaims is a virgin and that the Savior would be born of a virgin.
Lk “I do not know man.
That is a reference to marriage, for to bear children outside of marriage would be a disgrace.
What in Old Testament times was one of the worst sins? Was it not adultery? i.e. sex outside marriage. The references are numerous.
Is not, the mother to be of God, not the spouse of God the Holy Spirit? For from God(HOLY SPIRIT) is Jesus, by the virgin, given humanity.
Would God have “relations†with a non virgin? God the Holy Spirit and in that form had a “spiritual relationâ€, yet a “real relation†with Mary who would have to be a spiritual virgin and a humanly virgin for Him.
Thus she would have to have been conceived by the Grace of God, pure, a virgin both physically and “spiritually”.
Of course by the merit of Jesus, foreseen from all eternity, and graced upon God’s chosen bride from all eternity because He is Sovereign. He blesses Whom He chooses.
Lk 1
46: And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, (Jesus)
47: and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, (Father)
48: for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; (Holy Spirit)
What could be clearer from Scripture?
Note she says, God my Savior not the Lord or Jesus, for He is not born. Yet she had been “saved”.
God in Scripture says: All the world will call( My wife) and mother blessed?
Who would dare to commit “adultery†with her.
As Jesus says, “to even think it is to do itâ€.
MK7 20: And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.
21: For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
22: coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
23: All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”
Wouldn’t Mary have to be pure†inside†as not to pass these, “sinful nature”, onto her Son? None of these were “passed on to Jesus. To deny this: isn’t it to deny Jesus’ humanity?
For: He is truly human and divine possessing both natures. So, if not born of a pure (immaculate) virgin, He had to save Himself before He saved the rest of humanity. But no He was born pure from pure to be the Savior of the world.
I believe this to be the reality.
In Christ:
donO’
I pray this is not eisegesis
Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, have Mercy on me a sinner!
Hi Tom,
Yes is is a great opportunity to respond to the challenge Jesus offers.
Cardinal Newman said it well over a hundred years ago: …It is the saying of holy men that if we wish to be perfect, we have nothing more to do than to perform the ordinary duties of the day well…A short road to perfection - short, not because easy, but because pertinent and intelligible. There are no short ways to perfection but there are sure ones…He, then is perfect who does the work of the day perfectly, and we need not go beyond this to seek perfection. If you ask me what you are to do in order to be perfect, I say, first, do not lie in bed beyond the due time of rising; give your first thoughts to God; make a good visit to the Blessed Sacrament; say the angelus devoutly; eat and drink to God’s glory; say the rosary well; be recollected; keep out bad thoughts; make your evening meditation well; examine your concience daily; go to bed in good time, and you are already perfect…
In 1916, Frank Duff, founder of the Legion of Mary said:… There is another definition of what a saint is. It is this: One who, with the object of pleasing God, does his ordinary duties extraordinarily well…Every person that is born is called to be a saint. Take it as most certain that you - no matter how unfitted your life may seem for holiness - are being given graces sufficient, if corresponded with to bring you to sanctity.
I just finished listeing to a postcast of Jean Vanier. Now if that man doesn’t love perfectly, I don’t know who does. So, I agree with you Fr. Tom, it is really about putting our will in Christ’s will with humility and with trust. Amen.
An Image of Free Will (Jacque Maritain) becomes easier to read here:
Every river flows between two banks; and it is determined by them, that is by the conformations of the earthly curst. Well, let us imagine a spiritual river, which as yet exists only in the thought, and which is ready to spring forth into existence.
Let us imagine that everything which concerns realization in existence also depends on it. Let us imagine that before it springs forth, angels present to it various conformations of soil, diverse possible banks. It cannot spring forth without being contained or determined by one or another pair of banks, But at the precise moment when it springs forth, it is the river itself which brings into existence, amongst the various possible courses presented to it, this or that earthly course and the banks which encase the waters.
This image represents the act of free will. The will is as a torrent, mastering the banks which contain it….In the act of free will, the will bends the judgment in the direction it desires…if you deal with averages and large numbers, you can predict with certitude that in a town where all the citizens are ill-tempered, there will surely be some quarreling.
In a country where everyone has an inferiority complex, and manifests fear and trembling in the presence of corporals and captains, there will some day be a dictator, But to foresee with certitude what this particular man will do after inner reflection and deliberation, and by exercise of his free will, — that is something you cannot do. It is this man’s absolute secret, and it is a secret even for himself, a secret he will learn only at the very moment when he makes his decision.
The free act is not only the act of the person as such, it is moreover – and this is perhaps the same thing – the revelation of the person to itself. Even with a super comprehension of the causes, however perfect it may be supposed, you cannot foresee this act. Even God cannot do so.
To be precise, God does not foresee our free acts, He sees them, all the moments of time being present to His creative eternity. And in so far as our free acts are good, He works them with us and causes them, for He is the primary cause of being. We have the initiative and the free initiative of our good acts…but this is secondary initiative, and not the primary one; the latter belongs to God alone….
This is easy to comprehend, once we have understood that freedom consists in an active and dominating indetermination and the mastery of will over judgment…Without Me, you can do nothing; without me you cannot execute the slightest movement which conveys being and goodness;…and for evil…without Me nothingness, or nothing itself can be done by you. Without Me, you can introduce into act and into being this nothingness, which wounds them and which constitutes evil.
To Jay: I went ahead and deleted the previous unformatted comment you left, given that you replaced it with this one.