are all t mobile to t mobile calls free man God willed is there free will in heaven give man an inner spiritual freedom. King James Bible And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:.">
After all, I was quoting Thomas Aquinas 13th century above. It was long before Vatican II that Father Feeney was excommunicated for insisting on a strict literal interpretation of "outside the Church there is no salvation. I don't remember ever being given the impression in my 12 years of Catholic education that my father would go to hell because he was not Catholic. I just ran across this passage in one of my favorite references, Fr.
These passages suggest that the apocalyptic imagery of other NT passages is to be taken for what it is, imagery, and not as strictly literal theological affirmation. The great truths of judgment and punishment are firmly retained throughout the NT, and no theological hypothesis can be biblical which reduces the ultimate destiny of righteousness and wickedness to the same thing; the details of the afterlife, however, are not disclosed except in imagery.
I feel my Catholic education so thoroughly twisted my own head that untwisting it is impossible. As Lenin said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
McKenzie paints a nice idea But this sits contrary to what I read elsewhere. Take the Catholic Encyclopaedia for example It is all harrowing stuff. I can barely understand it. What chance has the average Joe? He hasn't. Very much. According to that link, Hell is a very real place, it is the antithesis of Heaven.
Most of the Catholics I have spoken to have the same concept Perhaps it was different elsewhere, though that in itself begs the question.
David, there are ex-Catholics on this site who remember their teaching on what eternal damnation and Hell meant. I don't recall it be all that light and made up. The whole topic still scares me silly. But it is necessary to make a distinction between what we learned in Catholic school and what the truly "official" teachings of the Church were and are.
I have made a distinction between what I called "everyday piety" of something like that and theology. We mostly know about the hell of "everyday piety. There is often a problem when talking about "the Catholic Church" and "what the Church teaches" because it is rather difficult to pin down what is meant by "the Church. It is difficult to be clear about what was the fault of "the Church," because the nuns who taught me in grade school, and the brothers who taught me in high school were certainly in and of the Church, but they weren't the Church itself.
We'll I'd have to agree with you there, but shouldn't those with the resposabilty upstairs so to speak, get it sorted out into a less contradictory form and relay it to the bums on pews? People are not as daft as they used to be. I think contradiction in the truth claim I going to be a stumbling block going forward. Even within this thread the definition is misunderstood among the faithful. See Raphael's take in these couple of comments Dante's version of Hell seems to be out of fashion with sophisticated Catholic theologians at the moment.
But that's what the documents indicate. Basically, a person in good conscience, is either going to Heaven, if there is such a place, or nowhere. Should the alternative that is Hell exist, it is just an eternity without God I'm going to heaven, nowhere or Hell not the place of scripture , win win all round.
This theology stuff is really neat. The act of sex is seriously wrong without the prospect of procreation according to the RCC, the person knows, according to their faith, it is seriously wrong, and I assume the act has consent by participants. Ergo, being an actively physical homosexual means eternal damnation. No, not if your conscience tells you the Church is wrong. The teachings of the Church on contraception rest on the same foundation as those on homosexuality.
Most Catholics reject the Church's teachings on contraception. Few would say that all Catholics who use contraceptives are going to hell. And arguably, they are doing something more seriously wrong according to Catholic thought than those engaging in homosexual acts. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience. Invincible ignorance is ignorance you can't possibly or reasonably be blamed for. For example, some Protestants will argue that if you do not explicitly accept Jesus, you will go to hell.
If you ask them if that applies to Native Americans before Europeans brought word of Christianity to the Americas, they will say yes. The Native Americans and any others who never even had a chance to learn about Jesus all went to hell, because they did not accept Jesus as their savior. The Catholic Church says no. A person can't be blamed for invincible ignorance. Those who lived in the Americas could not possibly have known about Jesus, and so their ignorance was invincible.
There is plenty of room for argument between "conservatives" and "liberals" on whether certain kinds of ignorance involving moral decisions are vincible or invincible. It can be argued that there are certain things moral principles that everyone knows, or ought to know, even if they have never been taught. But of course when it comes to who goes to hell or not, the decision about invincible ignorance is not made by the Church. It is made by God. It seems to me that in the age of electronic information, invincible ignorance doesn't apply to anyone with access to the internet.
Even in the age of electronic information, invincible ignorance is very much in play because of deep cognitive biases.
That is a point on which theists and atheists can happily agree! Anyway, no, I don't think that is what David said. I think he had it exactly right when he wrote:. If a person, through no fault of his or her own, has been prejudiced against the fullness of the truth in ways that he or she is incapable of realizing, then the fullness of the truth is not available to that person, regardless of what documents or other evidence might be readily accessible.
If I gave that impression, it was unintentional. Even supposing Christianity is "the truth," there are many reasons, in my opinion, why a person who even learns a great deal about it might be intellectually "blocked" from accepting it.
I occasionally quote Lenin, who said, "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. And as I noted, assuming Christianity is true and God judges people and sends them to eternal reward or eternal punishment, it is not up to the Church to make up guidelines for God as to what constitutes invincible ignorance. You may find "conservatives" who consider any exposure to God or Christianity at all seeing an old rerun of Touched by an Angel sufficient to rule out a claim of invincible ignorance, while on the other hand, you may find "liberals" who will argue that someone who goes through the seminary, spends thirty years as a priest, and then rejects Christianity might be judged as a victim of invincible ignorance for some reason or another.
But it doesn't matter that conservatives and liberals may strongly disagree. If Christianity is true, it is God who makes the judgment, and he can be expected to understand human motivation infinitely better than the Church. The Church claims no authority or power to send anyone to hell. If it happens, it is God's doing, not the Church's.
Childhood indoctrination in any non-Christian religion or in no religion might leave someone incapable, for all practical purposes, of embracing Christianity. But then how can we ever distinguish between "invincible" and "vincible" ignorance? My understanding was that the church allowed as god might save those who through no fault of their own failed to appreciate the gospels and convert.
But does that really include a simple refusal to disbelieve as non-fault? Is that why there are so many Catholic murderers, liars, cheats, thieves etc. How can thee one true church be wrong? And who says what's wrong if my conscience tells me the RCCis wrong? Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.
While I agree that there are some things I'd say are far worse than others on lists of mortal sins, the church doesn't diversify. Envyings, for example, is just nonsense. How can anyone control having a thought until after they have had it? Vis a vis murder for example. No, it is plain stupid.
Anyway, as I said, nothing about this subject is easy, and the continuity man of the RCC should get the sack. In other words, those who obey the doctrines of the church only. A practising gay I do so love the delicate terminology of theists is eternally damned, no matter what other good she does.
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. The minimum is you have to do is to strive to obey your conscience. It is not even necessary that you succeed. Kevin-- Right thanks. That is what I meant.
I knew this doctrine. I was interested in your view My point was the whole "accept" thing. Who Chose What to Include in the Bible? Are There Errors in the Bible?
Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable Evidence? Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable? Are There Pagan Origins of Christianity? Did Christianity Steal From Mithraism? Am I Going to Heaven? Is the Bible Against Women? Does Hebrews 6 contradict eternal security?
Did God Tempt David to Sin? Do Christians Sin? Did Jonah die in the belly of the Fish? Jeremiah speaks to the pattern of sin that a group of people had become "accustomed" to. Such would not be the case with an individual who was accustomed to choosing against sin in each case.
What matters, however, is that I see no reason to deny that it is theoretically possible, even if it never happens in practice. It should be noted that such a person would still require a Savior. He could not resurrect, glorify or make himself joint heirs with Christ. To be clear, no man , apart from the Savior has ever, or will ever successfully choose against sin in every circumstance.
So, it may be theoretically possible for a given man to avoid sin throughout his life, but practically speaking, it never happens and the idea is absurd. I suggest that the alternate is true for believers in heaven. There, divine hiddenness will be no more. Our bodies according to 1 Corinthians will be "raised imperishable", in "glory," and in "power. Even in heaven we are not clean compared to God. We are always being perfected in God's image, but we never become perfect.
Perfection belongs to God alone. However, people in heaven have given their will over to God, and they no longer sin. The very thought of sinning causes horror in their minds and hearts.
Because they have given their will over to God, God continually purifies them and withholds them from any human desires to sin, and they willingly and with joy follow God in not sinning. Because they have given their will to God freely, they are still exercising their free will. Short version: Here on earth we exercise the first freedom granted to us by God, which is the freedom of choice between good and evil.
But once our life on earth is over, we will have already made that choice. Then our freedom becomes a freedom to live according to the choice we have made on earth. If we have chosen evil over good, we will become abject slaves in hell. But if we have chosen good over evil, we will attain a greater form of free will, which is the God-given gift and ability to freely live according to what is good and true from God. Since someone is likely to ask: This answer is written from a perspective based on the Bible as understood in light of the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg OK so to answer this we first must look at a few different things.
First we must answer the question why do we suffer. We suffer because of the sin we created in this world in Genesis 3. It is true that this could only happen because of free will BUT free will itself did not create suffering. Sin is the reason for our suffering. If we look at Adam and Eve in genesis before the fall they had free will but did not suffer. In face they had a face to face relationship to God. Next we need to answer why do we have free will. Is it by design or a fluke.
The answer is by design. We were created to worship God and if we didnt have free will would our worship be authentic or just what was programmed into us.
Probably the latter. Since we are sinners we all worship something but most of the time we miss the mark and worship something else like money or ourselves. When we do this we suffer. Next lets look at what we call free will today. Creating beings with free will of the type we experience in this life--the type that can be misused--is a legitimate move.
If some of those beings end up misusing their free will, that's not God's fault--precisely because their wills are free. They are the ones that choose evil, not God. One reason is that it cuts against the free will defense we have considered previously--that God finds something valuable in the exercise of free will of the type we have in this life.
Is there a way to reconcile the value he sets on it in this life with the fact that we will not be able to choose evil in heaven? Of the two types of rational created beings we know about--angels and humans--God has given both a chance to choose for or against him. The angels had this experience in the past and then either became good or evil, depending on their choice. Humans have the chance to choose over the course of our earthly lives, at the end of which our wills become fixed on either good or evil.
It is not an endless series of choices, where our wills can fluctuate back and forth forever. Sooner or later, we must commit.
Now it would be contrary to who we are to choose to sin and thereby to reject this perfect life, truth and love that is God. For example, an eighth grade student asked me once, "Can God murder someone? What about the angels who rebelled? The early Church Fathers upheld the doctrine that God had created the angels from the beginning and through Christ, "through whom all things were made" as we recite in the Creed.
However, Fr. After salvation, our free will struggles between choosing what is right and what is wrong. In heaven our free will is limited by our inability to choose what is wrong. In our glorified state, we will exercise our free will to choose what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable see Philippians Proponents, such as John L.
Girardeau , have indicated their belief that moral neutrality is impossible; that even if it were possible, and one were equally inclined to contrary options, one could make no choice at all; that if one is inclined, however slightly, toward one option, then that person will necessarily choose that one over any others.
Some non-Calvinist Christians attempt a reconciliation of the dual concepts of predestination and free will by pointing to the situation of God as Christ. In taking the form of a man, a necessary element of this process was that Jesus Christ lived the existence of a mortal. When Jesus was born he was not born with the omniscient power of God the Creator, but with the mind of a human child - yet he was still God in essence. The precedent this creates is that God is able to will the abandonment of His knowledge, or ignore knowledge, while remaining fully God.
Thus it is not inconceivable that although omniscience demands that God knows what the future holds for individuals, it is within his power to deny this knowledge in order to preserve individual free will. Other theologians argue that the Calvinist-Edwardsean view suggests that if all human volitions are predetermined by God, then all actions dictated by fallen will of man necessarily satisfy His sovereign decree.
Hence, it is impossible to act outside of God's perfect will, a conclusion some non-Calvinists claim poses a serious problem for ethics and moral theology. An early proposal toward such a reconciliation states that God is, in fact, not aware of future events, but rather, being eternal, He is outside time, and sees the past, present, and future as one whole creation.
Consequently, it is not as though God would know "in advance" that Jeffrey Dahmer would become guilty of homicide years prior to the event as an example, but that He was aware of it from all eternity, viewing all time as a single present.
Calvinist theologian Loraine Boettner argued that the doctrine of divine foreknowledge does not escape the alleged problems of divine foreordination. He wrote that "what God foreknows must, in the very nature of the case, be as fixed and certain as what is foreordained; and if one is inconsistent with the free agency of man, the other is also.
Foreordination renders the events certain, while foreknowledge presupposes that they are certain. Mormons or Latter-day Saints, believe that God has given all humans the gift of moral agency. Moral agency includes free will and agency.
Proper exercise of unfettered choice leads to the ultimate goal of returning to God's presence. Having the choice to do right or wrong was important, because God wants a society of a certain type—those that comply with eternal laws.
Before this Earth was created, this dispute over agency rose to the level that there was a " war in heaven. Many Mormon leaders have also taught that the battle in Heaven over agency is now being carried out on earth [ citation needed ] , where dictators, influenced by Satan, fight against freedom or free agency in governments contrary to the will of God.
Mormons also believe in a limited form of foreordination — not in deterministic, unalterable decrees, but rather in callings from God for individuals to perform specific missions in mortality. Those who are foreordained can reject the foreordination, either outright or by transgressing the laws of God and becoming unworthy to fulfill the call.
The New Church , or Swedenborgianism, teaches that every person has complete freedom to choose heaven or hell. Emanuel Swedenborg , upon whose writings the New Church is founded, argued that if God is love itself, people must have free will. If God is love itself, then He desires no harm to come to anyone: and so it is impossible that he would predestine anyone to hell. On the other hand, if God is love itself, then He must love things outside of Himself; and if people do not have the freedom to choose evil, they are simply extensions of God, and He cannot love them as something outside of Himself.
In addition, Swedenborg argues that if a person does not have free will to choose goodness and faith, then all of the commandments in the Bible to love God and the neighbor are worthless, since no one can choose to do them - and it is impossible that a God who is love itself and wisdom itself would give impossible commandments.
As Hinduism is primarily a conglomerate of different religious traditions,  there is no one accepted view on the concept of free will. Within the predominant schools of Hindu philosophy there are two main opinions. The Advaita monistic schools generally believe in a fate -based approach, and the Dvaita dualistic schools are proponents for the theory of free will.
In both Dvaita and Advaita schools, and also in the many other traditions within Hinduism, there is a strong belief in destiny  and that both the past and future are known, or viewable, by certain saints or mystics as well as by the supreme being Ishvara in traditions where Ishvara is worshipped as an all-knowing being.
All that He is, He is from eternity. God cannot change Ps. If God is love, He is love eternally. If He is joyful, He is so from eternity. God, who exists eternally in three persons, has need for nothing else. He does not create for His good, but for the good of creation.Free will in theology is an important part of the debate on free will in general. Religions vary greatly in their response to the standard argument against free will and thus wilk appeal fred any number of responses to the paradox of free willthe claim that omniscience and free will are incompatible. The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often heavdn to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Calvinistic circles: if God knows exactly what will happen right down to every choice a person makesit would seem that the "freedom" is there free will in heaven these is there free will in heaven is called three question. This problem relates to Aristotle 's analysis of the problem of the sea battle : tomorrow either there will or will not be a is there free will in heaven battle. According to the Law of excluded middlethere seem to be two options. If there will be a sea battle, then it seems that it is there free will in heaven true even yesterday that there would be one. Thus it is there free will in heaven necessary that the sea ix will occur. If there will not be one, then, by similar reasoning, it is necessary that it will not occur. However, some philosophers follow William of Ockham c. Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using is there free will in heaven word neshama from the Hebrew root n. In Islamthe theological issue is not usually how to reconcile free will is there free will in heaven God's foreknowledge but with God's jabr or divine commanding power. Furthermore, God would voluntarily do so because "the greatest good The biblical ground for free will lies in the fall into is there free will in heaven by Adam and Eve that occurred in their "willfully chosen" disobedience to God. Mark R. Talbot,  a "classical Christian theist,"  views this acquired "compatibilist freedom" heqven the freedom that "Scripture portrays i worth having. Open theism denies that classical theism's compatibilist "freedom to choose to be righteous without the possibility of choosing otherwise. For open theism, true libertarian freedom is incompatibilist freedom. Regardless of is there free will in heaven, a person has the freedom to choose the opposite alternatives. In open theist William Hasker 's words, regarding any action it is always " within the agent's power to perform the action and also in the agent's power to refrain from the action. Regarding A handbook of critical approaches to literature pdf free download, Hasker views Jesus as "a ia agent," but he also thinks that "it was not really possible" that Jesus would "abort the mission. Theologians of the Roman Catholic Church universally embrace the idea of free will, but generally do not view free will as existing apart from or in contradiction to grace. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace. The will haven resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. How is it that in heaven we will never sin? It seems that in heaven we will lose the kind of freedom that non-Calvinists (like myself) suppose that. Eve had free will there. So, we can deduce that we will have free will in heaven, but not to the extent that we can choose to sin and get evicted from heaven. A discussion of free will, sin, and heaven. But there is nothing before God upon which He depends to become what He is now. All that He is, He is from eternity. In heaven we will be completely devoid of sin; our only desires will be for the things of God—things that bless us, fulfill us, and give us life. This is. Is there a way to reconcile the value he sets on it in this life with the fact that we will not be able to choose evil in heaven? I think there is Choosing to Commit. Of. Father Richard Simon responded that this is one thing we can know about heaven, saying, “Of course, because without free will you can't love.”. Christian apologists have long held that Adam was allowed to sin because God gave him freedom. But in heaven there is not supposed to be any pain or sin. Frank Turek addresses an internal question within Christianity regarding free will in heaven and its relation to Divine Providence. #Christianity. Why is that important? Because it makes a lie of the sanctimonious Christian's claim that everyone has free will when it comes to choosing to. Answer 1: There is NO free will heaven. The saved are immutably good and have no choice nor temptation to sin. Rebuttal: Can lack of free will. In that case they are free to sin, but they choose not to — otherwise there would be sin in heaven. Nevertheless, gleaning what is in the Bible and the Catechism, and what the great saints have written, we can form an adequate answer. At UD, jerry attempts to resolve the dilemma : The so called evil or unhappiness or suffering in this world is a red herring in the whole debate. Answer 2: There IS free will in heaven--we have the capacity to choose evil. We will be like Him 1 John What is free will? The vision of Christ, the source of infinite goodness and love, will be so overwhelming as to remove all freedom to sin. Believers in heaven are sinless. If He is joyful, He is so from eternity. All that He is, He is from eternity. Here vividbleau is describing a Calvinist sort of free will, in which we choose according to our natures, but our natures are themselves determined by God. This question has chronically baffled me, and I feel leaves me intellectually vulnerable in defending Christianity.