As I understand it, God intended/intends for people to have Free Will.
In order for good behavior to be meaningful, the opportunity to behave badly must exist. In the abscence of an option to behave badly, truly virtuous behavior is impossible.
Therefore, wouldn’t God view legislative attempts to remove the option to behave badly with disfavor? I’m thinking of anti-abortion laws in particular; anti-drug laws would be another example.
First, one should realize this argument can be extended to any legislation intended to limit behavior. As a consequence, any attempt at this type of legislation would be immoral because it diminishes the opportunity for individuals to exercise free will. One could then claim God’s law itself is immoral, a truly self-contradictory position.
Second, the fact that a law exists prohibiting a particular act does not remove the opportunity for a person to commit the action; crime is a frequently chosen course. In your argument the option would have to be completely eliminated to truly destroy the exercise of free will. Otherwise the passage of a law limiting an option is just another factor in a person’s choice, no greater or less than, say, the laws of physics or economic considerations that may bear on a free-will decision.
The question of free will in relation to moral transgression is a complex topic, but Aquinas and subsequent theologians cast the problem specifically in terms of man’s freedom to sin. It is clear from the Summa that Aquinas saw the problem in terms of the human intellect’s inability to see the infinite good of God (as opposed to, say, the angels, who have free will but are incapable of sin, putting aside Lucifer for the moment). Thus for Aquinas, supporters of anti-abortion legislation, for example, would be doing a service to their fellow man by clarifying a portion of God’s plan (equivalent to His goodness) that may otherwise be obscure. Despite the moral clarity of anti-abortion supporters, even they must concede that people freely choose to have abortions; under Thomist theology this is because they are blinded to the good through dire circumstance or ignorance of God’s plan.
Please do not take this as an endorsement of either side of the abortion argument, just a discussion of the original question on the limits social legislation might place on free will.
OK, I can see that Biblical dietary laws could have the effect of restricting opportunities to transgress, since merchants could be induced to not offer prohibited items. But try as I might, I cannot imagine a case where any of the Ten Commandments would limit the opportunity to sin. I suppose a gun manufacturer could stop making guns because they can be used to kill, but there are other means of killing and another less moralistic manufacturer might take up the slack, so to speak. Anti-abortion laws remove the opportunity to have abortions, since as far as I know there is no safe and reliable method of abortion other than those prohibited by the aforementioned laws.
OK, I can see that Biblical dietary laws could have the effect of restricting opportunities to transgress, since merchants could be induced to not offer prohibited items. But try as I might, I cannot imagine a case where any of the Ten Commandments would limit the opportunity to sin. I suppose a gun manufacturer could stop making guns because they can be used to kill, but there are other means of killing and another less moralistic manufacturer might take up the slack, so to speak. Anti-abortion laws remove the opportunity to have abortions, since as far as I know there is no safe and reliable method of abortion other than those prohibited by the aforementioned laws.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding this point; I take it to mean that the detailed prohibitions supporting a moral code such as the Ten Commandments (e.g. dietary laws) do indeed limit opportunities to exercise free will, but that the overall moral imperatives of the code can never be restricted to the point where there is no exercise of free will in obeying them. Anti-abortion laws fall into the ‘details’ category.
I respectfully disagree; as you note, even with a legal prohibition, there is nothing stopping a person from ‘taking up the slack’ and ostensibly committing a crime. The choice is no doubt more costly, given there are criminal punishments for choosing the option, but the choice still exists and is practical (if laws made choices impractical, we could stop building prisons altogether). In short, knowledge of the law is only part of the free-will decision making process.
I do not think that statement can be considered true. Abortion has been part of human behavior throughout history, legal or not, safe or not. Making abortion illegal introduces more serious possible consequences to the action (higher chance of injury or death, punishment if caught), but people would still have the choice, and some of them would still choose to get abortions, and there would undoubtedly be people willing to perform them.
Oddly, I agree wholeheartedly with your OP.
As for the inevitable comments from the “strict constructionist” school of freedom-haters regarding the legitimacy of governmental action, there is a clear line between behavior that causes “injury” in the legal sense to another, by force, coercion, or fraud, and behavior that damages no one save perhaps oneself or one’s “partner in crime.” The former may legitimately be regulated by governmental action in order to protect the rights of the law-abiding to enjoy their freedoms in peace; the latter, not. Liberal or another philosophically inclined poster can get into the justification for this position; I prefer not to.
Sometimes, without rules, we don’t know what is right and what is wrong. This is why God told us to obey the government, the institution that spends most of its time figuring out rules to live by. We can of course still choose to steal. And many people get away with it. We still have free will. It’s POSSIBLE for us to steal. But at least with government we know that it is wrong. If it was never illegal to steal, it would happen more often. The line about what is wrong and right about property rights would be very grey.
Sorry, but God can only be invoked in order to support the arguments of those looking to use His word as a means for oppressing others.
So I’m afraid any attempts at being “crafty” by turning their own arguments against them are null and void. 
So if life begins at conception, abortion always falls into the former category. If life begins at some later point there would not be a victim (up until that point in time) and therefore no convincing argument for regulation.
I’d give much for a way to convince people that the question of when life begins should be decided by individuals and not the government.
I’ve got to agree with CJJ* that “the overall moral imperatives of the code can never be restricted to the point where there is no exercise of free will in obeying them.” But forcing people to accept possibly life-threatening consequences for an act which is in my opinion victimless seems wrong.
In the spiritual sense, the idea of human free will simply states that humans are left with the choice to accept God’s offer of reconciliation, or reject it. This was Dutch theologian Armenius’ position. Theologians like Augustine and Calvin believed that man lost his ability to make this choice with Adam’s transgression (the doctrine of total depravity); that man, in order to choose God, had to first be spiritually regenerated (born again). Those who are the recipients of this spiritual rebirth (the “elect” or "vessels of mercy), would not be able to resist God’s offer (irresistable grace). Those who aren’t elected,(the "vessels of wrath), having not been regenerated, would never accept the offer, no matter how many times it was presented to them.
This is indeed the Protestant position; in it’s extreme (Calvin), there is no such thing as free will, so the original question is moot. Armimius thought to soften that; in particular, he denied that God irrevocably predestined some for heaven (the elect) other for hell based on only his own, ineffable will, but granted that the choice to be born again in Christ was one of free-will and gives man the capable of earning salvation, a choice God hopes all will make in his favor. It should be noted that the Wesleyan Methodists adopt the Arminian viewpoint, while most Presbyterians (I think) are strict Calvinists.
All of this of course is in confilct with the Catholic doctrine, which insists on the reality of free will. Granting that God is omniscient, the prevalent theology is that God knows what would happen in any conceivable circumstance, including what choice a free-willed individual would make under a given set of circumstances. He then deigns to provide those circumstances that play upon the free-will decision–in a sense forcing the decision. However, the fact that the circumstances are provided so that this ‘predestined’ decision is made by a free-willed individual means that if the same circumstances were presented to an individual without free will, its possible that a different decision would be made, or that the circumstances would have to be altered. It’s a little weasily, I grant you, but it somehow allows for our decisions to carry responsibility (a hallmark of free-will) without denying God’s omniscience.
To return then to the original question, the Calvinist position does not allow for free will, so the question is moot. The Methodist position allows the choice to be born again to be a free will decision, and God actively roots for you to choose salvation, so I’d guess He’d approve of proposed laws. The Catholic stance allows free will in every decision, and the proposed laws function as part of God’s provided circumstances; in this sense the laws are “doing God’s work”.
It’s no wonder this problem has been debated for centuries; the Greeks had enough trouble with it before the Christians added salvation/damnation as the dire consequences attending its resolution. Whew!
The problem is, there is almost no such thing as truly free “free will”. You’re always somewhat limited in your choices by your environment and your personal character. And, of course, actions have Consequences.
That’s what the law tries to address, in various degrees of success - it limits the choices you can make and punishes you for a “wrong” choice. (How wrong said choice is, of course, depends on who is making the laws.)
The current problem of humanity, according to Christian theology, was that our common Ancestor was offered a very simple test, and totally blew it - he decided to rely on his own judgement to decide what is right and wrong (what is it with men and not asking for directions? :D). God said, “fine, have it your way”, and took away the Ancestor’s spiritual GPS.
So now, not only are we not sure what is right and wrong, we can’t even agree on what the heck God meant when He/She/It said stuff like, “don’t kill people, m’kay?”, or what God is like exactly, or whether God exists at all.
The Solution is to reconnect with God and, if you’ll pardon the geeky analogy, reinstall the correct system software. The whole afterlife stuff is just a beneficial side-effect, since it’d be kind of silly for an eternal being to have friendships that don’t last forever.
Amen.
That certainly seems to be the truth.
This flaw is especially prevalent in people that believe that there was an actual (not figurative) Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their Moral Compass is skewed so far that they cannot understand the difference between sins and crimes.
They cannot understand that a sin is an offense against God, and a crime is an offense against Man. They think that since some sins are ALSO crimes, (murder for example), then ALL sins (or at least, the sins of their choosing) are also crimes. Then they sin by causing (or allowing) harm in the name of God and Morals…and that is both a sin and crime.
The current problem of humanity is that the Religious Right needs to return to the Religious Center. The Solution is to let only those without sin punish sin. That means nobody is to punish sin, but I guess you need a spiritual GPS to understand that.
Peace and Liberty
rwj
P.S. The Separation of Church and State includes the Separation of Sins and Crimes.
Did I actually say “victimless crime”? Make that “victimless noncrime”.
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
What are people who make laws doing, if not judging others?
Laws can be a reasonable guide. But they don’t really determine what is morally right and wrong. Think of all of the bad laws that have had to be changed through time as we realized that they weren’t right or fair.
I dont think that laws can “remove” the option of being evil. If that were true then we wouldnt have criminals. Only God can actually remove evil. The laws you mention in fact reinforces Gods teaching by having civil punishments to persuade you to stay on the right path. You may still opt to do evil, but if caught, you go to jail, if not caught you go to hell.
Well, I wouldn’t presume to speak for God, but yes, there are Christian Libertarians.
Define “Free Will” as you use it here. What is it?
How does that make good behavior “meaningful”? Why wouldn’t it have been so before?
Why? Would would it cease to be a virtue? And how can a person have an option to behave badly if they are virtuous enough to not do so? If their character is virtuous, then the option to behave badly is as much an illusion as anything can be.
To return then to the original question, the Calvinist position does not allow for free will, so the question is moot. The Methodist position allows the choice to be born again to be a free will decision, and God actively roots for you to choose salvation, so I’d guess He’d approve of proposed laws. The Catholic stance allows free will in every decision, and the proposed laws function as part of God’s provided circumstances; in this sense the laws are “doing God’s work”.
It’s no wonder this problem has been debated for centuries; the Greeks had enough trouble with it before the Christians added salvation/damnation as the dire consequences attending its resolution. Whew!
[/QUOTE]
Most Protestants (those who are more than nominal adherents) believe Luthern and Calvinist theology “corrected” the errors of Catholicism. Although Protestantism did eliminate some of the more obvious “Christianized” pagan practices (e.g., the sacrements of extreme unction and penance, Mary worship, the doctrine of transubstantiation, etc.), and re-establish the Scriptures as the final authority in faith and practice ("Solo Scriptura), it still remained, fundamentally, Catholic. (The fact is, Luther’s major beef with Rome was primarily over the spiritual primacy of the Pope, and the idea that he (the Pope) was infallible–in his office-- and therefore the final authority in faith and practice instead of Scripture.)
Protestantism remained fundamentally Catholic because Luther and Calvin both failed (as Rome does in claiming to be the New Testament Church) to see the distinctive nature of Paul’s revelation among the New Testament writers. In failing to see that Paul’s epistles (Romans through Philemon) ushered in a completely new dispensation (Eph. 3:2) with a new message (Romans 1:16), supplanting what had been started by the 12 in Acts 2, they erroneously tagged the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) as the New Testament church.
This error, in turn, leads to the failure to distinguish between being “born again” (John 3:5; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 3:9; 5:18), which is a NT doctrine, and being “saved.”(Romans 10:9-13) Those who are born again, within the context of the listed scriptures, are endowed with the “power to become the sons of God,” ** (John 1:12), and therefore are the"partakers of the divine nature." ** (2 Peter 1:4). These NT “saints” are endued with an “unction” that, supernaturally, writes the law on their hearts and minds, enabling them to "**endure (through “great tribulation”) unto the end ** "to be saved . (Matt. 10:22; 24:13). The evidence of one who is truly “born again” will be manifested in his behavior (Matt. 7:20), i.e., he will produce all the signs listed in Mark 16:17,18.
Question: How many people do you know, who claim Christ as their Saviour, who actually have the kind of powers listed in Mark 16:17,18? 1 John 3:9; 5:18? Hebrews 8:10,11? All the claims of the Charismatic movement (which has infected both the Catholic and Protestant churches) notwithstanding, nobody for the last 1965 years has had any of these powers. There is one reason for this: grace. Folks in the present dispensation (grace), who have trusted in Christ and his atoning work on the cross to pay for their sins, are saved, not born again. Salvation under grace (Romans 6:14), does not erradicate one’s human nature, replacing it with “the divine nature,” but, rather, saves (preserves) them–despite the fact they can’t keep the law–“unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 1:13,14, 4:30)
This salvation, contrary to Calvin’s doctrines of limited atonement and election, is “unto to all, and upon *all * them that believe.”(Romans 3:22). God’s will now is that, “[**I]all * men be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth” ** (1 Tim. 2:4) We now get “the truth,” not through a supernatural endowment which puts it in our minds, but by “renewing” our minds through study of “the word of truth” (Romans 12:2; 2 Tim. 2:15).
Finally, we get back to the the original question regarding free will: No one under grace has to be born again in order to be saved, as they will in the New Testament. Romans 12:3 says that God has “dealt to everyman the measure of faith.” Therefore, God leaves no one without the faith to believe the gospel, *if they will. * “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13) God has provided the way to be saved, and offered it to man as a free gift (Eph. 2:8,9). Mans part in the equation is–by an act of his will–to simply accept the gift.
Er, no. The Biblical injunctions on this point are clearly qualified to cover only government action within its legitimate sphere (e.g. “render undo Caesar that which is Caesar’s” clearly implies that some things are not Caesar’s are are not to be conceded to him).