Doctrine of Man Part 27: The Catholic View of Freedom of the Will

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and "shelter-in-place" recommendations, Dr. Craig gives this lecture from the safety of his home office.

"Defenders" is Dr. William Lane Craig's weekly Sunday school class on Christian doctrine and apologetics. This video is part 27 of his locus on the Doctrine of Man.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[dfhyland]

Thank you, Dr. Craig! I am a Roman Catholic and a graduate student in theology, and I appreciate your talks and writings very much. May God bless you and your family, and may He bless your ministry always.

In Christ,
Daniel

[franklongo]

Thank you, Dr. Craig. Your brief analysis reveals the absolute reasonableness of the Catholic understanding of the freedom of the will.

[roisinpatriciagaffney]

Good lesson, Dr. Craig, From a Catholic fan. ☘

[KnutNukem]

Thank you so much. Your series help me a lot to grow in understanding of my faith in Jesus Christ.

[samuelcallai]

I can't wait for next week's class

Excellent! This makes a lot of sense on Romans 9. 👏

[adamelmasery]

Thanks. God Bless you in Jesus Christ Name

[HerBos]

Thank you for this insightful video dr. Craig!

[juanlmontejo]

I do agree with your interpretation of Romans 9, It's very similar to the one Leigthon Flowers or mike Winger have

[markstevenpandan]

The Council of Trent also says that is the "beginning, foundation, and root" of justification/salvation.

[josephn.partain]

Dr. Craig,

If, as you suggest, the point of God’s self-disclosure in the words, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” (Romans 9:15) is that He chooses those who believe the gospel (Romans 9:30-32), is that not another way of saying that ultimately God chooses those who choose Him? If so, would this not mean that the ultimate factor for whether or not one is saved is one’s own human will or choice—and not the will of God? Is your proposal here not in conflict with various places throughout Scripture, such as, Ephesians 1:4-5, which says, “He [God] chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world...In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will”?

In addition, if it is our will or choice that ultimately determines whether or not we are saved, then what does the Bible mean when it says: “as many as were appointed [or ordained—jnp] to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48)? Does that not sound like we choose God because He first chose us?

Or why does Scripture speak of those who worship the beast as “everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain” (Revelation 13:8)?

Or, again, why in Romans 9:11-13 does Paul characterize “God’s purpose of election, ” which is “not because of works but because of Him who calls, ” as evident in the manner of His choice of Jacob over Esau before they were born and had done anything good or bad? Would this not mean that before either one had believed in God (a good action) or not (a bad action), chosen God (a good action) or not (a bad action), God chose Jacob over Esau (“The older [Esau] will serve the younger [Jacob]” and “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”—Romans 9:12-13)?

If, again, as you suggest, God’s having mercy on whom He will have mercy is to be understood merely as God’s choice to have mercy on all who believe in Christ (regardless of whether they are Jews or Gentiles), then, how does that understanding of God’s election in the context of Romans 9:6-13 prompt Paul directly afterward to ask: “Is there injustice on God’s part (Romans 9:14)?” What injustice would there be on your account, logically speaking, if everyone has an equal shot at salvation based on whether or not they believe or choose God? What could be fairer or more just than that? If people don’t believe and are, therefore, lost, it’s their own fault. Where is the injustice?

Furthermore, why is it that Paul follows his question, “Is there injustice on God’s part?, ” with God’s statement to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:15). Isn’t Paul arguing that the reason there is no injustice with God when He chooses some and not others for salvation is because that is precisely what God has already revealed about Himself, namely, that He has mercy on whom He has mercy? It seems that Paul is arguing that God’s having mercy on whom He will have mercy is just because it is consistent with who God in His glory reveals Himself to be. And, as I indicated earlier, Paul does not believe (in Platonic fashion) that God is to be subjected to an extrabiblical standard of justice derived from a fallen human reason. Hence, Paul does not tell us why it is just for God to choose some and not others. He only says, in effect, “This is who God has revealed Himself to be.”

Your suggestion that God chooses those who choose Him also has this significant problem: After Paul asks whether there is injustice with God and then quotes the “I will have mercy” statement, he comes to this conclusion: “So then it depends not on ‘him who wills or runs’ [literal Greek rendering] but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:16). What is the “it”? The context seems to indicate that it is the mercy of God’s salvation that a person receives from God. On your account, however, if God chooses those who choose Him, then whether or not one receives the mercy of God’s salvation is indeed a matter of “him who wills or runs.” Contrary to Paul, your proposal means that it is not a matter of “God, who has mercy” or whose sovereign will determines who will receive that mercy. It is ultimately on our own human will that the reception of God’s mercy depends.

I agree with you that, regardless of one's ethnic identity, faith in Jesus Christ saves us. However, making explicit the manner in which we are saved does not adequately account for (much less exhaust) all that Paul argues in Romans 9-11 in setting forth that rich aspect of the grace of God which is divine election. What he says about the Potter and the clay, for instance (what you don't include in your account), is, in my opinion, quite significant along those lines (Romans 9:19-29).

To be clear (this paragraph here is not a response to anything you have said), I think we should follow the example of the apostles in the book of Acts. They preached the gospel to everyone. They didn't tell unbelievers that their will was so bound by sin that they couldn't believe the gospel. They just preached the evidences for Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. When people believed their message and asked, "What do we do?, " the apostles said things like, "Repent, believe in Jesus Christ, be baptized, etc." There were no discussions about whether the will was free or bound. That's a topic, perhaps, for intramural debate among Christians. To my mind, these things do have value for us in Christ to better understand the measure of God's grace given to us in Christ Jesus. However, we shouldn't burden unbelievers with them.

Dr. Craig, though I often disagree with you, I am grateful that you are doing this series. It is a good introduction to substantial doctrinal issues that the church has faced throughout its history. Most of us in our local churches don't have the privilege of studies of this nature. Your presentations are always clear, interesting, and done well.

Respectfully yours,
Joseph

[franklongo]

Dr. Craig, you might also want to refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1730-1748, for the Second Vatican Council's teaching on Man's Freedom.

[einshqb]

How much does Dr. Craig charge for his services? I saw he did a video with WhaddoYouMeme what would it cost to get him to do an appearance like that or a debate like the ones he did with Hitchens? Please advise.

[justfromcatholic]

NT has Greek verb "sunergo", which means "work together", from which English word synergy came. Romans 8:28 (RSV) says: "We know that in everything God works (Greek sunergo) for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose". KJV translates the same verse as: "And we know that all things work together (Greek sunergo) for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose". Thus Scripture affirms that we are not passive, but we "work" with grace (1 Cor 15:10, Phil 2:12). Our works are graced enabled works. Dr. Craig needs to mention that (1) for Catholics grace is the primary cause of our salvation, while our free-will is secondary cause, i.e. our freedom is produced by grace; (2) for Catholics salvation is a process through faith (Eph. 2:8) and through sanctification (2 Thes. 2:13), while according to Reformers salvation is one time event and is therefore through faith alone; (3) Catholics understand merit as gift from God, i.e. it is not something we deserve.

[KeepsLearning]

Starting from 9:11, he forgot about making a critique of the Roman Catholic view and went to an exegesis of Romans 9. What I picked up was he disagreed with the Calvinist view of Irresistible Grace and agreed on the Roman Catholic view of freedom of the will. Then, he made no further comment on the other parts of the process.

[ryant.]

What would these good works consist of? On such a view, no one who doesn't reach out for grace could do anything good works based on this logical order, yet non believers do good works(often better works than many Christians) often, although I'm aware that's due to God's existence. Gods existence alone is enough to allow good works, but on this Catholic view, good works cannot be done without a person directly submitting the the drawing of God's grace. One could say the "good works" consist of religious duties but I think feeding the poor is better than showing up to mass, and these actions can be done by non believers and are done so daily.

[pitAlexx]

Well, I have to counter the statement that it is never the man who comes to God as "oh, God I need you". That is exactly what I did. That was my turning point. I searched for God. I looked at my child, I realized who I am, what he needs and I said: only God is suited for this (and my image of God was just all but biblical), teaching right and wrong is not of me, God is perfect and His wisdom is needed here. I went and bought a kid's bible book to try and start. Then a few days later I heard The Gospel message over a video from Living Waters. That was God making it available, obviously, as I never heard of them, never even searched for "The Gospel" and that was that. I came in humbleness before God, I said: I am wrecked, you are perfect, for my son's sake, please be real and reveal yourself so that the child learns from the Heavenly Father and not the earthly one.

[luyeshiyer]

Praise the Lord Sir.
Sir how a new believer should start reading the Bible??

[Syed_]

How does non Christian perform good work without your God's grace?

[williammcenaney]

Dr. Craig's points seem reasonable. But is he man that Protestants believe that no human person has free will? Or do they think there are some things that we can't freely choose to do? If I understand Calvin's belief about free will, he thinks no one has free will.

Suppose that's what he teaches. Then how can God blame anyone for anything when he can't help doing it? Does Calvin mean that God decides to save some people and to damn others no matter. what they do or don't do? If people have no free will, do we behave deterministically? Can I live a holy Christian life with God's help and then go to hell because God predestined me to it despite how I lived?

Catholics believe in what we call "the particular judgment." We think that when someone dies, his soul will meet God right away. If that soul is perfect, it'll go to heaven right away. If the person died holy and imperfect, his soul will stay in purgatory as long as God wants it to do that. Otherwise, the soul will go straight to hell.

We Catholics reject Calvin's doctrine about "eternal security." We don't think that after someone accepts Christ, he'll go to heaven no matter what he does on earth. For me, Mark 16:16 rules out that theological opinion. In the KJV, that verse tells us that he who believes and is baptized will be saved and that he who doesn't believe will be damned. But if the eternal security doctrine is true, I'll still go to heaven, even if I become an atheist and die as one.