I’m having difficulties in understanding how “Free Will” to choose between God and the alternative is not coercion.
Analogies are often the best way for me to understand something abstract.
Analogy 1: A parent tells their 5 year old child not to go outside at night because there are animal predators that could cause harm and even ultimate demise. In this analogy the parent did not create the predators and does not control the predators. The predators are a part of the natural world and the parent neither created the natural world nor has ultimate control over the natural world.
Analogy 2: The parent wants their 5 year old child to choose to sit down and watch movies. The parent tells their child that if they choose NOT to watch movies with them, the child will not be welcome in the house any longer and moreover, the parent will no longer talk to or see the child for eternity. In this analogy, unlike in the first analogy, the parent does create the parameters and has the ability to alter them. This parent would be considered coercive, whereas the parent in analogy 1 would not be coercive.
What are arguments against God not being coercive if Analogy 2 describes the free will “choice” humans are given?
Freedom isn’t doing what you want but self-determination to goodness, God. For example, a drug addict, might feel he’s more free if he gets the drugs, but in fact he becomes more slave to his sin.
Evil in this world is generated, not by God, but by choosing slavery instead of real freedom, starting with original sin.
Every single person in hell didn’t really believe in hell and freely chose not to be with God at the moment of death by preferring un-repentance (a sin is an attachment to Satan) without any coersion.
Analogy: don’t stick your fingers in the socket/outlet or you’ll die. Which means: don’t commit a mortal sin (and leave your fingers in the socket by not repenting) or you’ll suffer eternal death (since God is eternal life).
Please share my articles: Don’t tread on Me, says … JESUS !
Eucharistic miracle proves we are ALL stepping on Jesus!
On one hand, heretics deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic particles, with the false argument that they are too small, while on the other hand, they correctly believe in that a host can be consecrated with just one invisible atomic molecule of gluten (yet they don’t care about fake-consecration of so-callled “low-gluten hosts”, which have no gluten!):
Understanding parts per million. Low gluten Celiac hosts that are not capable of hosting Jesus:
Bishops should have apologized after 2020 for denying Priests, Mass, Sacraments for no real reason: Johns Hopkins 18000-studies meta-analysis proved lockdowns useless, while Catholic epidemiologists had predicted the futility of quarantining the healthy (all falsely presumed to be asymptomatic with tainted PCR tests designed to give massive false positives by overcycling and calibration with non-prevalent MERS instead of the flu) and the lack of results was obvious because the curve never flattened after 2 weeks and the next 2 weeks and the next … year!
Meaningful or meaningless? True marriage is a mirror of the Holy Trinity, where each of the spouses gives themselves completely to each other, through God’s love.
The sad thing is that most marry without God, and their marriages are null under His eyes:
Heretic evolution theories. Random-evolution theory is debunked by molecular biology, fossil records and the impossible hybrid, the platypus (half bird, half mamal). And of course, there’s no randomness in Divine Providence. We need a new model and a Catholic framework for really-scientific non-heretic evolution theories:
To answer this in its true light would be to answer from Heaven and exactly why one is to trust God and He alone. Because surely only God can know all things about what is good for us and we cannot as humans know what it would be like to have taken heed and discerned God’s Will, intently, when this life is over.
Except God does give glimpses and very acutely set out paths for us to walk so that we can come to one-day live an eternity in Heaven, not leaving us to follow rules without there being some indication as to the reason.
To call God “coercive” would furthermore be to undermine the experience of Eternal Bliss and to not understand that God made humanity to love and…be Loved. To know you are fully loved into Eternity in the most unselfish way would be to understand why, when God says not to bite of the apple until He gives such an okay to do so, it is best to just do what He says.
I think where we may differ is on some of the underlying assumptions.
When you define freedom as “self-determination of goodness”, that’s a meaningful theological definition, but it doesn’t really address the question I was raising about whether the structure of the choice itself can be coercive.
Your socket analogy works if the danger is something the parent did NOT design or control. My question was about cases where the authority does design the consequences and could remove them. In that kind of scenario, it’s harder to call the outcome a purely “natural” result of a person’s choice.
I’m not trying to argue against your view. If freedom is only choosing the good, and evil is slavery, then I’m curious how a person could “freely” choose hell in the first place. That’s the tension I’m trying to explore.
I don’t think that people consciously choose hell. I think that they (consciously or not) choose sin and tell themselves things such as “I’m not doing anything wrong” and “there’s no punishment attached to doing what I’m doing” and “there is no hell.” Father Robert D. Smith said that many people will be surprised when they find out that, just as Jesus said, there is a judgment.
Right — that’s exactly the tension I’ve been pointing out.
If freedom is “self‑determination to the good,” then choosing evil is a loss of freedom, not an exercise of it. And if choosing evil is a loss of freedom, then choosing hell can’t be a free choice.
So the question becomes: Is hell the result of free will, or is freedom only the ability to choose the good?
Much ink has been spilled by many theologians down the ages over this conundrum of predestination. The perplexity of this mystery as it relates to salvation has, not surprisingly, given rise to the heresy of “predestinarianism”, of which Calvinism is one of its chief advocates. This heretical understanding of Paul’s teaching concerning “those whom [God] has predestined […]” is based on two fundamental errors:
the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, regardless of his merits or demerits;
as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace and puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin because of the absence of grace.
The following will hopefully be a needed correction of the errors it has occasioned.
In this transcript dated October 23, 1948, Jesus—according to Maria Valtorta—explained free will, as well as predestination to grace and glory. I’ve quoted His words from The Little Notebooks:
All men without exception are predestined to grace, since I died for all.
Those who remain faithful—at least to the natural law of the Good—are predestined to glory. Thus at the end of the ages, each one who has lived as a just man, will have his reward.
God knows from eternity those who are destined for glory before they are born into life—that is, “predestined”. Pay attention, then, for here is the point for understanding with justice the justice of God.
There are those who are predestined, certainly. And God knows them before time [even] exists for them. But they are not predestined because God, with evident injustice, gives them every means to become glorious, and by every means prevents any traps for them of the demon, of the world, and of the flesh. No. God gives them what He gives to all. But they use the gifts of God with justice, and hence they win the future and eternal glory by their [own] free will.
God knows that they will reach this eternal glory. But they do not know it, nor does God tell them in any way. Extraordinary gifts are not—of themselves—a sure sign of glory: they are a more severe means than others to test the spirit of a man in his will, virtue, and fidelity to God and to His Law. God knows. He rejoices in anticipation to know that this creature will reach glory; just as He suffers in anticipation to know that this other creature will, voluntarily, reach damnation.
But in no way does He intervene to force the free choice of any creature so that it may arrive where God wants all to arrive: in Heaven.
Certainly the creature’s correspondence with Divine help increases its capacity to will. Because God all the more pours Himself out, as a man loves Him in truth: that is, with a charity of actions, and not [just] of words.
And again: certainly, the more a man lives as a just man, the more God also communicates with and manifests Himself to him: an anticipation of that knowledge of God which is the bliss of the saints in Heaven; and from this knowledge comes an increase of the capacity to want [will] to be perfect. But again and always, man is free with his will, and, if after having already reached perfection, one disavows the good he has practiced up till then, and sells himself to the Evil One: God would leave him free to do it. There would be no merit if there were coercion.
To conclude: God knows—from eternity—those who are the future eternal inhabitants of Heaven. But man, with his free will, must want [will] to reach Heaven by using well the supernatural helps which the Eternal Father gives to each of His creatures. And this [must he do] even to his last breath—whatever the extraordinary gifts he has received, and [whatever] the degrees of perfection he has reached.
Remember: no one has ever truly arrived, until his “walk” is finished. That is, no one is sure of having merited glory, until his time has ended, and immortality has begun.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
What is freedom for me for example, is not what freedom is for other people. It means people choose hell much more than what we consciously believe. It is much easier, a way out, and appears to some, to be less suffering than being in heaven alone. Of course, most will say they choose heaven because of the bad image hell gives. But sometimes, to some others, it might not be as bad as they initially think it is. But for those who are in heaven, it is just plan horrible.
I guess I’ll give a real example. A catholic who knows the rules about one true God only, would very well prefer a quick relief coming from another god. And that catholic would be well aware that she is breaking a very grave rule, with her fully aware she will go to hell. And she will gladly choose to have that relief, rather than facing something hidden deep inside her emotion. Or would rather shut herself from God and accept another god as her companion, because God will not give her what she wants, but the false gods will.
She is consciously choosing a very selfish way and is very inconsiderate to others. Should she be given another religion, she will go for sure. And chances are, she is only a catholic at the surface, but looking at her faith, she committed something so serious that even repentance and forgiveness will not be of any help. In fact she doesn’t care about how others will suffer and will rather not be bothered at all. “Because I got relief from praying”
(Edit, and note here: This act is using God as an advantage and is the most selfish way to pray. And this is a huge thing. She is touching herself into something that is very grave here. But to what extend it is always safe for someone to ask God Himself. If you put yourself in God’s shoes, it’s more like being taken advantage of in a very deep way. At least that’s how I look at it).
So long as she is not bothered, she cares nothing. And would do anything to justify her actions. By means so long as she has a shield, she will stay there even though the surrounding is a mess.
I wanted to slap her. She’s my neighbour. Her inaction to her surroundings is beyond horrible. Result? I ended up cleaning up her mess. And she just stand there and take it all for granted. With no gratitude at all. Plus a bonus of saying that I am the one who is wrong. With her hands all clean, nice and her morals being “holier than thou”. While I gave her the chance to participate, but she did nothing.
I just want to say here, when there is a difficulty, be it big or small, even the most faithful in lips, will immediately turn their backs to even their most “loved” ones. Two friends who are close together can turn their backs even for tiny differences. When they shut off even God and choose to be selfish, there is no saving at all.
“I don’t care. I would rather be myself”. Think of how many times people said. That’s the point I want to make
Jesus is saying that anyone who at least lives according to the good they know — even only the natural moral law — and remains faithful to it, will receive glory from God at the end of time. This is not deterministic predestination; it is the classical idea that God eternally knows who will freely persevere in the good.
The whole passage is simply explaining predestination as foreknowledge, not predestination as determinism.
Everything else is commentary on:
God’s justice
human free will
universal grace
the need for perseverance
It is entirely compatible with Romans 2, Romans 8, Deuteronomy 30, and the classical Catholic understanding of salvation.
SECTION‑BY‑SECTION EXPLANATION
1. “God knows from eternity those who are destined for glory… that is, predestined.”
This is the definition of predestination as foreknowledge.
God is outside time.
He sees all moments at once.
Therefore He knows:
who will freely cooperate with grace
who will persevere
who will reach Heaven
But His knowing is not His causing.
This is Romans 8:29: “Those whom He foreknew, He also predestined…”
2. “They are not predestined because God gives them more help than others.”
This rejects the idea that God:
rigs salvation
gives some people special protection
blocks temptations for some but not others
Instead:
God gives everyone the essential helps needed for salvation.
This is Romans 2:11 — “God shows no partiality.”
The difference is not in unequal grace, but in unequal cooperation.
3. “They use the gifts of God with justice, and hence they win eternal glory by their free will.”
This is the classical Catholic synthesis:
grace enables
free will cooperates
merit is real
salvation is synergistic
This is Philippians 2:12–13 in paraphrase.
4. “God knows they will reach glory. But they do not know it.”
This is a rejection of:
presumption
eternal security
“I’m saved and I know it” theology
No one knows their final perseverance. Only God knows.
This is 1 Corinthians 10:12 — “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”
5. “Extraordinary gifts are not a sure sign of glory.”
This is a warning:
mystical gifts
visions
locutions
charisms
consolations
None of these guarantee salvation.
They are tests, not proofs.
This is Matthew 7:22–23 — “Lord, Lord… did we not prophesy…?” And yet Jesus says: “I never knew you.”
6. “God rejoices in anticipation… suffers in anticipation.”
This is anthropomorphic language describing:
God’s joy at freely chosen salvation
God’s sorrow at freely chosen damnation
It parallels Jesus weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41–44).
7. “He does not intervene to force the free choice of any creature.”
This is the strongest anti‑deterministic line in the entire text.
It affirms:
God wants all to be saved
God gives grace to all
God never forces the will
Hell is a freely chosen state
This is Deuteronomy 30:19 — “Choose life.” And Sirach 15:14 — “He left them in the power of their own free choice.”
8. “Correspondence with Divine help increases the capacity to will.”
This is the doctrine of cooperating grace:
the more a soul responds
the more grace it receives
the more its will is strengthened
the more it desires holiness
This is the “to him who has, more will be given” principle (Matthew 13:12).
9. “The more a man lives as a just man, the more God communicates Himself.”
This is the doctrine of infused knowledge and growth in charity.
As a soul grows:
God becomes more intelligible
prayer becomes more interior
virtue becomes more stable
the will becomes more aligned with God
This is a foretaste of the Beatific Vision.
10. “But man is always free… even the perfected can fall.”
This is the doctrine of perseverance:
no one is “locked in” until death
even the advanced can fall
even the weak can rise
freedom remains until the last breath
This is Ezekiel 18:24 — the righteous man who turns to wickedness.
11. “God would leave him free to do it. There would be no merit if there were coercion.”
This is the moral logic of salvation:
love must be free
virtue must be free
perseverance must be free
Heaven must be freely chosen
Otherwise it is not love.
12. “Man must will to reach Heaven… even to his last breath.”
This is the doctrine of final perseverance.
It echoes:
Matthew 24:13 — “He who endures to the end will be saved.”
2 Timothy 4:7 — “I have finished the race.”
The passage is saying:
No one is saved by a single moment. Salvation is a lifelong cooperation with grace.
13. “No one has arrived until his walk is finished.”
This seems to go against Catholic Doctrine. To be clear, I fully believe in and support it as a position because to me is just seems most correct.
The “good” a person “knows” is subjectively influenced by their life experience and their capabilities and/or their limitations. A person could believe in and live by the tenets of respecting the autonomy and lives of others (in expectation of return in kind), being kind, helpful and contributory as well as being kind to the natural world; trying more to live in harmony with it. Just as a camping trip is temporary, so is this life on Earth. In both cases, “leaving it as much as possible as you found it”
A person could “know” such tenets as “good” and they certainly align with “natural moral law”. And they could remain faithful to the practice of said tenets. If they did only that and were Agnostic, for example…I don’t believe Catholic Doctrine would support, condone or recognize that as likely enough for Salvation.
I think the key here is distinguishing two different things that Catholic doctrine keeps separate:
(1) Natural moral law (2) Salvation by grace
The passage isn’t saying that natural law saves a person. It’s saying that God’s foreknowledge includes every person who will freely cooperate with the grace given to them—whether they receive much or little.
Catholic teaching actually affirms both sides:
• Natural law is real and binding (Romans 2:14–16).
Every person has a conscience and some awareness of good and evil.
• But natural law by itself is not salvific.
No one is saved “by being a good agnostic.” If an agnostic is saved, it is always through Christ and by grace—not through natural law alone.
Where the Church is very clear is this:
If someone follows the good they know, avoids grave evil, seeks truth, and responds to grace—even without explicit knowledge of Christ—then their salvation is possible, because God can work interiorly in ways we do not see (CCC 847–848).
That’s not salvation by natural law. It’s salvation through grace, with natural law serving as the person’s point of contact with that grace.
So the passage you quoted isn’t contradicting Catholic doctrine.
It’s simply describing predestination as foreknowledge, not determinism:
God gives everyone sufficient grace.
Some freely cooperate with it.
God eternally knows who those people are.
But no one is saved merely by following natural law.
In other words: Natural law can dispose a soul toward grace, but only grace saves.
That’s the Catholic position, and it’s exactly what the passage is describing.