Fate is strange. If I could have I would have, but I could not. I could not because Providence has decided not to allow it. If I could do, I would have done. So then was I capable of it? Within my strength and ability, was I able to do what I desired? If fate has dictated that it shall not be so, then it becomes impossible to do, does it not? Even if an action was within my theoretical ability to complete, the fact that I did not, nullifies my ability. Reality operates as a function of time. If at a particular point in time, I do, then I was able to do and so I did. The evidence of my ability was the result of my action. If at a point, I believe it possible to do, but do not, then I could not do and so did not. Ability, then, is defined by action. I am incapable of an action until I act. Then is it fair to say that I am then incapable of repeating an action until I repeat it? If I have once done, can I again do? I cannot, unless fate determines that I should and I do. Fate is then, the master of all things. Providence is fate. God is the author of Providence.
So then, there is a predicament. If I cannot do unless God has predetermined my action, was I destined to sin? For if fate determines all things, where is the place for my free will? My free will is futile if God has turned fate entirely against it. If I desire to do, but cannot do, then my free will is nullified. If fate prevents my action, then my will to complete the action is contrary to fate, and as fate determines my action or inaction, it controls the extent of my will. Is the universe so constructed? Does fate then determine every action or inaction? If it does, then fate determines fully my will. But what if fate does not play this role in our universe? If fate does not exist, then my will determines my action, and I should not be limited. If I desired to counter science and complete an action contrary to physics, if fate has not determined that no action against physics will be allowed, then my action would succeed. Because my will dictates action, and there is no limit to my will, there is no limit to my action.
Reality is then multifaceted. I am then controlled by my will and destined by fate alike. In certain things, I can dictate my action by my will, and in others, fate prevents my action regardless of my will. So then if God has established a counter to my action, the enemy of my will, so then if I sin by my will, God has allowed it, for His will, Providence, fate, has not prohibited it. Then God allows my sin, he allows my free will to an extent. Why does he not limit every action? He limits what he chooses to limit, and does not limit what I desire him to limit. For if he does not limit my sin, I suffer.
Note that I do not intend to charge God, as some do, as the responsible party of my sin. They say that because God did not prohibit me from committing a sin, he has therefore allowed it, and if God allows sin, he has sinned. But this story is incomplete. If God has allowed my free will to dictate my action to an extent, and my free will determines that I will sin, then it is my free will that is responsible. For God has allowed my will to determine good or evil action. If there is any doubt as to his guilt, God is incapable of sin because he is beyond law. Law determines sin. I am ruled by law, and because law exists, it determines when my action is sinful. If God allows and I sin, God has not sinned because he does not operate under law. If my actions are not contrary to law, they are not sinful. So I sin, not because God permits sin, but because my free will dictated an action contrary to law, and God permitted my free will to dictate my action. But, if God is capable of limiting my action, as he has determined by Providence that he will, then why has he determined that my sin shall be allowed? Has he not determined the penalties for disregarding law? So in allowing my sin, when he could have limited them, he has knowingly allowed my guilt and my punishment, though he could have prevented it. Is God so cruel?
Is free will then, to be deemed a cruelty? Do not regard it as such. For as a man can do evil to the detriment of his person, he can also do good, to his honor. But has God not stated that our works are worthless? Certainly as a method for attaining salvation, this is true. For a single sin makes a man worthy of death, and all the good in the world cannot wash him clean of it. But as we now have been granted a method for pardon, our good becomes our dominant feature. But then is the penalty of sin yet to be paid? The consequences of any action must be endured, and this may count as a man's punishment. If God allows free will, he must allow good or evil from it, or else it is not free will. And if there is no free will, then a man can not do good or evil unless God has determined he should. So then God would be the direct cause of our actions and the consequences thereof, because it was by his will that we acted. God does not will men to do evil, so men would be good, they would be perfect. If men were perfect, it would not be by their own wills. God desires men to love him, and if it is only by his will that they do so, it is an empty love. God does not force any of his creations to love him. Free will is vital to the value of action. A being is not truly alive unless his will accounts for something.
SEDIS
SEDIS
No comments:
Post a Comment