Aquinas Predestination

[TomD123]

I’ve been thinking a lot about predestination and I am having trouble understanding some concepts-so if anyone could help that would be great!

Ok, basically, I’m not sure about some things with Aquinas and his views. Here are the main questions:

1. According to St. Thomas, how does God chose to predestine? Why does God do it this way?
2. what role does God’s foreknowledge play in predestination?
3. what role does free will have in Thomist predestination?
4. According to St. Thomas"s view, are all men given sufficient actual grace?
5. What is the primary difference between this and calvanism?

Thanks for any responses!
Tom

 

[neoinarien]

I’ve been thinking a lot about predestination and I am having trouble understanding some concepts-so if anyone could help that would be great!

Ok, basically, I’m not sure about some things with Aquinas and his views. Here are the main questions:

1. According to St. Thomas, how does God chose to predestine? Why does God do it this way?
2. what role does God’s foreknowledge play in predestination?
3. what role does free will have in Thomist predestination?
4. According to St. Thomas"s view, are all men given sufficient actual grace?
5. What is the primary difference between this and calvanism?

Thanks for any responses!
Tom

I can at least take number 5.

Aquinas, much like Luther, taught ‘single predestination.’ This means that God chooses people to join Him in heaven (I’m really painting in broad strokes here).

Calvin meanwhile taught double predestination. IE: God is actively choosing people to be saved AND actively damning people to hell.

It’s that ‘actively damning’ people part where we hit the problems.

 

[TomD123]

I can at least take number 5.

Aquinas, much like Luther, taught ‘single predestination.’ This means that God chooses people to join Him in heaven (I’m really painting in broad strokes here).

Calvin meanwhile taught double predestination. IE: God is actively choosing people to be saved AND actively damning people to hell.

It’s that ‘actively damning’ people part where we hit the problems.

Thanks for the response
Here is what I don’t get though: 1) how does free will get involved with God’s choice to save?, and 2) if God does not choose to actively save someone, isn’t he basically doing the same thing as actively damning somebody because without God’s initiative, no one can be saved?

 

[James224]

I’ve been thinking a lot about predestination and I am having trouble understanding some concepts-so if anyone could help that would be great!

Ok, basically, I’m not sure about some things with Aquinas and his views. Here are the main questions:

1. According to St. Thomas, how does God chose to predestine? Why does God do it this way?
2. what role does God’s foreknowledge play in predestination?
3. what role does free will have in Thomist predestination?
4. According to St. Thomas"s view, are all men given sufficient actual grace?
5. What is the primary difference between this and calvanism?

Thanks for any responses!
Tom

This is a very difficult subject. I would recommend Fr Garrigou-Lagrange’s book entitled, “Predestination”. He’s a Thomist but I’ll have to warn you - this is a difficult book but it does have the answers. He contrasts the Thomist view and the Molinist view.

 

[thomas_jd]

I’ve been thinking a lot about predestination and I am having trouble understanding some concepts-so if anyone could help that would be great!

Ok, basically, I’m not sure about some things with Aquinas and his views. Here are the main questions:

1. According to St. Thomas, how does God chose to predestine? Why does God do it this way?
2. what role does God’s foreknowledge play in predestination?
3. what role does free will have in Thomist predestination?
4. According to St. Thomas"s view, are all men given sufficient actual grace?
5. What is the primary difference between this and calvanism?

Thanks for any responses!
Tom

God, before our birth, gives each of us a predestined role to play! That role is unique to each of us. Whether or not we accept this role is determined by our own choice.

 

[amy01]

Fox’s Prison Break Prison break DVDbegan in 2005 and had a first season that was elegantly written, intelligently executed, and endlessly fascinating. The series had miraculously two seasons (the third season was cut short due to writers strike) and Fox announced the fourth season would be hiszumba fitness DVD last season. I love this series, but the final idea was a good thing. Prison Break is a concept of a season that has been done for two seasons, but it is more and more ridiculous as it continued, but never stop beingThe office DVDentertaining. I liked the final 4 last season, which is as good as the three seasons that twists more turns, more drama, more action, more characters, Iam really surprised with the shocking end, I do not expect that, but it remains a very good Scrubs DVDseason, I like that it was not last season, but hey, I made fun of all these years.The only thing I hated and not only in this DVDThe tribe DVD version is, no subtitles of any kind, unlike the other three seasons, the worse for the fans and listen to all those who had at least one English subtitles.

 

[Gregory_I]

This is my take on this issue:

Aquinas hit on a fundamental point: GOd predestines the use of our free will.

The main error I believe many have is trying to understand predestination from the perspective of time. But God exists outside of time, SO it should be understood as much as possible from the vantage of eternity:

God KNOWS when a child will be conceived. Therefore he KNOWS what kind of soul he will create for this child: One which will freely choose heaven, or one which will freely choose hell. He knows how man will respond to this grace he offers: And not because of his foreknowledge, but because of his eternal and hidden wisdom, he creates some who will choose him and persevere, and are thus destined for Glory, and some who will refuse him and are thus destined for hell: Therefore in light of this decision to create some for glory, and some for reprobation, it can be said he freely elects some to glory, by creating those whom he knows will persevere, and freely elects some for reprobation, whom he knows will refuse him.

This is not outside of what the Church has ruled on double predestination for two reasons:

1. The church itself admits a limited double predestination, For it teaches that God predestines some for hell in the light of his KNOWING THAT THEY WILL NOT REPENT.
2. The reason Calvin’s double predestination is heretical is because While God freely chooses who he will give his grace to without any consideration of their future merits (unconditional election), it is an error to say that God casts anyone into hell arbitrarily and at his “good pleasure.” Therefore he can predestine those to hell who he knows will refuse him because they deserve it and it is not arbitrary.

THe key to my personal synthesis is seeing creation of the soul as its election to either wrath or glory, because GOd’s foreknowledge cannot fail, and all within the context of human freedom.

Does that make sense?

philvaz.com/apologetics/num21.htm

Good link on Catholic Predestination compared to Calvinism. GIves lines we cannot cross.

 

[FCEGM]

I’ve been thinking a lot about predestination and I am having trouble understanding some concepts-so if anyone could help that would be great!

Ok, basically, I’m not sure about some things with Aquinas and his views. Here are the main questions:

1. According to St. Thomas, how does God chose to predestine? Why does God do it this way?
2. what role does God’s foreknowledge play in predestination?
3. what role does free will have in Thomist predestination?
4. According to St. Thomas"s view, are all men given sufficient actual grace?
5. What is the primary difference between this and calvanism?

Thanks for any responses!
Tom

Tom, I think this article addresses at least some of your questions:

philvaz.com/apologetics/a83.htm

 

[TomD123]

This is my take on this issue:

Aquinas hit on a fundamental point: GOd predestines the use of our free will.

The main error I believe many have is trying to understand predestination from the perspective of time. But God exists outside of time, SO it should be understood as much as possible from the vantage of eternity:

God KNOWS when a child will be conceived. Therefore he KNOWS what kind of soul he will create for this child: One which will freely choose heaven, or one which will freely choose hell. He knows how man will respond to this grace he offers: And not because of his foreknowledge, but because of his eternal and hidden wisdom, he creates some who will choose him and persevere, and are thus destined for Glory, and some who will refuse him and are thus destined for hell: Therefore in light of this decision to create some for glory, and some for reprobation, it can be said he freely elects some to glory, by creating those whom he knows will persevere, and freely elects some for reprobation, whom he knows will refuse him.

This is not outside of what the Church has ruled on double predestination for two reasons:

1. The church itself admits a limited double predestination, For it teaches that God predestines some for hell in the light of his KNOWING THAT THEY WILL NOT REPENT.
2. The reason Calvin’s double predestination is heretical is because While God freely chooses who he will give his grace to without any consideration of their future merits (unconditional election), it is an error to say that God casts anyone into hell arbitrarily and at his “good pleasure.” Therefore he can predestine those to hell who he knows will refuse him because they deserve it and it is not arbitrary.

THe key to my personal synthesis is seeing creation of the soul as its election to either wrath or glory, because GOd’s foreknowledge cannot fail, and all within the context of human freedom.

Does that make sense?

philvaz.com/apologetics/num21.htm

Good link on Catholic Predestination compared to Calvinism. GIves lines we cannot cross.

This and the link are helpful, what is the central difference from these views to molinist views?

 

[Gregory_I]

THomism says God predestines without taking a persons merits into consideration. He elects those he wants by his good pleasure.

MOlinism says God chooses the elect by forseeing their furture merits and choosing the elect on that basis.

I think Molinas Did not take into consideration the fact GOd exists at all times, so the idea of him looking down a time line is ridiculous because he is outside of time.

 

[TomD123]

THomism says God predestines without taking a persons merits into consideration. He elects those he wants by his good pleasure.

MOlinism says God chooses the elect by forseeing their furture merits and choosing the elect on that basis.

I think Molinas Did not take into consideration the fact GOd exists at all times, so the idea of him looking down a time line is ridiculous because he is outside of time.

Ok, I see the difference. When we say God predestines, does that mean given the actual grace that will infallibly lead to a person’s salvation? If so, what grace does God give the reprobate in both theories of predestination?

also, I’ve been wondering why all of the Catechisms are pretty much silent on the topic it seems like a pretty big deal

 

[Gregory_I]

See why I have a problem with the CCC? lol. I think a catechism focuses on what you need to be saved plus a little extra.

In the Thomistic View, there are FIve things that explain the idea of predestination, and they spell TULIP. I steal this from Jimmy Akin, because TULIP is a calvinist acronym, but he adopted it for Thomists:

Total inability of man to please God.
Unconditional election (He saves who he wants to for his own reasons, not because of his foreknowledge)
Limited intent (For the efficacy of the atonement. Christ died for all and offers all sufficient grace, but only wills that grace to be effective for the elect. THis actually must be true, or else all would be saved. THerefore Christ wills only some to have the necessary grace to come to him although all have sufficient grace. THis is the THomist’s weak point, they can’t explain why a God who wants all to be saved does not offer to all the same grace for salvation. We simply say it is his will, and he is sovereign and he does not contradict himself.)
Intrinsically efficacious grace (Grace which causes the conversion of man because of the type of grace it is, without violating his free will.)
Perseverance of the Elect (Those whom God has predestined to final GLory will infallibly attain to that glory, because of the irrefutable will of God.)

SO any kind of Thomistic predestination must admit a couple things:

1.Regardless of Intrinsically efficacious grace, somehow GOd also offers sufficient grace to all.

1. God does not positively damn anyone, because he has no need to. All of humanity is a mass of corruption heading to hell which is their just and final end. For God to save some, but not all is not a thwarting of justice, but showing forth his mercy for His good pleasure and glory, and him to allow others to attain to the hell they both WANT and deserve shows his justice. No one will be saved against their will.
2. God Predestines some to come to him, and then to fall away, and some to come to him and receive the gift of final perseverance. Because of this, we may never know which of these two camps we are in, so we must make every attempt to “make your calling and election sure.”

 

[TomD123]

According to a Thomist, would God A) Will that all men are saved? and B) Why does God want to show forth his goodness- in-other-words, how does it help him? and C) would being born into a certain situation (such as being born into a Catholic family) have anything to do with predestination or is predestination limited to things in the supernatural realm?

And I see what you mean about the Catechism (as unfortunate as it is)

 

[Gregory_I]

According to a Thomist, would God A) Will that all men are saved? and B) Why does God want to show forth his goodness- in-other-words, how does it help him? and C) would being born into a certain situation (such as being born into a Catholic family) have anything to do with predestination or is predestination limited to things in the supernatural realm?

And I see what you mean about the Catechism (as unfortunate as it is)

A. God definitely desire all to be saved. God offers all sufficient grace. But he does not actively WILL all to BE saved, because if he did, we would believe in universal salvation. He definitely chooses chooses his elect for his own reasons. I quote St. Paul: Romans 9:11-25

[11] For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

[16] So then **it is not **of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, **but of God **that sheweth mercy. [17] For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. [18] Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth. [19] ***Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will? [20] O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? ***

[21] Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, [23] That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory? [24] Even us, whom also he hath called, nor only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. [25] As in Osee he saith: I will call that which was not my people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved; and her that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy.

B. God does not show forth his glory to help himself, but so that he may be glorified. He is desrving of glory and honor, and power and praise. For us, to do something that we may be glorified is a sin of 1. Pride and 2. Idolatry. Because we neither deserve Adoratioin, nor is any of us so spectacular as to be the Final word on anything. That’s why all my theology is not MY OWN but based on the Fathers and magisterium, etc; But God is not egotistical, because he legitimately DESERVES it. He is our all, and he desrves all we can offer him.

C. Predestination is mostly discussed in terms of what grace God gives to which people, since ultimately, that is what matters most. HOWEVER, if you conceive of the creation of the soul in light of God’s foreknowledge as ELECTION, then you can say all things are predestined , though that does not limit our freedom.

God knows whether I will persevere, he knows how I will live my life, and I am free. But before I was ever conceived, he KNEW this infallibly and CHOSE to will my existence. Therefore, his WILL to create me was an election to whatever my end may be. He cannot claim not being responsible for my existing, and therefore has predestined me, not BECAUSE of his foreknowledge, but I guess you could say in spite of it to what he has forseen.

Does that help?

 

[TomD123]

I think I understand this basically, but there are two things that I still am having trouble wrapping my mind around:

1. Is God’s choice of which men to elect to salvation completely random? if so, how could he desire all men to be saved even though he becomes the cause of damnation by witholding efficacious grace?

and

1. If God is simply electing some and “passing over” others to demonstrate his glory, it seems as though his glory would not be properly manifested because his election seems just to make a point (not out of Love) and it is his passing over that is the cause of damnation, which is just but still there really was no other option for the damned because God passed over them.

So it seems like a better glorification of God would be something like a Fr. Most solution where God desires to save all (out of Love) although seeing in the future the demerits of the damned, God simply leaves them out and predestines the remaining people to heaven. This seems like a better manifestation of the Divine Goodness b/c God saves out of Love and damns out of justice—desiring to save all but damning those who deserve it

 

[Gregory_I]

I think I understand this basically, but there are two things that I still am having trouble wrapping my mind around:

1. Is God’s choice of which men to elect to salvation completely random? if so, how could he desire all men to be saved even though he becomes the cause of damnation by witholding efficacious grace?

and

1. If God is simply electing some and “passing over” others to demonstrate his glory, it seems as though his glory would not be properly manifested because his election seems just to make a point (not out of Love) and it is his passing over that is the cause of damnation, which is just but still there really was no other option for the damned because God passed over them.

So it seems like a better glorification of God would be something like a Fr. Most solution where God desires to save all (out of Love) although seeing in the future the demerits of the damned, God simply leaves them out and predestines the remaining people to heaven. This seems like a better manifestation of the Divine Goodness b/c God saves out of Love and damns out of justice—desiring to save all but damning those who deserve it

1. THere is no such thing as randomness in GOd, and there is no clear example of it in reality. God makes his decisions based on his good pleasure, and they are loving just and merciful decisions because he is loving just and merciful. He Qualifies his decisions.

That said, we know he wants all to be saved, and he offers sufficient grace to all to be saved. But for Man to turn to God requires actual grace that not all receive. Sufficient grace is not this mist hanging in the air that anyone can assent to and make it efficacious when they realize it. That is Semi-Pelagianism, again.

No, their ability to TURN toward God requires God’s grace to go before them and prepare and empowere them, and THEN they can turn toward God and appropriate that grace, through his grace. This prevenient actual Grace is called efficacious grace and…not everyone gets it. It is a mystery how he can want all to be saved and yet not give each what it takes to be saved. i.e. intrinsically efficacious grace.

One position is that God gives sufficient grace to all and intends for that grace to be efficacious for those who are disposed for it, but that it can be resisted. SO, God goes before all, and prepares all to receive his grace at SOME point in their life, but it can be resisted. So, it is Potentially efficacious grace as opposed to intrinsically efficacious grace.

I generally do not go for this, because Romans 9, while not exhaustive, at least makes God’s disposition very clear: He does what he wants for his own reasons, while at the same time desiring all to be saved, and because he is all-powerful, he can harmonize these two things in himself without contradiction.

1. THat is what you have to realize, those who GOd reprobates DO NOT DESIRE HIM. Man does not naturally incline to God, at least not purely and unselfishly. We are creatures of sin, and we fall a thousand times a day, and we would not seek out salvation if it had not been made known to us. THose whom GOd lets go are justly condemned, because they are not seeking him, and they do not want him. Plus, somehow grace is sufficient for them, and they neglected it. I do not know how, I just know that it is the case: None seek after God, “all of us like sheep have gone astray, each to his own way” yet God offers grace to the sinners, and they spurn him because they are not disposed because of their sinfullness, therefore they are reprobate, and GOd FOREKNEW this before their creation, and chose to create them anyway, and Therefore he creates vessels of wrath, by which he may show his patience, and vessels of Honor, whereby he shows his mercy.

Remember, GOd is worthy of all, and Sovereign, therefore he can never have a narcisistic attitude or be praised and honored enough.

 

[TomD123]

1. THere is no such thing as randomness in GOd, and there is no clear example of it in reality. God makes his decisions based on his good pleasure, and they are loving just and merciful decisions because he is loving just and merciful. He Qualifies his decisions.Well it seems arbitrary

That said, we know he wants all to be saved, and he offers sufficient grace to all to be saved. But for Man to turn to God requires actual grace that not all receive. Sufficient grace is not this mist hanging in the air that anyone can assent to and make it efficacious when they realize it. That is Semi-Pelagianism, again. Effacacious grace does not have to be intrinsically efficacious in order to avoid semi-Pelagianism. When the molinist vs Thomistic debates were heated in the 1600s, the Pope told both sides not to accuse each other of heresy

No, their ability to TURN toward God requires God’s grace to go before them and prepare and empowere them, and THEN they can turn toward God and appropriate that grace, through his grace. This prevenient actual Grace is called efficacious grace and…not everyone gets it. It is a mystery how he can want all to be saved and yet not give each what it takes to be saved. i.e. intrinsically efficacious grace. It seems more than a mystery but a contradiction, this is a huge point for Molinism.

One position is that God gives sufficient grace to all and intends for that grace to be efficacious for those who are disposed for it, but that it can be resisted. SO, God goes before all, and prepares all to receive his grace at SOME point in their life, but it can be resisted. So, it is Potentially efficacious grace as opposed to intrinsically efficacious grace.

I generally do not go for this, because Romans 9, while not exhaustive, at least makes God’s disposition very clear: He does what he wants for his own reasons, while at the same time desiring all to be saved, and because he is all-powerful, he can harmonize these two things in himself without contradiction. His own reasons does not mean that the does not consider the merits of men with regards to predestination,

1. THat is what you have to realize, those who GOd reprobates DO NOT DESIRE HIM. But this is not their fault unless the choose to resit the Grace of God, which in reality is only sufficient if it can be ACTUALLY used in order to be saved Man does not naturally incline to God, at least not purely and unselfishly. We are creatures of sin, and we fall a thousand times a day, and we would not seek out salvation if it had not been made known to us. THose whom GOd lets go are justly condemned, because they are not seeking him, and they do not want him.True, but since our wills are currupt, it does not make sense for God to create a human who has only one option: to sin, and then to be punished for it

Remember, GOd is worthy of all, and Sovereign, therefore he can never have a narcisistic attitude or be praised and honored enough.

God is worthy of all and should be praised and honored, but wouldn’t you agree that Thomism can be depressing? Basically God makes some humans who have no choice but to suffer for all of eternity so that he can be praised! THIS is unjust, therefore, I don’t think God would do this, to go to hell, you have to culpably sin. The scary part is, if we are reprobates, we are not even loved by God, God is USING us to prove a point, if I believed this, I would find it hard to have a loving relationship with God because he either chooses to damn me to prove a point or to save me to prove a point- not even out of Love, God is basically USING humanity to show off!

 

[Gregory_I]

No, God loves the reprobate, and I never said we were not FREE, I said that God creates Some for election to glory, and some are created who will be reprobate But all are free.

THe key to undewrstanding love is to not find it in anything but God alone.

 

[Gregory_I]

God is worthy of all and should be praised and honored, but wouldn’t you agree that Thomism can be depressing?

Maybe if you expect God to behave other than what he has revealed, or if you conceive of love as doing what makes the other person feel good. But love is to will the Good of another. Now, God wills all men to be saved, but all men will not be saved.

Basically God makes some humans who have no choice but to suffer for all of eternity so that he can be praised! THIS is unjust, therefore, I don’t think God would do this, to go to hell, you have to culpably sin.

Because God forsees that some will reject his grace and chooses to create them anyway, this does not mean that he condemns them; they are condemned for their unbelief. He puts their Destiny in motion, but it is they who are free to make it that way. Our wills are free from external coercion, but God has created us knowing what our fates are; That is, knowing what we have freely chosen for ourselves. Does that make him unjust?

The scary part is, if we are reprobates, we are not even loved by God, God is USING us to prove a point, if I believed this, I would find it hard to have a loving relationship with God because he either chooses to damn me to prove a point or to save me to prove a point- not even out of Love, God is basically USING humanity to show off!

Now, wait a minute who said that? God is love itself, and all his deeds are loving, if not understood. God loves all men, yet he definitely chooses some and not others. He does this to show his mercy and his goodness and his justice and because he loves us ALL, and wants to draw us to himself.

**As Augustine says:

"The Nature of Election:

Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, “So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense. “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth.” But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable.

       -Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 11

The Nature of Merit:

Whatever, therefore, of good works Cornelius performed, as well before he believed in Christ as when he believed and after he had believed, are all to be ascribed to God, lest, perchance any man be lifted up.

        -Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 12

Efficacious Grace/Faith is the Gift of God:

When, therefore, the Father is heard within, and teaches, so that a man comes to the Son, He takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh, as in the declaration of the prophet He has promised. Because He thus makes them children and vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.

       -Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 13

The Nature of Election:

And why He does not teach all men the apostle explained, as far as he judged that it was to be explained, because, “willing to show His wrath, and to exhibit His power, He endured with much patience the vessels of wrath which were perfected for destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.” Hence it is that the “word of the cross is foolishness to them that perish; but unto them that are saved it is the power of God.” God teaches all such to come to Christ, for He wills all such to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. And if He had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the cross is foolishness to come to Christ beyond all doubt these also would have come.

       -Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 14

The Nature of Predestination:

For thus he says “But unto them which are called,” in order to show that there were some who were not called; knowing that there is a certain sure calling of those who are called according to God’s purpose, whom He has foreknown and predestinated before to be conformed to the image of His Son. And it was this calling he meant when he said, “Not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said unto her, That the elder shall serve the younger.” Did he say, “Not of works, but of him that believeth”? Rather, he actually took this away from man, that he might give the whole to God.

        -Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints 32**

 

[TomD123]

Thanks for the long explanation I think I almost get it now.

“Maybe if you expect God to behave other than what he has revealed, or if you conceive of love as doing what makes the other person feel good. But love is to will the Good of another. Now, God wills all men to be saved, but all men will not be saved.”

—Doing what makes the other person feels good seems like willing the good of another

“Because God forsees that some will reject his grace and chooses to create them anyway, this does not mean that he condemns them; they are condemned for their unbelief. He puts their Destiny in motion, but it is they who are free to make it that way. Our wills are free from external coercion, but God has created us knowing what our fates are; That is, knowing what we have freely chosen for ourselves. Does that make him unjust?”

—So, if I am correctly understanding, this would be the case:
God chooses to create Joe and Will. God decides to give Joe and Will the help that if they accept it, will lead them to heaven. However, God knows Joe is going to reject the grace and end up in Hell. Also, God knows that Will will accept the grace and go to heaven. God chooses to create both, willing that both be saved, but knowing Joe will not be. God creates Joe willing his salvation, yet allowing him to perish because this will manifest his justice; while Will is going to be saved and this will demonstrate His mercy. God is said to have predestined Will because God created him and gave him the grace that would lead him to salvation, while he reprobates Joe because He created him knowing that He would allow Joe to go to hell.

I’m not sure if the above situation is a correct understanding, but if it is, no that would not be unjust. But it seems like that would be considered “looking at future merits”

One last thing that I’m not fully getting yet is why God wants to show forth his goodness. Yes, God wants to be worshiped, but why create beings just to be worshiped, it seems a bit useless: God doesn’t need this.

Thanks again for the explanations