Catholic Understanding of Predestination

  • Thread starter Thread starter JudeThaddeus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
40.png
porthos11:
predestination
Click to expand...
“To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.” – CCC, 600
Click to expand...
God knows your decisions but he does not force you to make them.
The Church rejects double predestination, that God chooses who will be saved and who will not.
Click to expand...
We are not talking double predestination. We are talking predestination.

God’s plan of predestination involves man’s free will, but also his own eternal resolve of the will. The errors many Catholics commit here is that they deny God’s resolve in favour of man’s free will, the extreme opposite of the Calvinist denial of man’s free will.

God DOES actively elect the predestined. This is the Catholic position.
 
So he elects some to be saved are some people not saved? How do I know if he predestined me for heaven or if I am screwed?
 
God does not predict our actions. He knows them. Also, He knew everything that would happen before Creation, thus when He created, nothing foreknown could fail to come to pass. Thus my point of locking man into his destiny. This is not meticulous or even double predestination. Just the fact that by our own choices and God’s election are we saved. Thus, by our rejection of God, we condemned ourselves to Hell. This does not make the hellish end for such a man any less determined, just not preordained by God’s direct decree.
 
Elf01 said:
40.png
porthos11:
God DOES actively elect the predestined
Click to expand...
I don’t see the difference between not electing somebody and predestining them to hell.
Click to expand...
You have just described the problem with the Thomist position.

It is because of this that I lean towards the Molinist position without actually labelling myself a Molinist. But even then, while Molinism lays out a good explanation, it is still not perfect. But I find it better because it is with consideration of foreseen merits or sin. Thomism is before such consideration, but the difficulty is that it is effectively equal to double predestination.
 
Last edited:
So what’s the point in even trying? It’s possible to live a life for God and still end up in hell?
 
Struggling1 said:
So what’s the point in even trying? It’s possible to live a life for God and still end up in hell?
Click to expand...
Because the mystery of predestination includes man’s free will. While we do not know if we are elect with certainty, we are also taught that there are strong signs that can suggest that one is elect. Such signs include a love for the Church and devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
 
That doesn’t make sense. If you lived a life for God, You would be among the elect. God isn’t capricious.
 
porthos11 said:
40.png
Elf01:
40.png
porthos11:
God DOES actively elect the predestined
Click to expand...
I don’t see the difference between not electing somebody and predestining them to hell.
Click to expand...
You have just described the problem with the Thomist position.

It is because of this that I lean towards the Molinist position without actually labelling myself a Molinist. But even then, while Molinism lays out a good explanation, it is still not perfect. But I find it better because it is with consideration of foreseen merits or sin. Thomism is before such consideration, but the difficulty is that it is effectively equal to double predestination.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it doesn’t equal to double predestination, as it is not God who is making that person a child of Satan. That person still decided that he belonged among the damned.

Thomism doesn’t violate free will. It just argues that there are absolutes of character, personality, and the manifestations of such. A man who committed murder did have the choice to not do it. However, if you put that man in the same position with the same knowledge and experience, he will always commit the murder. As God is not capricious, neither is reality.
 
The other guys response scares me to the depths of my soul. Thank you and I need to read up on this I’m really frightened.
 
JudeThaddeus1 said:
40.png
porthos11:
40.png
Elf01:
40.png
porthos11:
God DOES actively elect the predestined
Click to expand...
I don’t see the difference between not electing somebody and predestining them to hell.
Click to expand...
You have just described the problem with the Thomist position.

It is because of this that I lean towards the Molinist position without actually labelling myself a Molinist. But even then, while Molinism lays out a good explanation, it is still not perfect. But I find it better because it is with consideration of foreseen merits or sin. Thomism is before such consideration, but the difficulty is that it is effectively equal to double predestination.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it doesn’t equal to double predestination, as it is not God who is making that person a child of Satan. That person still decided that he belonged among the damned.

Thomism doesn’t violate free will. It just argues that there are absolutes of character, personality, and the manifestations of such. A man who committed murder did have the choice to not do it. However, if you put that man in the same position with the same knowledge and experience, he will always commit the murder. As God is not capricious, neither is reality.
Click to expand...
Thomism is not double-predestination, but its theory makes it essentially equivalent to it. Because Thomism posits that God elects to heaven without consideration of foreseen merits, and then provides graces to secure the divine election, Thomists do not have a good explanation for reprobation. While they do not teach unconditioned positive reprobation as the Calvinists do (that God unconditionally reprobates to hell), they try to explain it as simply a non-election (unconditioned negative reprobation). But because outside of heaven and hell there is no third final state, this effectively equates Thomism with double-predestination. This is the main reason I cannot adopt it. I like its theory on predestination ante praevisa merita, but its take on reprobation is not acceptable to me.

Molinism, on the other hand, posits election and reprobation after foreseen merits or demerits, while still affirming God’s positive action in both electing and reprobating men.

And just so that it’s clear: reprobation is also Catholic teaching. I know people like to cite Catechism 1037 ( God predestines no one to hell.) but one can hardly squeeze in predestination and reprobation in a one-liner.
 
Struggling1 said:
The other guys response scares me to the depths of my soul. Thank you and I need to read up on this I’m really frightened.
Click to expand...
You clearly do not possess a strong grasp on predestination, and no surprise. Predestination is an extremely difficult and advanced theological concept, and your approach to the mystery with fear makes this an unsuitable subject for you. You clearly have some insecurities which makes your participation in this kind of discussion spiritually unhealthy.

I am in the same boat you are: I do not know if I’m of the elect or not. But I also know that God desires my salvation as he does yours, that he would give me grace to attain it, and he has given me the free will to respond. Because I trust in God’s providence and grace, I won’t worry about whether I’m elect or not. I will simply do my best, with God’s help.

You seem to have a rather unhealthy perception and image of God. You should probably deal with that first before delving into advanced theology. Fix your basics first. CAF is probably not a good place for you overall.
 
Maybe you are right I figured this place would have a lot of answers but perhaps I thought wrong. Sorry to have bothered and wasted your time. It was never my intention.
 
Struggling1 said:
Maybe you are right I figured this place would have a lot of answers but perhaps I thought wrong. Sorry to have bothered and wasted your time. It was never my intention.
Click to expand...
If you want answers, visit the main site at www.catholic com. These forums are a mixed bag, and if your moniker is any indicator, this is a bad place for you. The resources at the main site would probably benefit you more.
 
Last edited:
Again sorry for being a bother I’ll remove myself from the forum to make sure I don’t bother anyone else!
 
Struggling1 said:
Again sorry for being a bother I’ll remove myself from the forum to make sure I don’t bother anyone else!
Click to expand...
It’s not about bothering anyone here. It’s about you and your own spiritual well-being. If you come away “frightened” over what should be a really stimulating intellectual discussion, then this place is not good for YOU. It’s not about us being bothered. It’s about you remaining in peace. Be sure to obtain proper spiritual guidance. Learn your faith. The Catholic faith is not something that instills terror in people.
 
Fear of hell if you are potentially not one of the elect doesn’t frighten you to your very core? I’m pretty confident we should be terrified of hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top