Catholicism & Free Will

[Revelation13_16]

Dear all Catholics,

Thankyou for the opportunity to discuss your faith openly, with respect, love, and honesty.

My question concerns Free Will.

Protestantism is divided between Calvinism & Arminianism.

Calvinism teaches that man is totally corrupt and cannot choose God. For God to save someone, God must give that person Grace which is irresistable (man cannot fight against it) and that Grace draws man to God like a fish being reeled in to the fisherman, without struggle, and sure to end up in the boat and not escape.

God however does not give this Irresistable Grace to everyone, only to his ‘elect’ whom he has chosen before the world to be saved, which conveniently explains why not everyone is a Christian.

According to Calvinism, if a Christian is saved, God has done it alone, without man deciding. (no co-operation)

Arminianism teaches that man is totally corrupt but still has the ability to choose God. God imparts his grace freely to all and man can either accept it or reject it. God casts the hook in the water, and the fish can either accept it or not, and if he chooses to accept it, he can later on struggle and break free, man has a choice.

According to Arminiam, If a Christian is saved, God started it, man accepted, God finished it. (man co-operated with God, and so likewise God co-operated with man and saved him)

Now, my question is this:

Q. Which of these two views is Catholicism most like?

Warm Regards,
Rev 13_16

 

[Loomis415]

This post brings up a very interesting point. It is something that I have contemplated for a while. Before I say anything, however, let me express that I am not an expert in Catholic beliefs, because while I WANT to become a Catholic, I am not one. I cannot attend the RCIA class until this upcoming fall, so I still have a lot to learn, but this is what I THINK they believe. Feel free to correct me.

To answer your question most simply, I believe that the Catholic view is closest to Arminianism in the sense that God died for all, but everyone has the choice as to whether or not to accept the gift. Even after acceptance, however, it is still the person’s responsibility to maintain his lifestyle so that he does not reject his salvation and fall into the category of a non-Christian again, so to speak.

My own problem deals in a deeper point, however. Arminianism, in and of itself, seems to descend into Calvinism, to me. God’s omniscience is mutually exclusive to free will, to me.

If I am thinking about this correctly, God already knows who will and will not accept him. As such, do we really have a choice in the matter? For that matter, do we have ANY choices? Fate/Destiny/Omniscience are all the same thing to me. If God sees that something will happen, it will happen exactly the way he saw it, no arguments.

So while we may THINK we have the choice of turning to the left or right on a street, God already knows that we will turn right. No matter what, we WILL turn right. Is that free will?

The same principle begs to be applied to salvation. If God knows that someone will not accept him, does that person ever really, truly have a chance? I would LOVE someone to clarify this question for me, as it has troubled me for quite some time now.

 

[Tonks40]

Now, my question is this:

Q. Which of these two views is Catholicism most like?

Warm Regards,
Rev 13_16

Neither. Man was made in the image and likeness of God - spiritually and physically. Man was made good until the temptation in the Garden of Eden - that’s when man became separated from God - thus fell into sin.

The New Covenant in and through Christ breaks down that separation. He now gives us the opportunity to not only receive His graces through the sacraments, but also to act on those graces, renounce sin, and live in the love of God.

Read Gen 1. See how many times God saw all that he created (including man) is good. Man HAS and DOES have the ability to choose God, no matter what stage of his life he’s in. Even upon the hour of his death.

 

[Godefridus]

Here’s the best article I’ve found on the subject (PDF).

Catholicism is certainly not Calvinistic; we do not hold what is called “supralapsarian predestination”.

“Arminianism” is a new word for me, so I Googled it.

If the Wikipedia entry is accurate, then I do not see a significant difference between Arminianism and the doctrine of Trent.

 

[Atreyu]

I would say Arminianism, but with a few differences.

Arminianism teaches that man is totally corrupt but still has the ability to choose God. God imparts his grace freely to all and man can either accept it or reject it. God casts the hook in the water, and the fish can either accept it or not, and if he chooses to accept it, he can later on struggle and break free, man has a choice.

Catholicism does not teach that man is “totally corrupt”. On the contrary, man is inherently good, and in his perfect form - the form he was in before the Fall - man had built into him a knowledge of what is right and wrong. This knowledge is called the “Natural Law”, but since the Fall, the stain of Original Sin is like a moat that surrounds us and prevents us from fully understanding this Natural Law.

According to Arminiam, If a Christian is saved, God started it, man accepted, God finished it. (man co-operated with God, and so likewise God co-operated with man and saved him)

This is similar to Catholicism. I think of it like this: God sends His grace to us, and we can say “yes” and so accept that grace, or we can reject that grace. However, even the ability to say yes is only possible with the grace of God.

 

[Balance]

Loomis, welcome to the family! (Or almost, I guess. )

The same principle begs to be applied to salvation. If God knows that someone will not accept him, does that person ever really, truly have a chance? I would LOVE someone to clarify this question for me, as it has troubled me for quite some time now.

One way of looking at it that might be helpful is this:

Remember that God is outside of time; we humans see and experience time as being linear - a past that we remember, the present (which is just an instant) which we experience, and the future which hasn’t happened yet, while God “experiences time” (if we could say that) in one big “NOW.” So he sees everything in that NOW - everything that’s happened and everything that will happen; for him the future is present. Yes, he knows what we will do in the future, but we’re not there yet. That he knows what we will do doesn’t mean we don’t have a choice.

Hmmm, reading that back it doesn’t sound very clear, but I can’t really see how to make it clearer!

 

[LeahInancsi]

Before I say anything, however, let me express that I am not an expert in Catholic beliefs, because while I WANT to become a Catholic, I am not one. I cannot attend the RCIA class until this upcoming fall, so I still have a lot to learn, but this is what I THINK they believe.

Why can’t you get into an RCIA program now? Is it the pastor or Director of Religious Education (DRE) who says you must wait? If so, may I suggest you try another parish. I went through RCIA last year and my DRE was allowing new people to join our RCIA class this late into the RCIA year.

In the event you get a late start, you need to do a lot of reading and research on your own. The fact that you are here tells me that you are well on your way.

God bless and welcome HOME!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, my question is this:

Q. Which of these two views is Catholicism most like?

This might be of help:

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

or

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1.asp

 

[Contarini]

Calvinism teaches that man is totally corrupt and cannot choose God. For God to save someone, God must give that person Grace which is irresistable (man cannot fight against it)

Doesn’t want to fight against it.

According to Calvinism, if a Christian is saved, God has done it alone, without man deciding. (no co-operation)

Calvinists do sometimes talk that way and it’s dumb. Obviously humans decide and cooperate. The more profound versions of Calvinism generally acknowledge this. The Westminster Confession, for instance, says that God’s action doesn’t violate the integrity of second causes.

Arminianism teaches that man is totally corrupt

Depends on what you mean by that.

but still has the ability to choose God. God imparts his grace freely to all and man can either accept it or reject it. God casts the hook in the water, and the fish can either accept it or not, and if he chooses to accept it, he can later on struggle and break free, man has a choice.

But in Catholicism (and the sounder versions of Arminianism such as classic Wesleyanism), grace isn’t just an external thing like a hook–it’s internal to you as well, like water in your gills.

According to Arminiam, If a Christian is saved, God started it, man accepted, God finished it. (man co-operated with God, and so likewise God co-operated with man and saved him)

But God motivates the acceptance as well. Finney and similar figures taught that we can accept God by natural ability. Old-fashioned Methodist theology did not teach this, and Methodists criticized Finney for just that error.

Now, my question is this:

Q. Which of these two views is Catholicism most like?

Warm Regards,
Rev 13_16

Catholicism has avoided being too dogmatic on this issue. In my opinion this is one of the clearest signs of the great wisdom of the Catholic Church. Neither hardline Calvinism nor fullblown Arminianism are entirely compatible with Catholicism, though these days most Catholics are basically Arminians.

 

[Contarini]

Catholic theologians (at least talking about the Western Church–the Eastern Church tends not to worry about the issue and to be functionally much closer to Arminianism) have historically been uncomfortable with the idea that election (i.e., being chosen for eternal life) is based on God’s foreknowledge of our free choices. Not only are there Scripture passages that seem to teach the opposite, but this view makes our actions the cause of God’s grace, which seems deeply problematic. St. Thomas Aquinas (who along with St. Augustine is one of the two most important Catholic theologians, both of them being relatively close to the “Calvinist” position) taught that God’s knowledge is causative. God doesn’t know things because they exist–they exist because He knows them. Thus, Thomists are bound to reject the Arminian position. Thomism is close to Calvinism in many ways, but there are some important differences (made necessary by Catholic dogma). For one thing, Thomists may not teach positive unconditional reprobation–that is, they may not say that God chooses to damn people irrespective of their foreseen actions. This leaves Thomists with the paradoxical position that God elects (for life) unconditionally but reprobates conditionally. Furthermore, Thomists must reconcile their doctrine of predestination with human free will–something some Calvinists have also tried to do, but of which other Calvinists are careless or even scornful (“free will is idolatry,” etc.).

A possible alternative was suggested by the Jesuit theologian Molina. He postulated something called “middle knowledge” in which God knows all the possible ways a human being might act and then arranges circumstances providentially so that His will is accomplished. This allegedly avoids the problem of making our actions cause God’s knowledge (because God acts on the basis of his “middle knowledge” of things that are as yet only possible). It is often seen as the Catholic version of Arminianism, but it isn’t really quite the same. It’s quite compatible with Molinism to say that God unconditionally chooses who will be saved and then uses middle knowledge to make sure that they are saved. For instance, two people (both in a state of mortal sin) are in a car wreck–God allows one to die but makes sure the other one lives long enough to repent and be saved. But it is of course possible to argue that God might know by middle knowledge that some people would reject grace no matter what, and even that God puts everyone in those circumstances most conducive to salvation, so that only those are damned who could not possibly be saved without their free will being destroyed (which wouldn’t be salvation).

It seems to me that the Thomist/Molinist debate gets to much deeper issues than the Calvinist/Arminian one. Arminianism, in particular, is just shallow theology in my opinion. It’s a religion of the heart rather than of the head (not necessarily a bad thing if you must oppose the two–but why not have both?). Most Arminians never even think to ask the questions that Molinism raises about counterfactuals and middle knowledge. What does it mean to say that God chooses to save those who believe? Isn’t it possible that someone who believes in one set of circumstances might have disbelieved in others, and vice versa? Some Arminians would argue that God gives everyone the maximum opportunity to receive grace–which is compatible with Molinism, as I pointed out. Still, on the whole Molinism is much more cold-blooded (and much more logical) than Protestant Arminianism.

Although an Arminian by heritage, I think some form of Thomism (for all its problems) is preferable to Arminianism or Molinism. One possibility is that suggested by Fr. William Most, that God chooses everyone for salvation unconditionally but then chooses to exclude from that general salvific will those whom He foresees will resist grace no matter what. This may seem only verbally different from Arminianism, just as standard Thomism often seems only verbally different from Calvinism. But in both cases I think the asymmetry of the “Thomist paradox” absolutely must be maintained–God elects unconditionally but reprobates conditionally.

I hope this is helpful. I will not say that I fear it is confusing, because on this subject to be helpful and to be confusing are probably the same thing. If you aren’t confused by predestination, you don’t understand the issue at all.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Revelation13_16]

Hi Edwin,

I see your an Episcopalian, I myself attend an Anglican church and am enjoying it.

The only stumbling block for me to be consider myself Anglican is that Anglicanism is Calvinistic, and I currently have a few Arminian books and Calvinistic books on my shelf that I’m reading through to try and get one of the sides to convince me.

As it stands Arminianism is winning because the thought of double-predestination (which all Calvinists will call hyper-calvinism but are wrong) really puts me in an awkward position God-wise. (21.5 of Calvin’s institutes specifically says God predestines some to salvation, others to Eternal Death)

A friend is lending me Alvin Plantinga’s “God, Evil, and free will” and apparently Plantinga is an Arminain/Molinist, I look forward to reading that.

I think Molinism is very interesting, I’d like to read a Systematic Theology written by a Molinist, or even a good intro to Molinism, this is definately an issue I need to get sorted.

As for the Catholic responses, firstly thankyou.

Secondly, I’m confused.

Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by a few councils swayed by St. Augustine, yet many of the Catholic answers here about free will seem to be Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian.

I’m confused by this greatly.

Lil’ help?

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

 

[Unitas]

This is a very interesting question and I think I may have some answers for you

As others have already said, man is not corrupt. We are made in the image of God, but we are fallen. Given that nothing impure shall enter heaven, if we were corrupt through and through, we would never be able to enter heaven! So that is obviously not the case.

Second, I was looking through Lumen Gentium the other day and came across this:

#14…All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Ouch.

How is this to be taken?

Well, as mentioned, man cannot merit for himself the initial grace of faith. That is a gift from God. That is not to say it’s only given to a select few. It’s given to all, but then not everyone may accept it. And if we accept it, we must work with God to make the most of it.

The way we can better undstand this and the Lumen Gentium excerpt is to tie this in with Jesus’ parable of the ten gold coins, starting at Luke 19:11. In short, a nobleman goes off to a distant land to claim a kingship. His citizens in his home send a delegation to say that they do not want the nobleman as their king. Before he leaves he gives each of his ten servants a gold coin, asking them to use it to make more for him upon his return.

When he comes back as the new king, the first servant shows that he had made ten coins out of the one he had been given. the new king gives him ten of his cities. The second servant made five coins and is given five cities. The third however kept his coin hidden in a napkin and is rebuked by the king; the servant had done nothing with which he was given, not even putting it in a bank so the king could get interest. The king had the third servant’s coin taken away and given to the one who had ten.

The initial grace of faith is the “gold coin” we’re given. It’s up to us to make the most of God’s gift. But it’s not by our power, for if we didn’t have the first gold coin, we couldn’t have made any more. But it’s our choice to accept God’s power to work within us.

“…If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.” I think is in reference to the wicked servant who hid what he was given (gold coin/initial grace of faith), and did nothing with it.

Hope that helps!

 

[Revelation13_16]

This is a very interesting question and I think I may have some answers for you

As others have already said, man is not corrupt. We are made in the image of God, but we are fallen. Given that nothing impure shall enter heaven, if we were corrupt through and through, we would never be able to enter heaven! So that is obviously not the case.

Second, I was looking through Lumen Gentium the other day and came across this:

Ouch.

How is this to be taken?

Well, as mentioned, man cannot merit for himself the initial grace of faith. That is a gift from God. That is not to say it’s only given to a select few. It’s given to all, but then not everyone may accept it. And if we accept it, we must work with God to make the most of it.

Hi Unitas,

Thankyou for clarifying the Catholic position.

You said above here:

**
Well, as mentioned, man cannot merit for himself the initial grace of faith. That is a gift from God. That is not to say it’s only given to a select few. It’s given to all, but then not everyone may accept it. And if we accept it, we must work with God to make the most of it.**

This sounds like Semi-Pelagianism, I’d like to know what’s the difference.

I think this is an important question because St. Augustine had Pelagius condemned as a Heretic at several councils, so it’s a bit of a shock if the same church that condemed Pelagius would later take on his teachings. (semi anyway)

The way we can better undstand this and the Lumen Gentium excerpt is to tie this in with Jesus’ parable of the ten gold coins, starting at Luke 19:11. In short, a nobleman goes off to a distant land to claim a kingship. His citizens in his home send a delegation to say that they do not want the nobleman as their king. Before he leaves he gives each of his ten servants a gold coin, asking them to use it to make more for him upon his return.

When he comes back as the new king, the first servant shows that he had made ten coins out of the one he had been given. the new king gives him ten of his cities. The second servant made five coins and is given five cities. The third however kept his coin hidden in a napkin and is rebuked by the king; the servant had done nothing with which he was given, not even putting it in a bank so the king could get interest. The king had the third servant’s coin taken away and given to the one who had ten.

The initial grace of faith is the “gold coin” we’re given. It’s up to us to make the most of God’s gift. But it’s not by our power, for if we didn’t have the first gold coin, we couldn’t have made any more. But it’s our choice to accept God’s power to work within us.

“…If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.” I think is in reference to the wicked servant who hid what he was given (gold coin/initial grace of faith), and did nothing with it.

Hope that helps!

I must admit I’ve always been stunned by that parable.

I think it’s unfair that the servant who did nothing with his coin gets punished.

He didn’t lose it, why the harsh treatment?

Warm Regards,
Rev13_16

 

[Spirit_Driven]

No one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Him draws (Greek: drags) him (John 6:44)

God has shut up all men in disobedience that He may show mercy to all (Romans 11:32).

The potter has a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor (Romans 9:21).

It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16).

The Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:11).

The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil (Proverbs 16:4).

No one speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it. It is from the mouth of the Most High that both good and evil go forth. No living mortal, or any man, should offer complaint in view of his sins (Lam. 3:37-39).

The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps (Proverbs 16:9).

The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord (Proverbs 16:33).

Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will be established (Proverbs 19:21).

Man’s steps are ordained by the Lord (Proverbs 20:24).

All live to Him (Luke 20:38).

By His doing you are in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:30).

---

Do you people ever get around to actualy reading the word of God ?
Or do you get told what to believe ?

Peace

 

[Revelation13_16]

---

Do you people ever get around to actualy reading the word of God ?
Or do you get told what to believe ?

Peace

Was this mean’t for me or is it your signature?

 

[Revelation13_16]

---

Do you people ever get around to actualy reading the word of God ?
Or do you get told what to believe ?

Peace

What an utterly stupid thing to say.

If I “got told what to believe” would I even ask this question in the first place?

As for the word of God, you - in a typically Calvinistic fashion - post a bunch of quotes about God and his power and expect that that is the end of the matter.

Wow, all so simple huh?

Explain this to me then:

Deu 30:19: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Another thing, if the Bible was so easy to comprehend just by reading it, why do we have all these Systematic Theologies floating around?

 

[Spirit_Driven]

Another thing, if the Bible was so easy to comprehend just by reading it, why do we have all these Systematic Theologies floating around?

Yes one is left wondering why that which is revealed in Gods word is not being revealed to the congregation from the Pulpit ?

From 1 Timothy 4
Chapter 4 (CV)
1 Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons,
2 in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;
3 forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth,
4 seeing that every creature of God is ideal and nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving,
5 for it is hallowed through the word of God and pleading.
6 By suggesting these things to the brethren, you should be an ideal servant of Christ Jesus, fostering with the words of faith and of the ideal teaching which you have fully followed.
7 Now profane and old womanish myths refuse, yet exercise yourself in devoutness,
8 for bodily exercise is beneficial for a few things, yet devoutness is beneficial for all, having promise for the life which now is, and that which is impending.
9 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome
10 (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind,
11 especially of believers. These things be charging and teaching.

May I ask if your church is teaching this ?

Peace

No one can come to Christ unless the Father who sent Him draws (Greek: drags) him (John 6:44)
By His doing you are in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:30

 

[Revelation13_16]

Another thing, if the Bible was so easy to comprehend just by reading it, why do we have all these Systematic Theologies floating around?

Yes one is left wondering why that which is revealed in Gods word is not being revealed to the congregation from the Pulpit ?

From 1 Timothy 4
Chapter 4 (CV)
1 Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons,
2 in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized;
3 forbidding to marry, abstaining from foods, which God creates to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and realize the truth,
4 seeing that every creature of God is ideal and nothing is to be cast away, being taken with thanksgiving,
5 for it is hallowed through the word of God and pleading.
6 By suggesting these things to the brethren, you should be an ideal servant of Christ Jesus, fostering with the words of faith and of the ideal teaching which you have fully followed.
7 Now profane and old womanish myths refuse, yet exercise yourself in devoutness,
8 for bodily exercise is beneficial for a few things, yet devoutness is beneficial for all, having promise for the life which now is, and that which is impending.
9 Faithful is the saying and worthy of all welcome
10 (for for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind,
11 especially of believers. These things be charging and teaching.

May I ask if your church is teaching this ?

Peace

You tell me in your own words what you get from this.

 

[Spirit_Driven]

I could easily answer you in my own words… but mine is only the wisdom of a simple man.

Gods word answers so much more truthfully, for his word did not leave his mouth to return void with out succeding in the matter for which he sent it…

The word of God which goes forth from His mouth; It shall not return to Him empty, without accomplishing what He desires, and without succeeding in the matter for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

• Acts 17:11

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:6).

They found it was so !

Peace to you

 

[Revelation13_16]

I could easily answer you in my own words… by mine is only the wisdom of a simple man.

Gods word answers so much more truthfully, for his word did not leave his mouth to return void with out succeding in the matter for which he sent it…

The word of God which goes forth from His mouth; It shall not return to Him empty, without accomplishing what He desires, and without succeeding in the matter for which He sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Timothy 2:5-6).

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

• Acts 17:11

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:6).

They found it was so !

Peace to you

Spirit Driven, this technique isn’t working.

Mass quoting of scripture to do your talking for you only makes you vague and evasive.

No service at a church is just the endless quotation of scripture, all sermons are expositions on the word of God.

Tell me what you believe in your words about Free Will and Timothy.

You have a brain, use it.