Catholicism & Free Will

[Revelation13_16]

But again, this analogy doesn’t adequately capture how God relates to us. The closest analogy would be this: if you knew before conceiving a child that that particular child would be a wicked person and lead an utterly wretched life, wouldn’t you consider waiting till another night to conceive a child? Obviously even this analogy is inadequate, but I think it gets closer to the real dilemma.

No, I wouldn’t have a child period.

It’s selfish to create a child, if you know in one “timeline” your child is wretched, unless there’s a DNA answer ala Eugenics, you’re still gambling if you choose to create it on another night because you can’t be sure that the night had anything to do with it.

It is better to die childless than to have a child under those circumstances, because not only must you think of your child’s soul (which would be in heaven if it weren’t for you calling it down upon conception) but also the Utilitarian aspect, the damage your child will cause to everyone - and under the Arminian view - the eternal damage your child may cause.

Example, let’s say your child (not yours, I just use the ‘you’ pronoun alot) lives a wretched life, and as part of that wretched life goes joyriding at high speeds.

On his joyride one night, a person’s child is killed coming out of a night service at Church. (the ‘wretched one’ crashes right into the Cathedral)

As a result, the Minister, who’s child was killed, breaks down and loses faith in God, and becomes an Atheist.

From the whole night service, half the people there backslide en masse, they are still Christians but can’t get over why the Minister who was practically faultless could suffer such a horrid action.

The other half of the night service become Presbyterians, believing that the doctrine of predestination is the only way to explain why the Minister fell away from the faith - because he was reprobate all along. (easy explanation)

I know this last paragraph is another jibe at Calvinists but I think its poignant & apt.

If we have free will, we should always choose the best option. The best option is therefore not to conceive if there’s any indication that contra to our best parenting our child will turn out wretched unless we can feel confident that science has the answer and even then I think unless it can be unequivocally proven that a certain sequence of DNA would be responsible, that one should not breed.

Interesting–I see why your feelings are so complicated.

Consider the possibility that both views of God are hopelessly inadequate!

No, it hurts too much.

Well, even in Calvinism they have the option–they just aren’t going to take it unless God chooses to move them to do so.

Then that’s God’s choice, not theirs.

Well, as I said earlier I think it’s actually the Calvinists who make this criticism of you who are worshipping (if not acting like) Lucifer. The essence of Satan is the warped choice of power over goodness. Your refusal to bow down to anything that is not good is exactly the opposite of Satan’s choice.

If anyone is going to go to hell for their words, it is those Calvinists who have made you think that there’s something Luciferan about loving goodness!

In Christ,

Edwin

No Calvinist has said this to me, just my conscience.

Now I’m slightly prone to anxiety by nature, but I’m sure it’s a sin to sin against one’s own conscience.

So when I feel bad about saying these things, I can’t figure out if it’s the Holy Spirit convicting me (the pricks at the heart) or my own anxiety constantly thinking the worst case scenario.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Well, if you read the thread Maranatha started based on a rather hasty remark of mine, you’ll see that I don’t think much of apologists as a class!

Will do
.

Well, that’s a long story! The Articles say that confirmation and the other “lesser sacraments” aren’t sacraments, at least not in the same way as baptism and Eucharist. I was taught in the Anglo-Catholic church where I was confirmed (though this is the general teaching of the Episcopal Church’s catechism) that they are on a lower level but not necessarily non-sacramental altogether. It really depends on what you mean by a sacrament!

Confirmation is a particularly problematic sacrament. The Orthodox call it “chrismation” and do it at the same time as baptism, so it’s not really a separate sacrament at all. And then there’s the anointing with chrism that takes place in baptism–I’ve never understood how this is not the equivalent of the Orthodox chrismation, making our confirmation something quite different!

Liturgical historians say that confirmation developed in the early medieval West (i.e., Western Europe–what became Catholicism as opposed to Orthodoxy) in part as a response to large rural dioceses. Originally the bishop was supposed to be present at baptisms and lay hands on the newly baptized. As Christianity spread and dioceses got larger (being seen more and more as administrative districts rather than local churches) this became difficult–I don’t think the Orthodox require bishops for chrismations. In the West confirmation was seen as the episcopal act that completed baptism and conferred the Holy Spirit in a fuller way. In the Reformation it was redefined in response to Anabaptist criticisms–it was seen as the point at which children’s catechesis was complete and they were able to embrace the Christian faith for themselves. It basically came to be seen as simply the act by which you joined the Church as an adult. The 20th-century liturgical movement cast doubt on confirmation by emphasizing the liturgical unity of baptism. In many ways confirmation has come to be seen as a rather superfluous sacrament–but we still do it! (An interesting note–RCs have now decided that confirmation can be “delegated” to local priests by the bishop, so that it’s no longer a purely episcopal sacrament for them, as it still is for us unless Sidney has monkeyed with that!)

Thanks for the history lesson, highly appreciated. (I learn best when listening to people I respect)

I’ll enquire as to what status Confirmation has in my Evangelical Anglican church and get back to you.

Coming from an Independant Baptist background, I had a ‘believers baptism’ at 14, although I regret it now because afterwards I backslid for 10 years.

I would’ve much prefered to hold off on Baptism until all my doubts were solved, but then I’d probably be baptized in heaven.

I can see why you interpret it that way, but I don’t. My problem is with the Calvinist explanation of the maxim, not with the maxim itself, which seems a quite obvious and basic Christian paradox.

Hmm, interesting, I may have wasted my money with these apologist books then.

I thought my problem with it was it’s explanation, hence get enough Calvinist material and one of them will turn your mind to look at it in a better light.

If the doctrine itself is the problem, then I’m stuffed.

Incidentally in the old Scofield Bible, Scofield says that Romans chapters 9,10, & 11 are applicable on to the Jews.

If Scofield is right, that’s a major blow to the Calvinists, as Romans 9 is their “rock” which their predestination doctrine is founded on. (correct me if I’m wrong)

If you are determined to avoid paradox, then you’re right. Myself, I couldn’t be a Christian without paradox.

Edwin

I just don’t want anything to derail my Christian walk, I want stability, the kind of stability so that when I’m attacked by Athiests as to why I’m a Christian I can answer logically and be satisified in my answer.

I can’t do that with Calvinism, because although Calvin wraps up the Bible logically, it is at the loss of love I believe.

Love in Christ * 8 (one for each post)
Rev

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.).

Could it be that “freedom” is taken to be radical self-determination ? If they are rejecting that, they’re right; that is no better than satanism.​

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

It’s very clearly stated - not confusing I wish you could have gone into the complications about sufficient & efficacious grace; though you glanced at that ​

1. It is not clear how middle knowledge does not impugn God’s simplicity - it seems to require more than one act of cognition in Him. That can’t be right, because that is a basic criticism - not rocket science.

2. Molinism seems to make election depend on God’s Prescience of human acts. Can you help ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Will do
.

Thanks for the history lesson, highly appreciated. (I learn best when listening to people I respect)

I’ll enquire as to what status Confirmation has in my Evangelical Anglican church and get back to you.

Coming from an Independant Baptist background, I had a ‘believers baptism’ at 14, although I regret it now because afterwards I backslid for 10 years.

I would’ve much prefered to hold off on Baptism until all my doubts were solved, but then I’d probably be baptized in heaven.

Hmm, interesting, I may have wasted my money with these apologist books then.

I thought my problem with it was it’s explanation, hence get enough Calvinist material and one of them will turn your mind to look at it in a better light.

If the doctrine itself is the problem, then I’m stuffed.

Incidentally in the old Scofield Bible, Scofield says that Romans chapters 9,10, & 11 are applicable on to the Jews.

If Scofield is right, that’s a major blow to the Calvinists, as Romans 9 is their “rock” which their predestination doctrine is founded on. (correct me if I’m wrong)

The difference made by God between Jacob & Esau, by His loving Jacob & hating Esau, is useful for showing that God reprobates, as He gives grace to who He Wills. Which surely has to be granted by any Christian theism - if grace really is a free gift, then it is in the gift of the Giver to give, not as man sees or thinks, but as God Wills. We cannot dictate to God how or when or where or why He acts: least of all can we dictate to God how He shall be gracious.​

Anyway - if Scofield is right, at most Calvinism has lost a proof-text for God’s freedom is reprobating; Romans 8.29-30 is one of the four passages to read for predestination. Predestination is Biblical, not an invention of St. Augustine - it’s as much part of the Gospel as salvation by the Blood of Christ. I find it terribly difficult to understand how anyone could object to it. Four passages is not many, but predestination does not stand by itself; it goes with election & foreknowledge & other works of God’s Wisdom. It is certainly not something to shun

blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=4309 ##

I just don’t want anything to derail my Christian walk,

Nothing should be allowed to do so - certainly not debating, not even on theology​

I want stability, the kind of stability so that when I’m attacked by Athiests as to why I’m a Christian I can answer logically and be satisified in my answer.

I can’t do that with Calvinism, because although Calvin wraps up the Bible logically, it is at the loss of love I believe.

Love in Christ * 8 (one for each post)
Rev

Why “at the loss of love” ?​

 

[Revelation13_16]

The difference made by God between Jacob & Esau, by His loving Jacob & hating Esau, is useful for showing that God reprobates, as He gives grace to who He Wills.​

If you were the soul trapped in Esau, heading to the firey pits of hell forever I’m sure you’d sing a different tune.

Which surely has to be granted by any Christian theism - if grace really is a free gift, then it is in the gift of the Giver to give, not as man sees or thinks, but as God Wills.

Yes but the problem is this;

Why do Calvinists think Arminians rob God of his gracious aspect?

What God did, by accepting Jesus’ sacrifice was infinately gracious, there’s no disputing that, but ask your self the following question honestly:

Which God is more gracious:

The Arminian God that gives everyone a choice to come.

or

The Calvinist God that restricts coming to the portion which he chooses.

?

We cannot dictate to God how or when or where or why He acts: least of all can we dictate to God how He shall be gracious.

Jesus said: “If you yourselves know how to give good gifts, how much more does your father in heaven know how to give good gifts.”

Think about that.

If we have concepts of love, mercy, justice, how much more will God have those concepts in ways we can’t even comprehend?

If you had a daughter that was gang-raped and left for dead, and it turned her into a catatonic zombie for the rest of her life, could you really forgive her gang-rapists?

Really?

I’m not sure I could, but God can.

So I don’t see how you can go along with the horrible doctrine of Calvinistic predestination, and how this doctrine is compatible with a God of love.

Anyway - if Scofield is right, at most Calvinism has lost a proof-text for God’s freedom is reprobating; Romans 8.29-30 is one of the four passages to read for predestination. Predestination is Biblical, not an invention of St. Augustine - it’s as much part of the Gospel as salvation by the Blood of Christ. I find it terribly difficult to understand how anyone could object to it.

If you were on the other side of it (predestined to hell), you would object voiciferously.

Four passages is not many, but predestination does not stand by itself; it goes with election & foreknowledge & other works of God’s Wisdom. It is certainly not something to shun

blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=4309 ##

P.O.V.

Nothing should be allowed to do so - certainly not debating, not even on theology ## ## Why “at the loss of love” ?​

Because I can serve God with fear, I can bow my head and obey but I want to love him, I want to love him in lieu of taking a wife.

I want to serve him and what his will is 24/7.

But the Calvinistic God is so cruel, even if I am the elect, what about all those who aren’t?

It’s not fair for them, no Calvinist ever thinks about this do they? They revel in their own election like they have won a lottery (and they have) but they don’t think how unfair the system is.

Where is the love?

 

[lumendelumine]

Dear Revelation,

I only skimmed over the discussion here, but I propose to you to read the following in order to know the Catholic position(s) on Grace:

Catholic Encyclopedia: Controversies on Grace

Please also know that the Catholic spectrum of understanding Grace is very wide; it extends from Augustinianism over Thomism to Molinism. The Catholic position effectively states that all these do not contradict each other, but only have different emphases.

At the same time, Calvinism and Jansenism (with their heretical doctrines of total depravity, irresistible grace and positive reprobation) on the one side are ruled out as heretical in the same way as Pelagianism (with its denial of Original Sin) and Semi-Pelagianism (with its minimizing of the importance of Grace in persevering until the end) on the other.

I am quite of your opinion that Calvinism does not show the love of God. I would even go so far as to state that the God of Calvin is not the God of the Bible - not the God of John 3,16, Matthew 25 (sermon on the end times) and innumerable other instances.

 

[Contarini]

Because at least in Arminianism people have a choice.

I don’t think it’s that simple. Moderate, reasonable Calvinists would say that of course humans have a choice–it’s just that being who we are, we will choose sin unless God moves us by His grace to choose otherwise. I agree that this raises all sorts of problems. But so does Arminianism. Arminianism as commonly taught ignores who God is–it pretends that God can simply know something is happening outside Himself the way you or I would. Given that if God did not sustain each of us every moment we would flicker into nonexistence, I find this a hopelessly inadequate way of speaking.

Arminian predestination, God looked down the corridors of time and saw who would believe in him and thus saved them.

And then He chose to bring all those other people into existence anyway and sustain them in existence while they were damning themselves by their wicked deeds. Hitler could only slaughter millions of people because God’s breath was sustaining him every instant.

Orthodox Christianity says God can’t make mistakes, but this leaves too many unaswered questions.

But if you reject orthodox Christianity as a whole, why worry about relatively minor, abstruse conflicts like Calvinism vs. Arminianism?

Open Theism is tricky but ultimately it puts God in a very loving position.

Would you rather have a God that can make mistakes but fix them or would you rather have a God that can’t make mistakes but makes horrible decrees instead?

I’ll take “horrible decrees” in its Latin sense, as Calvin used it–decreta horribilia (i.e., terrifying decrees). If God’s decrees are really “horrible” in the sense of morally revolting then obviously we can’t believe in such a God, and if that’s the only God we can believe in then we can’t be theists (monotheists, that is) at all. I don’t think this is the case–I think God’s decrees are terrifying and mysterious but not evil.

As for a God who makes mistakes–I don’t know why we would call such a being God at all. The world is full of beings, some of them loving, all of whom make mistakes. If there is one more such being who happens to be superhuman and happens to have created our species or our solar system or even the whole darn space-time continuum, then that would be interesting but not shatteringly significant. Such a being, however impressive, would be a “god” (i.e., a superhuman being) but would not be God. I might love or respect such a being, but I wouldn’t worship him/her/it any more than I worship my parents (who after all “created” me in a sense and are worthy of my love and respect for so doing).

You could say the root of God for Open Theists is love, the root of God for Calvinists is sovreignty.

And neither of them on their own is sufficient for a God worth believing in. A loving being who makes mistakes and is only one part of a bigger universe (even if only a moral or logical universe) might be a very nice person to hang out with but would not be God. And of course a sovereign being who was not good or loving would simply be an omnipotent demon, and the most virtuous act we could commit would be to defy it). Arminianism is relatively preferable because it maintains more of the paradox–the main problem with Arminians is that they foolishly think they have resolved the paradox.

If God is perfect then all our doctrines are flawed.

Not flawed, because that implies that they fail to do what they are supposed to do. But of course all our doctrines are hopelessly inadequate. Did you seriously ever think there were doctrines that weren’t? The purpose of doctrine is not to explain God fully, but to lead us toward union with God and guard against mistakes that would tend to draw us away from God. You are asking doctrine to do something it was never intended to do, and then complaining that it is “flawed”! It’s like blaming your car because it can’t fly, when it’s quite capable of taking you to the airport. So you wind up walking to the airport and you risk missing your flight.

 

[Contarini]

I guess people talk about the “OT god” because the Torah contains things such as commands to burn witches, endorses genocide etc.

Sure. But that’s part of the OT. There are other parts!

I hate what Muhammad did but you could argue it’s no different from what is commanded to the isrealites in Deutoronomy.

Actually I don’t think Muhammad ever killed women and children, though I could be wrong. These OT passages do present very difficult problems. I’m strongly tempted to take the Origenist route and allegorize them, especially since historians of the Ancient Near East generally think that the conquest took place quite differently from the way prescribed in these Torah passages and described in Joshua. (I don’t necessarily listen to what secular ANE historians say WRT the Bible, because they have a strong skeptical bias; but in this case there are some theological reasons to pay attention.) However, that is certainly pushing the frontiers of what’s permissible in terms of a non-literal interpretation of the Bible.

1. Arab’s by the 7th century should have known better than to be living like people from 4000 BC.

More like 1200 or maybe 1400. But still, your point is a valid one–Islam marks a reversion in many respects.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Philthy]

According to the bible, God did create everything good. The ability for humans to fall into sin must be good in some way.

I got the following quote on salvation by “free will” cooperation from an internet site several years ago. Unfortunately, I don’t know who wrote it or where that site can be found but I think it refutes the idea that we can justly attribute our salvation to our own free will choices. Here is the quote:

The theory, “saved by my free-will cooperation with God’s grace” brings with it a great many absurdities, all of which glorify men instead of God:

1. It makes man the cause of his own salvation.

Sorry, but this is wrong from the get-go. Having free will does not make man the “cause” of his own salvation. You may comfortably ignore anything this alleged intellectual has to say.

 

[Contarini]

Hmm, I come from an Independant Baptist background that was dispensational & fundamental, so I was taught reading the Bible any other way than literal was to err.

Well, obviously I think they erred, and I think this is at the root of nearly half your problems.

I see what you’re saying, how it’s not only a problem for Calvinism, but for Calvinists it’s a big problem because God is all knowing.

That is not in any way peculiar to Calvinism. It’s the common assumption shared by Calvinism and classical Arminianism, and indeed even the Open Theists generally try to avoid denying it openly (rather, they redefine what “all-knowing” means by arguing that the phrase “God knows the future” is self-contradictory nonsense).

His omniscience is never called into question in Calvinism, hence the supralapsarian view

No. Supralapsarianism (not believed by all Calvinists) is a very specific doctrine about the order of God’s decrees (that God created everything for the sake of the elect, essentially). That God knew the fall would happen is a common Christian belief.

But Christianity isn’t like Mormonism or any other religions where you get a second chance.

For example in Mormonism upon death the angel Moroni tells people the truth and asks them if they now want to accept it or not.

Of course, everyone is going to say yes aren’t they, even Richard Dawkins would.

Not necessarily. If you reject the truth stubbornly enough you become incapable of accepting it. Then when you find yourself in the presence of Truth itself, you cannot experience that other than as torment. That is my understanding of damnation.

Remember that we are saved not just by accepting truth intellectually–if we were then Satan would be saved!

But the option of a second chance post death is contra to the Bible, “for man dies once, and then the judgement”

Well, I didn’t say that there was a second chance after death. I wouldn’t put it that way–I would say that at the moment of death you encounter the reality of God and you respond based on how you had responded to the truth you knew in life. It’s just possible, IMHO, that someone like Richard Dawkins is really motivated by love of truth and the moment of death will encounter Jesus and say: “Oh what a nincompoop I’ve been! Of course I believe you now I see who you really are!” I wouldn’t call that a “second chance after death.” But while we’re at it I think that particular verse is an excellent example of the elaborate superstructures conservative Protestants raise on very slender foundations. The passage is making a point on the way to make another point (about Jesus)–it’s assuming more than stating, and so it doesn’t really explain itself. Which judgment are we talking about: particular or general (“Great White Throne”)? Are they even distinct, or does the afterlife not work like that? Nowhere does the passage say that judgment follows immediately after death. The traditional view is that the particular judgment does and then there’s a wait until the general judgment, but that may just be a hopelessly earth-centered way of speaking. People use this verse to back up what they believe because they can’t find anything better, and that shows how desperate they are!

 

[Contarini]

Why isn’t God an Anihilationist? Why doesn’t he destroy souls after they die? Why keep them suffering forever?

this is a difficult problem.

God can’t destroy souls because souls are made from the same substance as God, hence any annihilating of a substance like God would be a small death of God in some way and hence a contradiction (since God can’t die or everything collapses)

I wouldn’t want to push that quite as literally as you seem to be doing, but I think there may be something in it. Certainly we are made in God’s image and we have the breath of His life in our nostrils, and it may be that God has chosen to commit a creative act that is by definition irrevocable. Of course, He could still have chosen to refrain from creating those who were going to reject Him, assuming His foreknowledge. . . . .

My hypothesis has a flaw though, if souls are of the same substance as God and death of a soul would be a small death to God, what about the torment of a soul, would it not be a small torment to God?

Well, that’s one reason why I don’t think your view works as it stands. But this is still a serious question. Lewis’s approach (in *The Great Divorce *and elsewhere) was to suggest that damnation is something very close to annihilation–that those who finally reject God are no longer persons but merely ghosts, shadows of what were once persons. God would save them if they would let Him, but the blessedness of heaven is not held hostage by those who have refused to be happy. Personally, I think that damnation is only conceivable on the assumption that the damned have ceased to have the capacity for choice and thus have ceased to be sentient beings in the full sense. There may be less contradiction between annihilation and eternal punishment than we think.

But then, if God can feel any pain, is he God?

I don’t think this works, no. But I do see why you posit this.

But the drama is scripted then to a tee - this is the Calvinist view.

The problem with this is once again evil, if God’s writing the script then he’s scripting people to hell.

But within the script the people are choosing freely. I can write “Laurentius Magnus chose to run out into the snow dressed in his underclothes.” Laurentius chose freely in his world, even though in my world as an author I “made” him do this very stupid thing. Good writers often report the sense that their characters have “come to life” and sometimes refuse to do things the authors want them to do. This is perhaps a pale shadow of how God’s providence and our free will work together.

This is the paradox which Aquinas has expressed better than anyone else (which is to say very imperfectly!). God’s choice (or in the case of evil God’s permission) and our choices are not an either/or.

Either that or God is lying, hell doesn’t go on forever, he just made it appear to us that it does to get the most out of his actors.

Some people have suggested that God is not exactly lying but is telling us the consequences of finally rejecting Him precisely in order to ensure that no one does. As I said earlier, I don’t think I can buy this. But it is logically possible.

Risks either succeed or fail, failed risks are called mistakes.

And that’s exactly my objection to Open Theism as it’s been presented to me.

That is, two parts of the trinity provide the means for the other part to rule (the Father) who rules his cycle before the next part takes over and the former becomes the support beam to him.

This is very clever and imaginative, but as you say it isn’t compatible with what Christians have traditionally meant by the Trinity. The closest thing I can think of is Robert Jenson’s Trinitarian theology (he’s a Lutheran theologian) as expressed in his Systematic Theology and other works. Jenson thinks that God has his own time scale and that we can speak of the Father as God’s past, the Son as God’s present, and the Spirit as God’s future. I’ve never quite understood how this works and I’m very dubious as to whether it is in any way orthodox. But Jenson is a theologian whom I generally respect, so I take him seriously.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No offence but it’s biased IMHO because you do not know the eternal fate of your daughter. If this life is like a speck of dust, then happiness & beauty now is meaningless compared to where we spend eternity.

Well, I deny the premise. This life is not like a speck of dust. Eternity is not endless extension, though that may be how we experience it. Eternity in the full sense–as God experiences it–is an eternal now. So the closest we humans can come to imagining eternity is by imagining a single moment, not by imagining an endless future (though we may well experience an endless future in which the single moments become fuller and fuller and asymptotically approach the single moment of utter bliss experienced by God). Hence I stand by my statement. I can only judge the universe by the slice of it I am experiencing now (which of course includes my memories of the past, and far less meaningfully my hopes and fears for the future).

My Calvinist friend is having a baby, but if I were a Calvinist, I wouldn’t breed for a million dollars.

Again, I don’t see how this is not also a problem for Arminians. Frankly, I’m with King David–I’d rather trust my child to God’s mysterious purposes than to the choices of any human being, including her own (“Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for His mercies are great; but let me now fall into the hands of men”). Particularly repulsive is the version of Arminianism that holds that all who haven’t heard the Gospel go to hell. Calvinism is far preferable to this monstrous doctrine, which deprives God both of His goodness and His sovereignty!

If I’m going to hell, I’d rather go to hell for some mysterious purpose of God than because some stupid missionary never got to me in time. The thing is–when I say this to Calvinists they never seem to appreciate it. They hear the phrase “I’d rather” and start shouting “Blasphemy! Clay pot! Maker! Shut up!”

Also, Calvin taught (and it seems to me that many Calvinists today believe this) that one can reasonably presume that the children of elect parents are themselves elect. So again, I think this is more of a problem for Arminians than for Calvinists. I think that the number of people who truly and consistently believe in free will is very small. Those who reject the Augustinian/Thomist/Calvinist tradition often seem in fact to be determinists who think that genetics and environment shape our destiny–certainly that was how my grandmother talked a lot of the time.

Problem: Most Atheists revile the Christian God yet according to Christianity they are going to hell.

If they revile God knowing (to some degree) who God really is, then yes.

But if their digust is from a love of justice and goodness then they are the true followers of God, aren’t they?

Certainly. I have no problems with that.

So, do Calvinists worship another Jesus?

No. They have some wrong ideas but they still worship the One who was born of a virgin, died on a Cross, rose the third day, etc.

Are Calvinists saved?

Presumably some are and some aren’t, just like every other group. It’s none of our business to figure out which are which.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Free will exists. We can choose to accept grace or not.

Therefore… (you choose).

But in no case is man “totally corrupt”. Man is merely, though pervasively, “tainted” with original sin.

To call man “totally corrupt” would have me believe that God would create a “totally corrupt” thing,… which makes no sense to me. (Even Satan wasn’t CREATED totally corrupt.)

To utterly deny “free will” would make the story of the universe and our human story within it utterly meaningless, as we are not here to learn and choose, but to shift from here to there as robots.

Hmmm,… I choose free will and the beauty of a good creation where we are tasked to wisely choose to not give in to sin because God has shown us the wisdom of His beauty.

You may do as you wish though,… if you have free will, of course.

According to the bible, God did create everything good. The ability for humans to fall into sin must be good in some way.

I got the following quote on salvation by “free will” cooperation from an internet site several years ago. Unfortunately, I don’t know who wrote it or where that site can be found but I think it refutes the idea that we can justly attribute our salvation to our own free will choices. Here is the quote:

The theory, “saved by my free-will cooperation with God’s grace” brings with it a great many absurdities, all of which glorify men instead of God:

1. It makes man the cause of his own salvation.

Not the cause but the acceptance.

1. It puts grace into man’s power, not man’s will under the power of grace.

If free will exists, then it IS in the power man, by definition.
The “availability” of grace is NOT within the power of man.

1. It robs God of the honor of making one person to differ from another, and ascribes it to man.

To deny free will denies God the honor of creating a creature that can choose.

God makes us all unique, but if we have no free will then we are not unique in the respect of our ability to choose to not sin.

1. It allows man a liberty of boasting to God, saying, “God, I thank you that you gave me power to will (yet you gave that to Judas as well as me), but I thank myself for the act of willingness, since I receive from you no more than Judas did.”

May can’t “boast” of his capacity to will, anymore than he can “boast” about having a head.

God must be thanked in the highest for it.

Man MAY boast of his ability to disobey (or obey for that matter) but to do so is to boast of a thing given, which is “bizarre” (and a sin).

1. It exempts the creature from the power of God, as if man, spider-like, could spin a thread out of his own bowels whereon to climb to Heaven.

What is the spider-web to be connected to? Only those things given by God allow Heaven to be accessible. Free will is one of those things, given by God, which we “connect to” to reach Heaven.

1. It makes man the cause why God wills this or that; so God must attend on the will of man, and not be infallible in His decrees, nor working all things according to the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11 Psalms 115:3).

The salvation of man is the reason for the universe’s existence.

God’s will is constant, which is to offer man the possibility of salvation.

God doesn’t attend on the will of man. The problem of the apparent contradiction in the simultaneous existence of “free will” and “predestination/omnipotence/omniscience” is a mystery, which is insolvable in human terms, but which, if you consider unsolvable to GOD, puts a human limit on God.

(( That I believe would be a sin, as well. ))

1. Then the apostle James lied in saying “every good gift” is from God (James 1:17); and Paul also was mistaken in Romans 9:11. He should have said, “It is of man that willeth and runneth,” and not, “Of God that showeth mercy.”

James 1:21-22 :
21 Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls.
22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.

By “putting away all filth and evil excess” we are told to WILLFULLY DO SOMETHING.

We must DO the word, which is to freely choose to act in a particular way, and not to merely HEAR (and NOT DO) what will bring us closer to God.

That is a veritable description of the prescription to use your God given free will to CHOOSE to do what is right to do.

(( usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art3.htm ))

E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe.

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps I am not clear here. (my fault)

It’s not that you’re not clear but that I don’t agree with the analogy. God doesn’t just “shoot” people. People choose to reject God. The question is: why doesn’t God choose to ensure that everyone accepts Him? Can He do this without violating their free will? Calvinists say that God can ensure that anyone He likes accepts Him,and He either can do this without violating their free will (the more reasonable and orthodox version) or free will doesn’t matter anyway (the heretical version, although as Gottle of Geer pointed out we need to ask what “free will” means in these discussions). Arminians (unless they embrace universalism or open theism) says that God gives everyone a chance. Fine, but to say that meaningfully you have to allow for the salvation of those who never heard the Gospel, and you have to address the question of circumstances, genetic inheritance, etc., which often influence people away from the Gospel. It is naive to pretend (as so many Arminians do) that simply by saying “people have free will” you have solved all these problems. I’m not saying that Arminians don’t try to deal with these problems, only that they exist and must be dealt with.

The God of Arminianism says “I don’t want to shoot you, so choose life through my Son who died for you” and whoever does this can leave the room through that door now"

But not everyone is in the room. So some of the people have to go and tell the others. In the version of Arminianism held by many evangelicals, God doesn’t bother telling those other people himself–he leaves it up to the people who have decided to accept his offer, and if some people never hear the offer he kills them anyway. How on earth is this superior to Calvinism? Of course, you can tweak Arminianism to allow for a humane view here.

He’s Moore College trained (very prestigious apparently), perhaps he was just indulging me?

Or perhaps going to a prestigious school doesn’t keep your theology from being warped!

Have you read his book “The Woman rides the Beast”?

Any good?

Total trash as far as I’m concerned!

Darn, if you don’t know then there’s no hope for me.

I’m flattered, but I think your opinion of me is too high!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Could it be that “freedom” is taken to be radical self-determination ? If they are rejecting that, they’re right; that is no better than satanism.​

It’s very clearly stated - not confusing I wish you could have gone into the complications about sufficient & efficacious grace; though you glanced at that ​

1. It is not clear how middle knowledge does not impugn God’s simplicity - it seems to require more than one act of cognition in Him. That can’t be right, because that is a basic criticism - not rocket science.

Interesting. I see the point from a Thomist perspective, but the divine simplicity makes my head hurt and I don’t have anything intelligent to say about it!

2. Molinism seems to make election depend on God’s Prescience of human acts. Can you help ? ##

Well, this is my objection to Molinism (or Arminianism) as well. I’m a sort of Arminian by default, but philosophically I have huge problems with it. So I go around calling myself a Wesleyan Thomist, which at least sounds cool

Edwin

 

[Nick_Jones]

I said, “1. It (free will cooperation with grace) makes man the cause of his own salvation.”

Not the cause but the acceptance.

If you go to heaven because you used your free will to choose to accept God’s offer but I end up in hell because I used my free will to choose NOT to accept God’s offer, then it seems to me that the cause of your salvation is your own free will choice. I see no difference except for the free will choices. This makes salvation completely dependent upon the free will choices of the individual, rather than the grace of God.

 

[Nick_Jones]

If free will exists, then it IS in the power man, by definition.
The “availability” of grace is NOT within the power of man.

Under your scheme, it appears that only a certain group of morally elite individuals (those who will use their free will to accept God’s grace) have any “power” since all of the others (those who use their free will to reject it) go to hell. It is still unexplained why the morally elite group make the good choice but the others make the bad choice.

To deny free will denies God the honor of creating a creature that can choose.

I don’t deny that we all get to make our own choices.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}

Obviously Satan got a third of the angels to join him, but they must have been of a lower rank and not able to fully realize what repercussions their actions might have.

But also they could of been the highest and therefore willing to take the risk?

Angels are not God.

They are created beings, and therefore subject to the “sin” of “incomplete knowledge”.

They were also created with free will. These two characteristics left them susceptable to being deceived, which they were.

The angels that followed Satan were apparently “inferior” to Satan as regards their abilities of “original thought” and “oration”, as Satan was “the leader”.

But whatever view you take, I don’t think you can avoid saying that there was sin in heaven. (please bear with me, put away the pitch fork!)

If Satan fell victim to pride, what was pride doing in heaven?

As soon as the angels exhibited sin, “pride”, they were expelled FROM heaven.

Sin cannot exist IN heaven, but once sin is CHOSEN by someone in heaven, heaven “leaves them” (they are expelled to “elsewhere”.

I’m not sure where “elsewhere” would be for an angel.

We are told we will be changed in heaven, that’s why when people say “won’t heaven be boring” we say “no” because they are using their earthly minds and desires and thinking there will be no change in heaven.

But if pride was in heaven, the willingness to self serve in lieu of serving God, what was it doing there?

Once again,… as soon as a person (even angels are persons) sins, they “leave heaven”, therefore sin never exists IN heaven, only outside of it.

This casts doubts on God’s sovreignty and power I believe, and leaves us only with two choices: (if there’s another please correct me)

You basic assumption is incorrect.

God does not loose sovereignty, primarily because that is a priori and by definition impossible.

You’ll have to show me how God’s sovereignty is lost…?

1. Either God knew Satan would do this because he staged it. (ie- Made Satan fall)

Of course God knew it would happen, but He had given Satan a free will, and He had reasons to do so, and for those reasons ALLOWED Satan to do that which expelled him from heaven.

Satan’s expulsion was a consequence of Satan’s (sinful) choice, and completely within God’s plan, therefore that willfull act did NOT deprive God of any sovereign power.

1. God didn’t know, it was unexpected.

Of course God knew, as He (by definition) knows everything. You’re “redefinition” of God to mean “a being(s) who could be surprised (ie not omnipotent/omniscient)” is simply defining God to be other than God (1 != 1), which is simple contradiction. (And therfore heresy in the area of faith.)

If you choose 1), God is sovreign but evil.

If you choose 2), God is good but does not have the power that most people ascribe to him.

Either way, both views are heretical, but logical, go figure!

continued

Your conclusions are “logical” only if your terms are logical, which they aren’t.

They ARE heretical, of course.

You assume that Satan’s free will allowed him to do other than what God had planned. Satan COULD HAVE chosen to not sin, but that was neither his choice (what he freely and actually did) NOR God’s plan, therefore that didn’t happen (according to plan).

And that is precisely the “mystery” of free will! Only by “losing faith” do we see a contradiction between the FACTS that Satan could have chosen otherwise, that he didn’t, and that God’s plan was to have happen what did happen, as ONLY in God can those facts be non-contradictory.

BUT,… that’s why God is GOD, and not just some super-being who’s techology is so far advanced from ours that He appears to be “magical”.

THAT is the “test” of the REAL God. He shows Himself AS mystery, In mystery, through mystery.

If you don’t accept the mystery of free will, you are stating, or rather SCREAMING, that God must never be “apparently” contradictory, which is to deny God is God.

E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}
Any views I have are in flux and are subject to change.

That’s a VERY good thing, as if you get a “bad feeling” from your beliefs, your beliefs are wrong (because they are severly usefully incomplete).

I credit Calvinism in ‘scaring the heck out of me’ and making me want to sort out my salvation rather than just lay back with a ‘once saved, always saved’ approach and do nothing for God.

Then, obviously, you DO believe in free will, regardless of what anyone tells you, which is perfectly normal as “free will” is a basic tenet of natural law.

Without free will, no DOING is helpful, and if nothing is helpful nothing can please either God or you.

That is the very definition of “ultimate despair”.

But you do have to wonder why God would send a part of himself to die to save us.

Think about it for a moment, really.

He made himself a man to show us that even our humanity (our organically human-ness) could be a vehicle of true God (Jesus) if only we could strive to minimize our original sin (via baptism) and our temporal sin (our acts).

He also tells us that we can NEVER hope to “get all the way there” because it’s simply impossible to utterly remove our sins (original and temporal) except by His grace,… but that if we try (via our God given ability of free will) He will see what He can do for us.

We have NO guarantees. There is no absolute assurance of our salvation. But He looks favorably toward those who imitate Him.

Why isn’t God an Anihilationist? Why doesn’t he destroy souls after they die? Why keep them suffering forever?

He doesn’t keep them suffering forever. They CHOOSE to suffer forever.

He would have all souls behold Him fully. Those whose pride keeps them from “judging” God (“God CAN’T be like THAT!”) expell themselves, just as Satan expelled himself, from heaven.

The only thing I can think of is this:

God can’t destroy souls because souls are made from the same substance as God, hence any annihilating of a substance like God would be a small death of God in some way and hence a contradiction (since God can’t die or everything collapses)

Now you’re just being materialistic. God creates ex nihilo, out of nothing. Not out of himself.

God won’t (willfully) destroy a soul because souls, by definition, cannot be destroyed. They are PERSONS who must choose their destination, and their choice must be respected.

…{snip}
But then, if God can feel any pain, is he God?

God is three persons. Persons feel pain.

…{snip}

Your basic “heresy” is that you are materialist, who thinks that for God to exist all His acts must be justified according to human logic leaving NO MYSTERY.

If you can’t accept a mystery as a mystery, then you can’t accept God, because God is a mystery.

I would suggest that you cogitate (perhaps meditate would be a better word) on why it is that you won’t accept mystery as a valid conclusion to a question.

 

[Keikiolu]

I said, “1. It (free will cooperation with grace) makes man the cause of his own salvation.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu
Not the cause but the acceptance.

If you go to heaven because you used your free will to choose to accept God’s offer but I end up in hell because I used my free will to choose NOT to accept God’s offer, then it seems to me that the cause of your salvation is your own free will choice.

What CAUSES me to go to heaven is GOD. Period.

One of the multitudinous FACTORS of my actually GOING to heaven is that I choose (by belief AN ACT!) to want to go there. God will weigh all the other factors and make the decision.

Your simple act of not choosing to accept God’s offer overrides (probably! ) any possibility of your going to heaven.

I see no difference except for the free will choices. This makes salvation completely dependent upon the free will choices of the individual, rather than the grace of God.

Do you see the difference now?

It’s ALWAYS and ONLY God’s choice as to whether one actually GOES to heaven, but without one wanting to go there, proved by deeds (acts/works from faith), there is very little hope of God deciding to allow you that which you refuse to have. (You’ve proven to God that you DON’T really want to go to heaven by NOT performing good works from faith.)

Because that would violate your person by negating your freely chosen will.

(( PERSONS,… think in terms of respect for PERSONS…! I know, it’s cryptic, but what can I do… ))