Your final question betrays the Calvinism in your thinking. Lip service doesn’t count. How can you possibly know that in reality at some point someone will choose to sin? Its up to them, not you. Finally, I never said nor ever implied that foreknowledge means we have no free will. In fact my interpretation of Trent said the oppositeI have read it, more than once. I have never once denied free will. My saying you will sin, does not mean you did not have the choice not to sin. It is the reality that at some point, you will choose to sin. You believe foreknowledge of someone’s actions, means they have no free will. I know that without a special grace from God, at some point you will give in to temptation, and choose to sin. YOU WILL EXERCISE YOUR FREE WILL, AND CHOOSE TO SIN. My foreknowledge of this in no way denies that you have free will. My knowledge that you cannot go through this life without sinning, does not in any way entail that I am denying you have free will. Mathematically, when taken as a whole, the chances that you, exercising your damaged free will, will always choose not to sin throughout your life becomes nil. You have a better chance of flipping a coin a million times and it coming up heads every time. It could happen, but won’t.
I am denying that our free will is intact, as you try to state. Trent also denies this in Chapter I of Session VI. Why do you feel our free will was not damaged in the fall?
The grace of God is given but man can resist it (that is, not persevere).Before fall, no concupiscence. After yes, for everyone. Aquinas and Augustine both believed that grace, like our fallen nature, could not be resisted although it could be. They thought it was a paradox when really it was a contradiction.
If you overheard your daughter, she could still change her mind. You don’t believe she could surprise you. Too bad for your birthdays.
Lol. I know they will choose to sin because their free will has been damaged. **Trent explicitly teaches such in Chapter I of Session VI. ** Trent called it weakened. But damaged, or weakened free will, does not mean there is no free will at all. It just means it does not operate correctly. And knowing that it does not operate at full strength, is why we can say you cannot resist all sin **all **the time. If I said you had no free will, you would not be able to resist any sin at **any **time. Calvinism denies free will.Your final question betrays the Calvinism in your thinking. Lip service doesn’t count. How can you possibly know that in reality at some point someone will choose to sin? Its up to them, not you. Finally, I never said nor ever implied that foreknowledge means we have no free will. In fact my interpretation of Trent said the opposite
You can show him where Augustine and Aquinas explicitly deny what he has said about their viewpoints. It does not matter.The grace of God is given but man can resist it (that is, not persevere).
Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 109 The necessity of grace
Article 8. Whether man without grace can avoid sin?
Reply to Objection 1. Man can avoid each but not every act of sin, except by grace, as stated above. Nevertheless, since it is by his own shortcoming that he does not prepare himself to have grace, the fact that he cannot avoid sin without grace does not excuse him from sin.
Article 10. Whether man possessed of grace needs the help of grace in order to persevere?
Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xliii) [Cf. De Correp. et Grat. xii]: “in the original state man received a gift whereby he could persevere, but to persevere was not given him. But now, by the grace of Christ, many receive both the gift of grace whereby they may persevere, and the further gift of persevering,” and thus Christ’s gift is greater than Adam’s fault. Nevertheless it was easier for man to persevere, with the gift of grace in the state of innocence in which the flesh was not rebellious against the spirit, than it is now. For the restoration by Christ’s grace, although it is already begun in the mind, is not yet completed in the flesh, as it will be in heaven, where man will not merely be able to persevere but will be unable to sin.
Yes, I can see the pattern of claiming that free will does not exist in the rational being merely because some acts are not voluntary.You can show him where Augustine and Aquinas explicitly deny what he has said about their viewpoints. It does not matter.
One can be free to do some things and not others. I am not free to defy gravity under my one power, but I am still free to decide where I move within the limits of human mobility. Inability is not the same as compulsion.Vico is not a Molinist so he believes with Aquinas that grace can be resisted although it cannot. Read the article on Controversies on Grace in the New Advent site to see what I mean.
There can be no in-between with free will. You either have it or your don’t. We are weakened because of concupiscence, not because there is an in-between between free will and compulsion. Vico says “I can see the pattern of claiming that free will does not exist in the rational being merely because some acts are not voluntary”, thus showing that he doesn’t believe man is free not to sin. Therefore he is a Calvinist. It is up to each person on whether they will sin; it is not up to their nature
By our free will, we can sin after initial justification. I think you would agree with that.The Council of Trent defined: "If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified;
The second statement pertains to original sin, which we are all born with, except by special privilege of God (see, Immaculate Conception). We therefore are born with sin and, by definition, are in sin prior to baptism. Once baptized, concupiscence remains. That is not sin, rather only the inclination to sin.or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema." !
Man can do good before Justification, per Catholic dogma.Good thoughts.
The point I am making is that there cannot be a proemotio physica/proedeterminatio physica of either grace or fallen nature. Either way it denies free will. The will can always turn to any side it wants, otherwise it is not a free faculty. It is different in heaven because once the ultimate good is obtained one will never have a motive to turn away from it
I think I see the point there-and yet why is it also *universally inevitable *that we will sin? God knows our future and yet our future also seems to be conditioned or guaranteed by some state or predisposition. So my question: Is it possible for man to be partially united with God (the best we can achieve here on earth) and refrain from sin?“If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.”
My interpretation is that nobody can go through life without sinning, not because fallen nature will *cause *them to sin (sin and damnation come from free will), but because the Bible reveals that most everyone will sin, except Mary and those preserved from temptations. God knows what we will do.
I don’t believe in Molinism because it either goes straight into Thomism and its denial of free will, or it is some nonsense such that people make choices in every situation that is possible but those choices aren’t materialized. The choices were either made or they were not. If they were they merit or damn. I am neither a Thomist nor a Molinist. My position is that God knows every choice from seeing into our reality. Our choices are the cause of God’s knowledge. That is how free will works
St. Thomas Aquinas covered free will in the Summa Theologicae Q 83 “I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain.”“If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.”
My interpretation is that nobody can go through life without sinning, not because fallen nature will *cause *them to sin (sin and damnation come from free will), but because the Bible reveals that most everyone will sin, except Mary and those preserved from temptations. God knows what we will do.
I don’t believe in Molinism because it either goes straight into Thomism and its denial of free will, or it is some nonsense such that people make choices in every situation that is possible but those choices aren’t materialized. The choices were either made or they were not. If they were they merit or damn. I am neither a Thomist nor a Molinist. My position is that God knows every choice from seeing into our reality. Our choices are the cause of God’s knowledge. That is how free will works
He did not reject it when it came to predestination. He just didn’t define free will in the way you do. Ultimately each will that God creates operates according to its own nature and inclinations. It’s inclinations and nature is intrinsic to itself, and when the will makes a choice, it’s a voluntary choice for that will according to its intrinsic disposition. It operates according to what it is intrinsically, not according to something extrinsically opposed upon it.But then he rejected it when it came to predestination, as you know. You know better. We have had this discussion before
Hello thinkandmull,The Council of Trent defined: “If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema.”
Since man is free, he is never forced by anything to sin. Even if there were no grace given, his free will would be intact, and he wouldn’t have to sin, only when he gives in. So it is theoretically possible for a person to never sin. So it seems that Trent condemned free will.
Your turn. Go!
This is the worse post I’ve seen in a long time. Free will has one definition. Nothing makes the will go one way or the other. It does it itself. Your analogy says the opposite of what you wanted it to say.He did not reject it when it came to predestination. He just didn’t define free will in the way you do. Ultimately each will that God creates operates according to its own nature and inclinations. It’s inclinations and nature is intrinsic to itself, and when the will makes a choice, it’s a voluntary choice for that will according to its intrinsic disposition. It operates according to what it is intrinsically, not according to something extrinsically opposed upon it.
It’s the difference between teleology and design, and why many Thomist’s reject Intelligent Design theory, because ID’s framework is mechanistic and sees any design as intrinsically imposed, like an artifact, rather than in the Aristotlean sense of God actualizing essences and such.
All have sinned. No one has to sin. To sin requires free will.Hello thinkandmull,
On what basis do you say man is free? If he were free, he would not need Christ. The earliest Apostles believed that man is a slave to sin. Because of the actions of Adam and Eve we inherited their sinful nature which includes a human will bound to do Satan’s bidding. In other words, even the most powerful will to not sin, will sin. One well known Apostle said it this way, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, v24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:23,24.