Double Predestination

[pcg2]

Existence is good. Hell is existence without God, for those who prefer it that way.

I agree that existing and choosing hell is better than not having existed at all. But as you can see, I still can’t reconcile how God is “perfectly good” while at the same time being omniscient if he creates people knowing they will choose hell. To me, so far it seems as if you can’t have it “both ways”.

 

[Pitcharan]

I agree that existing and choosing hell is better than not having existed at all.

But our Lord does not agree to that:
***"… woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." *** (Matt 26:24b-25)

But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." (Mk 14:21bc)

But as you can see, I still can’t reconcile how God is “perfectly good” while at the same time being omniscient if he creates people knowing they will choose hell. To me, so far it seems as if you can’t have it “both ways”.

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind; the answer is blowing in the wind…

***Adam’s proud act is far greater than Eve’s; by beginning his response to God’s questioning with “The woman you put here with me—”, he literally blamed God. This is the height of pride.

The entire ordeal of the most blameless man on earth — Job, was meant to wipe out any remote latent potential for this very sin - viz., questioning / evaluating / scrutinising God’s actions and judgments.

Frequently we learn in the OT as well as NT that we are like the clay that has no right to question the potter. This is an effective Hebrew style teaching which tells us that God is not culpable and hence above human judgment. To dare question God’s judgments is the worst degree of pride. But by seeking truth with humility and simplicity of heart, many saints have received explanations from the Holy Spirit about incomprehensible judgments of God. *** (from the manuscript of an unpublished book)

 

[the_7th_one]

I don’t think I implied that you were denying free will - If I did, I apologize. And I think it’s better to give someone complete choice.

I guess I sort of see what you are trying to say. Our choice to love is “more genuine” when given the choice of not loving. Basically, seeing the fact that we could have chosen not to love is what makes our choice to love all the more “authentic.” Is that the point you are trying to get across?

Fully agree.

I didn’t know that Catholic theologians didn’t use this term. I guess I’ll just say “perfectly good” from now on to remove any confusion. Either way, I understand that God is not some pushover. Even the tiniest sin against an infinite God is an abomination and warrants eternal punishment.

So it seems as if, after all of this discussion, that God does create knowing that many will choose hell. And the Church’s answer seems to basically be… we have free will. That seems to take all the attention away from God in the matter and put the trouble on us. Which I don’t disagree with (we aren’t perfect after all).

I don’t know, I would have thought that after 2000 years there would have been a better answer.

1. God is omniscient.
2. God is “perfectly good”.
3. God creates some people knowing that they will go to hell.
4. Theologians still believe God is good knowing (3).

This God doesn’t seem “perfectly good” to me. So I guess I need to re-evaluate what it means to be “perfectly good,” right?

Your point #3 should say “Gad created some people knowing they will choose to go to hell.”
Giving free will to people does not mean God does not know if they will do good or do evil. It does mean he knows the hearts and minds of all of us better than we could ever do. He gives us all a resonable chance to follow his will and find our way back to him.

 

[rtconstant]

I agree that existing and choosing hell is better than not having existed at all. But as you can see, I still can’t reconcile how God is “perfectly good” while at the same time being omniscient if he creates people knowing they will choose hell. To me, so far it seems as if you can’t have it “both ways”.

To my view He remains “all-good” because the gift of Free-Will is in and of itself a great good, even if its presence can potentially lead to evil. When viewing these subjects we tend to look at some of the outcomes and then because of our natural horror towards them its hard to see the overriding good. But if it helps put yourself (as much as possible) into God’s position. If you had the option of dominating ever aspect of your child’s life, or directing them and then allowing them to walk their own way, which would you chose? Imprisoning someone against their will is wrong, and if God didn’t allow us the chance to fail, ironically He really couldn’t be called “good”.

Now, you may say: “fine, but then why create the people who He knows are going to make bad choices?” Which is a reasonable question. However, even those who end their live’s poorly still have worth. They’re existence adds to the over all human experience just like the Just. Also while it may be true that God sees all eventualities. It is not as if these people didn’t have the same potential for good as anyone else. Their live’s journey can still inspire. However, I guess its impossible to try and explain a concept that we lack the ability to perceive, namely timelessness.

As to the idea of predestination, I don’t know whenever I hear defenses of this position and its various forms I can’t help but be perplexed as to why someone would attribute to God characteristics that we would find reproachful in another human being.

 

[4Horsemen]

I agree that existing and choosing hell is better than not having existed at all. But as you can see, I still can’t reconcile how God is “perfectly good” while at the same time being omniscient if he creates people knowing they will choose hell. To me, so far it seems as if you can’t have it “both ways”.

If you really think about the repercussions of what you’re saying, when you say “it seems as if you can’t have it ‘both ways,’” who is the 'you?" You’re really saying God can’t have it both ways (being “perfectly good” and omnicient) because I said so. In other words, it seems to me that you are blaming God for giving us free will, which is truly a gift from His benevollence.

Would you rather be a puppet? A machine? He allows you to choose (evil or good) in order to be fully alive and partakers in His nature, which is totally free.

 

[fhansen]

I agree that existing and choosing hell is better than not having existed at all. But as you can see, I still can’t reconcile how God is “perfectly good” while at the same time being omniscient if he creates people knowing they will choose hell. To me, so far it seems as if you can’t have it “both ways”.

I believe simply this: God, who is fair and just and merciful beyond our comprehension or our own capabilities, and whose love even* trumps His justice*, according to Catholic teaching, will do nothing unseemly/unjust/unfair/unkind. And all will look on His actions in the end and know and agree that the right thing was done. As Julian of Norwich, a 14th century Catholic visionary who lived during the Black Plague and was burdened with your same concerns was “shown”: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

 

[pcg2]

Now, you may say: “fine, but then why create the people who He knows are going to make bad choices?” Which is a reasonable question. However, even those who end their live’s poorly still have worth. They’re existence adds to the over all human experience just like the Just. Also while it may be true that God sees all eventualities. It is not as if these people didn’t have the same potential for good as anyone else. Their live’s journey can still inspire. However, I guess its impossible to try and explain a concept that we lack the ability to perceive, namely timelessness.

Yup, the first line is my concern. I just don’t see why God wouldn’t just create beings who he knew would choose heaven - doesn’t take away our free will a single iota. The only difference is that there would be no one rotting in hell for eternity.

And you say that “their existence adds to the over all human experience just like the Just.” I agree. But how is God “perfectly good” if He chooses to create beings that will chose hell just to add to our “experience”?

 

[pcg2]

If you really think about the repercussions of what you’re saying, when you say “it seems as if you can’t have it ‘both ways,’” who is the 'you?" You’re really saying God can’t have it both ways (being “perfectly good” and omnicient) because I said so.

Ummm… I’m not saying that at all. When I first started this thread I made it perfectly clear that all my objections were going to be from the perspective of a devil’s advocate. I am a Catholic who wishes to follow the teachings and Magisterium of the Church. I’m not some disgruntled person that has issues with the Church’s philosophy. I’m just trying to understand this issue so that I can explain it to people who bring it up to me.

Think of me as the “archetypal atheist” for this thread

In other words, it seems to me that you are blaming God for giving us free will, which is truly a gift from His benevollence.

Nope. I’m glad God gave me free will. Not blaming God for jack-diddly.

Would you rather be a puppet? A machine? He allows you to choose (evil or good) in order to be fully alive and partakers in His nature, which is totally free.

Yes, I realize this. But to me, God could’ve done just as well had He only created beings who He knew would freely choose heaven. In this hypothetical world, no one’s free will would be compromised, and no one would be in hell. We would get the “best of both worlds” so to speak.

Now, we don’t know for sure that even a single person is in hell… but I wouldn’t be willing to bet on it.

 

[pcg2]

I believe simply this: God, who is fair and just and merciful beyond our comprehension or our own capabilities, and whose love even* trumps His justice*, according to Catholic teaching, will do nothing unseemly/unjust/unfair/unkind. And all will look on His actions in the end and know and agree that the right thing was done. As Julian of Norwich, a 14th century Catholic visionary who lived during the Black Plague and was burdened with your same concerns was “shown”: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

I agree with everything you said - very well put

But is this really how the Church falls back on in this issue - that we can’t understand why God does what He does? I mean, I wouldn’t mind that (that’s what we have to do when answering the question of “Why does God allow suffering?”, after all). But I would have hoped that there was a reasonable response to this problem that was better then a simple “I don’t know how God works. Ask Him when you’re dead” type answer… to an unbeliever (or someone that is having doubts with Christianity as a whole) this answer, unfortunately, seems like a simple cop-out…

Is that really as far as the argument can go? I always thought there was a better answer…

 

[4Horsemen]

Yes, I realize this. But to me, God could’ve done just as well had He only created beings who He knew would freely choose heaven. In this hypothetical world, no one’s free will would be compromised, and no one would be in hell. We would get the “best of both worlds” so to speak.

Now, we don’t know for sure that even a single person is in hell… but I wouldn’t be willing to bet on it.

I think that free will inherently means the ability to make choices. Moral choices allow for good or for evil. God did foresee all those who would choose to be apart from Him and chose to create them anyway for His own glory. He desired that each human being he created had every opportunity available. The just can then glorify God all the more for His generosity and benevolence, while the unjust must admit that they truly had every opportunity possible to choose what is good and true. In a hypothetical world in which God would choose to create only those who made the right choices, there would be no gift of salvation. Jesus would not have become man and died for us to prove His exquisite love. There would be no judgment in which the saved would be granted God’s glory. Remember, Adam’s sin has been called “O happy fault.”

 

[fhansen]

I agree with everything you said - very well put

But is this really how the Church falls back on in this issue - that we can’t understand why God does what He does? I mean, I wouldn’t mind that (that’s what we have to do when answering the question of “Why does God allow suffering?”, after all). But I would have hoped that there was a reasonable response to this problem that was better then a simple “I don’t know how God works. Ask Him when you’re dead” type answer… to an unbeliever (or someone that is having doubts with Christianity as a whole) this answer, unfortunately, seems like a simple cop-out…

Is that really as far as the argument can go? I always thought there was a better answer…

But we really don’t know. We probably know even less about heaven than of hell
Our faith is a gift of trust-the ability to trust in the goodness of God and the promise of eternal life, etc. But we know only in vague and general terms –“as through a glass darkly”.

In general, hell is about God’s justice. We want to know that God is just. Especially those who’ve been victims of the worst evils that humanity can commit against humanity want to know that justice will be served. Evil exists. Righteousness and justice demand that good and evil shouldn’t co-exist forever.

Personally I can’t take it any farther than that-I simply trust God to work it all out in a perfectly satisfying way, according to the standard of love. And the Church introduced me to that God.

 

[rtconstant]

Yup, the first line is my concern. I just don’t see why God wouldn’t just create beings who he knew would choose heaven - doesn’t take away our free will a single iota. The only difference is that there would be no one rotting in hell for eternity.

And you say that “their existence adds to the over all human experience just like the Just.” I agree. But how is God “perfectly good” if He chooses to create beings that will chose hell just to add to our “experience”?

I would think that because if God as the Universe’s first cause, only allowed life to those who hold to views He appreciates then He really couldn’t be called good. At least in my view.

 

[pcg2]

I would think that because if God as the Universe’s first cause, only allowed life to those who hold to views He appreciates then He really couldn’t be called good. At least in my view.

But how so? If I were a car manufacturer that had the ability to create cars that would last forever (choose heaven), I would create those cars and only those cars. I wouldn’t create any that I knew would eventually break down (choose hell). How could I be faulted for only creating those cars which I knew would last forever?