Double Predestination

[4Horsemen]

Here is a link to an interesting article that is related to this topic:

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100723

Below is a sampling:

Peter Kreeft stated in his book on angels and demons that the devil can posses our soul if we invite him in. The late Malachi Martin was always emphatic that the devil does not ‘physically inhabit’ the body — he controls minds and wills in a possession and, of course, controls the body. But that does mean he is ‘in’ matter. (Father Gabriele Amorth said the devil can possess thousands of people at one time.) Martin also said in the cases he wrote about, all five possessed persons said they felt that an alien presence was ‘inside’ them in some way, and he did speak of a demon ‘gaining entry,’ not to the body, but to the individual.

 

[Pitcharan]

Here is a link to an interesting article that is related to this topic:

renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100723

Below is a sampling:

Peter Kreeft stated in his book on angels and demons that the devil can posses our soul if we invite him in. The late Malachi Martin was always emphatic that the devil does not ‘physically inhabit’ the body — he controls minds and wills in a possession and, of course, controls the body. But that does mean he is ‘in’ matter. (Father Gabriele Amorth said the devil can possess thousands of people at one time.) Martin also said in the cases he wrote about, all five possessed persons said they felt that an alien presence was ‘inside’ them in some way, and he did speak of a demon ‘gaining entry,’ not to the body, but to the individual.

The debate is not about human beings who are created by God being possessed by devils, demons and unclean spirits. We are all aware of such things and many such cases are cited in the Gospels and Epistles.

I am of the view, that apart from such things, devils can also roam the earth in human guise. These devils in human guise are the reprobate who are not humans created by God in the true sense of the word creation. Rather, they are devils who are allowed to roam the earth in human guise.

 

[benedictus2]

I think you suffer from a mind block.

Nope. No mind block here. That you cannot prove that your conclusion follows logically from your premise says so.

So I repeat. " There is nothing logical about that conclusion at all. It does not follow that because God chose to be human who would grant the devil the chance to be human as well.”

I doubt if it will make any difference, but still I’ll try:
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" (John 6:70)

Duhh! You really think that Jesus meant that Judas was a devil in human form?

I doubt you will get any support for that kind from any reputable theologian.

What about when He said to Peter : Get behind me Satan? Did that mean that Peter was a devil as well

Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?

(Acts 13:9-10) And here is another duhh! St Paul is talking figuratively here. Are you saying that somehow the “devils in human guise’ are reproducing here on earth? This is downright ludicrous!

 

[benedictus2]

 Did you not read my post? Here I reproduce the relevant portion:

He foreknew by His infinite wisdom, that His purpose will be fulfilled only by exercise of free will of humans that is aligned to His own will. Free exercise of human will means, knowing all about good and evil by actually tasting the consequence of either choice and then freely choosing between the two. This is enabled by planting elect humans while permitting Satan to plant reprobate beings. .

So you are saying that somehow if these reprobate beings were not created that human beings would not be able to exercise free will? That is probably one of the more absurd ideas I have heard with regards predestination.

This idea of reprobate beings is too theologically unsound to even bother replying to so like you I bow out of our conversation.

And yes, do consult with good theologians. Maybe you should write to “The ask an apologist” section directly and see if you can get Fr Serpia or any other apologist in this forum to check out your theory because from my vantage point it is truly absurd.

 

[Pitcharan]

So you are saying that somehow if these reprobate beings were not created that human beings would not be able to exercise free will? That is probably one of the more absurd ideas I have heard with regards predestination.

This idea of reprobate beings is too theologically unsound to even bother replying to so like you I bow out of our conversation.

And yes, do consult with good theologians. Maybe you should write to “The ask an apologist” section directly and see if you can get Fr Serpia or any other apologist in this forum to check out your theory because from my vantage point it is truly absurd.

Your way of arguing is this: you invariably attribute your own made up false statement to me; it exposes your perverse intention. No one is stopping you from bowing out; let God respond to your spiritual pride. Of course, only theologians will decide whether my views are absurd or unsound; you are unqualified to decide that. People like you said similar things when I wrote about the Holy Trinity. But God vindicated me and three different theologians approved it and the Bishop permitted its publication.

 

[Pitcharan]

Nope. No mind block here. That you cannot prove that your conclusion follows logically from your premise says so.

So I repeat. " There is nothing logical about that conclusion at all. It does not follow that because God chose to be human who would grant the devil the chance to be human as well.”

You may continue repeating like a clanging cymbal

Duhh! You really think that Jesus meant that Judas was a devil in human form?

:confused:

I doubt you will get any support for that kind from any reputable theologian.

What about when He said to Peter : Get behind me Satan? Did that mean that Peter was a devil as well Your eeks and squeaks will not enhance your theological reputation. You completely lack spiritual wisdom and are unable to discern the difference between using the word “satan” while rebuking someone and saying “one of the twelve I chose is a devil.”

 And here is another duhh!  St Paul is talking figuratively here.  Are you saying that somehow the “devils in human guise’ are reproducing here on earth? :eek: This is downright ludicrous!

It is your typical perverse way of making up your own statements and projecting them as my view, in order to mislead other readers.

 

[4Horsemen]

The debate is not about human beings who are created by God being possessed by devils, demons and unclean spirits. We are all aware of such things and many such cases are cited in the Gospels and Epistles.

I am of the view, that apart from such things, devils can also roam the earth in human guise. These devils in human guise are the reprobate who are not humans created by God in the true sense of the word creation. Rather, they are devils who are allowed to roam the earth in human guise.

It may be possible that devils roam the earth in human guise since they can appear in any form, but there doesn’t seem to be evidence of it. It was already mentioned that angels appear in the form of men (there’s the incidents in both the Old and New Testament). However, when devils appear in various accounts of the lives of the saints, they appear in diabolical form (as if burning coals) or as snarling dogs and unearthly creatures. Maybe you have in mind evil “men” (“devils?”) like Hitler, Stalin, Herod, Nero? I tend to agree with benedictus2 that these are evil humans perhaps possessed or under evil obsession.

It seems that the term “reprobates” refers to humans who have chosen to turn away from God. Yet . . . I recall reading that the devil was unchained from Hell by Our Lord for a period of time in the Twentieth Century to do grievous damage in order to test the souls of the just (and refine them) and cause division (between the saved vs. the reprobates). This happened in a vision to the Pope (Leo XIII?) in the early part of the century. His observers saw the death-like expression on his face when he finally came out of his chapel. The Holy Father composed the prayer to St. Michael, which used to be prayed after Tradition Masses (the Extraordinary Form).

If devils can roam the earth, it may also be possible that souls in Purgatory can “roam” the earth looking for prayers and supplications from their families and others. Maybe this is just the stuff of ghost stories, but I’ve heard and read various accounts (some on these threads) of unexplicable supernatural happenings. Whatever the reason, God is in charge of all things and uses many different ways to call all souls to Him.

 

[pcg2]

What we have here is an apparent conflict which John Calvin was not able to reconcile.

1. God knows everything.
2. Man has free will.

So Calvin, made the mistake of concluding that his limited, fallible human brain (operating completely within the boundaries of linear time) had to have the capacity to reconcile the two. He looked at how we move in one direction through time, and imagined that God sees time the same way we do. He put God’s perspective in a “before-after” box, like ours is, and concluded that the only way God could know everyting was to know “before” we did.

And so, having locked God’s perspective in a box of human making, Calvin concluded that our free will must be an illusion, that we are limited to what God has predestined. Essentially, we are all slaves to what God planned for us, and no matter how we try to deviate from the path we’re going to wind up where God pre-chose for us to go.

It didn’t seem to occur to Calvin that God might have a perspective different from his. Nor that God’s perspective could be so different from his own, so much greater than his own, that God would know things which were completely beyond his (Calvin’s) ability to grasp. Calvin didn’t want to admit that his human brain would be unable to reason his way to an answer. Implicitly, Calvin decided that if his perspective was limited to “before-after”, God’s must be limited also. Big, prideful error.

What Calvin didn’t realize: God created time. God is outside of time. God exists when and where time does not exist, where what we see as “past, present and future” are all together as one. Essentially, God exists in an eternal “now” where everything is simultaneous and instantaneous. There is no gap between imagining something and holding a finished product. For God, to think is both to be and to be done. The great theologians have realized that God is eternal and unchanging, because in that eternal “now” outside of time change can not exist.

But God wanted us to have a chance to think things through, to make up our own minds, to grow, and to change. So God created time. He stretched out that which was simultaneous and instantaneous so they would no longer be together, so that there would need to be motion to get from one side to the other. And God created a universe where change is not only possible, it is necessary. And then, having created a place where change is necessary, he put us there and told us to think.

Keep in mind, though, that even though God sees us thinking, contemplating, choosing, and changing our minds, God is not trapped in our time-box. God is still outside of time, where everything merely is “all-at-once”. The reason God knows what we will do “before” we do it is because from God’s viewpoint “before-after” are meaningless; we have already done it.

We still have the choice. We still pick our path. God does not override our choice with compulsion to force us down any path. True Love is always freely given. Love which comes from compulsion is a meaningless show. This is what John Calvin failed to understand.

This is what interests me. Can you further explain the thing about time? I get what you’re trying to say, but I’m still not exactly sure. And even from what you would write, it still seems like God still creates, knowing that we will go to hell…

 

[Pitcharan]

It may be possible that devils roam the earth in human guise since they can appear in any form, but there doesn’t seem to be evidence of it. It was already mentioned that angels appear in the form of men (there’s the incidents in both the Old and New Testament). However, when devils appear in various accounts of the lives of the saints, they appear in diabolical form (as if burning coals) or as snarling dogs and unearthly creatures. Maybe you have in mind evil “men” (“devils?”) like Hitler, Stalin, Herod, Nero? I tend to agree with benedictus2 that these are evil humans perhaps possessed or under evil obsession.

It seems that the term “reprobates” refers to humans who have chosen to turn away from God. Yet . . . I recall reading that the devil was unchained from Hell by Our Lord for a period of time in the Twentieth Century to do grievous damage in order to test the souls of the just (and refine them) and cause division (between the saved vs. the reprobates). This happened in a vision to the Pope (Leo XIII?) in the early part of the century. His observers saw the death-like expression on his face when he finally came out of his chapel. The Holy Father composed the prayer to St. Michael, which used to be prayed after Tradition Masses (the Extraordinary Form).

If devils can roam the earth, it may also be possible that souls in Purgatory can “roam” the earth looking for prayers and supplications from their families and others. Maybe this is just the stuff of ghost stories, but I’ve heard and read various accounts (some on these threads) of unexplicable supernatural happenings. Whatever the reason, God is in charge of all things and uses many different ways to call all souls to Him.

Thank you very much for your insights and God bless you. At this stage I wish to stop posting but continue working to crystalise the inspirations further under the guidance of renowned elderly theologians. If and when the views take a final shape and are declared fit for publication by our Bishop, I will certainly remember you and promptly share the knowledge with you.

 

[Nan_S]

This is what interests me. Can you further explain the thing about time? I get what you’re trying to say, but I’m still not exactly sure. And even from what you would write, it still seems like God still creates, knowing that we will go to hell…

It’s hard to try to see something from God’s perspective, when we are locked into before-after and God is outside of it. At best we can glimpse it. And we really have no words to properly describe this “outside of time” perspective when our entire language is full of time-words. I’ll try.

Does this help?

God knew that if He created us outside of time he would be creating us as either being eternally unchanging “for him” or “against him.” We would either love Him or hate Him from the moment of our creation and we would have no choice in the matter. We would be compelled, we would be slaves, by our creation. There would be no place for love, no place for sacrifice or meaning, nothing but meaningless impulse.

God didn’t want that. God wanted us to choose to be with Him as passionately as he wanted to be with us. So he created a “bubble” where choices could be made, which meant that time and change had to exist. We are not predestined to heaven or hell, because we are in a place where change happens, where choices have to be made. In fact, we are in the only place where change can happen.

I like to think of a child’s toy balloon. Before you blow into it, the rubber is tiny and compressed. An ant could stand on all parts of the balloon at once. In fact, that’s the only choice it has. The uninflated balloon is would represent the “outside of time” position. God then blows into the balloon, and the rubber gets stretched out into an enormous sphere. The ant can no longer stand on all parts at once; he has to start running, and it takes him quite a while to get from one edge to the other. And along the way, the ant can go any direction or even backwards. The outer perimeter of the inflated balloon represents “time” and the universe as we know it.

Did that clarify things any?

 

[pcg2]

It’s hard to try to see something from God’s perspective, when we are locked into before-after and God is outside of it. At best we can glimpse it. And we really have no words to properly describe this “outside of time” perspective when our entire language is full of time-words. I’ll try.

Does this help?

God knew that if He created us outside of time he would be creating us as either being eternally unchanging “for him” or “against him.” We would either love Him or hate Him from the moment of our creation and we would have no choice in the matter. We would be compelled, we would be slaves, by our creation. There would be no place for love, no place for sacrifice or meaning, nothing but meaningless impulse.

God didn’t want that. God wanted us to choose to be with Him as passionately as he wanted to be with us. So he created a “bubble” where choices could be made, which meant that time and change had to exist. We are not predestined to heaven or hell, because we are in a place where change happens, where choices have to be made. In fact, we are in the only place where change can happen.

I like to think of a child’s toy balloon. Before you blow into it, the rubber is tiny and compressed. An ant could stand on all parts of the balloon at once. In fact, that’s the only choice it has. The uninflated balloon is would represent the “outside of time” position. God then blows into the balloon, and the rubber gets stretched out into an enormous sphere. The ant can no longer stand on all parts at once; he has to start running, and it takes him quite a while to get from one edge to the other. And along the way, the ant can go any direction or even backwards. The outer perimeter of the inflated balloon represents “time” and the universe as we know it.

Did that clarify things any?

It did clarify things… I believe. You have shown why we have free will. But your analogy doesn’t seem to explain how God doesn’t create humans knowing they will choose hell. As you know, that was my question - how can God be omni-benevolent if he omnisciently creates certain humans knowing they will choose hell…

 

[4Horsemen]

Thank you very much for your insights and God bless you. At this stage I wish to stop posting but continue working to crystalise the inspirations further under the guidance of renowned elderly theologians. If and when the views take a final shape and are declared fit for publication by our Bishop, I will certainly remember you and promptly share the knowledge with you.

Thank you, too, for being so gracious and also for sharing your ideas on this thread. I would certainly be interested in a publication concerning the topic addressed. Many blessings to you and yours, and may the Holy Spirit inspire you.

 

[4Horsemen]

It’s hard to try to see something from God’s perspective, when we are locked into before-after and God is outside of it. At best we can glimpse it. And we really have no words to properly describe this “outside of time” perspective when our entire language is full of time-words. I’ll try.

Does this help?

God knew that if He created us outside of time he would be creating us as either being eternally unchanging “for him” or “against him.” We would either love Him or hate Him from the moment of our creation and we would have no choice in the matter. We would be compelled, we would be slaves, by our creation. There would be no place for love, no place for sacrifice or meaning, nothing but meaningless impulse.

God didn’t want that. God wanted us to choose to be with Him as passionately as he wanted to be with us. So he created a “bubble” where choices could be made, which meant that time and change had to exist. We are not predestined to heaven or hell, because we are in a place where change happens, where choices have to be made. In fact, we are in the only place where change can happen.

It’s hard to comprehend that God, in His mercy, chose to give us free will (choices), but the angelic beings had only one choice since they were created outside of the time-space framework. I don’t think that angels are “slaves” by their creation. The ones who chose to be subject to God still have free will (right?) although they only had one free choice. The same with the rebellious angels. Due to their one choice of disobedience and pride, they lost Heaven. Yet they also continue to have free will I think. But they continuously choose freely to despise God and all He stands for. If you can shed any more light on how free will would work with the angelic beings created outside of time, I would be interested.

 

[Nan_S]

It did clarify things… I believe. You have shown why we have free will. But your analogy doesn’t seem to explain how God doesn’t create humans knowing they will choose hell. As you know, that was my question - how can God be omni-benevolent if he omnisciently creates certain humans knowing they will choose hell…

Don’t have time for a full answer right now.

The question is, which is more benevolent? To create someone and choose for him what he will do? Or to create someone and let him choose what he is going to do?

If you were a mother with a child in the womb, and you knew that when the child grew up he would reject heaven and eternal life, would you kill the child before it was born? Or would you give birth to the child anyway, love him, and try to persuade him to accept the gifts God offers?

Some mothers would abort the child, I am sure. God doesn’t do that.

There is a saying, a joke almost, that everyone sets an example, although some seem to be only proficient at setting a bad example. Still, we learn from both the good examples of the righteous and the bad examples of the wicked. Many of our stubborn fence-straddlers need to see and taste the bitter fruits of wickedness before they will be persuaded to turn to God. So if God were to abort the wicked and not allow them to be born, what hope would there be for the fence-straddlers?

We need to keep in mind that there is nothing so depraved, nothing so wicked, that God can draw goodness from it.

**A note for 4Horsemen: **I’m not so sure that the angels were created outside-of-time. For the angels to have and exercise free will, they have to at least “spent some time” within the realm of time. Looking at the Book of Revelation, where the martyrs in heaven and under the altar of God are told to “wait a little longer” for their vindication, it would seem that at least a portion of heaven is within time and affected by it.

We also have records of angels coming to earth and living beside us, within time, however briefly. So perhaps the angels were created outside-of-time with all the potential to choose, and were sent to earth to make their choices. There is that mysterious passage in Genesis, before the Great Flood, about the Nephilim. I’m just speculating here, I don’t really know what the Church teaches on this.

Lucifer was created as one of the the brightest and most glorious of angels, with all the gifts necessary to be God’s #1 right-hand man, yet he chose disregard God and do things his way. Consequently, his realm is now the wholly-within-time world, doomed to eventual destruction.

 

[pcg2]

The question is, which is more benevolent? To create someone and choose for him what he will do? Or to create someone and let him choose what he is going to do?

My issue isn’t with whether we have free will or not – I fully agree that we have free will.

If you were a mother with a child in the womb, and you knew that when the child grew up he would reject heaven and eternal life, would you kill the child before it was born? Or would you give birth to the child anyway, love him, and try to persuade him to accept the gifts God offers?

This analogy doesn’t work. The mother is not omniscient. You are saying that once the mother is pregnant, what would she do. If I was a mother, and I knew that my child would choose hell, I wouldn’t get impregnated to begin with. God doesn’t get “impregnated.” He doesn’t create and then realize, “oops, I just created this person, and what do you know, he/she is going to choose hell. darn.” He wills us into existence, all the while knowing what we will choose. Your analogy would be better if you had asked if I would have sex (the creative act), knowing that my child would choose hell. And my answer would be an unequivocal “no”.

There is a saying, a joke almost, that everyone sets an example, although some seem to be only proficient at setting a bad example. Still, we learn from both the good examples of the righteous and the bad examples of the wicked. Many of our stubborn fence-straddlers need to see and taste the bitter fruits of wickedness before they will be persuaded to turn to God. So if God were to abort the wicked and not allow them to be born, what hope would there be for the fence-straddlers?

But this is like saying that it’s okay to have evil because without it we wouldn’t be able to appreciate the good in life. It’s okay to be blind for a while, because then we wouldn’t appreciate our sight. Why, though? Adam and Eve didn’t need to know evil before they were happy - they were perfectly content without having known evil before the fall.

So you believe that God creates some, knowing they will choose hell, simply so that they can serve as an example to those who are on the fence? How could this God be called omniscient?

We need to keep in mind that there is nothing so depraved, nothing so wicked, that God can draw goodness from it.

I think you meant can’t – but yes, I fully agree.

 

[The_Scott]

Here’s a website that gives a great summary (granted, even this summary is long). I think it really helped my understanding:

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/

 

[Nan_S]

pcg2,

In asking “which is more benevolent” I was not denying free will. What I was asking was whether it was more loving to give someone complete choice, or to restrict someone’s choices to only those on one side of the equation.

Clearly if you give someone only “good” choices you expect to only have a “good” outcome. But you also wind up with a watered-down and unappreciated outcome. Adam and Eve were perfectly content until they were presented with temptation, and then they were easy prey.

On the other hand, when you give someone complete choice you add the element of risk - that a “bad” outcome may occur. However, that vast majority who choose the good outcome understand the depth and meaning of the gift they have received; their love is far greater because they appreciate its value.

Giving someone genuine freedom means that you accept the outcome of their choices, even though it is contrary to what you would choose for them. If the free will given to us by God is genuine, then some are going to choose to separate themselves from God. And since God is everything that is good, and apart from God there is no goodness, then someone who chooses to forever separate himself from God is also separating himself from all that is good. That’s why hell is so miserable.

You use the term “omni-benevolent” as a characteristic of God. The term (as I understand it) means something like “all-compassionate and all-merciful.” That’s not a term Catholics use; we prefer to say instead that God is a perfect blend of mercy tempered with justice. “Omni-benevolence” is a problematic term originating from some Protestant theologies, and overused by those who want to focus on a feel-good perspective. It’s as if they say it doesn’t matter how depraved you are throughout your life, and no matter how depraved you remain, that God still loves and forgives you anyway. Which I do agree with - superficially. Where the omni-benevolence definition falls short is that it marginalizes the summons God gives us to get off our lazy butts and do something about our depravity.

Complete mercy is not merciful or compassionate at all towards those who have been wronged by the depraved. God is not a divine Santa Claus who gives goodies to all His children while ho-ho-ho-ing and overlooking their naughtiness. A truly loving God balances the equation; He gives compassion towards those who would respond to compassion, while not neglecting to give justice to those who deserve to have justice done.

Revelation 6:9-11 When he broke open the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God. They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” Each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to be patient a little while longer until the number was filled of their fellow servants and brothers who were going to be killed as they had been.

 

[pcg2]

In asking “which is more benevolent” I was not denying free will. What I was asking was whether it was more loving to give someone complete choice, or to restrict someone’s choices to only those on one side of the equation.

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.

Clearly if you give someone only “good” choices you expect to only have a “good” outcome. But you also wind up with a watered-down and unappreciated outcome. Adam and Eve were perfectly content until they were presented with temptation, and then they were easy prey.

On the other hand, when you give someone complete choice you add the element of risk - that a “bad” outcome may occur. However, that vast majority who choose the good outcome understand the depth and meaning of the gift they have received; their love is far greater because they appreciate its value.

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?

Giving someone genuine freedom means that you accept the outcome of their choices, even though it is contrary to what you would choose for them. If the free will given to us by God is genuine, then some are going to choose to separate themselves from God. And since God is everything that is good, and apart from God there is no goodness, then someone who chooses to forever separate himself from God is also separating himself from all that is good. That’s why hell is so miserable.

Fully agree.

You use the term “omni-benevolent” as a characteristic of God. The term (as I understand it) means something like “all-compassionate and all-merciful.” That’s not a term Catholics use; we prefer to say instead that God is a perfect blend of mercy tempered with justice. “Omni-benevolence” is a problematic term originating from some Protestant theologies, and overused by those who want to focus on a feel-good perspective. It’s as if they say it doesn’t matter how depraved you are throughout your life, and no matter how depraved you remain, that God still loves and forgives you anyway. Which I do agree with - superficially. Where the omni-benevolence definition falls short is that it marginalizes the summons God gives us to get off our lazy butts and do something about our depravity.

Complete mercy is not merciful or compassionate at all towards those who have been wronged by the depraved. God is not a divine Santa Claus who gives goodies to all His children while ho-ho-ho-ing and overlooking their naughtiness. A truly loving God balances the equation; He gives compassion towards those who would respond to compassion, while not neglecting to give justice to those who deserve to have justice done.

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?

 

[fhansen]

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?

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

 

[pcg2]

Here’s a website that gives a great summary (granted, even this summary is long). I think it really helped my understanding:

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/

that was a good article, but it still left me feeling unsatisfied, i guess you can say…