"Foreknowledge vs. Predestination" Issue

[Consigliere]

Good morning everyone,

This is my first post on this forum, and I’ve come here in large part, because there has been a discussion about Catholicism vs. Calvinism that I have been engaged in.

One of these important issues I’m trying to distinguish between is the Foreknowledge vs. Pre-determination issue.

For instance, I believe Catholics would make the following argument:

I. Foreknowledge is not the equivalent of predetermination.

Before delving into more more philosophical considerations, let me give you an example: the relation between a father and his son. There are many things a father knows about his son, and amply and wisely anticipates, without discouraging him or determining his behavior. Early on already the son wants to be an aviator. The father knows that his eyesight is weak, a probable handicap, but he will not discourage his son, because in spite of probabilities, there may be a change in venue. The knowledge of the father does not curb the freedom of the son, if the father is a loving father. In this love there is always room for another chance, if the son wishes so
.
The example is a human one, granted. But it takes into account what we know about God in the Bible. He is the creator God, and in that creation there is freedom we can actually experience. The on-and-off relationship between God and his people is a proof that God always comes back to challenge the people with his love, ultimately by sending his own Son. The red thread that goes through the Bible is one of love, actually mercy. The word mercy indicates a gratuitous love where the initiative is with God untiringly.

Predestination not only contradicts the Bible as a whole, it is in absolute contradiction with love. Predestination contradicts our experience of human nature. Predestination kills any and all notion of morals. There were movements in the church living according to the idea of predestination, one of them the so called quietism. Let yourself be pushed and pulled in whichever direction life goes, even sin. No wonder this and other movements destroyed themselves. It was their own moral abjection that got the better of them.

II. Pre-Determination Argument

“Predestination contradicts our experience of human nature. Predestination kills any and all notion of morals.”—I direct you to the cross of Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, “both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27-28). Again D.A. Carson expounds, “Herod and Pontius Pilate and the rest conspired together; they did what they wanted to do, even though they did what God’s power and will had determined beforehand should be done. That is why many theologians have refused to tie “freedom” to absolute power to act contrary to God’s will. They tie it, rather, to desire, to what human beings voluntarily choose. Joseph’s brothers did what they wanted to do; Herod and Pilate and the rulers of the Jews did what they wanted to do; the Assyrians did what they wanted to do. In each case, God’s sovereignty was operating behind the scenes: the human participants, to use the language of the early Christians, did what God’s power and will had decided beforehand should happen. But that did not excuse them. They did what they wanted to do.”

Again, the pinnacle of the Christian faith—the crucifixion of Jesus Christ—cries out in protest against your philosophizing. It is clear that this event surely was predestined by the hand of God, and yet these men, these godless men (Acts 2:23) were fully culpable for their wicked actions. And yet, you complain that men who aren’t “free” to act outside of God’s men surely shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices? Well I submit to you that if these men who crucified my Savior shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices, then no men should be. Therefore, your argument fails on all sides.

III. OPINIONS?

I think that a good argument is made on both sides… particularly in reference to the particular issue of Jesus’s crucifixion. Meaning, was it not true that God had predetermined to send his Son, Jesus, to take away the sins of the world? Would it not be true that, in doing so, he must have used men (in an evil way) to carry out his wishes? So in some sense, God may have indeed purposefully made/pre-determined certain men’s evil acts for the accomplishment of His overall purpose?

(This is a point I’m hoping/wondering if more learned Catholics could help me understand).

Thank you in advance for your time and I look forward to your responses.

 

[PatriciusRex]

The core teaching on which the whole Predetermination system is based is that man after the Fall is totally depraved, that is, he lacks all capacity for good and his every action is inherently evil. In this model, God does not “force” anyone to be evil, rather evil acts are simply the natural outcome of unregenerate man. God’s sole action and intervention is in electing some out of the many for salvation. These elect through the working of the Holy Spirit become capable of good works and must inexorably persevere to final salvation because the entire process of their election, sanctification, and glorification is guided by the hand of God. That is, even in election, man has no will of his own, being unable to resist God’s grace.

This system is all necessary within the Calvinist model because of the insistence that Salvation is solely the work of God’s grace, and is in no way (however small) contributed to by the will of man. It is the direct consequence of the assertions “sola gratia” and “sola fide.”

That being said, a Calvinist would never agree with you that predetermination is inconsistent with divine love. Rather, the Calvinists would see predeterminate election as the epitome of that love, since it represents God’s decision to thrust his hand into the flames and save some of his beloved creatures from eternal ruin.

Likewise, the instances like Pharaoh in the old testament whose heart was hardened against the words of Moses (Exodus 9:12) or Judas whose role seems foreordained (Matthew 26:24) are not taught by Calvinists as cases of God intervening to make people evil, but rather his not intervening and simply allowing sinful men to do sinful things.

Now as you’ve pointed out Catholics support the “foreknowledge” side of the argument.

For a good exposition, I recommend you read the entirety of St. John Chrysostom’s homily 16 on the Epistle to the Romans which discusses Romans 9 (probably the most difficulty chapter in the entire Bible for people who reject predestination). It can be found on New Advent here: newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

To give you some immediate answers though he’s a couple relevant excerpts:

On Romans 9:11-12 in which Paul discusses how even in the womb, Jacob was predestined for glory while Esau was not, Chrysostom writes:

What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? Why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, the elder shall serve the younger. With what intent then did God say this? Because He does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows which is the wicked and which not such.

So here we see the doctrine of foreknowledge being taught at it’s most plain. Esau was not rejected in favor of Jacob out of mere whim, but because God whose knowledge is infinite foreknew the moral character each man would have as an adult.

In Romans 9:22-24 Paul discusses “vessels of wrath” which seems to embody the most horrific aspect of predestination, namely that some people were actually made for damnation merely to serve as reminders to the Elect of just how fortunate they are to have been chosen by God. Chrysostom’s response:

What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calls him not only a vessel of wrath, but also one fitted for destruction. That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out anything of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out anything of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, He endured him with much long-suffering, being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power. For that it is not God’s wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways.

So Pharaoh, the archetype of the enemy of God with “hardened heart” was hardened by himself, not because God willed him to be so in anyway. God suffers the vessels of wrath not to make examples of them to terrify the Elect into glorifying Him, but rather out of mercy, first to the wicked themselves, that they might one day repent, and secondly for the just, that they might not all be swept away in a Great Flood-esque destruction. (cf. Genesis 9:15; Matthew 13:24-30).

Hope this all helps!

 

[steve_b]

Good morning everyone,

This is my first post on this forum, and I’ve come here in large part, because there has been a discussion about Catholicism vs. Calvinism that I have been engaged in.

One of these important issues I’m trying to distinguish between is the Foreknowledge vs. Pre-determination issue.

For instance, I believe Catholics would make the following argument:

I. Foreknowledge is not the equivalent of predetermination.

Before delving into more more philosophical considerations, let me give you an example: the relation between a father and his son. There are many things a father knows about his son, and amply and wisely anticipates, without discouraging him or determining his behavior. Early on already the son wants to be an aviator. The father knows that his eyesight is weak, a probable handicap, but he will not discourage his son, because in spite of probabilities, there may be a change in venue. The knowledge of the father does not curb the freedom of the son, if the father is a loving father. In this love there is always room for another chance, if the son wishes so
.
The example is a human one, granted. But it takes into account what we know about God in the Bible. He is the creator God, and in that creation there is freedom we can actually experience. The on-and-off relationship between God and his people is a proof that God always comes back to challenge the people with his love, ultimately by sending his own Son. The red thread that goes through the Bible is one of love, actually mercy. The word mercy indicates a gratuitous love where the initiative is with God untiringly.

Predestination not only contradicts the Bible as a whole, it is in absolute contradiction with love. Predestination contradicts our experience of human nature. Predestination kills any and all notion of morals. There were movements in the church living according to the idea of predestination, one of them the so called quietism. Let yourself be pushed and pulled in whichever direction life goes, even sin. No wonder this and other movements destroyed themselves. It was their own moral abjection that got the better of them.

II. Pre-Determination Argument

“Predestination contradicts our experience of human nature. Predestination kills any and all notion of morals.”—I direct you to the cross of Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, “both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur” (Acts 4:27-28). Again D.A. Carson expounds, “Herod and Pontius Pilate and the rest conspired together; they did what they wanted to do, even though they did what God’s power and will had determined beforehand should be done. That is why many theologians have refused to tie “freedom” to absolute power to act contrary to God’s will. They tie it, rather, to desire, to what human beings voluntarily choose. Joseph’s brothers did what they wanted to do; Herod and Pilate and the rulers of the Jews did what they wanted to do; the Assyrians did what they wanted to do. In each case, God’s sovereignty was operating behind the scenes: the human participants, to use the language of the early Christians, did what God’s power and will had decided beforehand should happen. But that did not excuse them. They did what they wanted to do.”

Again, the pinnacle of the Christian faith—the crucifixion of Jesus Christ—cries out in protest against your philosophizing. It is clear that this event surely was predestined by the hand of God, and yet these men, these godless men (Acts 2:23) were fully culpable for their wicked actions. And yet, you complain that men who aren’t “free” to act outside of God’s men surely shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices? Well I submit to you that if these men who crucified my Savior shouldn’t be held accountable for their choices, then no men should be. Therefore, your argument fails on all sides.

III. OPINIONS?

I think that a good argument is made on both sides… particularly in reference to the particular issue of Jesus’s crucifixion. Meaning, was it not true that God had predetermined to send his Son, Jesus, to take away the sins of the world? Would it not be true that, in doing so, he must have used men (in an evil way) to carry out his wishes? So in some sense, God may have indeed purposefully made/pre-determined certain men’s evil acts for the accomplishment of His overall purpose?

(This is a point I’m hoping/wondering if more learned Catholics could help me understand).

Thank you in advance for your time and I look forward to your responses.

It was Calvin who elaborated the repulsive doctrine that an absolute Divine decree from all eternity positively predestined part of mankind to hell and, in order to obtain this end effectually, also to sin. It’s called double predestination. Don’t mix Calvin’s confusions with what predestination is.

May I suggest reading from Thomas Aquinas Summa on **Predestination **

It’s in the format of objections 1st , then Thomas replies to each objection.

 

[Consigliere]

The core teaching on which the whole Predetermination system is based is that man after the Fall is totally depraved, that is, he lacks all capacity for good and his every action is inherently evil. In this model, God does not “force” anyone to be evil, rather evil acts are simply the natural outcome of unregenerate man. God’s sole action and intervention is in electing some out of the many for salvation. These elect through the working of the Holy Spirit become capable of good works and must inexorably persevere to final salvation because the entire process of their election, sanctification, and glorification is guided by the hand of God. That is, even in election, man has no will of his own, being unable to resist God’s grace.

This system is all necessary within the Calvinist model because of the insistence that Salvation is solely the work of God’s grace, and is in no way (however small) contributed to by the will of man. It is the direct consequence of the assertions “sola gratia” and “sola fide.”

That being said, a Calvinist would never agree with you that predetermination is inconsistent with divine love. Rather, the Calvinists would see predeterminate election as the epitome of that love, since it represents God’s decision to thrust his hand into the flames and save some of his beloved creatures from eternal ruin.

Likewise, the instances like Pharaoh in the old testament whose heart was hardened against the words of Moses (Exodus 9:12) or Judas whose role seems foreordained (Matthew 26:24) are not taught by Calvinists as cases of God intervening to make people evil, but rather his not intervening and simply allowing sinful men to do sinful things.

Now as you’ve pointed out Catholics support the “foreknowledge” side of the argument.

For a good exposition, I recommend you read the entirety of St. John Chrysostom’s homily 16 on the Epistle to the Romans which discusses Romans 9 (probably the most difficulty chapter in the entire Bible for people who reject predestination). It can be found on New Advent here: newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

To give you some immediate answers though he’s a couple relevant excerpts:

On Romans 9:11-12 in which Paul discusses how even in the womb, Jacob was predestined for glory while Esau was not, Chrysostom writes:

So here we see the doctrine of foreknowledge being taught at it’s most plain. Esau was not rejected in favor of Jacob out of mere whim, but because God whose knowledge is infinite foreknew the moral character each man would have as an adult.

In Romans 9:22-24 Paul discusses “vessels of wrath” which seems to embody the most horrific aspect of predestination, namely that some people were actually made for damnation merely to serve as reminders to the Elect of just how fortunate they are to have been chosen by God. Chrysostom’s response:

So Pharaoh, the archetype of the enemy of God with “hardened heart” was hardened by himself, not because God willed him to be so in anyway. God suffers the vessels of wrath not to make examples of them to terrify the Elect into glorifying Him, but rather out of mercy, first to the wicked themselves, that they might one day repent, and secondly for the just, that they might not all be swept away in a Great Flood-esque destruction. (cf. Genesis 9:15; Matthew 13:24-30).

Hope this all helps!

Thank you very much for your response, you seem to be quite well-learned in Catholic theology. On the contrary, I am quite a novice though I wish to learn more about my Catholic faith.

I’m a bit confused, then, on three points:

1. It appears that you agree there is an “Elect”. Your profile says that you are a Catholic. I have never heard of this “elect” issue before. Do you subscribe to this idea of being one of God’s “Elect” as a Catholic? Or perhaps I’m phrasing this question incorrectly… Do you feel that man is totally depraved or man does have the ability/some natural ability given by God to all men, to do/choose/act good?

a. If you do, how would you even know that you are one of the “elect”?

b. How is Calvinism reconciled with Catholicism (if it can be)?

1. I’m still not sure your response answers the inquiry about the pinnacle of our faith, the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible, it seems that the coming of the Son of Man was pre-destined by God. Therefore, God must have needed to use ‘evil men’ to accomplish the purpose He set out. (If all men were perfectly good and holy, then I imagine Jesus would never have been put to death). Therefore, certain men must have been either made inherently evil, or pre-destined to be evil in order for Jesus to successfully enter His Passion.

a. How is this reconciled with Free-Will? (Unless I’ve completely missed something in your response above).

b. Are those ‘evil men’ forgiven by God? (I.e. Jesus did say "forgive them Father for they know not what they do).

Please forgive me for my lack of theological depth in presenting these questions, but this whole “elect” and “pre-determination” issues have thrown me for a loop and I am trying to get my mind around it.

 

[feed_me]

Thank you very much for your response, you seem to be quite well-learned in Catholic theology. On the contrary, I am quite a novice though I wish to learn more about my Catholic faith.

I’m a bit confused, then, on three points:

1. It appears that you agree there is an “Elect”. Your profile says that you are a Catholic. I have never heard of this “elect” issue before. Do you subscribe to this idea of being one of God’s “Elect” as a Catholic? Or perhaps I’m phrasing this question incorrectly… Do you feel that man is totally depraved or man does have the ability/some natural ability given by God to all men, to do/choose/act good?

a. If you do, how would you even know that you are one of the “elect”?

You don’t know. Nobody will know but God.

b. How is Calvinism reconciled with Catholicism (if it can be)?

Didn’t read the full thing, sorry

1. I’m still not sure your response answers the inquiry about the pinnacle of our faith, the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Throughout the Bible, it seems that the coming of the Son of Man was pre-destined by God. Therefore, God must have needed to use ‘evil men’ to accomplish the purpose He set out. (If all men were perfectly good and holy, then I imagine Jesus would never have been put to death). Therefore, certain men must have been either made inherently evil, or pre-destined to be evil in order for Jesus to successfully enter His Passion.

a. How is this reconciled with Free-Will? (Unless I’ve completely missed something in your response above).

Free will is given to everybody. You can be of the elect, but choose to still go to Hell.

b. Are those ‘evil men’ forgiven by God? (I.e. Jesus did say "forgive them Father for they know not what they do).

Every man is forgiven when they ask God, but as the free-will comes in, you still do evil things, and still make that choice.

Please forgive me for my lack of theological depth in presenting these questions, but this whole “elect” and “pre-determination” issues have thrown me for a loop and I am trying to get my mind around it.

 

[Michael_Allen]

I think that a good argument is made on both sides…

So do I. God’s sovereign will and plan, and man’s choices are both clearly in scripture. I find it a mystery how they fit together, but I have no doubt both are true.

 

[PatriciusRex]

Consigliere,

The concept of “Election” which just means being “chosen” is at the very heart of both Old and New Covenants. The difference between the Catholic and the Calvinist simply comes from the basis on which one is chosen for salvation.

As I mentioned before, because they are bound by the premises of “sola gratia” and “sola fide” the Calvinists conclude that election is unconditional, that is, God chooses some for Salvation out of no consideration whatsoever of their works or merits. They are saved simply because God chose them, and the damned (or the “Reprobate”) are lost because God did not choose them. Faith and obedience to God is then not a choice the person makes, but is rather the result of having been chosen.

Catholics on the other hand, firmly espouse that man retains free will and plays a cooperative role in Salvation, even as he is dependent upon the grace of God offered through the sacrifice of Christ. Thus Election in Catholicism is on the basis of foreseen faith and obedience to God (compare Chrysostom’s discussion of Jacob and Esau I cited earlier), but Election is in no means the cause of faith and obedience.

a. If you do, how would you even know that you are one of the “elect”?

Salvation is a life-long process and only God can know with absolute certainty which are his Elect. But we are not ignorant. We have the Scriptures, we have the Church. We hear the voice of God and experience the grace of Christ through these channels and thus we know what God expects of us to be his “good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:23). The Holy Spirit dwelling in our conscience both affirms us when we are engaged in the work of God, and condemns us when we falter. Thus when we fall off the path of salvation, we are aware, because Christ sent us the Spirit to be our guide. (John 14:15-16). So in a sense we can be sure, because we know exactly what must be done for salvation, and we can know that so long as we follow Christ, we will not fail. (2 Timothy 4:7-8)

Consider the parable of the guests invited to a feast. (Matthew 22:1-14) The king extends his invitation to any who would come, representing God’s free offer of the gift of Salvation through Christ to any who will hear the Gospel and come to believe. Nevertheless, when the king comes to the banquet he throws out those guests who did not properly prepare themselves by dressing up. So while God’s free gift is extended to all, only those who both accept his gift and return it with obedience are among the Elect. Indeed, the Scripture says this plainly: “Many are called, few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14).

b. How is Calvinism reconciled with Catholicism?

It cannot be. Catholicism assumes God’s free gift of grace was offered equally to all, to be refused or accepted on the basis of free will. Calvinism asserts that grace was offered only to the Elect who are incapable of doing anything but accepting it.

a. How is this reconciled with Free-Will?

Where Catholicism and Calvinism can actually be said to agree, albeit only mildly, is on the innate sinfulness of man. We confess with them that natural man, unassisted by grace, is doomed to sin and damnation. This is the doctrine of Original Sin, derived from the writings of St. Augustine. We also agree with them that the sad truth is that many will not be saved, and that the world is full of evil men who will always oppose men of God in every time and place.

As I mentioned in my previous post, God allows these evil men to continue to exist for two reasons. The first is that many of them will be converted before the end (compare the parable of the workers in the vineyard, Matthew 20:1-16), and secondly that their wickedness cannot be expunged without also expunging the good. Now, God’s tolerance of wickedness is not merely an exercise in patience, but in his providence God takes advantage of these wicked persons to further his own plans. God sent Moses to ask Pharaoh to let his people go, knowing fully well that Pharaoh was too proud to ever allow it without almost losing his kingdom. But as a result of Pharaoh’s intransigence, the glory of God was made known in the miracles God worked in conveying the Israelites out of Egypt. Likewise, through the evil of Judas, Caiaphas, and all those Jews and Romans who crucified Christ, the greatest miracle of all was made possible: the salvation of all who would come to God.

b. Are those ‘evil men’ forgiven by God?

In Catholic theology, there is a principle known as “invincible ignorance” which is firmly rooted in Christ’s words on the cross that you quoted. Essentially, no one can be guilty of sin when they are unaware what they are doing is sin. The ignorance is “invincible” because the person committing the sin has no knowledge that would allow them to realize the gravity of their actions. So Christ forgave those who unwittingly participated in his crucifixion without any knowledge of who he was.

Paul tells us that the Law was given through Moses, that none of God’s people would be ignorant of sin. Because we have this knowledge, we always know when we have sinned, and thus will be held accountable. Compare Jesus’s forgiveness of his crucifiers with his statement regarding Judas, who of course had ample opportunity to understand who Jesus was: “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” (Mark 14:21)

Please forgive me for my lack of theological depth in presenting these questions, but this whole “elect” and “pre-determination” issues have thrown me for a loop and I am trying to get my mind around it.

Welcome to the club! It’s an incredibly confusing subject and one that has stumped theologians for 2000 years.

 

[Consigliere]

PatriciusRex,

Thank you for taking the time to provide these wonderful and insightful responses. These are quite wonderful and I greatly appreciate them.

There’s one minor sub-issue I’m having with being considered ‘elect’ or ‘chosen’ or any like phrase.

I was under the impression that God loves all humans, as all are his ‘children’ and that Jesus died so that sins may be forgiven for all.

By using the the term ‘elect’ or God’s ‘chosen’ it indicates that, by definition, some are left out. I was under the impression that God loves all, and wants all to turn to Him.

So, by using these terms “elect” or “chosen” how is that reconciled with God’s love (and desire) for all humans, to turn to him and repent?

(I apologize if my question is unclear). Here’s my logic:

a. God created mankind and wants humans to repent and believe in Him.

b. Jesus died for all so that any human, through belief in Jesus Christ, may reconcile with God.

c. If the first two points are taken as true, then how can there be a term “elect” or “chosen” as that indicates a limiting condition.

d. EVEN IF, there is a ‘chosen’ or ‘elect’ people… why are they elect in the first place? We are all sinners. Even though Jesus has opened the avenue to reconcile us to the Father, many of us (even if considered 'elect), sin each day.

 

[Consigliere]

As an addendum, PatriciusRex, I’m curious how you would interpret the following passage as a Catholic, because I am having a bit of trouble reconciling this passage.

Ephesians 1.

"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he** predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory."**

 

[Bookcat]

God can be said to more properly-- “see” – rather than “forsee”

All which is past, present or future for us – he sees. Not “before it happens” for he is outside time. He sees all at once – all that is of creation.

 

[Bookcat]

God can more properly be said to – “see” – rather than “forsee”.

All which is past, present or future for us – he sees. Not “before it happens” for he is outside time. He sees all at once – all that is of creation. It is all “present” to him (to use unfortunately an analogy of time).

 

[Consigliere]

God can more properly be said to – “see” – rather than “forsee”.

All which is past, present or future for us – he sees. Not “before it happens” for he is outside time. He sees all at once – all that is of creation. It is all “present” to him (to use unfortunately an analogy of time).

Hello Bookcat,

Thank you for your response. I am a bit confused at what you are saying. If He ‘sees’ the future for us, then in cases where He sees an evil person, unwilling to repent sin and turn to Him, then what would be the purpose in God attempting to reach this man? If it’s clear to God that the man will be evil? What hope is there?

 

[Bookcat]

Hello Bookcat,

Thank you for your response. I am a bit confused at what you are saying. If He ‘sees’ the future for us, then in cases where He sees an evil person, unwilling to repent sin and turn to Him, then what would be the purpose in God attempting to reach this man? If it’s clear to God that the man will be evil? What hope is there?

God is outside of Time. There is “no future” for God. All time is before him (so to speak) --all at once.

So it can be said that God does not “forsee” the person will choose to hell -but he sees it all at once – together with all the grace he gives…

This is a very deep subject–and it is very difficulty to try to “see” as God sees or to understand this…

But from our perspective – we are hear the Gospel and with grace - repent and believe the Gospel!

Let us always turn to Jesus and know true life in him – and not try to much to understand what is beyond our understanding.

 

[PatriciusRex]

a. God created mankind and wants humans to repent and believe in Him.

b. Jesus died for all so that any human, through belief in Jesus Christ, may reconcile with God.

c. If the first two points are taken as true, then how can there be a term “elect” or “chosen” as that indicates a limiting condition.

d. EVEN IF, there is a ‘chosen’ or ‘elect’ people… why are they elect in the first place? We are all sinners. Even though Jesus has opened the avenue to reconcile us to the Father, many of us (even if considered 'elect), sin each day.

They are elect despite sin because God already knows the end result of their lives. A person might sin considerably, but because they ultimately repent of their sin and die in the grace of Christ, this person is among the Elect as surely as someone who managed to live a saintly life for years.

The limiting condition comes from the fact that while God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Peter 3:9) nevertheless not everyone is saved and many will refuse salvation. (Matthew 7:13). Now this is where you’re faced with two explanations and this is why I ultimately chose to reject any sort of predeterministic predestination myself.

If Calvinism is true, then a person is among the Elect solely on the basis that God chose him for salvation out of all the people of the world on no basis of any comparative quality. Because of Original Sin, all are equally deserving of damnation (Romans 3:9-19) and it is only through the mercy of God that these few, the Elect, were pulled from destruction. The problem for me, however, is as follows:

The Monergist model:

1. If Original Sin taints all humanity, then all persons are equally deserving of damnation.
2. If all persons share identical guilt, then all persons are therefore also equally innocent.
3. If God chooses some for salvation, this act inherently involves him also choosing some for damnation, as in not choosing he exercises as much discretion and agency as in choosing.
4. Thus any form of predestinarian Election (or “monergism”) is necessarily double-predestination, in which God chooses some for salvation, and likewise chose others for damnation.
5. In choosing some for damnation, God willingly sends his beloved creatures to eternal ruin, despite the fact that their fault is no more than those God has chosen to save.
6. Because the damned are no more guilty of sin than the saved, their fate is not the result of their sin, but rather solely of God wishing that they be damned.

How can God be a loving father “not willing that any should perish” who “would have all be saved and come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) and simultaneously be the cause of many of his children going to hell? This is the central problem of monergism for me.

Now conversely,

The Synergist model:

1. All mankind is stained with Original Sin, and deserving damnation. They are separated from God and holiness by a vast gulf.
2. God does not wish to see his beloved creatures suffer eternal torment, so in his mercy provided the means of man’s salvation through the atoning sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ.
3. Christ’s death and resurrection creates a bridge across the gulf of sin separating mankind and God. Through the proclamation of the Gospel, all are told of the bridge and bidden to cross it.
4. Some will heed the call and cross the bridge. Some will heed the call at first, cross partly, but ultimately turn back or fall off. Some will never attempt to cross. But these outcomes are all on the basis of their own judgment and free will.
5. God’s knowledge being infinite, he knows from before the foundation of the world, which of his creatures will cross the bridge, and which will not. Those who will cross, he then numbers among his Elect, his chosen, that he may fill their lives with blessings, and they may enjoy the adopted sonship (Ephesians 1:5) of God’s children. The predestination of God then is the “credit of righteousness” that God attributes to those who respond to his call with faith and obedience. (Romans 4:3-8; James 2: 21-23)

To me, this above is the only model that is consistent with God’s love for all mankind (the hellbound included).

 

[PatriciusRex]

As an addendum, PatriciusRex, I’m curious how you would interpret the following passage as a Catholic, because I am having a bit of trouble reconciling this passage.

Ephesians 1.

1:1-6

This passage outlines that Christ was sent into the world to be the instrument and agent of man’s salvation. We are chosen before the foundation of the world in the manner I described in my previous post. (In fact I even cited Ephesians 1:5). Being chosen to “be holy and without blemish before him” is precisely the credit of righteousness that God awards to those who have faith in him and fulfill their faith with obedience.

1:7-10

Emphasizes that the full power of man’s salvation lies in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ.

1:11-14

Returns to the fact of our adoption in Christ by the Father, and that we, as God’s Elect are meant be beacons of God’s goodness to the world. Note well, that it ties the “chosen” and “destined” to “who first hoped in Christ” and later “who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him.” The hope for Christ is thus tied to the condition of being chosen and destined.

Also note well that the sealing of the Holy Spirit which comes as the mark of our being chosen, is merely the “first installment” of our salvation. Thus supporting the identity of salvation not as a single event but as a lifelong process, what Paul in 2 Timothy called “the good fight” and “the race.”

1:15-23

Paul here prays that all may appreciate the fullness of the blessings which God’s grace offers us through Christ. While it does not explicitly say, my reading of it, especially in context of what came before, is that Paul wishes all to know of Christ and that Christ is worthy of being hoped for and believed in, that all might be chosen in him, and all might be sealed with the Holy Spirit.

---

That’s my momentary interpretation of the text.

Now I’ll share with you some thoughts I’ve had on my own.

I believe that the Bible itself is extremely equivocal on this topic. There are plenty of passages which seem to support free will while others often seem to support a monergist system of election. And almost everything else can be spun to fit whatever your chosen view point is.

For reasons I shared in my last post, I came to the conclusion that I simply could not believe in monergist predestination. It was just too terrible and too inconsistent with the conception of God I had always been taught.

As Catholics, when the Scriptures are unclear, we are expected to turn to the witness of the Church for guidance.

In my first response I posted some excerpts of St. John Chrysostom, a Patriarch of Constantinople and a great Church Father of the 4th century. If you peruse the writings of the Church Fathers you will find the case for free will to be very strong. In fact with only a few notable exceptions, such as St. Augustine, the Fathers are almost unanimous in their assertion that man is free to choose between good and evil, though they also invariably defend that it is only through the grace of God that man has this ability.

Pax tecum!

 

[Consigliere]

PatriciusRex,

Such wonderful insight, written in a logical and concise manner. I am grateful to have met your acquaintance.

Your postings have answered some of my questions (and raised others, of course). I will take the time to formulate some of my questions in relation to your postings.

What a journey this is to embark on and begin to acquire knowledge about the Catholic Faith.

I am curious, PatriciusRex, how your Faith was formed and has developed over your lifetime?

Also, how have you come to be quite learned in Catholic Theology?

I don’t ask to discredit you, I ask to hear your story and what sources have both inspired you and also provided you with your theological knowledge, so that perhaps those avenues may also be an inspiration to me?

Peace be with you.

 

[Consigliere]

Ok, I continue to become more and more confused about this topic the more I read about it.

I was provided an analogy that goes something as follows:

Humans are ‘inside’ the time of creation, time pertains to us and we can only flow forward in time, not backwards.

God is outside of time so the rules of time do not apply to him.

So the analogy goes that God is like the author of a novel. He wrote the book and knows the ending. We are all the characters in the novel. We move through the story and we do not know the ending. We also have ‘free will’ within the novel.

Which means that when each person makes a choice by their free will, it truly
is by their free will. Since a person is completely unaware of what the
future holds, each choice they make, based on what they have already
experienced inside the previous timeline of history. Again, from
inside the creation-story with its unidirectional timeline, each person is completely
free to choose one way or the other at every point in their life, thereby
affecting whatever their choice affects…inside Creation.

Just because God OUTSIDE of time & Creation knows that the person will make a
given choice at a given moment in history, the person inside of time and
Creation does not know which choice they will make, ultimately, until they
actually make it. Therefore, they are exercising 100% free will.

BUT. . . IS THERE NOT STILL A CONTRADICTION?

The novel analogy and what is described above still points out the glaring problem that it’s all “perceived” free will by the characters (us humans). It is not truly free, it is not truly real.

Yes, we cannot have God’s “perspective” but assuming the analysis is correct and God DOES have the perspective of the author wrote the novel, then the characters are just that, characters moving through a plot that has a pre-determined end. Yes, the characters moving through it do not know the end but that is irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned. It might be a fun ‘ride’ for the characters (humans) but when it comes to either being in heaven or in hell (or to put another way, being with God (the Author/Director) or perishing) the smoke-screen of free will is a facade.

Is it not true, then, in the final analysis that God, as author/direct is picking out which characters achieve salvation and which characters do not? Is he not ‘electing’ some to survive and others to perish?

I am just quite confused on this matter and any assistance in helping me clarify this and come to an understanding would continue to be greatly appreciated.

Peace be with you all.

 

[Bookcat]

Ok, I continue to become more and more confused about this topic the more I read about it.

I was provided an analogy that goes something as follows:

Humans are ‘inside’ the time of creation, time pertains to us and we can only flow forward in time, not backwards.

God is outside of time so the rules of time do not apply to him.

So the analogy goes that God is like the author of a novel. He wrote the book and knows the ending. We are all the characters in the novel. We move through the story and we do not know the ending. We also have ‘free will’ within the novel.

The novel analogy limps in a very pronounced way.

In writing a novel a man still moves from beginning to end – and is in time himself.

God – sees what we call past, present and future – all at once. He sees what is. This gets into some very and often technical philosophical and theological waters – and likely not something easily discussed in a forum.

And finally – it outstrips our understanding.

As we stand before mystery from within our history.

 

[steve_b]

Ok, I continue to become more and more confused about this topic the more I read about it.

I was provided an analogy that goes something as follows:

Humans are ‘inside’ the time of creation, time pertains to us and we can only flow forward in time, not backwards.

God is outside of time so the rules of time do not apply to him.

So the analogy goes that God is like the author of a novel. He wrote the book and knows the ending. We are all the characters in the novel. We move through the story and we do not know the ending. We also have ‘free will’ within the novel.

Which means that when each person makes a choice by their free will, it truly
is by their free will. Since a person is completely unaware of what the
future holds, each choice they make, based on what they have already
experienced inside the previous timeline of history. Again, from
inside the creation-story with its unidirectional timeline, each person is completely
free to choose one way or the other at every point in their life, thereby
affecting whatever their choice affects…inside Creation.

Just because God OUTSIDE of time & Creation knows that the person will make a
given choice at a given moment in history, the person inside of time and
Creation does not know which choice they will make, ultimately, until they
actually make it. Therefore, they are exercising 100% free will.

BUT. . . IS THERE NOT STILL A CONTRADICTION?

The novel analogy and what is described above still points out the glaring problem that it’s all “perceived” free will by the characters (us humans). It is not truly free, it is not truly real.

Yes, we cannot have God’s “perspective” but assuming the analysis is correct and God DOES have the perspective of the author wrote the novel, then the characters are just that, characters moving through a plot that has a pre-determined end. Yes, the characters moving through it do not know the end but that is irrelevant as far as salvation is concerned. It might be a fun ‘ride’ for the characters (humans) but when it comes to either being in heaven or in hell (or to put another way, being with God (the Author/Director) or perishing) the smoke-screen of free will is a facade.

Is it not true, then, in the final analysis that God, as author/direct is picking out which characters achieve salvation and which characters do not? Is he not ‘electing’ some to survive and others to perish?

I am just quite confused on this matter and any assistance in helping me clarify this and come to an understanding would continue to be greatly appreciated.

Peace be with you all.

Bottomline, God does not will malice. It’s allowed or our will would not be free to choose.

I previously gave you the following link to the Summa by Aquinas… Please read part #1 of question 23, [Is predestination sutably…] and particularly objection #1 then scroll down to reply to #1

Question 23. Predestination

1. 
   *]Is predestination suitably attributed to God?
   *]What is predestination, and does it place anything in the predestined?
   *]Does the reprobation of some men belong to God?
   *]The comparison of predestination to election; that is, are the predestined chosen?
   *]Are merits the cause or reason of predestination, or reprobation, or election?
   *]The certainty of predestination: will the predestined infallibly be saved?
   *]Is the number of the predestined certain?
   *]Can predestination be furthered by the prayers of the saints?

 

[PatriciusRex]

BUT. . . IS THERE NOT STILL A CONTRADICTION?

That’s why I don’t like the novel analogy, since the novel must have an author!

Sydney Carton may have felt it was a “far, far, better thing” he did in the end, but it was not his decisions that took him to the scaffold, rather the pen of Mr. Dickens.

It’s true that that is the perspective in which God might see the universe, but we must remember that God’s complete knowledge of all that will happen, does not in anyway determine the course of events.

To put in in a medium that our limited sense of space and time can appreciate, consider history.

When Julius Caesar returned to Rome in triumph in 45 BC he seemed at the height of power and secured for himself the title and office of “dictator-for-life.” Studying history, we know this was not to be, and that Caesar would be assassinated in the Senate house in 44 BC. We know this perfectly, and indeed it’s always in our knowledge, even when we read of Caesar as a young man, moving from success to success.

Now, does our perfect knowledge of Caesar’s fate cause him to make the decisions that would lead to his death? Does our reading of the pages of history provide strength to the daggers of Brutus, Cassius, and the other Senators? Of course not, or else I have several historical events I’d like to change.

In a similar manner then, God is fully aware of everything, not only past as humans can be, but also future. But his knowledge does not cause them to happen, in the same way our present knowledge of history did not determine the fate of historical actors like Caesar.

Now note well that I’m not saying God never intervenes in human events. Of course he does, but only in a manner which influences our human will, not in one which determines it.

Consider this example. You’re driving home from work, looking forward to relaxing, when you get a call from a friend of yours. Your friend is stuck on the other side of town, and he has no means of getting home. So you decide to go help him.

You have made a departure from your expected course, based on your friend’s request. But did your friend’s request determine your will in the matter? Of course not, you retained the ability to refuse and just go directly home. But because of compassion and friendship, you allowed your friend’s request to influence your decision and thus changed your plans.

In the same way, God acts within history, either through miracles in response the prayers of his people, or to call people to his service. But in neither case does God determine the actions of people, either the responses of those who witness miracles, or the response of those he calls to service.

---

You asked for a brief biographical sketch.

Basically I was fortunate to go to Catholic school for K-12 which provided me with a core understanding of Christianity. I attended a public university where I was forced to really come to a mature understanding of God and Christianity. After graduation, I received a fellowship to do graduate study in History at another California public university, where I am now in the final phases of earning a doctorate.

The time period I study is 16th and 17th century Europe, so an intensive study of both sides of the Reformation entered my world as I was trying to understand my place in God’s house. I had always known Protestants existed, but in reading the writings of Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, etc I encountered an intellectual Protestantism that defied my stereotype of the ignorant “Bible-thumper.”

I was particularly drawn to the writers of the Reformed school. While I wouldn’t say this prompted a “faith crisis” since I still felt the Catholics were right when it came to apostolic succession, the sacraments, etc., I was deeply troubled that perhaps we were wrong to deny the doctrine of sola gratia. I then turned my attentions to the writings of the Jansenists, Catholic monergists in the 17th century. I was bothered that while their logic seemed so ironclad, they were condemned by the Church as heretical, not to mention the growing horror I felt at the concept of some people being created for damnation.

The result was another round of reading, in which I read the responses given against the monergists both Reformed and Jansenist in the period, as well as their firm grounding in the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. Armed with this knowledge, I ultimately came to the opinions I’ve expressed here.

There’s no reason why anyone can’t do this. The Church Fathers actually are probably the best place to start, as Medieval and Early Modern theology is full of technical jargon that make it almost impenetrable for a beginner. The Fathers write in much the same manner as the New Testament, and also have the benefit of not being confined in their thinking to the parameters of 16th century debates. It’s also a good exercise to not read to look for specific answers to specific questions, but simply to read and say, “THIS is the Faith which was believed ‘everywhere, always, and by all’”

Remember though, that the Fathers are not the Bible. As individuals they can be wrong (and in some cases, like Origen, even stray later in life into questionable orthodoxy). The general rule for consulting the Fathers is that to be believed 1) they must not be contradictory to the Holy Scriptures, and 2) the proposition in question must be held in common with the majority of the others. Starting with St Vincent of Lerin’s “Commonitory” might be a good choice, since it’s concerned precisely with how one may discern the true “catholic” faith among all the heretical opinions being propagated even in his time.

As I linked at first, a great number of the Fathers can be found on New Advent, as well as CCEL here: ccel.org/fathers.html

Peace be with you!