Free Will in Heaven

[Wesrock]

Also, I am not aware if there is a school of thought on the matter (that is acceptable with Catholic doctrine) that predestination is simply God foreseeing who will say yes to grace, putting an even heavier emphasis on free will than Molinism does, as the variable of contingent conditions isn’t a part of the equations. If there is, I would appreciate clarification. I do, however, see people articulate predestination this way, and it seems a bit off-center from what I’ve read in the matter and from various Scriptural evidences (which I can provide), but I’m happy to stand corrected.

I am not aware of a Catholic (or formal/academic) school of thought like this, and my understanding is that it effectively limits (logically) God’s omniscience and providence. If God is to know who will be saved, and if he created the universe in full knowledge of what his act of creation would make, we can’t really reconcile the quoted conception of free will with that. He knows what He creates. And God’s attention is not something to be focused into one narrow area. He is fully aware and attentive to everything about creation, which means He intended you and me and every particle that exists from all eternity. There’s no surprises. If we “demote” God to a demiurge, as some type of being limited in time and knowledge, a clock maker who abandons his creation to run by itself, then yes, it could work. But that’s not how the Church understands God.

 

[Tarsier]

I am not aware of a Catholic (or formal/academic) school of thought like this, and my understanding is that it effectively limits (logically) God’s omniscience and providence. If God is to know who will be saved, and if he created the universe in full knowledge of what his act of creation would make, we can’t really reconcile the quoted conception of free will with that. He knows what He creates. And God’s attention is something to be focused into one narrow area. He is fully aware and attentive to everything about creation, which means He intended you and me and every particle that exists from all eternity. There’s no surprises. If we “demote” God to a demiurge, as some type of being limited in time and knowledge, a clock maker who abandons his creation to run by itself, then yes, it could work. But that’s not how the Church understands God.

Thanks. I think that you are referring to my question specifically on whether there be another school of thought that exists as I described after addressing Thomistic and Molinist, right?

 

[Wesrock]

Thanks. I think that you are referring to my question specifically on whether there be another school of thought that exists as I described after addressing Thomistic and Molinist, right?

Right. And I’m no expert, mind. I’ve had a casual interest in Thomism and read synopses on both Thomistic and Molinist explanations of free will, so that’s where I’m coming from…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So I suppose I started this conversation in a backward sort of way. Sometimes I bring extremes of situations into a conversation earlier to isolate a principle in order to ask how that principle interacts with less extreme situations. In this case, Heaven is the extreme in our relationship with God and exposure to his grace/love. I don’t think there is disagreement there.

…

Let me be clear that, by introducing my actual question in stages, I’m not trying to set anything up in an unfair way, but just to isolate the points that exist in my mind and to make sure that the conversation doesn’t go off in too many tangents, which is why I wanted us to get to a happy place on the Heaven question before moving on. I’m really having a struggle with a few concepts, and I’m hoping the wise contributors here might give some insight for my continued prayer and contemplation of at least one of them.

(Sorry, had to cut out the middle to get my post to fit >_>)

I’m going to try to answer this as best I am able. I hope I actually address your concerns and haven’t misread.

Predestination only exists to the extent that God, being outside of time, has “foreknowledge” of our final fate. The problem with using this type of language is that it implies a temporal component to God’s knowledge which doesn’t actually exist. God doesn’t have “foreknowledge,” He only has knowledge. He is not, as it would seem from our perspective, looking into the future to see where we eventually wind up. For God, all of time exists simultaneously as an ever-present Now. He knows our final choice because we have already made it, and are in the process of making it, and will make at some point in the future. (Again, applying temporal language to something that has no temporal component, but it’s the best I can manage to explain it.)

As for the supply of God’s grace; while it is true that different people receive it in different amounts (Mary, for example, receiving a greater “amount” of it than anyone else throughout all of time), God does not limit His grace to one person or another based on how we will respond to it, but rather based on how we do respond to it. It could be described similar to a habit. The more we do a particular habit, the more ingrained that habit becomes and the easier it becomes for us to continue doing that habit. Similarly, the more we respond to the grace God offers, the easier it will be to respond to it in the future.

This response to God’s grace could be considered a form of exercise, say… push-ups. As I grow in the habit of doing push-ups, I find myself able to do more and more of them over time. Similarly, as we exercise our positive response to God’s graces, we become capable of receiving them in even greater amount. If, on the other hand, we continually ignore God’s graces, we atrophy, and become less and less able to respond to them. In the Bible, the obstinate refuse to respond to God’s Grace is portrayed as the heart being hardened. Eventually, we could conceivably reach a point where it is next to impossible for use to respond to God’s graces, and therefore we do not receive any of them. In reality, no matter how hardened out hearts become, God will never stop granting us His grace; otherwise it would be impossible for a hardened sinner to repent and return to God.

God’s graces only stop once we’ve died and locked our wills against Him. (Even then, I don’t know if we could say we technically stop receiving all graces, since we continue to exist, which is itself one of God’s gifts.) If our will are oriented towards Him, then we receive all graces in unfathomable amounts…

This is my understanding of the topic. I hope I’ve made it clear, and that it addresses your concerns. I’m pretty sure everything I’ve written here is in keeping with Church teaching, though if anyone knows of a point I’m mistaken on, please let me know.

 

[Wesrock]

To add to that, Thomism and Molinism are probably the two greatest schools of Catholic thought on the subject. Still, neither is dogmatic, to my understanding. I don’t think someone who proposes otherwise (while not denying God’s omniscience and role in creation) is saying anything against Catholic teaching. I’m not sure I can put together a coherent explanation of that “pop” free will explanation that can be reconciled with God’s Providence, but so long as you don’t sacrifice God’s Providence or human free will, even if you can only shrug and call it a mystery of how it can be, even if you avoid attempting to rationalize it like the Thomistic and Molinists, I don’t think you’re in doctrinal error.

 

[Tarsier]

(Sorry, had to cut out the middle to get my post to fit >_>)

I’m going to try to answer this as best I am able. I hope I actually address your concerns and haven’t misread.

Predestination only exists to the extent that God, being outside of time, has “foreknowledge” of our final fate. The problem with using this type of language is that it implies a temporal component to God’s knowledge which doesn’t actually exist. God doesn’t have “foreknowledge,” He only has knowledge. He is not, as it would seem from our perspective, looking into the future to see where we eventually wind up. For God, all of time exists simultaneously as an ever-present Now. He knows our final choice because we have already made it, and are in the process of making it, and will make at some point in the future. (Again, applying temporal language to something that has no temporal component, but it’s the best I can manage to explain it.)

As for the supply of God’s grace; while it is true that different people receive it in different amounts (Mary, for example, receiving a greater “amount” of it than anyone else throughout all of time), God does not limit His grace to one person or another based on how we will respond to it, but rather based on how we do respond to it. It could be described similar to a habit. The more we do a particular habit, the more ingrained that habit becomes and the easier it becomes for us to continue doing that habit. Similarly, the more we respond to the grace God offers, the easier it will be to respond to it in the future.

This response to God’s grace could be considered a form of exercise, say… push-ups. As I grow in the habit of doing push-ups, I find myself able to do more and more of them over time. Similarly, as we exercise our positive response to God’s graces, we become capable of receiving them in even greater amount. If, on the other hand, we continually ignore God’s graces, we atrophy, and become less and less able to respond to them. In the Bible, the obstinate refuse to respond to God’s Grace is portrayed as the heart being hardened. Eventually, we could conceivably reach a point where it is next to impossible for use to respond to God’s graces, and therefore we do not receive any of them. In reality, no matter how hardened out hearts become, God will never stop granting us His grace; otherwise it would be impossible for a hardened sinner to repent and return to God.

God’s graces only stop once we’ve died and locked our wills either for God, or against Him. (Even then, I don’t know if we could say we technically stop receiving all graces, since we continue to exist, which is itself one of God’s gifts.)

This is my understanding of the topic. I hope I’ve made it clear, and that it addresses your concerns. I’m pretty sure everything I’ve written here is in keeping with Church teaching, though if anyone knows of a point I’m mistaken on, please let me know.

Thank you so much. I’ll wait a bit before responding in full (as hopefully others will chime in to further explore the notion), but while I appreciate the explanation, I don’t know that it is consistent with the Thomistic or Molinist explanations (nor the Augustinian), all of which are considered valid theological interpretations within the doctrines of Catholicism. St. Thomas specifically rejects this (see article 23, question 5), as does Augustine, who wrote that we would be in error to sum up God’s decision on predestination with such a tidy bow.

To this idea in particular:

God does not limit His grace to one person or another based on how we will respond to it, but rather based on how we do respond to it. It could be described similar to a habit.

Thomas wrote:

It is, however, manifest that what is of grace is the effect of predestination; and this cannot be considered as the reason of predestination, since it is contained in the notion of predestination. Therefore, if anything else in us be the reason of predestination, it will outside the effect of predestination.

 

[Tarsier]

To add to that, Thomism and Molinism are probably the two greatest schools of Catholic thought on the subject. Still, neither is dogmatic, to my understanding. I don’t think someone who proposes otherwise (while not denying God’s omniscience and role in creation) is saying anything against Catholic teaching. I’m not sure I can put together a coherent explanation of that “pop” free will explanation can be reconciled with God’s Providence, but so long as you don’t sacrifice God’s Providence or human free will, even if you can only shrug and call it a mystery of how it can be, even if you avoid attempting to rationalize it like the Thomistic and Molinists, I don’t think you’re in theological error.

I agree and I believe the Church does, too. I recognize that neither is dogma. However, these two represent two ends of a spectrum that illustrates certain principles that you also acknowledges and which must be incorporated into any attempt to explain predestination. The idea I am responding to (that God simply responds to foreknowledge) seems inconsistent (but I may be in error - hence posting for feedback.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank you so much. I’ll wait a bit before responding in full (as hopefully others will chime in to further explore the notion), but while I appreciate the explanation, I don’t know that it is consistent with the Thomistic or Molinist explanations (nor the Augustinian), all of which are considered valid theological interpretations within the doctrines of Catholicism. St. Thomas specifically rejects this (see article 23, question 5), as does Augustine, who wrote that we would be in error to sum up God’s decision on predestination with such a tidy bow.

To this idea in particular:

Thomas wrote:

In reading through what you cited, I don’t see how it conflicts with my explanation. Could you explain why you think it does?

I’d also like to make it clear that I’m not speaking from a position of Dogmatic certitude. I am only relating my understanding based on my studies on the subject. i think the only Dogmatic position the church holds on “predestination” is that it is not “double predestination,” as believe by certain fundamentalist groups. (That is, God does not dictate our salvation or damnation apart from our free will. He will not damn someone who lives according to His will, and He will not grant salvation to someone who has chosen to reject Him.)

Ah, on looking at the article, I think I see your dilemma. Don’t worry, I’m not saying that we merit any graces, only that we increase our personal capacity to respond to them. God will always grant us the fullness of grace available to us, He does not withhold His graces arbitrarily. Think of it this way. If I have a one quart jug of water, then I will put one quart of water in it. If I have a two quart jug, I will put two quarts into it. The more we respond to God’s graces, the more of them we are able to “hold.”

The language used in discussing these topics is difficult, because we’re applying physical and limiting concepts to something who’s nature is neither physical nor limited. Analogy is the closest we can come to describing the transcendental, but it can never full describe the reality of what we’re talking about.

 

[Wesrock]

Double predestination is the belief that God created some people to damn them to hell. However, belief that God created some people for eternal salvation is allowed. That is, predestination for salvation is allowed. Predestination for damnation is not. The second is the “double.”

People who go to hell go there because of their free will, not because God elected them for hell. People who go to heaven do so because God elected them for that end.

All while still preserving our free will, of course.

 

[Tarsier]

In reading through what you cited, I don’t see how it conflicts with my explanation. Could you explain why you think it does?

Thanks for the clarification, most of which I deleted for brevity.

I may have to read your post more carefully when I get home, but here is the part from your earlier post I was responding to (underscore emphasis mine in the below quote):

Predestination only exists to the extent that God, being outside of time, has “foreknowledge” of our final fate. The problem with using this type of language is that it implies a temporal component to God’s knowledge which doesn’t actually exist. God doesn’t have “foreknowledge,” He only has knowledge. He is not, as it would seem from our perspective, looking into the future to see where we eventually wind up. For God, all of time exists simultaneously as an ever-present Now. He knows our final choice because we have already made it, and are in the process of making it, and will make at some point in the future. (Again, applying temporal language to something that has no temporal component, but it’s the best I can manage to explain it.)

Thomas specifically writes in the article (as does Augustine) that our predestination is due to God’s will, not due to his reaction to our choices. Hence my quote from Thomas that the cause of something cannot also be the effect of it. Even Molinists, who put more emphasis on free will do not claim (unless I am mistaken) that God simply foreknows what our choice will be, but that he knows what our choice will be given certain circumstances, and that he providentially effects certain circumstances in accord with this “middle knowledge”. So it isn’t simply a matter of God foreseeing our acceptance, but actually advancing circumstances where you do accept, whereas under another circumstance you do not. But I do not understand the Molinists to claim that God puts each of us under the circumstance where we will respond in that same way, which implies that a situation that is advantageous to your acceptance of salvation might not be one that simultaneously is advantageous to mine. So again, the “elect” is still a matter of God’s will acting in a way that remains mysterious to us and not “only” predicated on our decision.

I don’t know of any Church teaching, accepted theory of predestination or Biblical support for the idea that God is “only” responding to the choice he knows we will make (I’m not trying to be snarky by putting only in quotes, but just to clarify that this is an operative word to why I objected to your post.)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thanks for the clarification, most of which I deleted for brevity.

I may have to read your post more carefully when I get home, but here is the part from your earlier post I was responding to (underscore emphasis mine in the below quote):

Thomas specifically writes in the article (as does Augustine) that our predestination is due to God’s will, not due to his reaction to our choices. Hence my quote from Thomas that the cause of something cannot also be the effect of it. Even Molinists, who put more emphasis on free will do not claim (unless I am mistaken) that God simply foreknows what our choice will be, but that he knows what our choice will be given certain circumstances, and that he providentially effects certain circumstances in accord with this “middle knowledge”. So it isn’t simply a matter of God foreseeing our acceptance, but actually advancing circumstances where you do accept, whereas under another circumstance you do not. But I do not understand the Molinists to claim that God puts each of us under the circumstance where we will respond in that same way, which implies that a situation that is advantageous to your acceptance of salvation might not be one that simultaneously is advantageous to mine. So again, the “elect” is still a matter of God’s will acting in a way that remains mysterious to us and not “only” predicated on our decision.

I don’t know of any Church teaching, accepted theory of predestination or Biblical support for the idea that God is “only” responding to the choice he knows we will make (I’m not trying to be snarky by putting only in quotes, but just to clarify that this is an operative word to why I objected to your post.)

This is not dissimilar to what I’m saying, it’s just said differently.

God always wills that we follow Him and eventually that we spend eternity with Him. He will always extend His graces to achieve that affect. However, we are still required to cooperate with His grace. Since God will respect our free will and our choice, he will not grant us salvation if we do not desire it.

I think the primary distinction between what you’re say and what I’m saying is the concept of “certain circumstances.” God knows all potential outcomes of every choice that could ever exist, and I agree that He will always grant graces directed toward the best “path,” but that is really immaterial to the question, because in the end there is only one path that actually comes to fruition. There are not a million instance of "me’ following all the different potential paths; there’s only me, and the path I chose to follow. All the other potentials that could exist are inconsequential to the question of predestination, because in the end I still have to chose one of those paths, and it is that path which results in God’s “predestination” of my final outcome. It’s not that He’s responding “only” to the choices we make, but that the choices we make are what result in our final outcome. God is certainly providing the graces for every positive choice to be made, but we still have to cooperate with those graces and actually make that positive choice.

Ultimately, you’re right in saying that all of this is a mystery to us. We can think about it on some limited level, but we simply cannot understand it fully. That’s part of why there’s no dogmatic declaration on the subject. Which don’t know who’s understanding is closest to correct.

Aquinas writes in his answer that:

I answer that, Since predestination includes will, as was said above (Article 4), the reason of predestination must be sought for in the same way as was the reason of the will of God.

He acknowledges that our final "predestination’ is still based on our will, but is also incumbent upon God’s will for our salvation. I guess you could say that we are only “predestined” for Heaven by the will of God, but only actually attain Heaven by the cooperation of our own wills. Therefore, it is both God’s will which provides the means and actual affect of salvation, and our wills which accept the affects of God’s will. Without God’s will, it would be impossible for us to be saved, but without our wills, we would not be… I guess… willing… to be saved.

(I’m pretty sure I’d use ‘affect’ in both of these instances, and not effect, since it is God’s Will that is actively resulting the the outcome… )

 

[Tarsier]

There are not a million instance of "me’ following all the different potential paths; there’s only me, and the path I chose to follow. All the other potentials that could exist are inconsequential to the question of predestination, because in the end I still have to chose one of those paths, and it is that path which results in God’s “predestination” of my final outcome.

Actually, I think a Molinist would disagree here with regard to the idea of middle knowledge. There aren’t a million instances of you in reality, but there are millions of potential instances, and God (according to the theory) shapes our path down specific ones according to his will.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There aren’t a million instances of you in reality, but there are millions of potential instances, and God (according to the theory) shapes our path down specific ones according to his will.

I agree, but that doesn’t remove the fact that we must cooperate with God’s will in order to traverse the path He desires for us. The path we take is not separated from our choices, that would essentially be double predestination.

 

[Wesrock]

I agree, but that doesn’t remove the fact that we must cooperate with God’s will in order to traverse the path He desires for us. The path we take is not separated from our choices, that would essentially be double predestination.

I think you are using an incorrect definition of “double predestination”. Double predestination only means that God elects people for hell. We deny that. We can affirm that God elects people for salvation. (Predestines people for salvation? “Predestination”. Predestines people for both salvation and damnation? “Double predestination”.

A Thomist and a Molinist do believe that God elects people for salvation. To the Thomist, God premoves each individual’s will towards certain ends in creating the soul, and in so doing moves some towards election and some not. The Molinist believes that God knows how you would respond in each and every situation, and in His providence created the exact circumstances you and everyone else goes through intentionally, knowing whether or not each individual would freely choose Him in the end under the situation he created. In both cases, there is an election by God for a person’s salvation. These are the two biggest Catholic schools of thought regarding free will, put into a very simplitic nutshell.

This does not contradict free will or the need for man’s free cooperation. Predestination does not mean God will send someone who truly accepts Him to hell and someone who truly rejects Him to heaven, as if accepting Him was meaningless. That is not what predestination means. But we need to give credit to God’s providence where credit is due. But God created everything knowing full well what the results would be, who would be saved and who wouldn’t. He knew you and me and everyone else from all eternity, and he will to create us and a universe in which we made the free choices that we make knowing full well what those free choices would be.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think you are using an incorrect definition of “double predestination”. Double predestination only means that God elects people for hell. We deny that. We can affirm that God elects people for salvation. (Predestines people for salvation? “Predestination”. Predestines people for both salvation and damnation? “Double predestination”.

That said, a Thomist and a Molinist do believe that God elects people for salvation. To the Thomist, God premoves each individuals will towards certain ends in creating them, and in so doing moves some towards election and some not. The Molinist believes that God knows how you would respond in each and every situation, and in His providence created the exact circumstances you go through, knowing whether or not you’d freely choose Him in the end. In both cases, there is an election by God for a person’s salvation. These are the two biggest Catholic schools of thought regarding free will, put into a very simplitic nutshell.

This does not contradict free will or the need for man’s free cooperation.

Double predestination means that God elects someone for salvation or damnation, regardless of their wills. It would just as unjust for God to grant salvation to someone who spent their life scorning Him as it would be for Him to damn someone who spent their life following Him.

I agree that God elects certain people for salvation, and provide abundant graces to ensure that they are saved, but that is not the same thing as granting them salvation regardless of their wills. Consider Mary and Eve. They were both born full of God’s grace. Mary chose to live according to God’s law, Eve chose to sin. In both instances, God desired their salvation, and provided abundant graces; but it was still up to them to cooperate with those graces. Mary did, Eve didn’t. Either we do, or we don’t; and that determines our final state.

Overall, in reading your post, I think you and I agree on this point, but are just expressing it differently.

 

[Wesrock]

Double predestination means that God elects someone for salvation or damnation, regardless of their wills. It would just as unjust for God to grant salvation to someone who spent their life scorning Him as it would be for Him to damn someone who spent their life following Him.

That is not what predestination for salvation means.

I agree that God elects certain people for salvation, and provide abundant graces to ensure that they are saved, but that is not the same thing as granting them salvation regardless of their wills. Consider Mary and Eve. They were both born full of God’s grace. Mary chose to live according to God’s law, Eve chose to sin. In both instances, God desired their salvation, and provided abundant graces; but it was still up to them to cooperate with those graces. Mary did, Eve didn’t. Either we do, or we don’t; and that determines our final state.

Everyone who is saved was/is predestined from eternity by God for salvation.

AND AT THE SAME TIME

It is still up to each individual to cooperate with God’s graces or not, to choose God freely or not.

 

[Wesrock]

Double predestination only means that God elects individuals for hell.

Stating that God predestines people from all eternity for Heaven is not *double *predestination.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That is not what predestination for salvation means.

Everyone who is saved was/is predestined from eternity by God for salvation.

AND AT THE SAME TIME

It is still up to each individual to cooperate with God’s graces or not, to choose God freely or not.

I know it’s not… again, I think you and I agree on this point. We’re just expressing it differently. Being predestined for salvation does not mean that your will is overwritten.

Double Predestination, on the other hand, does include the overwriting of wills, both for and against God; and therefore cannot be said to only relate to damnation. I’ve never heard anyone who actually believes in double predestination say that it only pertains to those who are damned; they always include the fact that God will save those He chooses, even if they do not follow Him in life. A lot of them use that logic to justify their sinful behavior…

 

[Wesrock]

Double Predestination, on the other hand, does include the overwriting of wills, both for and against God; and therefore cannot be said to only relate to damnation. I’ve never heard anyone who actually believes in double predestination say that it only pertains to those who are damned; they always include the fact that God will save those He chooses, even if they do not follow Him in life. A lot of them use that logic to justify their sinful behavior…

Here is something from Jimmy Akin on the topic:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.HTM

Unconditional election

The doctrine of unconditional election means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will [13]. God chooses whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.

To show that God positively chooses, rather than merely foresees, those who will come to him, Calvinists cite passages such as Romans 9:15-18, which says, “[The Lord] says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So it depends not upon man’s will or exertion, but upon God’s mercy… So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills [14].”

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

Thomas Aquinas wrote, “God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others… Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, ‘Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.’” [15]

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election, he may not affirm “double-predestination,” a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught [16].

The Council of Trent stated, “If anyone says that it is not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that God produces the evil as well as the good works, not only by permission, but also properly and of himself, so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema… If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is attained by those only who are predestined unto life, but that all others, who are called, are called indeed, but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.” [17]

 

[Wesrock]

It’s called double predestination becomes it affirms two points. Of course it includes the predestination of the saved. It’s the second point about damnation that makes it double, and it’s only the second point that is against Church teaching.