How do you reconcile free will with predestination?

[oldcelt]

“,the Catholic dogma of predestination keeps the golden mean, because it regards eternal happiness primarily as the work of God and His grace, but secondarily as the fruit and reward of the meritorious actions of the predestined. The process of predestination consists of the following five steps: (a) the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification; (b) a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification; (c) justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love; (d) final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death; (e) lastly, the admission to eternal bliss. If it is a truth of Revelation that there are many who, following this path, seek and find their eternal salvation with infallible certainty, then the existence of Divine predestination is proved (cf. Matthew 25:34; Revelation 20:15). St. Paul says quite explicitly (Romans 8:28 sq.): “we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.” (Cf. Ephesians 1:4-11) Besides the eternal “foreknowledge” and foreordaining, the Apostle here mentions the various steps of predestination: “vocation”, “justification”, and “glorification”. This belief has been faithfully preserved by Tradition through all the centuries, especially since the time of Augustine…”

This is from newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

It is a long article and should be read carefully.

Linus2nd

And when you are done reading it you will still be at step one…predestination, plan, foreknowledge used in planning, etc., etc., are all incompatible with free will. The length and beauty of the writing cannot alter the facts

 

[oldcelt]

lets look at Judas as an example of the above conundrum-he freely betrayed Christ-or was he really free to do so? - given that with no Crucifixion there would be no Resurrection and without the Resurection no Christain faith-perhaps his betrayal was not necessary as the romans or the Jews or someone else would have identified him-yet Christ commented on one who would betray Him before he betrayed Him

so Judas’s path was plotted out before he was born and if he had free will he could have deviated from this path but of course God knew that he would not-(not influencing his decision but ofcourse knowing the outcome)

It is enough to make one a Unitarian

It sure is, because it means that the Christian God created a human being with the express purpose of using him to attain a goal. That man was, of course, condemned for all time.

 

[orang]

Free will is a gift in servitude to hope within virtue.

In servitude to hope within vice is the finite materialism, without freedom.

So if someone is in servitude to materialism within vice , there is no freedom of will, People aren’t born materialists and learn .

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

If your choice was completely predictable beforehand, then it was completely determinate.

Well no, the nature of God’s knowledge is not the He predicts things, as in inferring what I would do based on the circumstances. His knowledge of what I would do simply falls out from His nature.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Free will and predestination are incompatible with each other by definition:

How do you reconcile free will with predestination?

Most parents predestine their children to go to school. They will probably choose the school before the kids actually go there. They will more or less predestine them to get there by the 9am starting time, and be reasonably certain they will be predestined to be at the pick up point by 3pm (or whatever starting and finishing times schools have in your neck of the woods).

But they do not predestine the behaviour of the children while they are at school. They merely predestine certain boundaries.

While God predestines someone to be born at a certain time, and predestines them to die at a certain time, He does not predestine their behaviour throughout their life. But being God, He can see what their behaviour is going to be. In this He differs from parents (who though usually have a pretty good idea after a while how their kids are going to behave) as they don’t have omnipotent oversight.

God predestines certain boundaries. But He knows the probably outcome of our behaviour anyway.

Hence Adolf Hitler was born 20th April 1889, and died on April 30th 1945. By the time he was 56 he’d managed to destroy millions, and wreck most of Europe. I think he was predestined to become the tyrant he was, and to be born and die on those dates. But he had free will every inch of the way.

Mother Teresa was born on the 26 August 1910, and died on 5th September 1997. She saved the lives of thousands. I think she was predestined to become the saint she was, and to be born and die on those dates. But she had free will every inch of the way.

Predestination and Free Will both operate.

The sort of predestination you’re talking about is the sort of behaviour a machine might engage in. It has no personal choice. Hence it is in that sense predestined. But we are not predestined in that sense, since we can make choices, and in particular deliberate moral choices.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If your choice was completely predictable beforehand, then it was completely determinate.

God does not predict things, God KNOWS things. There is a stark difference. A prediction is an assumption or estimation. I predict there will be rain, I predict that such and such team will win, I predict that I will go to Mass on Sunday, none of these things are definite. God’s knowledge, on the other hand, is definite, and complete. Knowing the outcome does not mean that God is forcing the outcome, which is a prerequisite of the type of predestination you’re talking about. Knowing it simply means that he knows the outcome of our choice. The choices are still ours to make. Again, I outlined it pretty succinctly in my first post.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And when you are done reading it you will still be at step one…predestination, plan, foreknowledge used in planning, etc., etc., are all incompatible with free will. The length and beauty of the writing cannot alter the facts

If you read the article, you didn’t understand it. Certainly God know the final outcome, which is based on Christ’s initial act of justification, followed by our response to his invitation ( prevenient grace), followed by sanctifying grace through the sacraments, followed by our response, in faith and works, to all this. Those whom he knew would not respond to his love are " predestined to perdition, those whom he knew would respond to his love were " predestined " to eternal glory. " Predestined " means no more that God’s will to carry out his plan of salvation. We are not condemned or rewarded without our cooperation, our full, complete cooperation.

Linus2nd

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Free will and predestination are incompatible with each other by definition:

The apostle Paul clearly teaches predestination.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:” Ephesians 1:3-11

How do you reconcile free will with predestination?

Definition of free will:

The ultimate foundation for any understanding of freedom is the first person data. Freedom of the will refers to the fact that I am aware I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, controlled, or taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision. There is no other way for me to know I am free, to have an awareness of my freedom.

Re Predestination:

The Greek word proorizo means to predetermine, decide beforehand. It is used a total of 6 times in the NT (Acts 4:27; Rm 8:29, 30; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1: 5, 11), 4 times (Rm, Eph) with reference to salvation of people. In all 4 cases it refers to groups, not an individual.

eklégomai - to choose, elect
The theme of election in the NT grows out of the OT theme the election of Israel as the people of God. It rarely refers to individuals (the exception being some kings), not even prophets.

Further “Nowhere in the NT is eklégomai explicitly contrasted with reprobation. . . . The reference is not to the foreordination of two classes, the one to blessedness, the other to perdition. . . . It is unfortunate that the concept of election has been linked with the predestinarian controversy.”
[Gerhard Kittle, ed., *Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm R. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), vol. IV, p. 175.]

Marcus Barth, son of Karl Barth, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Ephesians (I:105-9) utterly rejects the idea that Eph 1 is “an invitation to a fatalistic scheme of double predestination or any other deterministic plan.” (109) And again he repeats that election in Christ is between God and His people, not between God and individuals. (70, 108)

Even the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry web site, which is not loath to being anti-Catholic (that would be an example of understatement), acknowledges that there are (in its mind) legitimate differences on the theme of predestination and election among Protestants. The page can be found here.

The Bible does not teach predestination understood as fatalistic predetermination of an individual’s eternal destiny.

 

[oldcelt]

If you read the article, you didn’t understand it. Certainly God know the final outcome, which is based on Christ’s initial act of justification, followed by our response to his invitation ( prevenient grace), followed by sanctifying grace through the sacraments, followed by our response, in faith and works, to all this.** Those whom he knew would not respond to his love are " predestined to perdition, those whom he knew would respond to his love were " predestined " to eternal glory. "** Predestined " means no more that God’s will to carry out his plan of salvation. We are not condemned or rewarded without our cooperation, our full, complete cooperation.

Linus2nd

Changing the meaning of words does not change the underlying facts.

 

[Counterpoint]

Well no, the nature of God’s knowledge is not the He predicts things, as in inferring what I would do based on the circumstances. His knowledge of what I would do simply falls out from His nature.

Previously, you stated: “So I’d say that God knew that if I was put in the circumstances that I was out in, I would accept Christ, before His creative decree, and when He decreed to create this world, He created the circumstances which I was in such that I would accept Christ.”

If you argue that God created the circumstances necessary for you to accept Christ, then this implies that the circumstances are what determines whether you accept Christ or not. Also,on the flip side, your argument implies that God must have created the circumstances necessary for others to reject Christ.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Previously, you stated: “So I’d say that God knew that if I was put in the circumstances that I was out in, I would accept Christ, before His creative decree, and when He decreed to create this world, He created the circumstances which I was in such that I would accept Christ.”

If you argue that God created the circumstances necessary for you to accept Christ, then this implies that the circumstances are what determines whether you accept Christ or not. Also,on the flip side, your argument implies that God must have created the circumstances necessary for others to reject Christ.

Every circumstance is a circumstance in which a person can accept of reject Christ. It’s not a one time deal, it’s a lifelong process.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is enough to make one a Unitarian

Only one thing can make one a Unitarian. Giving up on the Trinity.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m employing two texts - the Bible and Merriam-Webster.

I’m not aware that St. Paul was familiar with the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

So I would not hold him to that definition of predestination.

Yes, God pre-ordains (knows ahead of time) that some will be saved and some will not, but he still lets us freely choose to accept or reject his saving grace.

Adam and Eve had the choice, as God clearly told them they had a choice. Cain also had a choice, as God told Cain he had a choice, and that he could “rule” over the temptation to sin.

I don’t see that anything Paul said takes away from us the need to choose of our own accord, and not by God’s accord, whether we will be saved or damned.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

If you argue that God created the circumstances necessary for you to accept Christ, then this implies that the circumstances are what determines whether you accept Christ or not.

That’s just plain false. There is a difference between what I could do under certain circumstances, and what I did do under certain circumstances. And again, it’s not as if God looks at me and looks at the circumstances and says “hey, I bet he’ll accept Christ”, His knowledge of what I would do simply falls out of His nature.

Also,on the flip side, your argument implies that God must have created the circumstances necessary for others to reject Christ.

One of the apologetic contributions of molinism is its solution to the problem of why God doesn’t create a world of universal salvation. Since it is impossible for God to determine the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (the creatures are, after all, free), it might not be logically possible for God to create a world in which every creature freely accepts Christ.

 

[Counterpoint]

One of the apologetic contributions of molinism is its solution to the problem of why God doesn’t create a world of universal salvation. Since it is impossible for God to determine the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (the creatures are, after all, free), it might not be logically possible for God to create a world in which every creature freely accepts Christ.

Your argument renders God incompetent. Also, Paul states why God reprobates some (if not most). Damnation allows God to express his wrath.

“Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Romans 9:19-24

 

[Rolltide]

This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but perhaps it will help:

Think of God as an NFL official who is also a football commentator for ESPN. It is the end of the season, and the Super Bowl is over. God is giving a report on the season in review.

Since all the games have been played, God knows every score, every play, and the outcome of every down. He knows who caught the ball, and who failed to make a tackle. He can analyze every aspect, or watch it in slow motion. God has knowledge of everything that happened that season.

As an NFL official, God also constructed the rules of the game. He picked the people who would officiate, and used the “instant replay” when necessary to overturn a few bad decisions, in order to make sure that the rules that he set came out the way they were intended.

Now, that said, God did not actually interfere in any of the plays, nor did he play the game for the people. Each coach, and player could have made any decision they chose. In a given situation, a quarterback could have opted to run the ball, make a pass, take a knee, or, heaven forbid, even throw the game. God did not make any of these decisions. He granted the players free will to play however they desired. This, however, does not in any way impact the fact that God still knows what happened, since it’s the end of the season, nor does it change the fact that God provided the rules to the game.

Eternity is a difficult concept, and it works a bit like that. Imagine God sitting at the end of time looking back at everything that has happened and knowing the outcome. He was able to construct rules… a plan… but still give us free will. It is a daunting concept to wrap one’s mind around.

 

[belorg]

That’s just plain false. There is a difference between what I could do under certain circumstances, and what I did do under certain circumstances. And again, it’s not as if God looks at me and looks at the circumstances and says “hey, I bet he’ll accept Christ”, His knowledge of what I would do simply falls out of His nature.

Molinism is not about what a person did do, it is about what a person *would *do under certain circumstances.
On Molinism, what a person wil do is determined by the constitution of the person(which is God’s work) and the circumstnaces in which this person finds himself (which is also God’ work).

One of the apologetic contributions of molinism is its solution to the problem of why God doesn’t create a world of universal salvation. Since it is impossible for God to determine the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (the creatures are, after all, free), it might not be logically possible for God to create a world in which every creature freely accepts Christ.

Because, under Molinism, there are certain types of persons for whom it is impossible to make the correct choices in order to be saved.

 

[Counterpoint]

This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but perhaps it will help:

Think of God as an NFL official who is also a football commentator for ESPN. It is the end of the season, and the Super Bowl is over. God is giving a report on the season in review.

You watch too much football.

Eternity is a difficult concept, and it works a bit like that. Imagine God sitting at the end of time looking back at everything that has happened and knowing the outcome. He was able to construct rules… a plan… but still give us free will. It is a daunting concept to wrap one’s mind around.

Several points:

1. To foreknow is to know beforehand, not afterhand. (Of course, if God’s existence is nontemporal, then from the divine perspective there is no before or after; there’s only “now.”)
2. The topic is how you reconcile free will with predestination, not foreknowledge.
3. Free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If it is, then everything was predetermined by God. If it isn’t, then our choices ultimately boil down to some element of randomness. (I cannot be held any more responsible for some decision or act that ultimately is the result of pure chance than I can for one that is completely predetermined.)

 

[Counterpoint]

Molinism is not about what a person did do, it is about what a person *would *do under certain circumstances.
On Molinism, what a person wil do is determined by the constitution of the person(which is God’s work) and the circumstnaces in which this person finds himself (which is also God’ work).

I believe you are correct. Molinism (which is a.k.a. the “middle knowledge of the futurables”) holds that “[t]he “futuribles” are our conditionally future free actions: what we would have done if we had been put in such and a such a concrete circumstance, even though this may never actually not occur.” (source: pg. 242, “The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics” by W. Norris Clarke, S.J.)

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . .
3) Free will is either compatible with determinism or it is not. If it is, then everything was predetermined by God. If it isn’t, then our choices ultimately boil down to some element of randomness. (I cannot be held any more responsible for some decision or act that ultimately is the result of pure chance than I can for one that is completely predetermined.)

(1) And you have to establish that the word proorizo in St. Paul’s writings means fatalistic double predestination or some other deterministic plan. You have not.

I repeat.

Markus Barth, son of Karl Barth, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Ephesians discusses Eph 1. “The praise of God who elects men by grace (Eph 1:4-5; cf. Rom 11:5), is something other than the proclamation of a principle or axiom of absolute determinism. There are six distinctive reasons why Ephesians cannot be considered the charter for the eternal predestination of one part of mankind for bliss, the other for hell. . . . An invitation to fatalism under the scheme of double predestination or another deterministic plan cannot be found here." (I:105,109) And again he repeats that election in Christ is between God and His people, not between God and individuals. (I:70, 108)

So does Joseph Fitzmyer (Anchor Commentary, Romans, 522). Re Rm 8:29-30: “What Paul asserts here in this regard is from a corporate point of view. He does not have in mind the predestination of individuals (either to glory or damnation).”

eklégomai - to choose, elect
The theme of election in the NT grows out of the OT theme the election of Israel as the people of God. It rarely refers to individuals (the exception being some kings), not even prophets. Further “Nowhere in the NT is eklégomai explicitly contrasted with reprobation. . . . The reference is not to the foreordination of two classes, the one to blessedness, the other to perdition. . . . It is unfortunate that the concept of election has been linked with the predestinarian controversy.”
[Gerhard Kittle, ed., *Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm R. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), vol. IV, p. 175.]

(2) You have not yet taken into account the first-person data at the foundation of the definition of freedom of the will. Freedom of the will refers to the fact that I am aware I can choose between alternatives with the simultaneous awareness that I am not being compelled, controlled, or taken over by another agency or set of forces in making the decision.