Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[mamlukman]

Richca;13036204:

Providence doesn’t operate by remote control!

I’m afraid I missed that passage in the New Testament.

 

[mamlukman]

Whatever effects are taking place in the universe presently have a cause which are all reduced in the here and now to the First Cause, God. The governance of the universe is what we call God’s providence.

Sure. Of course. That doesn’t mean you need an “active” God that is constantly intervening to “fix” things.

 

[mamlukman]

God does work however he likes - which includes working miracles in answer to prayer as Jesus and the saints have done throughout history. There is a master plan: that we should choose what to believe and how to live in accordance with our conscience but that does not mean we are left on our own without any help whatsoever. The deists rule out Providence altogether whereas we are told that God answers our prayers, although not always in the way we expect. The universe doesn’t need to be constantly upgraded yet it is necessarily imperfect and its laws inevitably create unnecessary suffering since it is impossible for them to take into account the circumstances of every individual.

Chance is not a demonic force - or outside creation - but an inevitable feature of physical existence. “The thousand slings and arrows that flesh is heir to” are due to misfortunes for which there is no reason. Coincidences are an intrinsic part of an orderly system, some of which are bound to be tragic. It is for that reason that God intervenes to prevent death and mitigate suffering whenever He chooses, unrestricted by the laws He has created. The maxim “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” is not confined to our spiritual needs but applies to every aspect of life.

Jesus was making fun of the idea that only sinners are the victims of natural disasters. That is a far cry from belief in divine Providence which is eternal but has its effects in time and space. It is absurd to think a loving Father would do absolutely nothing to prevent His children from suffering unnecessarily. Throughout history there have been reports of miraculous cures and answers to prayer in every religious and secular society. It seems very unlikely all of them are due to wishful thinking. Jesus didn’t advocate scepticism but trust in God’s power and love. There is a difference between credulity and credibility!
There is no obvious reason why divine intervention is incompatible with either transcendence or immanence. Both aspects of God are present in Christ’s teaching.

I’m not sure where to begin! Let’s go back to the thread we’re on–God’s omnipotence, God’s foreknowledge, free will. Now I think most of us–the Catholics at least–are in agreement that there is free will, and that God’s foreknowledge is not a cause of our actions, it’s just knowledge of our actions. Great. Now you are arguing something entirely different–that God somehow swoops in and intervenes on a regular basis on account of prayers, or because He’s merciful–whatever.

Let’s say Aunt Sally gets sick and I pray for her to get better, and she does. Do you really think God didn’t see this coming–that somehow God, the all-knowing God, didn’t see that Aunt Sally would get sick? And when you prayed to God to have her get better, did this come as a big surprise to God? That God somehow woke up from His nap and said, “Oh, oh, Aunt Sally is sick! Where’s the Batmobile! I need to swoop in with a miracle!” Really? I don’t think you think that. I think that you think like I do–God always knew Aunt Sally was going to get sick, He knew I would pray for His help, and that help would either come or not come–through perfectly natural causes, which are, ultimately, caused by God.

We seem to agree on chance and coincidence. Good. But “God intervenes to prevent death and mitigate suffering whenever He chooses, unrestricted by the laws He has created…” He could. But I don’t believe he does. “It is absurd to think a loving Father would do absolutely nothing to prevent His children from suffering unnecessarily.” Watched TV lately? Read the papers? Hundreds of millions of people suffer needlessly every day. Why does God allow this? I don’t know; it’s a mystery. But I certainly don’t see miracles eliminating the problems. If you go back to my story of the tornado and Billy Bob and his neighbor, are you telling me that if both the neighbor and Billy Bob pray that the tornado will pass them by, God will somehow weigh their prayers, decide Billy Bob’s prayer is better, and send the tornado to destroy his neighbor’s house? There may well be miracles, but I haven’t seen one lately. Medical “miracles” are always something like back pain, or headaches, or some other psychosomatic issue. And we know perfectly well from science that placebos cure diseases all the time–for no reason at all. If a guy lost his leg in an accident and the leg grew back spontaneously, I would be the first one out there talking about a miracle. That doesn’t happen.

To me the point of the Tower of Siloam story is that Jesus is telling the Apostles, “Hey, stuff happens. It’s random. Don’t think it happens because these people were sinful and these people over here weren’t. It just happens.”

And of course if you believe God is constantly swooping in and coming to the rescue, for you God is imminent. For me, he is more transcendent.

Finally, in popular culture (I’m thinking of a movie like “Signs”) the only alternative to your point of view is atheism. Please keep in mind there is another point of view–mine. I am a very conservative Catholic.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Following up from what i wrote above . . .

So why is there suffering if God is involved in everything?
.

Suffering is the inevitable consequence of free will. God can use suffering to bring a greater good. God thinks in terms of eternity. Our lives here are so short.

 

[mamlukman]

Suffering is the inevitable consequence of free will. God can use suffering to bring a greater good. God thinks in terms of eternity. Our lives here are so short.

Inexplicable suffering has nothing to do with free will—natural disasters and sickness. These are demonstrably not the consequence of free will. No connection.

 

[oldcelt]

Inexplicable suffering has nothing to do with free will—natural disasters and sickness. These are demonstrably not the consequence of free will. No connection.

Agreed…I have backed away from this conversation for a bit. The reason…because the only answers that were offered involved the supernatural. You and I may disagree on the particulars…but I agree with many things you have said.

John

 

[mamlukman]

Agreed…I have backed away from this conversation for a bit. The reason…because the only answers that were offered involved the supernatural. You and I may disagree on the particulars…but I agree with many things you have said.
John

Thanks! It seems to me there’s “supernatural” and then there’s “supernatural” if you see what I mean. I consider myself to be a conservative Catholic. But to me that involves common sense, logic, and the belief that science and religion are complementary and answer different questions (how vs. why).

 

[oldcelt]

Thanks! It seems to me there’s “supernatural” and then there’s “supernatural” if you see what I mean. I consider myself to be a conservative Catholic. But to me that involves common sense, logic, and the belief that science and religion are complementary and answer different questions (how vs. why).

There are many possibilities,

John

 

[Aloysium]

Why should that be so? It has no necessary basis. See next post…

Your comment is in response to my observation that God intervenes constantly.

Permit me to elaborate:
Because He does not respond like a worldly sort of Messiah does not mean He does not respond.
God’s will is love. I would refer the reader to the Beatitudes to understand the nature of His interventions.
That and more. Ask and you will receive in His kingdom, where one finds that which has true worth.

 

[Richca]

Sure. Of course. That doesn’t mean you need an “active” God that is constantly intervening to “fix” things.

We need an “active” God at all times because as the catechism says “without the creator, the creature vanishes.” In christian metaphysics, God is the only being who is pure act, all other beings are a mixture of act and potency. God is pure activity, purely dynamic, this is His nature, He can’t be otherwise. “Behold, the guardian of Israel never slumbers nor sleeps” (Psalm 121:4). Creatures, from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the macro galactic galaxies, only exist and act because of God’s activity and influence on them. And this activity and influence of God on all His creatures occurs not only when they first begin to be but also as long as they exist. For the preservation of creatures in existence by God is nothing else than the continuation of God’s creative act.

Did you not read what I quoted from the catechism? Again, “The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes.” It says that God is at work in all the actions of His creatures. So how can you say that doesn’t mean you need an “active” God that is constantly intervening to fix things? God is not fixing things either, he is the cause of things.

I don’t think you understand what it means when the catechism says that God is the first cause. God is the first cause because the effect of God’s causal activity is creation, creatures. Creation, right now in the present and you and I, are the effect of God’s causal activity right now; without which we would vanish back into nothingness from which we came. We receive from God at every second of our lives our very existence and everything that flows from this existence such as our ability to act, to think and to love, and to be causes of things. This is why creatures are called second causes. They are totally dependent on the causal activity of the first cause, God. Recall that Jesus said “for without me, you can do nothing.” And St Paul said, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being.” God is much closer to us than we sometimes imagine like he is somewhere out in outer space. He is present to us in our innermost being, indeed, He is the very cause of our being.

For a better appreciation and understanding of these truths of the catholic faith, I recommend meditative reading on the CCC concerning its teaching on the providence of God. Secondly, though not necessarily in this order, meditative reading on Holy Scripture, the word of God. Recall that Jesus said “man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.” Thirdly, the writings of St Thomas Aquinas especially his well known Summa Theologica. The Catholic Church has endorsed his philosophical principles and theology on not a few occasions and he has received many high praises from the Church throughout the centuries and from many popes and so the Church has consistently regarded him as her universal doctor. Pope Innocent VI said of St Thomas:
“His doctrine above all other doctrine, with the one exception of the Holy Scriptures, has such a propriety of words, such a method of explanation, such a truth of opinions, that no one who holds it will ever be found to have strayed from the path of truth; whereas anyone who has attacked it has always been suspected as to the truth.”

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure where to begin! Let’s go back to the thread we’re on–God’s omnipotence, God’s foreknowledge, free will. Now I think most of us–the Catholics at least–are in agreement that there is free will, and that God’s foreknowledge is not a cause of our actions, it’s just knowledge of our actions. Great. Now you are arguing something entirely different–that God somehow swoops in and intervenes on a regular basis on account of prayers, or because He’s merciful–whatever.

Let’s say Aunt Sally gets sick and I pray for her to get better, and she does. Do you really think God didn’t see this coming–that somehow God, the all-knowing God, didn’t see that Aunt Sally would get sick? And when you prayed to God to have her get better, did this come as a big surprise to God? That God somehow woke up from His nap and said, “Oh, oh, Aunt Sally is sick! Where’s the Batmobile! I need to swoop in with a miracle!” Really? I don’t think you think that. I think that you think like I do–God always knew Aunt Sally was going to get sick, He knew I would pray for His help, and that help would either come or not come–through perfectly natural causes, which are, ultimately, caused by God.

1. God knows everything regardless of time and space.
2. God intervenes whenever possible to prevent unnecessary suffering because He knows** natural causes cannot possibly cater for every contingency**.
3. Jesus told us God answers our prayers directly because He is not a remote Controller of the universe but a loving Father who cares for all His children here and now in every way possible.

We seem to agree on chance and coincidence. Good. But “God intervenes to prevent death and mitigate suffering whenever He chooses, unrestricted by the laws He has created…” He could. But I don’t believe he does. “It is absurd to think a loving Father would do absolutely nothing to prevent His children from suffering unnecessarily.” Watched TV lately? Read the papers? Hundreds of millions of people suffer needlessly every day. Why does God allow this? I don’t know; it’s a mystery. But I certainly don’t see miracles eliminating the problems. If you go back to my story of the tornado and Billy Bob and his neighbor, are you telling me that if both the neighbor and Billy Bob pray that the tornado will pass them by, God will somehow weigh their prayers, decide Billy Bob’s prayer is better, and send the tornado to destroy his neighbor’s house? There may well be miracles, but I haven’t seen one lately. Medical “miracles” are always something like back pain, or headaches, or some other psychosomatic issue. And we know perfectly well from science that placebos cure diseases all the time–for no reason at all. If a guy lost his leg in an accident and the leg grew back spontaneously, I would be the first one out there talking about a miracle. That doesn’t happen.

There is nothing to distinguish this argument from that of an atheist. The cynical, hackneyed old saw about an amputated limb is a pathetic evasion of all the evidence for miracles throughout history all over the world and a rejection of Christ’s clear teaching that our prayers are answered. “Give us this day our daily bread” is not a metaphor but a practical request which reflects the way He responded to physical needs immediately. The fact that miracles do not** always **occur does not imply that they never occur or are even **rare **events. It is anti-Christian to live as if prayers are worthless and superstitious or should be confined to our spiritual needs as if everything else is insignificant.

To me the point of the Tower of Siloam story is that Jesus is telling the Apostles, “Hey, stuff happens. It’s random. Don’t think it happens because these people were sinful and these people over here weren’t. It just happens.”

Jesus was rejecting the common belief among Jews at that time that only sinners are victims of natural disasters and He certainly rejected the idea that God just lets things happen without ever doing anything to prevent or alleviate suffering.

And of course if you believe God is constantly swooping in and coming to the rescue, for you God is imminent. For me, he is more transcendent.

Finally, in popular culture (I’m thinking of a movie like “Signs”) the only alternative to your point of view is atheism. Please keep in mind there is another point of view–mine. I am a very conservative Catholic.

Labels and false dilemmas are irrelevant in a rational discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;13036280:

I’m afraid I missed that passage in the New Testament.

I’m not the only one who believes some of your views are contrary to Christ’s teaching in the New Testament. The issue is how **a loving Father **can be a remote Controller who never intervenes for any reason whatsoever. It makes the descent of the Holy Spirit redundant…

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks! It seems to me there’s “supernatural” and then there’s “supernatural” if you see what I mean. I consider myself to be a conservative Catholic. But to me that involves common sense, logic, and the belief that science and religion are complementary and answer different questions (how vs. why).

In that case all miracles are ruled out because divine power explains only the purpose of events not the direct cause.

 

[tonyrey]

Agreed…I have backed away from this conversation for a bit. The reason…because the only answers that were offered involved the supernatural. You and I may disagree on the particulars…but I agree with many things you have said.

Isn’t the Creator supernatural?

 

[mamlukman]

We need an “active” God at all times because as the catechism says “without the creator, the creature vanishes.”

…Creatures, from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the macro galactic galaxies, only exist and act because of God’s activity and influence on them. And this activity and influence of God on all His creatures occurs not only when they first begin to be but also as long as they exist. For the preservation of creatures in existence by God is nothing else than the continuation of God’s creative act.

Did you not read what I quoted from the catechism? Again, “The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes.” It says that God is at work in all the actions of His creatures. So how can you say that doesn’t mean you need an “active” God that is constantly intervening to fix things?

I don’t think you understand what it means when the catechism says that God is the first cause. God is the first cause because the effect of God’s causal activity is creation, creatures. Creation, right now in the present and you and I, are the effect of God’s causal activity right now; without which we would vanish back into nothingness from which we came. "

It may just be a question of semantics, but probably not. I have no problem with saying that God is the ultimate cause, first cause, whatever word you want. I have no problem with saying that God–ultimately–causes the present existence of the universe and in that sense there is a “continuing influence” which is “part of the creative act”; but then it gets tricky when you try to define that. If you mean that God is “active” in the sense that He actively wills the universe to continue to do whatever it’s doing, great. If you mean God is “active” in the sense that He’s constantly interrupting the action of natural laws (which He created) to do whatever you want to call it (“fix” things, “adjust” things, “answer prayers,” whatever) then that seems to me to be illogical and denigrates God, as I keep saying, by restricting Him to immediate or direct actions. If you assume God’s perfect foreknowledge of creation, there would obviously be no need to intervene–the “intervention” is, in fact, part of the creative act. . Does it take place after creation? That–since God is outside time and space–doesn’t make sense.

I see no incompatibility between the Catechism or any official teaching and what I am saying. You simply repeating that there is one is not an argument, it’s an assertion.

Now it also seems to me that you are straying into the territory of occasionalism (iep.utm.edu/occasion/). Islamic occasionalism best exemplifies the idea: through al-'Ashari (d. 936) it entered orthodox Sunni Islam and is still a major factor in Islamic thinking.

Islamic occasionalism goes like this in the classical example: I shoot an arrow at Ahmad. But God is constantly (sound familiar?) re-creating the universe every nano-second. The course of the arrow is determined by the successive universes God is constantly creating. The fact that the arrow seems to go straight is an illusion due to the Providence of God (familiar?). The fact that the arrow hits Ahmad in the heart and kills him is God’s will. God created that act. I simply shot the arrow. There is no causal connection between me shooting the arrow and Ahmad’s death, even though I was aiming at Ahmad.

Now one obvious observation is that this theory eliminates causality. The light bulb goes on, not because I turned the switch and various natural laws causes filaments to glow, but because God willed it. And of course, as good Catholics, we believe that in a sense–God’s will, as you said, ultimately keeps the universe running. But to say that God intervened in the universe so that my flipping the light switch resulted in the light bulb going on is, to my mind, ridiculous.

But this theory is alive and well. I’ll give some historical examples. The US goes to Saddam Hussein and says, “You do this, or else we will invade.” Saddam–a Sunni Muslim who believes in occasionalism–thinks to himself along these lines, “You idiots. You can do nothing without God. Everything is in the hands of God. Whether your bombs go off or not is entirely up to God. I spit on your demands.” So US policymakers who knew nothing about Islam made their demands and then were amazed when they were ignored. Someone who knew Islam would have approached it much differently, along the lines of falling in line with God’s will.

An example that is explicit that you can watch online. PBS did a special a few years ago (I’m sure it’s on their website) on suicide bombers in Israel. They interviewed several of them who were captured–either their bombs didn’t go off when they pressed the button, or they were captured before they had a chance to push the button, or they had a change of heart about blowing up a school full of kids and turned themselves in. One of the bombers says something like this: “I only push the button. God decides the rest. I do not kill people, God kills people. It is God’s decision.” Chilling, but a logical conclusion from occasionalism.

 

[mamlukman]

mamlukman;13036763:

I’m not the only one who believes some of your views are contrary to Christ’s teaching in the New Testament. The issue is how **a loving Father **

can be a remote Controller who never intervenes for any reason whatsoever. It makes the descent of the Holy Spirit redundant…

I never used the words “remote controller”–that’s your phrase.

It depends, as I’ve said over and over, what you mean by “intervenes.” To me, since we agree that God has perfect foreknowledge of events, that any “intervention” would be identical with the act of creation. Any answering of prayers–since God knows exactly what you are praying for before creation of the universe–would be built in, so to speak. It doesn’t mean prayers are ineffective, just like it doesn’t mean you are a robot following a pre-determined course of events. You seem to be taking the position that God doesn’t know that you are going to pray for something before you do it, and that then God has to insert Himself into space-time and disrupt natural laws to intervene. Why would He have to do that? It’s an illogical position given your belief in the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

 

[mamlukman]

In that case all miracles are ruled out because divine power explains only the purpose of events not the direct cause.

Yes, pretty much. Could miracles take place? Sure. By the definition of God, God could suspend natural laws and perform a miracle. Does He? I personally don’t think so. You are free to believe otherwise. Belief in present-day miracles is not a required element of faith. Do I believe Jesus performed miracles? Yes–although whether that was through indirect means or not is open to question. It’s not something that keeps me up at night.

 

[mamlukman]

Isn’t the Creator supernatural?

And my comment a couple posts back that there’s “supernatural” and then there’s “supernatural.” I was trying to be polite. It seems to me that there is a world of difference between a belief in God and superstition.

I went to a series of sessions at a local parish a couple years ago. On day 2 a lot of people began talking about how God intervened in their lives–got them a new job, showed them the wonders of the universe (this guy worked at NASA), cured Aunt Fluffy, a bunch of stuff. I went to the priest at the end of that day and said I wouldn’t be back–he had veered off the track of religion into superstition. If you want to believe that sort of thing, and you feel it helps you or makes you feel better, that’s terrific. Good for you. I think it’s superstitious.

 

[mamlukman]

It makes the descent of the Holy Spirit redundant…

Not at all. I personally think God “intervenes” by inspiring you or helping you resist temptation–in other words, God works through your mind rather than by breaking natural laws. The purpose of the Holy Spirit was not to suspend natural laws, it was to inspire the Apostles.

 

[mamlukman]

There is nothing to distinguish this argument from that of an atheist. The cynical, hackneyed old saw about an amputated limb is a pathetic evasion of all the evidence for miracles throughout history all over the world and a rejection of Christ’s clear teaching that our prayers are answered. “Give us this day our daily bread” is not a metaphor but a practical request which reflects the way He responded to physical needs immediately. The fact that miracles do not** always **occur does not imply that they never occur or are even **rare **events. It is anti-Christian to live as if prayers are worthless and superstitious or should be confined to our spiritual needs as if everything else is insignificant.

Jesus was rejecting the common belief among Jews at that time that only sinners are victims of natural disasters and He certainly rejected the idea that God just lets things happen without ever doing anything to prevent or alleviate suffering.

Labels and false dilemmas are irrelevant in a rational discussion.

Let’s start with the last one first. I was explicitly referencing the movie “Signs” where Mel Gibson and Joachim Phoenix sit on the couch and explicitly discuss this very issue: Does God constantly intervene in the world or not? They come to the conclusion that there are only two possibilities: You believe God intervenes constantly or you’re an atheist. You are absolutely right–that’s a false dilemma or a false dichotomy. There is a third position, which is mine–belief in God, but not a God who is constantly intervening in the world.

“He [Jesus] certainly rejected the idea that God just lets things happen without ever doing anything to prevent or alleviate suffering.” Please quote a passage from the NT or Catechism to back that up. I will gladly accept “alleviate suffering” in the sense of “strengthen your resolve” or something like that, and of course I wouldn’t see this as an “intervention” at the exact time of trial–once again, I would see it as a built-in part of creation before time. Although since this is mental, I could accept an “at the time” intervention–mentally. If God wanted to “alleviate suffering” by breaking natural laws, He could go into a famine area and make food and water magically appear. That doesn’t happen. Do aid agencies bring food and water? Yes. Are they agents of God? Sure, in a sense. Again, indirect, not direct, action.

“There is nothing to distinguish this argument [denying that God intervenes to stop evil from natural causes, or modern day miracles] from that of an atheist.” You’re right. An atheist would make the same arguments. Hitler was against smoking. I’m against smoking. We agree on that issue. That doesn’t make me Hitler, and agreeing with atheists on some issues doesn’t make me an atheist. As for modern miracles, I guess I’m very much like the Apostle Thomas. I need to be shown. Curing a headache or a backache isn’t a verifiable miracle. How about all those nice preachers on TV who perform “healings” on every show? Are they performing miracles? No?