Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[Richca]

Do you really believe - like Calvin - that every misfortune is** directly **willed by God?

This is a good question. An example that comes to my mind is this: suppose a robber robs your house and steals a lot of things, possibly a stash of money that was pretty much your life savings. Now, the robber’s act is a sin and God does not will sin though the robber could not have committed this act without God’s will and causality. This is God’s will of permission, God permits us to sin being that He created us with free will. God could have prevented the robbery but he did not. There is a reason why God permitted this robbery for every agent acts for an end and God is the first cause of everything. The robber’s act of sin is an act and a being and God is the cause that the defective act is an act and a being but not that it is a defective act or sin, the defective part is due to the robber.

If the victim is a good person or a christian, then we know as St Paul says “We know that all things work for good for those who love God,* who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28). So, I say in an example such as this, God permitted this misfortune to the victim for the good of the soul of the victim in some manner or other which is usually hidden to us but we take on faith; and God may have permitted this sinful act by the robber for other reasons as well totally beyond our comprehension as only he knows. Maybe for the good of the robber in some mysterious way too. We know that God permits evil and mysteriously draws good out of it sometimes in ways totally hidden from us. Augustine says ““Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”

So, we can’t say that God directly willed the robber’s act of sin for God is not the cause of sin. However, God did will to permit it for some good.

 

[tonyrey]

This is a good question. An example that comes to my mind is this: suppose a robber robs your house and steals a lot of things, possibly a stash of money that was pretty much your life savings. Now, the robber’s act is a sin and God does not will sin though the robber could not have committed this act without God’s will and causality. This is God’s will of permission, God permits us to sin being that He created us with free will. God could have prevented the robbery but he did not. There is a reason why God permitted this robbery for every agent acts for an end and God is the first cause of everything. The robber’s act of sin is an act and a being and God is the cause that the defective act is an act and a being but not that it is a defective act or sin, the defective part is due to the robber.

If the victim is a good person or a christian, then we know as St Paul says “We know that all things work for good for those who love God,* who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28). So, I say in an example such as this, God permitted this misfortune to the victim for the good of the soul of the victim in some manner or other which is usually hidden to us but we take on faith; and God may have permitted this sinful act by the robber for other reasons as well totally beyond our comprehension as only he knows. Maybe for the good of the robber in some mysterious way too. We know that God permits evil and mysteriously draws good out of it sometimes in ways totally hidden from us. Augustine says ““Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”

So, we can’t say that God directly willed the robber’s act of sin for God is not the cause of sin. However, God did will to permit it for some good.

I believe God permitted the sin because it was good that the robber had free will even though he was misusing it.

Misfortunes are also permitted because they are inevitable in an immensely complex universe. The very conditions necessary for life are sometimes the cause of a tragedy like being drowned in a tsunami or killed by an earthquake.

 

[oldcelt]

I believe God permitted the sin because it was good that the robber had free will even though he was misusing it.

Misfortunes are also permitted because they are inevitable in an immensely complex universe. The very conditions necessary for life are sometimes the cause of a tragedy like being drowned in a tsunami or killed by an earthquake.

Or, just perhaps, God, is truly the creator, and not a micro-manager.

John

 

[tonyrey]

Or, just perhaps, God, is truly the creator, and not a micro-manager.

John

According to that argument all our decisions and all natural events are created by God. Farewell, freedom and responsibility…

We are slaves but we can relax because we no longer have to think about hell!

 

[tonyrey]

I believe God permitted the sin because it was good that the robber had free will even though he was misusing it.

Misfortunes are also permitted because they are inevitable in an immensely complex universe. The very conditions necessary for life are sometimes the cause of a tragedy like being drowned in a tsunami or killed by an earthquake.

Without earth and water we wouldn’t be here but of course we can have too much or too little of a good thing, a fact ignored by the magnificent laws of nature - not that it’s their fault of course. Like everything else in the universe they have their limitations - although not everyone agrees. Apparently they can act as a substitute for God and ensure that nothing ever goes wrong…

 

[Richca]

I believe God permitted the sin because it was good that the robber had free will even though he was misusing it.

Misfortunes are also permitted because they are inevitable in an immensely complex universe. The very conditions necessary for life are sometimes the cause of a tragedy like being drowned in a tsunami or killed by an earthquake.

Yes, I get your opinion though I disagree with it. Again, it is not possible that a chance or unintended effect or event occur in the universe outside the order and direction of Divine Providence.

Things are said to be fortuitous as regards some particular cause from the order of which they escape. But as to the order of Divine providence, nothing in the world happens by chance, as Augustine declares (St Thomas Aquinas, ST, Part I, q. 103, art. 7, reply to obj. 2).

Good and evil, life and death,
poverty and riches—all are from the LORD. (Sirach 11:14).

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I get your opinion though I disagree with it. Again, it is not possible that a chance or unintended effect or event occur in the universe outside the order and direction of Divine Providence.

They occur** within **the framework of order and direction!

Things are said to be fortuitous as regards some particular cause from the order of which they escape. But as to the order of Divine providence, nothing in the world happens by chance, as Augustine declares (St Thomas Aquinas, ST, Part I, q. 103, art. 7, reply to obj. 2).

Coincidences are not synonymous with chance. Some are planned and others are not planned but permitted. God does not plan disasters like the earthquake in Nepal but He obviously knows they “will” (from our point of view) occur.

Depending on the circumstances some coincidences are necessary evils, some are neutral and others are blessings. An ideal physical world is an illusion because only God is perfect in every respect.

Good and evil, life and death,
poverty and riches—all are from the LORD. (Sirach 11:14).

Ultimately but not always directly.

 

[oldcelt]

According to that argument all our decisions and all natural events are created by God. Farewell, freedom and responsibility…

We are slaves but we can relax because we no longer have to think about hell!

No, according to that we are a consequence of creation…not a direct creation of God. All responsibility lies with us…we are totally free…but I do agree with the hell part.

John

 

[tonyrey]

No, according to that we are a consequence of creation…not a direct creation of God. All responsibility lies with us…we are totally free…but I do agree with the hell part.

How can we possibly be rational, free or responsible if we are the product of mindless processes which are **not **rational, free or responsible? It amounts to a colossal conjuring trick. Getting something for nothing is absurd by any standards…

 

[oldcelt]

How can we possibly be rational, free or responsible if we are the product of mindless processes which are **not **rational, free or responsible? It amounts to a colossal conjuring trick. Getting something for nothing is absurd by any standards…

Because as sentient beings we gradually learned that certain standards of conduct work better for all concerned. Why is this any more of a “conjuring trick” than a big eye in the sky deciding the ultimate outcome of everything? Virtually all religions are attempts to explain what I believe are natural processes that followed from initial creation.
Our freedom is that we can still choose to do anything we like. There will be consequences…but we are still free to to so.

John

 

[tonyrey]

How can we possibly be rational, free or responsible if we are the product of mindless processes which are **not **

Learning is not the same as becoming free to choose. No animal is considered to be responsible for what it does and, according to your naturalistic explanation, we are just another species of mammal. The conjuring trick still has not been explained.

As for the sarcastic and discourteous reference to “the big eye in the sky” a Creator with foresight is far more credible than a blind force conferring a gift it doesn’t even possess. That hypothesis is hopelessly inadequate because it entails getting the power of reason from the dust beneath our feet without the slightest explanation of the mechanism by which that miracle is accomplished. In other words it is a gratuitous, worthless assumption made in a vain attempt to justify a preconceived conclusion - that there is no reason whatsoever for our existence, i.e. everything is absurd and meaningless. “Abandon all hope ye who enter the dark realm of deism.The emptiness and futility of your life is finally revealed. It emerges from nothing and returns to nothing - like a terrifying nightmare from which we cannot escape until death comes as a welcome release from insanity…”

 

[Aloysium]

. . . as sentient beings we gradually learned that certain standards of conduct work better for all concerned. . . Virtually all religions are attempts to explain what I believe are natural processes that followed from initial creation.
Our freedom is that we can still choose to do anything we like. There will be consequences…but we are still free to to so. . .

I would agree with Tony here regarding the Atheist and Deist position.

. . . “Abandon all hope ye who enter the dark realm of deism.The emptiness and futility of your life is finally revealed. It emerges from nothing and returns to nothing - like a terrifying nightmare from which we cannot escape until death comes as a welcome release from insanity…”

Their position would see Human beings as those who set the standards by which they should live.
The intelligence of Homo sapiens allows them to understanding of the vagaries of human instinctive behaviour, shared with their simian cousins.
Their standards would be based on an additional instinct dedicated to the maximization of the satisfaction in the group.
What binds this version of mankind is power and fear. Love is merely an emotion to be ignored or manipulated according to the circumstance.
Within this utilitarian system, human beings would be understood as having complete freedom, with the uncaring forces of nature being the final judge - survival, having no inherent worth in itself, being the aim.

This mankind would have nothing above it; below, the chaotic, random processes which underlie the apparent order found in, actually imposed on, nature.
A brief, ultimately senseless life having no more meaning or significance than a spark flying out of the campfire, ultimately forgotten for all the glory and all the pain. This entire civilization, ten million years from now, reduced to fifty meters of unusual strata on various mountain ranges, unnoticed on another empty planet in a vastness that might as well have never been.

Not a bad description of hell - a world without love

So, what are we to make of:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan…

But love with its putting into action the self-sacrifice of the person for the well-being of the other is more than a vain reflection of empty sentiments.
While the words quoted may have been merely a political move to secure power, under the umbrella of utilitarian righteousness, I believe they strike a cord in our hearts. Hearts ultimately existing within the Compassion from which all creation has come into being.

 

[tonyrey]

oldcelt

. . . as sentient beings we gradually learned that certain standards of conduct work better for all concerned. . . Virtually all religions are attempts to explain what I believe are natural processes that followed from initial creation.
Our freedom is that we can still choose to do anything we like. There will be consequences…but we are still free to to so. . .
I would agree with Tony here regarding the Atheist and Deist position.

tonyrey

• . . . “Abandon all hope ye who enter the dark realm of deism.The emptiness and futility of your life is finally revealed. It emerges from nothing and returns to nothing - like a terrifying nightmare from which we cannot escape until death comes as a welcome release from insanity…”*
  Their position would see Human beings as those who set the standards by which they should live.
  The intelligence of Homo sapiens allows them to understanding of the vagaries of human instinctive behaviour, shared with their simian cousins.
  Their standards would be based on an additional instinct dedicated to the maximization of the satisfaction in the group.
  What binds this version of mankind is power and fear. Love is merely an emotion to be ignored or manipulated according to the circumstance.
  Within this utilitarian system, human beings would be understood as having complete freedom, with the uncaring forces of nature being the final judge - survival, having no inherent worth in itself, being the aim.

This mankind would have nothing above it; below, the chaotic, random processes which underlie the apparent order found in, actually imposed on, nature.
A brief, ultimately senseless life having no more meaning or significance than a spark flying out of the campfire, ultimately forgotten for all the glory and all the pain. This entire civilization, ten million years from now, reduced to fifty meters of unusual strata on various mountain ranges, unnoticed on another empty planet in a vastness that might as well have never been.

Not a bad description of hell - a world without love

So, what are we to make of:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan…

But love with its putting into action the self-sacrifice of the person for the well-being of the other is more than a vain reflection of empty sentiments.
While the words quoted may have been merely a political move to secure power, under the umbrella of utilitarian righteousness, I believe they strike a cord in our hearts. Hearts ultimately existing within the Compassion from which all creation has come into being.

There is no doubt Lincoln had a **rational **basis for his belief in truth, freedom, justice and love for everyone without exception - unlike those who reject religion.

 

[oldcelt]

Learning is not the same as becoming free to choose. No animal is considered to be responsible for what it does and, according to your naturalistic explanation, we are just another species of mammal. The conjuring trick still has not been explained.

As for the sarcastic and discourteous reference to “the big eye in the sky” a Creator with foresight is far more credible than a blind force conferring a gift it doesn’t even possess. That hypothesis is hopelessly inadequate because it entails getting the power of reason from the dust beneath our feet without the slightest explanation of the mechanism by which that miracle is accomplished. In other words it is a gratuitous, worthless assumption made in a vain attempt to justify a preconceived conclusion - that there is no reason whatsoever for our existence, i.e. everything is absurd and meaningless. “Abandon all hope ye who enter the dark realm of deism.The emptiness and futility of your life is finally revealed. It emerges from nothing and returns to nothing - like a terrifying nightmare from which we cannot escape until death comes as a welcome release from insanity…”

We are just another species of mammal…that is a biologic fact. So far as my origin and my destiny, the first is obvious…the other, highly uncertain.
Our powers of reason did not come from “the dust beneath our feet.” It developed over millenia, through forces we are only beginning to understand.
Tony, you had the audacity to accuse me of discourtesy…would you like me to pull up what you have said about my beliefs? Or maybe just read the rest of your paragraph in this post.
I’m not certain, but it sounds like the reaction of someone who feels threatened.

John

 

[oldcelt]

I would agree with Tony here regarding the Atheist and Deist position.

Their position would see Human beings as those who set the standards by which they should live.
The intelligence of Homo sapiens allows them to understanding of the vagaries of human instinctive behaviour, shared with their simian cousins.
Their standards would be based on an additional instinct dedicated to the maximization of the satisfaction in the group.
What binds this version of mankind is power and fear. Love is merely an emotion to be ignored or manipulated according to the circumstance.
Within this utilitarian system, human beings would be understood as having complete freedom, with the uncaring forces of nature being the final judge - survival, having no inherent worth in itself, being the aim.

This mankind would have nothing above it; below, the chaotic, random processes which underlie the apparent order found in, actually imposed on, nature.
A brief, ultimately senseless life having no more meaning or significance than a spark flying out of the campfire, ultimately forgotten for all the glory and all the pain. This entire civilization, ten million years from now, reduced to fifty meters of unusual strata on various mountain ranges, unnoticed on another empty planet in a vastness that might as well have never been.

Not a bad description of hell - a world without love

So, what are we to make of:

But love with its putting into action the self-sacrifice of the person for the well-being of the other is more than a vain reflection of empty sentiments.
While the words quoted may have been merely a political move to secure power, under the umbrella of utilitarian righteousness, I believe they strike a cord in our hearts. Hearts ultimately existing within the Compassion from which all creation has come into being.

I would suggest reading more on Lincoln. He was a master politician who knew what people expected to hear in his day. His religious convictions are very much up for discussion.
So far as a world without love…I have experienced a great deal of love in my life…all from human beings without the necessity of supernatural intervention.

John

 

[tonyrey]

I would suggest reading more on Lincoln. He was a master politician who knew what people expected to hear in his day. His religious convictions are very much up for discussion.
So far as a world without love…I have experienced a great deal of love in my life…all from human beings without the necessity of supernatural intervention.

John

How did the difference between human love and animal love originate?

 

[oldcelt]

How did the difference between human love and animal love originate?

When we, and possibly other higher intelligence animals achieved sentience after millenia. There is no need, IMO for any external intervention.

John

 

[tonyrey]

When we, and possibly other higher intelligence animals achieved sentience after millenia. There is no need, IMO for any external intervention.

John

I apologise for pursuing the matter further, John, but I don’t understand how sentience can become free will. There is a vast difference between conditioned behaviour and self-control. Even the apes are not considered responsible for their behaviour because they lack insight and moral principles.

 

[oldcelt]

I apologise for pursuing the matter further, John, but I don’t understand how sentience can become free will. There is a vast difference between conditioned behaviour and self-control. Even the apes are not considered responsible for their behaviour because they lack insight and moral principles.

Sentience, self awareness, is directly connected to empathy, compassion, hatred, etc. They all flow from one’s awareness of self and their environment.

John

 

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference between conditioned behaviour and self-control. Even the apes are not considered responsible for their behaviour because they lack insight and moral principles.

How did self-awareness appear in the first place?

What about free will? Why aren’t apes considered responsible for what they do?

Do they have a soul? Do we have a soul? Or are we just advanced animals rather than persons?