Mortal sin, death, repentance and salvation

[TULIPed]

The predestination to glory of the elect without foreseeing their merits logically implies a “blind” reprobation of those who have been left in the dust.

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”

We all deserve to be “left in the dust”. Thank God, for his great love, which we hold in tension with his complete (and sometimes fearful) sovereignty.

“For God so loved the world…”

 

[fhansen]

We all deserve to be “left in the dust”.

So then you’d say that you deserve eternal torment? Must be one awful character.

 

[TULIPed]

But for the grace of God, yes, I deserve eternal torment. And yes, without his grace, love and Holy Spirit, I am one awful character:

“But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’”

Just ask my wife!

 

[fhansen]

Wow, I know what you mean about her. But I still don’t think mine wants me in hell even if she told me to go there once or twice. OTOH, I’ve been pretty bad lately…might hafta rethink that one.

But seriously, I believe we need to give this some real thought. The God of love would create beings, who may have no real choice, for no other purpose than to be eternally punished. The average everyday Joe deserves eternal torment??!! I mean, it might sound sort of noble and all from some theological standpoint, and humble in a way, but I think it’s not really, and I think we actually end up misunderstanding the nature and will of God in all this.

 

[Robert1111]

Yes foreknowledge is of merits and demerits is involved per St. Thomas Aquinas

Nope.

I quote Saint Thomas

“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. Now it was shown above (I:19:5), that we cannot assign any cause of the divine will on the part of the act of willing; but a reason can be found on the part of the things willed; inasmuch as God wills one thing on account of something else. Wherefore nobody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator. But this is the question, whether, as regards the effect, predestination has any cause; or what comes to the same thing, whether God pre-ordained that He would give the effect of predestination to anyone on account of any merits.”

As you can see, the foreknowledge of merits and demerits is not involved. The predestined will live virtuous lives and/or repent at the end because God predestined them to do this.

I quote Saint Thomas again

“it is IMPOSSIBLE that the whole of the effect of predestination in general should have ANY CAUSE as coming from us; because whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is ALL INCLUDED UNDER THE EFFECT OF PREDESTINATION“.

What you quoted from Saint Thomas is in OBJECTION, I.E Saint Thomas was REFUTING that view. When Saint Thomas makes a list of objections is always a list of propositions and theories he didn’t agree with.

So you have either been dishonest or you simply don’t know how Saint Thomas worked.

 

[Robert1111]

@Vico

I quoted Saint Thomas from Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 5, reply to objections (it is the first broader reply to the various objections, then he proceeds to answer to each objection in a more detailed way) http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

 

[Zealot]

“The tree lays where it falls.”

There is no “final choice” where sinners get a chance to choose God for one last time. When you die, you are fixed eternally.

God is not “fair” in the sense that we usually definte it. If he chooses to save a Nazi and condemn a man who sinned but once, that is His right and it is right.

 

[Robert1111]

There is no “final choice” where sinners get a chance to choose God for one last time. When you die, you are fixed eternally.

Many saints have said the opposite so i believe them more than i believe you, sorry.

 

[Robert1111]

God is not “fair” in the sense that we usually definte it. If he chooses to save a Nazi and condemn a man who sinned but once, that is His right and it is right.

He can do whatever he wants but we cannot he asked to believe that a God who would do what you stated is all loving and he loves us much more than our parents no more than we can be asked to believe that a 2 + 2 = 87

 

[Robert1111]

You are obviously a better person than me because there is no way I would ever invite a person, whom I know for certain will do harm to my family, into my home.

My parents were “shacking up” before marriage and they have been happy together for 40 years. They still are.

I know that it is a sin (I “know” because the Church teaches it, even though i don’t see awhy it is SO bad. But i accept the teaching of the Church nontheless), but if it is consensual sex with my daughter who willingly decided to have sex with him, there is no way that i would want him to endure endless torture for that.

Also, if my daughter is willing to have sex with a man, it’s not like i can lock her up.

I don’t understand what you are saying here? I wasn’t trying to convey an analogy. Even though it is not possible I was trying to put you in God’s shoes. God is faced with such a terrible perspective and has to make a choice. I was trying to put you in a similar perspective to get you to make a similar choice and you avoided it.

Robert1111:

No, i did make a choice. I said that i would invite him into my house if it is the only way to spare him eternal torture.

This is the root of the matter you want God to conform to worldly view instead of you conforming to God’s view.

You mean the worldly view that a parent who dismembers and burn alive his child because he fu**ed up is a terrible parent? Should i believe that if God does this, he wouldn’t be an hideous monster? Because this is what @Zealot believes, apparently.

All I was trying to do was to put you in a scenario that is similar to what I believe God’s view is.

And i answered. I would bear with the guy because i wouldn’t be able to live with myself if i thought that i sent someone to eternal suffering for having consensually banged my daughter.

Not to mention the “all or nothing” premise might actually be what’s wrong with the real world. Maybe if the real world only loved God and neighbor the “eternal torment” wouldn’t even be an issue?

Original sin is a reality. We don’t choose to be born with that illness. We are still responsible for the sins we commit, but nobody in his right mind would choose to have the propensity to sin from birth if he could avoid it.

Scott free must have a different definition in Italian.

No, it has the same meaning. Again, it’s by comparison, not in the absolute sense.

 

[Robert1111]

The average everyday Joe deserves eternal torment??!! I mean, it might sound sort of noble and all from some theological standpoint, and humble in a way, but I think it’s not really, and I think we actually end up misunderstanding the nature and will of God in all this.

I agree and i propose a simple intellectual experiment: would you people be ok if someone who has been caught while he was masturbating with full knowledge and deliberate consent (I.e = mortal sin) had his skin peeled off, his eyes gouged out and his abdomen torn apart over and over and over again, infinite times with no end?

Yes? No? If the answer is no, and you don’t think that this person deserves this treatment, then you don’t really believe that the average Joe deserves Hell. If the answer is yes, then at least you are coherent, but quite frankly i wouldn’t want to be around you.

 

[Robert1111]

I wrote

If the answer is no, and you don’t think that this person deserves this treatment, then you don’t really believe that the average Joe deserves Hell.

Because Hell is immeasurably worse than the tortures listed in my post (for information, just read Revelation), so… Well.

 

[Robert1111]

agree with you Fhansen, the school of Molinism teaches, we can refuse to be saved.

But the school of Molinism has many big flaws, FOR EXAMPLE:

Molinism and St. Faustina paints a bleeding hearted impotent God who desires to save all people and desires that we to go to him for grace, but he doesn’t know; we cannot go to him unless he pulls us to himself with efficacious graces. – He is NOT the God I believe.

.
He is the God I believe:
Phil.2:13; For it is God who works in you both to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose.

God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. … Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3:

.
The large majority of Catholic theologians rejects the school of Molinism.

FOR EXAMPLE
Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God. Fr. William G Most. Page 369.

Actually, the Molinistic theories owe more to speculation then to revelation.

.
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8

… We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which PRECEDE justification-whether faith or works -merit the grace itself of justification.
.
Fr. William G Most. Page 455.
In regard to first justification St. Thomas teaches, with the Council of Orange, that God does not need to wait for the consent of our will: instead, our consent is the effect of grace. ST I-II. 111.2 ad 2
.
The same is true with other graces.

First the interior act of the will.
In this act, our will is moved, and God is the mover, by operating grace.

The other act is the exterior act.
Even this act God helps us by cooperating grace to accomplish.

.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Pge 5.
I maintain that the Thomist position on predestination best reflects the teaching of Scripture and the Magisterium, and I will attempt to demonstrate the same throughout this book.
.
God bless

You have quoted a list of citations to prove your point, but i can quote a list of citations to prove mine.

I could make and endless list, but one citation is more than enough to make your apparently beautiful castle crumble like a box of tissue.

Revelation 3:20

“ Here I am! I stand at the door and KNOCK. If anyone hears my voice AND OPENS THE DOOR, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.”

Quoting the Bible in order to prove some point isn’t going to get us anywhere. The correct interpretation belongs to the Church.

 

[Robert1111]

I believe the Thomistic predestination with a correction, God predestined everyone for salvation and everyone will be saved.

.

God’s vehement salvific will is to save everyone. – My faith is in God and in His salvific will.

I like this view. I could be a thomist if i were to believe in the possibility of universal salvation. Unfortunately i’m quite skeptic about this possibility, but i SO hope that God will prove me wrong. As i said, i have no problem with Hitler in Heaven. In Purgatory he can pay for his sins, so it’s not a “necessity” to see him in Hell in order to satisfy of justice for his crimes.

Unfortunately i believe that some people (not most, but many, and they would be many even if the wee only 1% of the global population: 70.000 people, more than Italy’s population. This could explain some revelations about Hell being very crowded, since even if “only” between 1 and 5% of the population went to Hell, it would be an awful lot of people) go there, because i believe that free will is real.

You are also right that we don’t have to believe in private revelations, but rest assured that the Church never approves a private revelation if it goes against Her teachings.

And Jesus has said many similar things to many saints. Every approved private revelation i have read always shows a Jesus who sincerely wants to save everyone but is not willing to erase our free-will. In other words, in every revelation i have always seen a Jesus who is completely different from the hideous monster described by @Zealot and many others. Some saints described Jesus in that way but they weren’t private revelations, they were just their ideas about the subject.

And unless all of these private revelations are false (and it would be very strange: why would God allow so many saints to be fooled and duped? What is the purpose?), there is no trace of either the predestinarian Jesus who blindly saves whoever he wants to save and lefts all the others in the dust and the Jesus who saves literally everyone.

To be continued…

 

[Robert1111]

Continue…

@Latin

I have read some revelations where Jesus SEEMED to allude to something akin to universal salvation in the end (but it can just be my interpretation) but i never read a revelation where Jesus was a petty tyrant like the Jesus described by some users in this forum.

Anyway, if i chose to be a thomist, i would certainly HAVE to be a universalist, just like you. Because there is no way to reconcile the idea that God can save everyone and that sufficient Grace can’t save you unless God makes a further intervention (efficacious Grace) with a loving God unless God saves everyone.

One thing is saying that God gives us every chance to be saved, even at the very end, so who ends up in Hell is his own choosing. This reconciles both God’s Love and Mercy with his Justice and Hell. . Another thing entirely is saying that God simply saves whoever he wants and passes over the rest when if he had given them the same graces given to the elect they would have been saved and that there was no way that they could have accepted sufficient Grace without God’s motion (as i said, sufficient Grace only makes you accountable for your sins, according to the thomists, but you NEED God’s efficacious grace to be saved and you agree) and yet God damned them. The former perspective gives me no problem, even if there are people in Hell. But the latter perspective REQUIRES universal salvation to avoid a monstrous God.

 

[Zealot]

You are asked to believe in such a God and you risk eternal damnation to deny Him.

 

[Robert1111]

@Zealot

No, i’m not asked to believe in this kind of goddamned despicable criminal.

The Church doesn’t require me to believe this, sorry. Nor the Church ever said that final impenitence just happens by chance because “whelp, we told you that God loved you much more than you parents ever will but it was all a big fat lie”.

The Church allows different views about predestination, and my view is by far the most widespread in the Catholic Church, so don’t bother me.

 

[Zealot]

In this thread you have cursed God and you’ve also said you would let men violate your daughter (don’t know if I should laugh or cry at that).

I think your words stand on their own and show exactly why you don’t want to believe in Judgement.

 

[Robert1111]

@Zealot

At least you chose a fitting nickname for yourself.

By the way, let us know if you are the Pope in disguise and you are about to issue an ex cathedra statement where you declare that the psychopathic sick puppy you have in mind is the one true God.

Otherwise i’m afraid that you aren’t in the position to tell me what i’m required to believe about this subject. To me, stating that God is like that is exactly like blaspheming him, so you cannot ask me to offend God.

The criminal you and other users have described is no more real than Jupiter, to me, so if you want to believe in that kind of god be my absolute guests.

 

[Robert1111]

In this thread you have cursed God and you’ve also said you would let men violate your daughter (don’t know if I should laugh or cry at that).

Are you going to lock your daughter or something? I’m the one who doesn’t if i should laugh or cry, the only thing i know is that you aren’t worth my time.

And i haven’t cursed God, i have cursed the pathetic criminal you and others have described. If you can’t tell the difference it’s not my fault.

I mean, you can’t even understand that once a son/daughter reaches the age of maturity you can’t treat him/her like your property, so what should i expect from you?

I think your words stand on their own and show exactly why you don’t want to believe in Judgement.

You can’t even read, apparently. I have stated time and time again that I don’t believe in an empty Hell. Or maybe you read but you can’t understand simple sentences.