Mortal sin, death, repentance and salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert1111
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The weakness in Molinism; Sufficient grace is inefficacious to say yes to God’s call to heaven. – God provides the wrong (sufficient which is in reality inefficacious for salvation) grace to everyone.
.
It is not inefficacious per se. It is inefficacious only if the individual refuses it, but the individual has the REAL power to accept this Grace and make it efficacious. Real, actual, true power.

Thomism, however, says that you cannot give consent to Grace unless God has already given you efficacious Grace to begin with. Basically they pay lip service to free will but other than that it’s pretty much similar to Calvinism. It’s not equal only in that they say that God doesn’t directly will the damnation of the reprobate but only allows it, but then again, it’s just lip service. In all actuality, not predestining someone to Heaven while knowing full well that predestination is both ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBILE AND ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for salvation is the same as actively damning people from the start.

Basically we would have people who are born for the sole purpose of being damned in Hell in order to show God’s tremendous Justice. If this is not horrific beyond belief then i don’t know what is.
 
Last edited:
Let the scriptures speak-

Romans 9-

“ For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand):

12. Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger.

13. As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated.

14. What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid!

15. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17. For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

18. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth.

19. Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?

20. 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?

21. Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?

22. What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,

23. That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?”

What God wants most is to glorify himself. And that means that both his mercy and his justice are glorified. Now this also means some are objects of mercy, other objects of Justice.

But those to whom he shows mercy receive what they do not deserve, and those who receive justice receive what they do deserve.

For ALL, from the moment of conception, deserve Hell and justly.

But the misunderstanding of Catholic dogma is that Christ wants to save everyone, but darn it our free will keeps screwing it up.

Nope.

There is a difference between Gods disposition and his choices.

God is well disposed to all men. And from this good disposition flows sufficient graces to men to be saved. But God does not choose to make this grace effective in the lives of all, but only some, the faithful. These infallibly choose him and are justified. And to even fewer does he grant the grace of final perseverance.

This is the meaning of our Lords words, “many are called, but few are chosen.”

Many in the world (not all) are called to salvation, but only the chosen persevere.

Now, we do NOT KNOW who the elect are! So we don’t sit back and wait for God to do all the work, we preach the gospel promiscuously and choose to be instruments of Gods grace, by whom he will gather together the elect sheep of his flock. The elect are known to God alone, and they are the ones “gathered FROM every tribe, tongue and nation.” This is the second meaning of “God wills all men to be saved” men of every tribe, tongue nation and condition, but not absolutely every individual.
 
But those to whom he shows mercy receive what they do not deserve, and those who receive justice receive what they do deserve.

For ALL, from the moment of conception, deserve Hell and justly.

But the misunderstanding of Catholic dogma is that Christ wants to save everyone, but darn it our free will keeps screwing it up.

Nope.
You said “nope” but the view that God does indeed REALLY want to save everyone and that only the stubborn unrepentant goes to Hell is perfectly acceptable in Catholicism. Also, it is by far the most popular view, since the traditional Augustinian and thomistic doctrine about salvation and Grace pretty much turns God into a monster who commands you to give birth to lot of children so that he will enjoy burning them forever and ever in Hell.

I’d choose Satan over this monstrous psychopath any day of the week.

This God is an abomination. A God that asks me to conceive children to burn them in Hell forever without giving them a REAL chance at salvation would be a monster unworthy of anything other than hatred.
 
Last edited:
Now what makes you think that Justice in its application is evil? It is gloriously good. The problem here is you are perceiving as innocent and undeserving that which is actually guilty and truly deserving. That’s the tragedy of humanity and the horror of abortion.

No one is owed salvation, not even the small and weak who are implicated in Adams sin and slaves of the devil born under the wrath of God.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Latin:
The weakness in Molinism; Sufficient grace is inefficacious to say yes to God’s call to heaven. – God provides the wrong (sufficient which is in reality inefficacious for salvation) grace to everyone.
.
It is not inefficacious per se. It is inefficacious only if the individual refuses it, but the individual has the REAL power to accept this Grace. Real, actual, true power.

Thomism, however, says that you cannot give consent to Grace unless God has already given you efficacious Grace to begin with. Basically they pay lip service to free will but other than that it’s pretty much similar to Calvinism.
It is not inefficacious in Molinist’s theory, but it is inefficacious in Catholic Soteriology.

God bless
 
Also, children who die unbaptized are dealt with differently than those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment fits their condition, it is not in excess of it.
 
It is not inefficacious in Molinist’s theory, but it is inefficacious in Catholic Soteriology.

God bless
Again, i think it’s wrong to say that it’s inefficacious. It is potentially efficacious, just not intrinsically efficacious like thomistic efficacious Grace.
 
Now what makes you think that Justice in its application is evil? It is gloriously good. The problem here is you are perceiving as innocent and undeserving that which is actually guilty and truly deserving.
I don’t have problems with people going to Hell if they choose to die in final impenitence. I have problems with some people not getting an actual shot at salvation (if thomism were true).
 
Well here is the thing- are they owed this shot? God can be inequitable in the distribution of grace, but it isn’t unfair because we are all conceived undeserving. Is he under an obligation to save any particular person? And since he is all good, isn’t the condemnation of the guilty just and good?
 
This is the meaning of our Lords words, “many are called, but few are chosen.”

Many in the world (not all) are called to salvation, but only the chosen persevere.
The interpretations of those words is not univocally defined,

“If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God’s goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17). In the sentence “many are called, but few are chosen”, the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matthew 20:16; 22:14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence “many are called, but few chosen” does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05374a.htm

So no, those words don’t imply that God doesn’t truly want the salvation of all.
 
Last edited:
Well here is the thing- are they owed this shot?
They aren’t. If God is a monstrous psychopath he may well choose to create some people for the sole purpose of damning them to Hell, subjecting them to monstrous pain for all eternity, both psysical and spiritual, all of this while knowing full well that these poor SOB never had a chance from the moment of birth. But the Catholic Church teaches that God is loving and that he died for every single human being.

Not to mention all the private revelations where i have never heard about God simply not wanting to save someone. All the private revelations approved by the Church show a God that is the exact opposite of the monster you are talking about. Saint Faustina is a good example.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but the Church also teaches that though he died for all, not all receive the benefit, but ONLY those to whom he wishes to give it- the faithful.

You need to stop calling God a psychopath simply because you can’t easily categorize his judgments. He is all good, and all just and all merciful, and all will know his goodness one day-

Either in praising in him the mercy by which they were spared, or being forced to confess the righteousness of their condemnation.

But the Church doesn’t teach God simply damns people because he wants to, he damns them on account of their known sinfulness. Capricious damnation belongs more to certain types of Calvinism. God only damns the reprobate because of their foreseen sinfulness, for which he has predestined their punishment. He is not the author of sin.

And not all sinners are equal, so not all are punished in the same way.
 
Yes, but the Church also teaches that though he died for all, not all receive the benefit, but ONLY those to whom he wishes to give it- the faithful.
Not “those to whom he wishes to give it” but those who accept it and don’t scorn his Graces.
You need to stop calling God a psychopath
I’m not calling God a psychopath. I’m calling a psychopath the pathetic caricature of God some people talk about. I can call this God a psychopath since it’s just fiction, he doesn’t exist. The God taught by the Church and the Saints is very different.
But the Church doesn’t teach God simply damns people because he wants to, he damns them on account of their known sinfulness. Capricious damnation belongs more to certain types of Calvinism.
Saying that God doesn’t predestine some people to Heaven while knowing full well that Predestination is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation is the same as capriciously damning them. Expecially since predestination, for augustinians and thomists, is ante praevisa merita, which means that he also reprobates ante praevisa merita (because NOT predestinining someone to Heaven when predestination is absolutely necessary for salvation is the same as reprobation him. Exactly the same And the fact the predestines before foreseen merits implies that he also reprobates before foreseen merits, by withholding the predestination to Heaven which is absolutely necessary for salvation). It’s just Calvinism under a different name.
 
Last edited:
The exact phrasing of the ecumenical council of Trent is this-

“Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.

CHAPTER III.

Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.”

www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm
 
40.png
Latin:
It is not inefficacious in Molinist’s theory, but it is inefficacious in Catholic Soteriology.

God bless
Again, i think it’s wrong to say that it’s inefficacious. It is potentially efficacious, just not intrinsically efficacious like thomistic efficacious Grace.
If would be potentially efficacious combined with His special grace, The Gift of Final Perseverance NO ONE would end up in hell.

God bless
 
But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated.
I know Trent and it doesn’t contradict what i said. God cannot communicate the merit of His Passion if you don’t allow him to. Free will.
 
Last edited:
If would be potentially efficacious combined with His special grace, The Gift of Final Perseverance NO ONE would end up in hell.
I think you are making a little confusion. According to molinism and many contemporary thomists (Fr. Most for example), sufficient Grace is always potentially efficacious. If it’s not efficacious is only because you refused to cooperate with it, but you do have the real, actual, true power to cooperate. Under classical thomism however you would never cooperate with sufficient Grace. You need efficacious Grace to begin with, otherwise you are s**i out of luck.
 
Actually, that’s not true. Read the canons of the council of Orange. God can give the grace that removes a stony heart.

Canon 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, “For apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, “Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5).

Canon 23 . Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

Those who don’t desire truly refuse, but they have no desire because they were not given it.
 
Actually, that’s not true. Read the canons of the council of Orange. God can give the grace that removes a stony heart
The Council of Orange is not dogmatic. It was a local council and not everything that was said there is absolutely true.

This is proven by the fact that the Church allows both the thomistic and molinist understating of salvation and Grace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top