Mortal sin, death, repentance and salvation

[Robert1111]

Answer of your first sentence.
Yes it is true.
.
Answer of your second sentence.

If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient grace, and not an efficacious grace.

By the aid of sufficient grace man always performs the act of sin by God’s permission and His cooperation by His provision of the powers of operation to perform the act sin, the sin is preordained from all eternity in accordance with His all-embracing purpose.
.
When God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ), the good act is preordained from all eternity in accordance with His all-embracing purpose.
.

In other words, we would have a God who says these words to Saint Faustina

“My Heart overflows with great mercy for souls, and especially for poor sinners. If only they could understand that I am the best of Fathers to them and that it is for them that the Blood and Water flowed from My Heart as from a fount overflowing with mercy. For them I dwell in the tabernacle as King of Mercy. I desire to bestow My graces upon souls, but they do not want to accept them. You, at least, come to Me as often as possible and take these graces they do not want to accept. In this way you will console My Heart…" (Diary, 367).”

When your horrid perspective is true? Do you realize that it would be completely nonsensical right?

Do you realize that saying “I desire to bestow My graces upon souls, but they do not want to accept them“ when, according to you, the only reason they reject those graces is that sufficient Grace is absolutely powerless to save you, would be absolutely and pathologically nuts, right?

Do you also realize that saying “I desire to bestow My graces upon souls, but they do not want to accept them“ when, if Thomism were true, he would only need to give them Efficacious Grace and they would repent in an heartbeat, and it would also be the ONLY way to FACTUALLY bring them to repentance since efficacious Grace is the only true saving Grace, would imply that Jesus is a textbook case of a malignant, ruthless, merciless and petty narcissistic psychopath, right?

If you don’t realize this, and you don’t realize that saying that God can really act like that is tantamount to saying that God is not better than Satan, just a bigger and most powerful cosmic bully, it means that you don’t really understand what you are writing, sorry.

 

[fhansen]

In any case the Church in her wisdom, aware of the various schools of thought, teaches that man can resist and refuse the grace that God gives to establish cooperation between ourselves and Him. We can’t be saved without Him, but we can still refuse to be saved.

 

[Robert1111]

In any case the Church in her wisdom, aware of the various schools of thought, teaches that man can resist and refuse the grace that God gives to establish cooperation between ourselves and Him. We can’t be saved without Him, but we can still refuse to be saved.

Exactly. Otherwise it would all be a joke.

 

[Vico]

… It’s not from all time? Of course it is.
… I was aware of that, but the substance doesn’t change. According to Aquinas, some people are reprobated and deserted by Grace for no other reason than God’s will. Period. It is literally stated in the Summa, First part, Question 23.

God does not directly will the fall of anyone, for to do so would mean that person would not be responsible and condemnation would be unjust and God is not unjust.

Reprobation is not from all time but foreknowledge of the fall of a person is Because of that the persons rejection of grace can be used by God providentially. As stated previously,

"Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined—namely, glory—and of what is received in this life—namely, grace. "

He states that grace is lost by the person through sin, one’s own fault:

Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future—namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true—namely, “Destruction is thy own, O Israel.”

 

[Robert1111]

God does not directly will the fall of anyone, for to do so would mean that person would not be responsible and condemnation would be unjust and God is not unjust.

Reprobation is not from all time but foreknowledge of the fall of a person is Because of that the persons rejection of grace can be used by God providentially.

Quite honestly, Vico, i’m starting to think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

I know, trust me, i KNOW, that Thomas teaches that God doesn’t DIRECTLY will the damnation of anyone. But, since man’s nature is fallen, under the thomist perspective if God abandons you, you WILL, with a 100% accuracy, die in mortal sin.

Stop twisting it, really.

I mean, you even quoted Saint Thomas who said

“Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. “

Seen? Sin is your own responsibility, of course, but you wouldn’t have freely wanted to sin if God hadn’t abandoned you and if you hadn’t been deserted by Grace.

And, since according to Thomas reprobation has NO other cause than God’s WILL, the abandonment that follows reprobation also has NO other cause than God’s will.

God reprobates you for no reason other than he simply didn’t want to predestine you to Heaven, THEN he abandons you, THEN you will surely use your own free will to commit mortal sin, THEN God will graciously and tenderly (with the same gracious and tender father’s love with which he decided to not predestine you to Heaven, knowing full well that the not predestined are absolutely 100% guaranteed to die in mortal sin since predestination for Thomas was both absolutely necessary and absolutely infallible for salvation) allow you to die in that state, so that he will be able to throw you in the lake of fire where the smoke of your torment will rise forever and ever and you’ll have no rest day or night (Revelation 14:11),

Can you, please, stop trying to twist this obvious truth only because you don’t like the fact that the “god” imagined by Aquinas makes Hitler look like a choir boy by comparison? Thank you.

He states that grace is lost by the person through sin, one’s own fault :

For sure, sin without fault would be an oxymoron. But the abandonment of God preceeds man’s sin.

He says

“ But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace”.

For Aquinas reprobation has NO other reason than God’s will, i.e, it’s not man’s sin the cause of his reprobation. Man’s sin is the cause of his punishment, but reprobation preceeds, for Aquinas, both sin and punishment, having no other cause than God’s will.

From Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection 3 “ Yet why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will”.

He also said (Summa Theologiae, Article 3, reply to objection 3

“ although anyone reprobated by God CANNOT ACQUIRE GRACE, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt”.

 

[oliver109]

In a sense we are all potential reprobates or at least most of us are. The church teaches that anyone who dies after committing a mortal sin goes immediately to Hell. Our lives in many cases are constantly spent choosing between Heaven and Hell and it is up to God Whether we die on a hour when we have chosen Heaven or Hell. It is of course our fault that we may end up in Hell but God does i will add effectively abandon the damned because he wishes to. In my view there are in general 3 types of people, those who live a life of sin and turn away from it halfway through life like St Augustine, those who sin on and off through their life and may die in a state of grace or be caught in a state of mortal sin and those who live lives that are constantly spent in rebellion against all that is good, the latter are what makes me believe that universal salvation is not possible but thankfully such souls are few in number anyway.

 

[Robert1111]

Our lives in many cases are constantly spent choosing between Heaven and Hell and it is up to God Whether we die on a hour when we have chosen Heaven or Hell.

I don’t believe this. Many saints have stated that God gives to some who is about to die in mortal sin the chance to repent, so if they die in mortal sin is their fault, not God’s.

Remember that final impenitence is the most grave sin, i.e the sin against the Holy Spirit. How can the most evil sin be involuntary? And yet, if i died in final impenitence without having made a conscious decision to die in that state, if i died in that state simply because i had an argument with a sick puppy who decided to backstab me while i was in mortal sin, my final impenitence would be involuntary, i.e i would commit a sin against the Holy Spirit without being culpable for it. This is plainly absurd.

 

[oliver109]

I hope God gives all who are about to die in mortal sin the chance to repent, what we are generally taught by the church though is that those who die in mortal sin are simply unlucky that they died on a day when they were not at peace with God, they made the terrible mistake of not locking their doors and they were caught by the thief in the night.

 

[Robert1111]

what we are generally taught by the church though is that those who die in mortal sin are simply unlucky that they died on a day when they were not at peace with God

Not really. The Church teaches infallibly that those who die in mortal sin go to Hell, sure, but She teaches nothing about the modality with which this happens. The only thing we know is that when the soul departs from the body there is no way back, you are either in the state of Grace or in mortal sin. But we don’t know how this happens.

they made the terrible mistake of not locking their doors and they were caught by the thief in the night.

But here is the thing: how can final impenitence be a sin against the Holy Spirit if it’s something that can just befall us without us having a say in the matter?

I understand where you are coming from, the narrative about mortal sin is a good way to foster fear and fight presumption, the thing is that when you dig deep enough into it, you can see that it makes no sense.

It makes no sense that such an important thing like our eternal salvation can be contingent upon “luck”. Not to mention that we know that luck doesn’t exist and God governs the universe. And it makes even less sense to think that an all loving God would simply pass over some of his children for no reason and save other children for no reason. The reality of this would be directly irreconcilable with a loving God.

Fighting presumption should be done by fostering the love for God, not by selling the idea that he is some twisted malignant ruler who acts capriciously.

Expecially today that people have a lot of information and know about people like Rudolf Höss finding God’s Mercy. If someone believe that it’s just comes down to whether or not God wants to save you badly enough, people’s natural reaction is “well, you know what? I might as well enjoy the rude while we are at it. Afterall, if i’m numbered among the lucky bastards i can genocide an entire race and i will have fun in Heaven for all eternity, if i’m numbered among the reallynotsolucky bastards all it takes is one naughty thought with full knowledge and deliberation and BAM! “depart from me you evildoer”. Why bother at all, then? Carpe diem, bruh”.

 

[oliver109]

Absolutely right, we need to hope that as St Faustina taught even those who appear to be dead are not actually dead yet and can still in a mysterious way be converted by God at that last moment.

 

[fhansen]

Either man’s will necessarily plays a role in his eternal destiny or it does not. And that means a will that’s uncontrolled by outside influences to the greatest extent possible, even as it may well be aided. IMO God’s in the business of “stretching” our wills, so to speak, of helping us to own our choices and therefore to own our justice. And this is how our justice can even grow , as it should per Catholic doctrine. This is how we’re perfected.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil , and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

 

[Robert1111]

Either man’s will necessarily plays a role in his eternal destiny or it does not. And that means a will that’s uncontrolled by outside influences to the greatest extent possible, even as it may well be aided . IMO God’s in the business of “stretching” our wills, so to speak, of helping us to own our choices and therefore to own our justice. And this how our justice can even grow , as it should per Catholic doctrine. This is how we’re perfected.

I agree 100%.

 

[Robert1111]

@Vico

If you need something even more straightforward i have Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 1

“God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life- He is said to hate or reprobated them”.

In other words: some people go to Hell simply because God didn’t want to save them, and they sinned and merited Hell, dying in mortal sin, for the same reason: God didn’t want to save them. Otherwise none of that would have happened.

Long story short:

1. Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 1

“God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life- He is said to hate or reprobated them”.

1. Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection 3

“Why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will”.

1. Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 3, Reply to objection 2

“ Guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace”

1. Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 3

“ANYONE reprobated by God CANNOT acquire grace”.

1. Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 3, Reply to objection 2

“Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. IT IS THE CAUSE, however, of what is assigned in the future—namely, ETERNAL PUNISHMENT”.

It couldn’t be any clearer

1. God creates someone whose salvation he doesn’t desire (as we all know, salvation and eternal life are exactly the same).
2. He doesn’t desire the salvation of this person NOT because he foresaw that this person will be unrepentant until the end, but for the sole reason that he didn’t want to save him/her.

3 and 4. Since this person is reprobated he will not receive Grace (*i should make an addendum on this point).

1. Since this person doesn’t receive Grace he or she will commit mortal sin and die in that state, thus meriting eternal punishment in Hell.

*Since Banez was aware of the fact that, after the fall, if man is literally deserted by Grace he would have no responsibility for his sins, we have the thomistic “sufficient grace”, a Grace designed to make the reprobate accountable for his sins despite said Grace having no power to save him. Sufficient Grace is a mere potency, if you receive it you “””””can””””” do good, but before this bare potency can be reduced to action, another and different divine help must be received, namely efficacious Grace.

Really, Banez only drawn the most logical and unavoidable conclusions from the doctrine of unconditional predestination. Afterall, Aquinas doctrine on reprobation was molded by his knowledge and admiration of Saint Augustine’s work, who basically had the same ideas about the subject (and he was the only one among the fathers of his time), just less systematized and refined.

 

[Vico]

…

St. Thomas Aquinas did not teach intrinsic distinctions on this issue. The later theologians did and the Holy See choose to stop their arguing (twice).

Per St. Thomas Aquinas, God lets the sinner fail but does not cause it. Abandonment of grace does not precede sin but occurs coincident with the will to sin, for that person receives actual grace which is sufficient. There is a conditioned positive reprobation. It occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits, in Latin, post et propter praevisa demerita, and this is true because of the Divine Resolve of salvation which excludes God’s desiring in advance the damnation of certain men. St. Thomas Aquinas distinguishes distinguishes between God’s antecedent and consequent wills.

ST I, 19, 6, Ad 1: Deus antecedenter vult omnem hominem salvari; sed consequenter vult quosdam damnari, secundum exigentiam suae iustitiae In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts.
Aquinas did not oppose these two dogmas of faith dating to the Council of Orange II, 531 A.D. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott):

• God gives all the just sufficient grace ( gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens ) for the observation of the Divine Commandments.
• God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.

See Denzinger 200, old numbering.

 

[Robert1111]

Per St. Thomas Aquinas, God lets the sinner fail but does not cause it.

I have already answered to this. You keep making the same arguments and you force me to give you the same answers

I quote myself

I know, trust me, i KNOW, that Thomas teaches that God doesn’t DIRECTLY will the damnation of anyone. But, since man’s nature is fallen, under the thomist perspective if God abandons you, you WILL, with a 100% accuracy, die in mortal sin.

Then you write

Abandonment of grace does not precede sin but occurs coincident with the will to sin, for that person receives actual grace which is sufficient. There is a conditioned positive reprobation. It occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits, in Latin, post et propter praevisa demerita , and this is true because of the Divine Resolve of salvation which excludes God’s desiring in advance the damnation of certain men

But this is not true. I quote Saint Thomas again

1. Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection 3

“Why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will”.

No foreseen demerits required. Also, Saint Thomas plainly states in the Summa Theologiae that the the foreknowledge of merits is N-O-T the cause of predestination, which means, since not all men are predestined, that the non predestined are simply passed over and no, their foreseen demerits don’t count for squat. 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.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

When God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ), the good act is preordained from all eternity in accordance with His all-embracing purpose.
.

In other words, we would have a God who says these words to Saint Faustina

“I desire to bestow My graces upon souls, but they do not want to accept them. You, at least, come to Me as often as possible and take these graces they do not want to accept. In this way you will console My Heart…" (Diary, 367).”

Robert1111, we don’t have to believe private revelations.

I believe some private revelations comes from God but I don’t believe every private revelations comes from God.

I don’t believe St.Faustina’s revelations comes from Jesus because her revelations are in total contradiction with the teachings of Jesus and with Catholic teachings.

.
The teachings of Jesus:

John 6:44; No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me.

John 15:16; You did not chose Me, but I chose you. – For us to choose and to go to Jesus, first He has to pull us to himself with efficacious grace.

.
As you see Robert1111, Jesus is NOT waiting that we go to Him, He knows, we cannot go to him unless He pulls us to himself as it is follows:

.
The grace of God’s Justification
CCCS 1990-1991; Justification is God’s free gift which detaches man from enslavement to sin and reconciles him to God.

Justification is also our acceptance of God’s righteousness. In this gift, faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are given to us.
.
The Grace of God’s Call
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.

This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will. End quote.

.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 5.

CCC 2022; “The divine initiative in the work of grace PRECEDES, PREPARES, and ELICITS the free response of man. …”
.
We are not puppets because God enlightens our mind end we freely choose the good.
.
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.

God bless.

 

[Latin]

In any case the Church in her wisdom, aware of the various schools of thought, teaches that man can resist and refuse the grace that God gives to establish cooperation between ourselves and Him. We can’t be saved without Him, but we can still refuse to be saved.

I 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

 

[fhansen]

The Church doesn’t teach strictly Molinism or Thomism here. She teaches what we find in the catechism. It’d be wise to follow that more closely rather than your own personal musings IMO.

 

[Vico]

… praevisa demerita …

Yes foreknowledge is of merits and demerits is involved per St. Thomas Aquinas. You are stating that if God abandons you it results in death in mortal sin which does not really cover the question. The cause of the abandonment is the will of the person not the will of God.

S.T. Iª q. 23 a. 5 arg. 3​

Objection 3. Further, “There is no injustice in God” (Romans 9:14). Now it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and demerits.

 

[MT1926]

No man, there is plenty of people i wouldn’t invite to live with me, but this doesn’t mean that i wish them torture and suffering, much less eternal torture and suffering. If i knew that if i don’t invite these men to live with me they will experience eternal torture, you can bet your pint that i would accept them in my house.

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.

But if i’m not faced with such a terrible perspective, i think i have better people to hang out with. In other words, your analogy doesn’t work.

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.

It’s an “all or nothing” that really doesn’t work in the real world. The real world is not populated mostly by people we would either live with or consign to eternal torment. If i don’t want to live with someone it doesn’t mean i want him to suffer.

This is the root of the matter you want God to conform to worldly view instead of you conforming to God’s view. All I was trying to do was to put you in a scenario that is similar to what I believe God’s view is. To say this isn’t how it works in the real world is avoidance. 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?

Ok, even that is scott free compared to eternal suffering with no way out whatsoever.

Scott free must have a different definition in Italian.

God Bless