But the issue is how He could insure an absolute 100% success rate while maintaining free will. Mary could have said no. The devil wanted her to. Concupiscence inclines all of us the wrong way. As the CCC says, only by grace would it be possible for Her to say yes.
We do believe in predestination as Catholics without disregarding free will. God’s knowledge is eternal, not temporal. He knows exactly what all my choices will be in his eternal knowledge… and the agency/free will to make those choices is mine.tafan2:
But the issue is how He could insure an absolute 100% success rate while maintaining free will. Mary could have said no. The devil wanted her to. Concupiscence inclines all of us the wrong way. As the CCC says, only by grace would it be possible for Her to say yes.
Sure, but that begs the question of how He would prevent the devil from interfering. When we sin we can repent and get a do over. But that was not an option if Mary had said no.
Right. So He defines the conditions for a 100% success rate. Given free will, that would require that Mary be graced to give a truly free consent.
God knows what the devil is doing and will do and how people will respond.Wesrock:
Sure, but that begs the question of how He would prevent the devil from interfering. When we sin we can repent and get a do over. But that was not an option if Mary had said no.
Wait a minute, now you are getting close to saying Mary’s lack of concupiscence prevented her from being tempted. Concupiscence means we have a tendency towards sin, every time we are tempted, it does not have to come from the devil. It does not mean the devil will not try to interfere with us.
Then why did She have to be borne by grace in order to say yes?
Never said he didn’t try.
If God is omnipotent then wouldn’t He be 100% sure of the choice Mary would make. Wouldn’t he know her decision before the question was ever asked?
What does Mary have to do with our salvation? Jesus didn’t live a sinless and Holy life because He was born of Mary. He lived a sinless and Holy life because He is the Son of God. He didn’t need Mary to be sinless to protect him from original sin. Any sin that Mary had would not be passed on to Jesus simply because He is holy and cannot be made unholy. Sin has no power over Christ. The unclean doesn’t make Jesus unclean, instead Jesus makes the unclean clean. Jesus changes the soiled and dirty things to be clean and pure.
Granted, you said He had to prevent the devil from interfering. So lets change that statement of yours, if you will allow me, to “He would prevent the devil from successfully interfering”. Again, I will grant you this is a possibility, but we don’t know that. What we know is that, even lacking concupiscence, a person is still capable of choosing to sin, ie the devil can still be successful interfering. Which is why we cannot know if this is the reason for the Immaculate Conception.
True
Exactly. Which is why I don’t think your argument works.Wesrock:
Then why did She have to be borne by grace in order to say yes?
But my argument is precisely that the bearing by grace is part of the design.
You argue that it was necessary so that God couldn’t be proven wrong. I disagree with your argument that it was necessary for that reason.Wesrock:
But my argument is precisely that the bearing by grace is part of the design.
What does Eve have to do with the Fall? Eve said yes to the devil. Mary said yes to God for an incomprehensible responsibility. While God’s choice in Mary could not have been wrong, it was still her agency to assent.
My argument is that it was necessary under the conditions that God established. He did not have to condition our redemption on the Incarnation but He did. God can’t keep the conditions of the Redemption as given in the Bible unless Mary says yes, and that yes must be borne by grace, and that grace is given in anticipation of the Incarnation. It is logically impossible for Mary to say no, yet the possibility She could say no is real.
Because, according to you, Mary could have failed and God could have been wrong (not immutable) and needed backups, his plan delayed. Which is not a correct argument.Wesrock:
My argument is that it was necessary under the conditions that God established. He did not have to condition our redemption on the Incarnation but He did.
No. Failed. As in, the feedback loop is broken and existence itself collapses.
Yes, but the question is what are the conditions for making it 100% sure, given free will and the plan of salvation depending on the Incarnation.
Never said that.
But He wouldn’t have lived a human life at all if Mary had refused.