Original Sin and Concupiscence

[Vico]

Of course it’s logical. God is giving me free will. That means I can choose. Choose what? I could choose to do good or I could choose to do evil. See? Where does that evil come from?? You can’t seem to get to the nitty gritty of the problem.

God bless and thanks for the great work you did above. There’s a little problem with the last item, but we’ll let it go. (or at least it could be debated).

You have me concerned that you are not reading what I posted. I did address the nitty gritty. Pride is in all creatures, in some it becomes excessive by choice, and God already knows who will sin (predestination). The person chooses to cooperate or not with grace. The choice is not determined by God.

For the last item, it is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent (Denzinger):
Chap. 16. The Fruit of Justipration, that is, the Merit of Good

Canons On Justification *
842 Can. 32. If anyone shall say that the good works of the man justified are in such a way the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him who is justified, or that the one justified by the good works, which are done by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (whose living member he is), does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life (if he should die in grace), and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema [cf. n. 803 and 809].

Chap. 10. Concerning the Increase of Justification Received

803 Having, therefore, been thus justified and having been made the “friends of God” and “his domestics” [John 15:15; Eph. 2:19], “advancing from virtue to virtue” [Ps. 83:8], “they are renewed” (as the Apostle says) “from day to day” [2 Cor. 4:16], that is, by mortifying the members of their flesh [Col. 3:5], and by “presenting them as instruments of justice” [Rom. 6:13, 19], unto sanctification through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church; in this justice received through the grace of Christ “faith cooperating with good works” [Jas. 2:22], they increase and are further justified [can. 24 and 32], as it is written: “He that is just, let him be justified still” [Rev. 22:11], and again: “Be not afraid to be justified even to death” [Sirach. 18:22], and again: “You see, that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” [Jas. 2:24]. And this increase of justice Holy Church begs for, when she prays: “Give unto us, O Lord, an increase of faith, hope and charity” [13th Sun. after Pent.].

Chap. 16. The Fruit of Justipration, that is, the Merit of Good

Works, and the Reasonableness of that Merit

809 To men, therefore, who have been justified in this respect, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or have recovered it when lost, the words of the Apostle are to be submitted: “Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” [1 Cor. 15:58]; “for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work and the love, which you have shown in his name” [Heb. 6:10], and: “Do not lose your confidence, which has a great reward” [Heb. 10:35]. And therefore to those who work well “unto the end” [Matt. 10:22], and who trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, “and as a recompense” * which is according to the promise of God Himself to be faithfully given to their good works and merits [can. 26 and 32]. For this is that “crown of justice which after his fight and course” the Apostle declared “was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming” [2 Tim. 4:7ff.]. For since Christ Jesus Himself as the “head into the members” [Eph. 4:15], and “as the vine into the branches” [John 15:5] continually infuses His virtue into the said justified, a virtue which always precedes their good works, and which accompanies and follows them, and without which they could in no wise be pleasing and meritorious before God [can. 2], we must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace [Rev. 14:13]), since Christ our Lord says: “If anyone shall drink of the water, that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever, but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting” [John 4:14]. Thus neither is “our own justice established as our own” from ourselves, nor is the justice of God [Rom. 10:3] “ignored” or repudiated; for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified [can. 10 and 11] through its inherence in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is very simple:

A) Creation is perfect. Evil cannot exist since perfection can only lead to perfection.
B) Creation is in-perfect. Evil can exist in an in-perfect creation. God however is responsible for the emergence of evil since God’s creatures eventually fail.
C) Evil exists hence (A) is incorrect.
D) From (B) and (C) we can deduce that God and only God is responsible for all disasters.

You know Mr. Bahman, actually you are correct!

Christianity has a very big problem. Which is why we’re up to page 17 (I think) here.

If evil exists it can only mean two things:

1. God is not a good God.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. If God is good and he’s the creator, did he create evil?
4. If God is omnipotent and evil exists, why doesn’t he destroy it?

What a conundrum!

As you can see if you’ve read all these posts even the “church fathers” wrote on this topic. It’s been bothering us forever. Because we believe that God is both good and omnipotent. So how do you explain where evil comes from? And you, Mr. Bahman, have stated the answer. There is No answer.

We christians just trust that God must love us since God IS love. We believe that Jesus is God and that He died as redemption for our sins. The Catholic church speaks of mysteries. A mystery is something that can be understood to some degree, but not completely. God is infinite, man is finite.

But it’s been a fun ride, I must say. So interesting to hear what other chrisitians believe.

And I do wonder what your belief system is, but I guess that would be a different thread.

Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel, Luckily.
U2

 

[frangiuliano115]

Adam hadn’t yet attained his perfection in Eden- he hadn’t yet reached or fulfilled his intended end or purpose. The whole point of the story-and of our faith-is that man’s will is involved, man has to decide, for life or death, good or evil, heaven or hell, God or no God. As this occurs, as man’s will unites with God’s, he tends towards the perfection that God has in store for him, with the ultimate goal being complete union with God via the Beatific Vision in heaven.

Okay. Yes. I see what you mean by perfection. I’m not sure I know what Adam’s intended purpose was. He was supposed to water and take care of the garden but he failed miserably.

Couldn’t agree more on the rest. I think I already quoted Deuteronomy 30:15-20.

I’m sure in heaven we won’t be asking anymore questions and will be perfectly happy in the presence of our Lord.

Hope you understand that I was just being the dev advocate.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

You have me concerned that you are not reading what I posted. I did address the nitty gritty. Pride is in all creatures, in some it becomes excessive by choice, and God already knows who will sin (predestination). The person chooses to cooperate or not with grace. The choice is not determined by God.

For the last item, it is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent (Denzinger):

Chap. 16. The Fruit of Justipration, that is, the Merit of Good
​

Don’t be concerned Vico. Not only did I read it, I’ve taught this stuff. Also what you say above. Know it like the back of my hand.

We could discuss that last item a bit but it’s too off topic. Just quick:
Does a just man merit eternal salvation because of his works? Yeah. You can’t just state it like that. James has to be explained a bit, I’d say. But let’s let it go at that. The church just hasn’t been very careful in how it states things. Oh. And some points sound very Calvinistic but we’ll skip that too since I’m required to understand it as the church teaches it and explain it and we certainly don’t believe in predestination.

God bless and thanks again for posting the info​

 

[frangiuliano115]

It seems that this question makes the assumption that evil is a thing. In the context of Catholic theology, this not a valid assumption. Evil in this context is analogous to dark. It is lack of a good. Is this the assumption?

Why does the source have to be external? Can it come from within?

I’m afraid you’ve missed too much.

Evil is not a thing. But where it comes from is a thing - satan. We’ve said, and the church teaches, that God is the good and satan is the evil, or the cause thereof. So you’re correct.

We never got to whether evil is just the absence of good. That would be a whole new topic. We were trying to answer Charlemagne’s question of how Adam and Eve could have sinned if concupisence, or the sin nature, didn’t exist yet. We’ve been through every hypothesis, I think.

As far as the source; it can be either external or internal. It’s internal when sin, or evil, comes from our own sin nature; our damaged nature, or concupisencse.

It’s source is external when it’s an outright temptation from satan.

Most of the time it’s internal.

So your quote of Mark is correct. Jesus said it, it must be correct!

We were just wondering where it comes from TO BEGIN WITH.

And re this idea of evil being the absence of good. Is a hurricane evil because it’s not a soft, sweet breeze, or is it evil because even the wind has been infected with the sin nature?

God bless

 

[Vico]

Don’t be concerned Vico. Not only did I read it, I’ve taught this stuff. Also what you say above. Know it like the back of my hand.

We could discuss that last item a bit but it’s too off topic. Just quick:
Does a just man merit eternal salvation because of his works? Yeah. You can’t just state it like that. James has to be explained a bit, I’d say. But let’s let it go at that. The church just hasn’t been very careful in how it states things. Oh. And some points sound very Calvinistic but we’ll skip that too since I’m required to understand it as the church teaches it and explain it and we certainly don’t believe in predestination.

God bless and thanks again for posting the info

I hope something useful was there. For the Catechism, it does touch on predestination, which not the Calvinist version, and has a bearing on original sin and concupiscence:600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” 395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. 396

395 Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2.
396 Cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18.

 

[Bahman]

Catholic Encyclopedia:

God was absolutely free to create or not to create, and to create the present or any possible world.
​

You unfortunately didn’t pay any attention to the argument. An argument was provided and an answer to it is needed. The argument is either wrong or false. What you are saying unfortunately doesn’t add up anything!

This is an article of Catholic Faith defined by the Vatican Council (Can., De Deo Creante, v). It is the explicit teaching of Scripture, God “worketh all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), and of the Fathers generally. It is an obvious rational deduction from the infinitude and absolute self-sufficiency of God. The creative act, as a subjective aspect of the Divine Will, is necessary, but the external positing of a term is free.** This doctrine of creative freedom excludes the exaggerated optimism of Leibniz and others, who held that God was bound to create the best possible world. **.

Hence God is responsible for Evil if you pay any attention to my argument.

The Divine act must be perfect, but the effect need not, and indeed cannot, be absolutely perfect; the creature being necessarily finite, a more perfect creature is always possible and creatable by infinite power.

How such a thing is possible? A perfect act implements a perfect effect unless something is missed which is logically impossible. How anything could be missed in the creation act?

The world is the very best possible for the Creator’s purpose; it is relatively, not absolutely, perfect.
Siegfried, F. (1908). Creation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

The purpose defines the outcome. Hence the purpose cannot be the best and outcome rubbish!​

 

[Vico]

You unfortunately didn’t pay any attention to the argument. An argument was provided and an answer to it is needed. The argument is either wrong or false. What you are saying unfortunately doesn’t add up anything!

Hence God is responsible for Evil if you pay any attention to my argument.

How such a thing is possible? A perfect act implements a perfect effect unless something is missed which is logically impossible. How anything could be missed in the creation act?

The purpose defines the outcome. Hence the purpose cannot be the best and outcome rubbish!

You did not include the third proposal that creation is relatively perfect. So your post is incorrect in that respect.

" How anything could be missed in the creation act?"

It is not. The relatively perfect design allow for souls to fall.

I don’t understand this sentence: “Hence the purpose cannot be the best and outcome rubbish!”

Did you omit some quotes in your sentence?

 

[frangiuliano115]

I hope something useful was there. For the Catechism, it does touch on predestination, which not the Calvinist version, and has a bearing on original sin and concupiscence:600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” 395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. 396

395 Acts 4:27-28; cf. Ps 2:1-2.
396 Cf. Mt 26:54; Jn 18:36; 19:11; Acts 3:17-18.

Something useful is always there. Every time you read the bible (which I hope you do too and not just the CCC) or the CCC you always learn something new. Too bad not many people read either one.

However, I must say that: The more I learn, the less I know! There’s just too much but it does keep us humble.

Your list was very impressive and I’ve actually printed it out and for that I thank you.

God bless

 

[fhansen]

I love your first sentence and I believe I’m going to accept that as my answer! You know why? I’ve been thinking about this forever and spoken to people up there in their theology and have been given so much mumbo jumbo that I just stopped asking. Look at these posts, we’re all over the place and we keep going back to fallen angels and free will - which have nothing to do with this dilemma of evil and its origin.

If God had created everything perfectly, we’d be little gods. Now this may not work for others on this thread, but I find it very helpful and a reasonable answer.

I didn’t need the CCC no. 310 quote. I’ve taught from the CCC and it gives me problems. There’s one even here. It talks about our going to a perfection, but the church does not teach this. It goes to the study of escatalogy. We won’t go there.

Anyway, thanks for the “solution”. Every 10 years I get a new one - so I’ll be good for a while!

God bless

The next question that comes up, though, is to ask whether or not it was worthwhile for God to create at all-with the gift of free will included in the mix-knowing that much evil would result. God, knowing the beginning from the end, and planning to bring an even greater good out of the evil that would ensue, obviously deemed it worthwhile. And I think we each have to answer that same question for ourselves. Is existence worth it, even in this messed up world, or not? Do I prefer-perhaps even cherish- my continued existence, especially with the hope and faith that it will all be good in the end? All who do have this preference, whether conscious of it or not, and whether they even believe in God or not, at the very least tacitly agree with God that its all worth it.

 

[Bahman]

You did not include the third proposal that creation is relatively perfect. So your post is incorrect in that respect.

An in-perfect creation could be anything.

" How anything could be missed in the creation act?"

It is not. The relatively perfect design allow for souls to fall.

So God is responsible for evil because of two main reasons: 1) Creatures are finite beings, 2) There is always possibility to fail. This is true because it resembles that God put creatures in a trap with the result that fall is unavoidable. Moreover, this sort of creation is circular since fall is always possible hence there is no progress in it. The idea is very similar to Buddhism. It is simply cyclic.

I don’t understand this sentence: “Hence the purpose cannot be the best and outcome rubbish!”

Did you omit some quotes in your sentence?

We can judge that creation of human being is total failure considering all disasters Humanity has been responsible to. How you could define human creation as the best purpose?

 

[Vico]

An in-perfect creation could be anything.

So God is responsible for evil because of two main reasons: 1) Creatures are finite beings, 2) There is always possibility to fail. This is true because it resembles that God put creatures in a trap with the result that fall is unavoidable. Moreover, this sort of creation is circular since fall is always possible hence there is no progress in it. The idea is very similar to Buddhism. It is simply cyclic.

We can judge that creation of human being is total failure considering all disasters Humanity has been responsible to. How you could define human creation as the best purpose?

I think you mean imperfect (not in-perfect).

Relatively perfect is not imperfect.

Not* always* possible to fall, some are predetermined.

• God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.
• God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.
• The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.

 

[Bahman]

I think you mean imperfect (not in-perfect).

Thanks for your correction.

Relatively perfect is not imperfect.

That is not true since what is relatively perfect is imperfect.

Not* always* possible to fall, some are predetermined.

It is always possible to fall once you have free will and you are facing an ever lasting life.

God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness.

Predetermine? What does that even mean? That does not even fit atheist moral system! How a divine being could do so?

God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.

Predestine? What does that even mean? That does not even fit atheist moral system! How a divine being could do so?

The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.

So the human condition is similar to slaves.

 

[Rohzek]

You know Mr. Bahman, actually you are correct!

Christianity has a very big problem. Which is why we’re up to page 17 (I think) here.

If evil exists it can only mean two things:

1. God is not a good God.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. If God is good and he’s the creator, did he create evil?
4. If God is omnipotent and evil exists, why doesn’t he destroy it?

What a conundrum!

It isn’t a problem at all, as I have tried to make clear. Evil is not substantial. It is merely an abstract concept.

Let’s start with God. Why is God good? What makes him good? Is he good because he knows what is good? That cannot be it, since it presupposes a higher authority than God, which thus means that God is neither the originator of all things or omnipotent. So again, what makes God good? The only answer left is this: God is good because he is omnipotent & the creator of all things, and therefore is of the highest authority. Whatever God wills, is therefore good.

Now let’s take angels and mankind, both of whom have consciousness, individuality, and their own wills. How then does evil come from them? The answer is simple, they have their own will. They don’t have to agree with God. This isn’t a defect. God wants a relationship with beings similar to him, in that these beings have wills of their own just like him. However, he wants their wills to work in conjunction with his. He wants a harmonious relationship. Evil isn’t substantial. Evil is merely having your will be contrary to God’s will.

Does God permit people and angels to have a contrary will to his? Evidently he does. So in some sense, yes God does will evil in the sense of permitting it. But that’s not the ultimate goal of his. His ultimate goal is to have an honest relationship with all of his creations that have consciousness, individuality, and free will. By its very nature, the set-up God has made will always permit others to go against him. If he wanted to make evil impossible, he would have to strip from each one of his angels and humans their free will. At which point, it wouldn’t be much of a relationship because we would all be like robots, and probably devoid of any creativity.

It is very simple:

A) Creation is perfect. Evil cannot exist since perfection can only lead to perfection.
B) Creation is in-perfect. Evil can exist in an in-perfect creation. God however is responsible for the emergence of evil since God’s creatures eventually fail.
C) Evil exists hence (A) is incorrect.
D) From (B) and (C) we can deduce that God and only God is responsible for all disasters.

God isn’t responsible because those people and angels whom you speak of are not machines or robots. They posses free will, creativity, consciousness, and individuality. Therefore, they are responsible for their own actions. The blame is on them, not God, because God did not determine them. He merely gave them their own agency. And unless you are gonna go the Sam Harris route on what it means to have consciousness, I don’t see how you can possibly avoid the argument of agency.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for your correction.

That is not true since what is relatively perfect is imperfect.

It is always possible to fall once you have free will and you are facing an ever lasting life.

Predetermine? What does that even mean? That does not even fit atheist moral system! How a divine being could do so?

Predestine? What does that even mean? That does not even fit atheist moral system! How a divine being could do so?

So the human condition is similar to slaves.

If a slave has free will choice, then yes.

Relatively perfect is: when a thing attains perfectly the exact end for which it is intended. God must make the world do that.

The work of a perfect being does not have to be absolutely perfect. No creature can be such that an infinite creator cannot make a better one.

God knows in advance who will be saved, because He knows what free will choice will be made.

 

[Bahman]

God isn’t responsible because those people and angels whom you speak of are not machines or robots. They posses free will, creativity, consciousness, and individuality. Therefore, they are responsible for their own actions. The blame is on them, not God, because God did not determine them. He merely gave them their own agency. And unless you are gonna go the Sam Harris route on what it means to have consciousness, I don’t see how you can possibly avoid the argument of agency.

What you are saying is a fallacious argument unfortunately. I repeat again in simple world: Emergence of evil is impossible in perfect creation and it is unavoidable in imperfect creation. Perfect word is static. And God is the origin of Evil in an imperfect creation since evil has to be part of creatures’ natures and creatures need to be exposed to evil to know it and perform it.

 

[Bahman]

If a slave has free will choice, then yes.

Creatures could not possibly be free if efficacious grace is not irresistible. Hence we are pure slave.

Relatively perfect is: when a thing attains perfectly the exact end for which it is intended. God must make the world do that.

So each creature has unavoidable fate no matter how hard s/he or it tries. This is against divine justice. The concept of relatively perfect creation is totally nonsense. So we are back to the argument.

The work of a perfect being does not have to be absolutely perfect. No creature can be such that an infinite creator cannot make a better one.

Absolutely perfect creation is static so we are left with imperfect creation (relatively perfect creation is already ruled out please read the previous argument). So we are back to the argument again.

God knows in advance who will be saved, because He knows what free will choice will be made.

This picture is problematic. This requires a constant knowledge. Lets consider the state of creation as a series of snapshots. The state of creation is subjected to change at the moment so called now. God however sustains the creation hence it must exist a reference point in God’s mind which changes over time. The knowledge of the reference point is necessary since otherwise God cannot sustain the creation. This means that the knowledge of God is subjected to time which is contradictory to the concept of changeless knowledge. Hence, the concept of foreknowledge is wrong.

 

[Rohzek]

What you are saying is a fallacious argument unfortunately. I repeat again in simple world: Emergence of evil is impossible in perfect creation and it is unavoidable in imperfect creation. Perfect word is static. And God is the origin of Evil in an imperfect creation since evil has to be part of creatures’ natures and creatures need to be exposed to evil to know it and perform it.

No, it isn’t fallacious. If anything is fallacious, it is your whole notion of perfection. Perfection = static, you say? I assume that by this you mean that perfection has no potentiality. Perhaps Aristotle and Aquinas would agree with you. But that all depends on the notion of time in order to measure change. Aristotle and Aquinas both thought of time as absolute. We shall call their notion of time Classical Time. However, Einstein proved that Classical Time doesn’t exist. Time is completely relative. Therefore, change is relative. In which case, we have to jettison the old notion of perfection unless we want to say that perfection itself is relative too. If perfection truly is relative, then there is no point in even discussing the matter. Aristotle and Aquinas were wrong. And so we toss out their ideas on this point, and with it goes your whole argument.

So what does it mean to be perfect? I would wager that in our theological discussion, perfection is nothing more than the quality of being the creator of all creation, the highest being, the highest authority. In which case, God adequately fulfills that criteria. So yes, I would agree that creation, under this rubric of understanding, is imperfect. However, none of your conclusions follow from this concept of perfection.

The biggest problem, however, with your argument is that you fail to distinguish between what is plausible or possible and what is determined. Evil was never determined. Nor was evil some random result. Humans have agency, are autonomous, and are creative. Therefore, their actions defy both our categorical notions of randomness and determinism. We were never destined to be evil. Nor was it some sort of accident. We merely chose it. God created humanity and gave it free will. From whence forth, NONE of the human actions were caused. All human actions are autonomous, not caused. The actions might be appropriate to their circumstances, but they are NOT caused by their circumstances. This is something philosophers going back to Descartes have long understood. The link provided supplies perhaps a better explanation than I do. youtube.com/watch?v=py-PJQKzQIw

 

[grannymh]

You know Mr. Bahman, actually you are correct!

Christianity has a very big problem. Which is why we’re up to page 17 (I think) here.

If evil exists it can only mean two things:

1. God is not a good God.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. If God is good and he’s the creator, did he create evil?
4. If God is omnipotent and evil exists, why doesn’t he destroy it?

What a conundrum!

What a conundrum!

Not for those who remember English grammar, including adjectives, in grade school.
Evil can be used as a descriptive word for a noun or an action or it can describe the result of a choice or action. Google has a list of adjectives. There could be an evil dictator…doing evil things such as genocide.

 

[Vico]

Creatures could not possibly be free if efficacious grace is not irresistible. Hence we are pure slave.

So each creature has unavoidable fate no matter how hard s/he or it tries. This is against divine justice. The concept of relatively perfect creation is totally nonsense. So we are back to the argument.

Absolutely perfect creation is static so we are left with imperfect creation (relatively perfect creation is already ruled out please read the previous argument). So we are back to the argument again.

This picture is problematic. This requires a constant knowledge. Lets consider the state of creation as a series of snapshots. The state of creation is subjected to change at the moment so called now. God however sustains the creation hence it must exist a reference point in God’s mind which changes over time. The knowledge of the reference point is necessary since otherwise God cannot sustain the creation. This means that the knowledge of God is subjected to time which is contradictory to the concept of changeless knowledge. Hence, the concept of foreknowledge is wrong.

Not pure slave: “The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistible.” – this means that efficacious grace is resistible.

Each creature does not have an unavoidable fate no matter how hard s/he or it tries.

See A Brief Text-book of Logic and Mental Philosophy By Charles Coppens to read about relatively perfect. It is valid contrary to your opinion.

God is beyond the limits of time. The knowledge of what the outcome is within His creation is due to omniscience of the infinite.