Predestenation?

[Catholic_Dude]

good thread

also I hope to read that Fr Most article when I have time

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

I basically agree with Fr. Most, but I don’t see that his position is some kind of great breakthrough. Philosophically it’s not very impressive. It doesn’t make sense, logically, to say that God elects us on the basis of His desire to save all, but does not in fact elect all. If he only elects those whom He foreknows will not resist him, then as far as I can see our lack of resistance is the basis for His election–which Fr. Most denies.

And then we get into the question of why God created those whom He knew would resist grace. Why not only create those whom He knew would not resist?

Maybe the difficulty comes from our having to use time-conditioned language: in some sense, all human events are simultaneous to God - so for Him, that question does not arise. “With me, all times are now” might be the answer to the problem. Any one of us might be lost - but that does not mean present happinesses are any less.​

So in some sense that question *may *be a pseudo-question. ##

For that matter, if we really have free will, then God should be able to actualize that possible world in which all those persons existing in our world made the choice to accept God’s grace. I recognize that some respected philosophers (like Alvin Plantinga) disagree with me on this. But I can’t see it any other way. Far from God’s predestination being incompatible with free will, it’s the only guarantor of our free will. (I know this is cryptic–I’m happy to expand on it but don’t want to hijack the thread.)

Perhaps, it guarantees its exercise - but not how that exercise is modified by being its exercise by a creature.​

So that God predestines, that predestinating act gives freedom, but that freedom can then be turned from being God-ward, to being self-ward - which is why God’s grace is necessary in every single moment that we live.

Is predestination a once for all act - or a continuing work of recreation ? Maybe it’s both. Is predestination a statement about God - or about us ? ##

So logically it seems to me that if God creates those whom He knows will reject His grace, He is in a sense reprobating them. Some form of Thomism seems inevitable to me. So while I like Fr. Most’s formula, I don’t think it solves the underlying philosophical issues.

Edwin

What I would like to see clarified is this, from the end of Matt’s post:​

He predestines without merits, but reprobates only after considering demerits.

• this looks like a double motion in God: and two things I want to be protected are God’s Sovereignty, and His Simplicity. This leads on to a difficulty with anthropomorphisms in theology: God does in some sense predestine, and elect, and justify, sanctify, and so on - but He is not a man. Yet human language is all that we have for dicussing the action of God. Maybe one is asking about God’s thought-processes - execept that there are none ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for Catholic doctrine, Ludwig Ott refers to the Council of Valence III, AD 855:

… faithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved,** the mercy of God precedes the merited good.** In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God. In predestination, however, (we believe) that God has determined only those things which He Himself either in His gratuitous mercy or in His just judgment would do… in regard to evil men, however, we believe that God foreknew their malice, because it is from them,** but that He did not predestine it**, because it is not from Him. (We believe) that God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just, in whom as Saint Augustine says, there is concerning all things everywhere so fixed a decree as a certain predestination. " (Denzinger 322)

 

[Dan-Man916]

Dave,

Now that’s a bite that i can digest and understand. Thomists, molinists, etc, all of that debate confuses me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

If no one who only receives sufficient grace is saved (and this is the Thomist view), then it’s not sufficient. This is playing with words. As is Fr. Most’s contention that only those who don’t resist grace are elected, but they aren’t elected on the basis of not resisting grace. (Fr. Most’s word game has more substance to it, though. I admit that it’s impossible to discuss this issue reasonably without doing some word games. Nuance is vitally important.)

(with feeling) So true - I still don’t like the hint that election has anything to do with our resistance. Besides, if we are “dead in sins and trespasses”, how are we not resisting ? If election is to happen at all, it must be regardless of man - against his will in one sense, but wholly in accord with it in another; not because man is great, but because God is.​

Edwin

There is an ambiguity here:​

“sufficient grace” can mean - semantically if not in its context, that of theology - grace that is sufficient according as it is considered:

• before it is encountered
• while it is being encountered
• and after it has been encountered.

In all three cases, this is prescinding from whether the question of whether or not it is accepted - for the sake of clarity.

There is the further question, of whether a sufficient grace can become an efficacious grace; or of whether the two are distinct realities; and of what graces are sufficient, and efficacious, for: salvation ? a particular act ? both without distinction ? some other contingency ?

If you’re talking about sufficient grace that is merely sufficient, agreed: for what is meant, is a grace that is not accepted when encountered - that is, it is being considered after it has been encountered, by its (lack of) result in the recipient. So that it is sufficient in the third sense: it is a gratia mere sufficiens - “merely sufficient grace”, which can be known for what it is by its result. ##

 

[Redbandito]

## (with feeling) So true - I still don’t like the hint that election has anything to do with our resistance. Besides, if we are “dead in sins and trespasses”, how are we not resisting ? If election is to happen at all, it must be regardless of man - against his will in one sense, but wholly in accord with it in another; not because man is great, but because God is.

There is an ambiguity here:​

“sufficient grace” can mean - semantically if not in its context, that of theology - grace that is sufficient according as it is considered:

• before it is encountered
• while it is being encountered
• and after it has been encountered.

In all three cases, this is prescinding from whether the question of whether or not it is accepted - for the sake of clarity.

There is the further question, of whether a sufficient grace can become an efficacious grace; or of whether the two are distinct realities; and of what graces are sufficient, and efficacious, for: salvation ? a particular act ? both without distinction ? some other contingency ?

If you’re talking about sufficient grace that is merely sufficient, agreed: for what is meant, is a grace that is not accepted when encountered - that is, it is being considered after it has been encountered, by its (lack of) result in the recipient. So that it is sufficient in the third sense: it is a gratia mere sufficiens - “merely sufficient grace”, which can be known for what it is by its result. ##

Good post. I disagree, but still a good post. With sufficient grace, there is the theoretical possibility that man can be saved. It’s just that he won’t because of his fallen nature. It’s not that he can’t, it’s that he won’t. The same can be said for a person who has received efficacious grace and the grace of final perseverance. This person can theoretically choose to reject this grace. The Thomist just believes that he won’t.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is one thing that I was thinking about, but I dont know how predestination as seen by some can work.

From Titus3:
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; 4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.
As Catholics we believe Baptism to be a saving act (forgives all sins), the Bible, Councils and Church Fathers teach this. At the same time we know that not all Baptized will go to Heaven due to future sins. How does predestination work in this case? IF God predestines somone to have their sins forgiven BUT they end up going to hell how can this make sense IF people claim predestination means they are predestined to heaven? The only thing I can think of is that predestination spans different degrees and also that our actions do hold some bearing on the matter.

 

[frogman80]

Catholic Dude:

Here is one thing that I was thinking about, but I dont know how predestination as seen by some can work.

From Titus3:
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; 4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.
As Catholics we believe Baptism to be a saving act (forgives all sins), the Bible, Councils and Church Fathers teach this. At the same time we know that not all Baptized will go to Heaven due to future sins. How does predestination work in this case? IF God predestines somone to have their sins forgiven BUT they end up going to hell how can this make sense IF people claim predestination means they are predestined to heaven? The only thing I can think of is that predestination spans different degrees and also that our actions do hold some bearing on the matter.

1. God desires all men to be saved
2. God gives all men the “opportunity” to be saved
3. God gives all men the free will to choose to take advantage of those “opportunities.”
4. All men are not given equal “opportunity.”

(All men do not react to those opportunities appropriately either…)

1)God desires all men to be saved - God creates all men for heaven - (This is what predestination means.)
2)God provides the means necessary to get to Heaven.
3)God gives men the ability to choose to follow those “means.”
4)All men are not given equal “means” to get to Heaven - (This is where foreknowledge falls in to place.)

Just because God creates a man for Heaven does not mean the man will choose God when presented with the opportunity(s).

 

[Melchior]

Fr. Most’s position does not seem to be anything new - which I think he was trying to do. It is basically a hodgepodge of Thomism, Calvinism (of the infralapsarian variety) and the Lutheran view.

At least that’s how it appears.

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

Catholic Dude:

Here is one thing that I was thinking about, but I dont know how predestination as seen by some can work.

From Titus3:3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; 4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

As Catholics we believe Baptism to be a saving act (forgives all sins), the Bible, Councils and Church Fathers teach this. At the same time we know that not all Baptized will go to Heaven due to future sins. How does predestination work in this case? IF God predestines somone to have their sins forgiven BUT they end up going to hell how can this make sense IF people claim predestination means they are predestined to heaven? The only thing I can think of is that predestination spans different degrees and also that our actions do hold some bearing on the matter.

As Catholics we make a distinction between the elect who receive the grace of both initial justification and final perserverance and those who receive initial justification and fall away. The elect are only the people who have received both. Hope that helps?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Redbandito:

As Catholics we make a distinction between the elect who receive the grace of both initial justification and final perserverance and those who receive initial justification and fall away.

The elect are only the people who have received both. Hope that helps?

If I remember correctly the Church teaches that nobody knows if they will persevere for sure except in the rare case of private revelation. With that in mind when the term “elect” is used that can only be talking about the people who have had a private revelation which doesnt sound right. In that case not many can consider themself “elect”. So whats wrong with my stuff?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

1)God desires all men to be saved - God creates all men for heaven - (This is what predestination means.)
2)God provides the means necessary to get to Heaven.
3)God gives men the ability to choose to follow those “means.”
4)All men are not given equal “means” to get to Heaven - (This is where foreknowledge falls in to place.)

Just because God creates a man for Heaven does not mean the man will choose God when presented with the opportunity(s).

So how do I understand passages like this, Romans 8:
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.

 

[StCsDavid]

I always get chuckle out of people who presume to know what God knows. This is the arrogance of Calvinism. Notice you never run into a Calvinist who says he’s predestined to Hell. It’s always some other poor schmuck. How do they know?

Finally, I believe that one of the key differences is that Calvinists fear God’s judgment and spend their energy trying to prove to themselves that they are one of the elect…whereas Catholics try to embrace God’s love and give it back to others. When we sin, we have failed in that effort, but we believe God gives us the means to make amends and try again.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

StCsDavid:

I always get chuckle out of people who presume to know what God knows. This is the arrogance of Calvinism. Notice you never run into a Calvinist who says he’s predestined to Hell. It’s always some other poor schmuck. How do they know?

Finally, I believe that one of the key differences is that Calvinists fear God’s judgment and spend their energy trying to prove to themselves that they are one of the elect…whereas Catholics try to embrace God’s love and give it back to others. When we sin, we have failed in that effort, but we believe God gives us the means to make amends and try again.

You reminded me of two threads I made a few months ago on another site:
christianforums.com/t2053699-how-does-a-calvinist-know-they-are-elect.html
christianforums.com/t2365585-children-of-calvinists.html

 

[Redbandito]

Catholic Dude:

If I remember correctly the Church teaches that nobody knows if they will persevere for sure except in the rare case of private revelation. With that in mind when the term “elect” is used that can only be talking about the people who have had a private revelation which doesnt sound right. In that case not many can consider themself “elect”. So whats wrong with my stuff?

That’s the thing. None of can know for certain that we are among the elect. Being of the elect means you have persevered to the end. Because we cannot possibly know that this will be the case, we cannot say with certainty that we are among the elect.

 

[frogman80]

1)God desires all men to be saved - God creates all men for heaven - (This is what predestination means.)
2)God provides the means necessary to get to Heaven.
3)God gives men the ability to choose to follow those “means.”
4)All men are not given equal “means” to get to Heaven - (This is where foreknowledge falls in to place.)

Just because God creates a man for Heaven does not mean the man will choose God when presented with the opportunity(s).

I need to correct something… #1 is not “what predestination means” #4 is not the only place where foreknowledge falls into place. This list is part of the teaching on predestination. Basically, God does not predestine to hell, and predestination does not negate free will. I had a hard time studying this in the past, and ended up temporarily narrowing it down to these few “rules” to help me keep away from the big errors I kept swirling into.

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

But it’s not a breakthrough, because it leaves all the standard philosophical questions unsolved.

What “standard” philosophical questions are unsolved?

But the way you’re putting it is anthropomorphic. You’re imagining God as some kind of spectator standing off to the side watching events unfold.

No, I am certainly not denying that God is omniscient. What I am saying is that God is omniscient, and that he also created beings with free will. There is no contradiction here.

If you can’t accept that men and angels have free will, then I doubt that you actually accept the Gospel. After all, what does it mean that Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for sin if God is the source and cause of my sin? If God is the cause of evil, then Jesus’ death on the cross is as pointless as my life. Can anyone seriously believe that the Gospel is that God the Father had his Son murdered for some inscrutable reason? No, this the worst kind of sophistry and no one will stand before God at their particular judgement and tell God that he is to blame for their sinful behavior.

But God is in control from the start.

God gave me my freewill. He also has decided that I can use my free will to be disobedient to God.

Do you deny that you can choose to sin?

When God created Judas (since Judas is the stock example), God knew Judas would betray Christ. God could have created someone else instead. God didn’t have to create anyone.

All true, but so what? What does any of this have to do with freewill?

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

Let’s start with Adam and Eve. Actually just Eve to keep things simple. Eve has free will to eat the fruit or not to eat it. That means, as I understand it, that her choice to eat the fruit is not determined by her genetics, or her circumstances, or anything else outside the act of choice itself.

Actually, Eve is a bad choice since Paul teaches that Eve was deceived but Adam was not. But let us pass on that, and say for the sake of argument that Eve was like Adam, not deceived, free from the knowledge of evil, (and thus free from concupiscence), and free to be obedient or disobedient to God.

That means, as I understand it, that her choice to eat the fruit is not determined by her genetics, or her circumstances, or anything else outside the act of choice itself. It follows therefore that someone identical to Eve in all those respects (I’ll call them “external factors” from now on) could possibly have made a different choice.

I am not following you. If doppelganger Eve is identical to Eve in every respect, and living in exactly the same circumstances as Eve, then why would she not make the same choice as Eve?

But let us say for the sake of argument that doppelganger Eve really exists and lives in a parallel universe and she did not make the same choice as Eve. And let us say that doppelganger Eve’s universe did not experience the Fall. Now we have two parallel universes, one fallen, and one that did not fall.

God could have created a world containing this other “Eve” who did not eat the fruit, rather than the Eve of our world, who did eat the fruit.

Perhaps there is another parallel universe where doppleganger Eve did not sin. What of it?

God’s choice to create an Eve who fell was thus not inevitable.

The Fall was not inevitable. I agree with that. But Adam chose to sin and the Fall did happen – at least in our universe. Perhaps there are other universes with doppleganger Adams that did not Fall. I still don’t see your point.

 

[Matt16_18]

Contarini:

Election is God’s choice to predestine (i.e., direct as to a goal) certain people for eternal life. Fr. Most may not use the term, but he’s talking about the thing.

Is he? Fr. Most makes the point that scriptures teach that God desires ALL men to be saved, not just “certain people”. Fr. Most starts from there, unlike the Calvinists that deny scripture on this point.
Gottle of Geer:

Maybe the difficulty comes from our having to use time-conditioned language: in some sense, all human events are simultaneous to God - so for Him, that question does not arise.

Did you read the article “Predestination” by Fr. Most that I posted? In it he makes this point:” It is asked: Does God make both kinds of decisions, predestination and reprobation, before or after considering merits and demerits? Since there is no time in God, this really means with or without taking into account merits and demerits.

What I would like to see clarified is this, from the end of Matt’s post:​

**
He predestines without merits, but reprobates only after considering demerits.**

• this looks like a double motion in God: and two things I want to be protected are God’s Sovereignty, and His Simplicity.

I have no idea what you mean by “double motion in God”. Most is saying that God desires all men to be saved, and that desire has nothing to do with our merits. Heaven really is an unmerited, undeserved gift from God. Most is also saying that not all men will necessarily see heaven, and those who are damned are in that state because they exercised their free will to reject God’s sufficient grace. The damned had the grace they needed to be saved, but that grace was not efficacious because the damned did not cooperate with the grave they received. (ex opere operato, ex opere operantis …)

I still don’t like the hint that election has anything to do with our resistance.

Reprobation has to do with our resistance (i.e. we are reprobated with regard to our demerits). Men are predestined without regard to their merits.

“sufficient grace” can mean …

Sufficient grace means, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2Cor 12:9)

 

[Matt16_18]

Redbandito:

Being of the elect means you have persevered to the end.

The Catholic Church does not embrace such a narrow definition of the elect. Adult Catechumens go through the Rite of Election before they receive the Sacraments of Initiation.

This is why I was trying to avoid introducing the word “elect” into this thread about predestination. Calvinists and Catholics have a very different view of who constitutes the elect.