Predestination and Free Will

[AndyF]

**Excuse my ignorance.

Would you be so kind as to define ‘Ad Hominum’ and ‘Sentia Pia’?**

Certainly.

From “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, Ludwig Ott distinguishes between the levels of certainty a Catholic may have towards any teaching of the Catholic Church.

De Fide,Fides Ecclesiastica,Sententia Ad Fidem Pertinens,
Sententia Fidei Proxima,

Sententia Communis - Common teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

Sententia Probabablis - Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded. Those which are regarded as being in a agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainity is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. (Example: Rigorist (strict) view of “No Salvation Outside the Church”, or the existence of Limbo.)

Details can be found in that publication.

                      ---------------------------------------------
                               ---------------------------

Also see:

forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=324134

AndyF

 

[guanophore]

Why is it that those who believe in predestination are so sure they’re predestined to heaven? I can’t recall hearing anyone claim they were predestined to hell…

Because their senseless minds are darkened, so they cannot perceive it in themselves, not having the grace to do so! Blissfully therefore they pursue with hot feet the road to perdition.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

How can light be​

• a particle
• a wave ?

That’s the example I use with my CCD class.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Excuse my ignorance. **

Would you be so kind as to define ‘Ad Hominum’ and ‘Sentia Pia’?

Tabcom, I think he meant Ad Hominem. I thinks my post was an attack of your character. It wasn’t.

By sentia pia, I presume he means sententia pia, which is a Catholic theological term which pertains to “pious opinion.” Dont’ agree with that either.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Excuse my ignorance. **

Would you be so kind as to define ‘Ad Hominum’ and ‘Sentia Pia’?

Tabcom, I think he meant Ad Hominem. I thinks my post was an attack of your character. It wasn’t.

By sentia pia, I presume he means sententia pia, which is a Catholic theological term which pertains to “pious opinion.” Don’t agree that this theological not applies either.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Excuse my ignorance. **

Would you be so kind as to define ‘Ad Hominum’ and ‘Sentia Pia’?

Tabcom, I think he meant Ad Hominem. It seems he thinks my post was an attack of your character. It wasn’t.

By sentia pia, I presume he means sententia pia, which is a Catholic theological term which pertains to “pious opinion.” Don’t agree that this theological note applies either. Catholic doctrine affirms that by free will, man is capable of directing himself toward his true good. As I understand it, you’ve been arguing against this, haven’t you?

Catholic doctrine teaches “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. *Sirach *15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” (*Gaudium et Spes, *17 § 1).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Original Hebrew text to Gen 2:
pdftohtml.markoer.org/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf

Funny though, the interpretation on the side of that link says the word “freely” is warranted. I even looked this up on a Jewish web page Bible and “freely” was in the translation.

I was the OP on another predestination thread about a year ago. I’m on record there as to why I am not a Calvinist.

How can it not? God tells Adam he is NOT allowed to eat of a certain tree. If God did not give Adam the freedom to eat then God is the cause of the sin. I dont know why your fighting this unless your trying to play both sides of the aisle on us.

You say your not a Calvinist, then show me where the Bible DOES teach free will? If you cant answer that then your not fooling anyone here as to your real position.

 

[tabcom]

How can (Gen 2:16) not (validate free-will)? God tells Adam he is NOT allowed to eat of a certain tree. If God did not give Adam the freedom to eat then God is the cause of the sin.

**No, God does not cause sin. He has an agent to do it for Him – the serpent. Adam and Eve did not have free-will to eat from the tree. Eve was tricked into eating from it.

Genesis 3:1- Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field

* Serpent -- Hebrew: Nachash - hiss; whisperer or enchanter, enchant means to charm or fascinate; to give great pleasure or delight
* Subtle -- Hebrew: Aruwm - cunning; crafty; smoothness

Did Paul say Eve was led astray by her free-will?

2Co 11:3 -
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived** Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity {of devotion} to Christ.

deceieved - Greek: exapatao (ex-ap-at-ah’-o)
to seduce wholly; beguile; delude; cheat

You say your not a Calvinist, then show me where the Bible DOES teach free will?

**
I’ve never studied John Calvin. I didn’t even know what the Calvinist doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved was before participating on this forum! Hence, I posted that it is a false doctrine.

I understand you feel like if you can somehow create a logic trap door to trip me up and throw me down in, then you will feel less threatened by what I have posted. All I have done within this thread is define words, link Scripture with Scripture, and challenge the other posters opinions.
**

 

[tabcom]

Catholic doctrine teaches “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. *Sirach *15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” (*Gaudium et Spes, *17 § 1).

**Thank you for posting this. It would be inappropriate to comment as to if I agree or disagree with it at this time. I would need to research it in depth. **

 

[Catholic_Dude]

No, God does not cause sin. He has an agent to do it for Him – the serpent.

What is your definition of “cause”?

Adam and Eve did not have free-will to eat from the tree. Eve was tricked into eating from it.

Then why did God forbid eating from it?
Its like telling a rock “dont eat from this tree”…what do you expect? How can a rock be “tricked”?

Genesis 3:1- Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field

• Serpent – Hebrew: Nachash - hiss; whisperer or enchanter, enchant means to charm or fascinate; to give great pleasure or delight
  • Subtle – Hebrew: Aruwm - cunning; crafty; smoothness

No argument here, the devil is sly.

**
Did Paul say Eve was led astray by her free-will?

2Co 11:3 -
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived** Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity {of devotion} to Christ.

deceieved - Greek: exapatao (ex-ap-at-ah’-o)
to seduce wholly; beguile; delude; cheat

I find it astounding you point to this verse. This verse not only shows Eve was led astray but that in the same manner Christians can be led astray through sin. You believe God sends “agents” to lead his children astray, Catholics recoil at such a notion.

Why would Paul be “afraid” if it had nothing to do with free will? It would be as absurd as being “afraid” that nightfall was coming.

I’ve never studied John Calvin. I didn’t even know what the Calvinist doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved was before participating on this forum! Hence, I posted that it is a false doctrine.

I wonder how you started sounding like a calvinist if you supposedly havnt come in contact with them.

I understand you feel like if you can somehow create a logic trap door to trip me up and throw me down in, then you will feel less threatened by what I have posted. All I have done within this thread is define words, link Scripture with Scripture, and challenge the other posters opinions.

That my be your perspective…from the Catholic perspective your twisting and spinning around the issues.
No offense, but I honestly cant tell if your taking us for a ride or you really dont get it. When you say stuff like God is not the cause of sin, yet He sends out an “agent” to do it for Him, Catholics wonder how your even being consistent.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think that if we stick to standard definitions of freewill then thing will be more clear.

Merriam-Webster defines freewill as “voluntary”, which comes from the Latin voluntas which means “will.” The same source defines “voluntary” as…

1 : proceeding from the will or from one’s own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : SELF-DETERMINING
3 : done by design or intention : INTENTIONAL <voluntary manslaughter>
4 : of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will <voluntary behavior>
5 : having power of free choice
6 : provided or supported by voluntary action <a voluntary organization>
7 : acting or done of one’s own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation

Adam and Eve had a voluntary choice to either eat from the forbidden fruit or not. This is what is meant by freewill.

 

[Contarini]

I think that if we stick to standard definitions of freewill then thing will be more clear.

No, Merriam-Webster is completely inadequate to provide definitions of philosophical and religious terms.

Edwin

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
Jesus in his human nature, certainly certainly implied free wll.

Luke 22: 42, ‘Father,’ he said,’ if you are willing, take this cup away from me, nevertheless, let your will be done not mine.

I believe this is all we need to know; There we have it through the obedience of Jesus human nature, we are adopted sons of God.
As a human being Jesus had the same temptations that we have, the differance being, he conquered, so we must at least try, hence the sacrement of reconciliation each time we fail.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[tabcom]

**IMHO Luke 22:42 is not a free-will verse. It is the opposite. If the Living God had no free-will to resist the commandment of His Father to die, what free-will does man have? None.

Luke 22:42
saying, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will** but yours be done.”

Merriam-Webster defines freewill as . . .
7 : acting or done of one’s own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation

**
Was Eve legally obligated to not eat from the tree? Yes.
Or, was Eve putting a value on the possession of the forbidden tree? Yes.

In accordance with this definition, Eve was not acting out of free-will when she broke God’s Law.**

Adam and Eve had a voluntary choice to either eat from the forbidden fruit or not. This is what is meant by freewill.

**IMHO . . . I disagree. They had a choice to eat from any tree in the garden except one. What does that mean? They were free to choose from a variety of fruits that God provided a need for. It wasn’t until Eve was sudduced into thinking she could become like god by the serpent that she was led astray.

God provided the need. Eve\Adam wanted more.

Luke 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

* covetousness- greek: pleonektes- to want more; greediness

Covetousness simply means to “want more”. Men who are covetous will deceive and do whatever is necessary to obtain “more” while justifying themselves for their greed. Every man is covetous by nature until God deals with him and causes him to repent (turn from self to God). The word devil (daimon) means to distribute fortunes. A covetous man who “wants more” has a devil. Covetousness is the idolatrous worship of self. It is an idolatry as evil as falling down before Baal, the golden calf, or one of the ancient pagan deities of Rome or Babylon. Paul said, “having food and raiment, let us be there with content” (I Tim. 6:8). He also said, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Phil. 4:11) Men are involved in idolatry when they refuse to be content with what they have. Sorry if I was led astray from the main point of free-will to wanting more, but I think they are related.

**

 

[tabcom]

How can it not? God tells Adam he is NOT allowed to eat of a certain tree. If God did not give Adam the freedom to eat then God is the cause of the sin. I dont know why your fighting this unless your trying to play both sides of the aisle on us.

What is your definition of “cause”?

I’m sorry. I was replying to your usage of ‘God is the cause of sin’. I should have asked, ‘what is your definition of cause?’ before replying.

 

[tabcom]

Then why did God forbid eating from it?

**Because it brings Him pleasure.

Isa 46:10 -
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.

Eph 1:5 -
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

Eph 1:9 -
He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him

kind - Greek: eudokia (yoo-dok-ee’-ah) delight, pleasure, satisfaction

Phil 2:13
for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
**

 

[onenow1]

Because it brings Him pleasure. QUOTE= TABCOM

Isa 46:10 -
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure.

The way I read it, the Lord will accomplish his pleasure, you can follow his blue print or not the choice is yours. In other words it’s not a done deal yet. A far cry from predestination, in terms that all is accomplished.

Genesis 4: 6-7, Yahew asked Cain,’ Why are you angry and downcast? If you are doing right surely you ought hold your head high ! If not sin is crouching at the door, hungry to get you. Its desire is for you but you can still master it.

Luke 16:16, Whoever believes and is baptized, will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Matt 16: 18-19 So I now say to you; you are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church. and the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[mikeledes]

Tabcom, there is something that is unclear to me. You’re not a Calvinist, yet you sound like one. What do you find in Calvinism that you disagree with? Do you uphold TULIP?

For all who are interested, here are a couple of artcles on the Catholic Church’s teachings on predestination and free will:

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/predestination.htm

God Bless,
Michael

 

[tabcom]

Tabcom, there is something that is unclear to me. You’re not a Calvinist, yet you sound like one. What do you find in Calvinism that you disagree with? Do you uphold TULIP?

**Thank you for the questions. From what I understand of Calvinist doctrine, I’ve never actually met a Calvinist, is that they believe that if you got saved one night, then you are home free. Is that a misunderstanding on my part?

I was not familar with TULIP prior to joining this forum.

A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

“The debate is centered on the well-known formula TULIP. Each letter of this acronym stands for a different doctrine held by classical Calvinists . . . The doctrines are:”

Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints.

As I reviewed my saved postings from an old predestination thread, I was defending Catholic Doctrine from Catholics that believed in TULIP!

**

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No, Merriam-Webster is completely inadequate to provide definitions of philosophical and religious terms.

I think the definition provided by Merriam-Webster represents what what the CHURCH means when she affirm that man has freewill. Voluntas is indeed translated as “will” and it connote a voluntary nature of the will in the moral sense.

So, when English speakers read English translations of Scripture, such as…

Sirach 15:14 (DR) - “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.”

Catholics understand that man has freewill in the sense the word defined by Merriam-Webster, meaning “voluntary.”

Freewill is “The power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself” (Catholic Pocket Dictionary).

We can certainly dig further and question why the English translators of Scripture chose to translate Sirach in that manner.

St. Thomas Aquinas, when discussing freewill no doubt understood this text from the Latin, which states:

Sirach 15:14 (Latin) - "Deus ab initio constituit hominem et reliquit illum in manu consilii sui "

St. Thomas’ view is that true moral human acts are voluntary. It is this voluntariness which he sees as the basis of culpability.

Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) was originally written in Hebrew by Jeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira before 175 BC. Fragments are found among the Qumran scrolls in Hebrew.

The arguments over freewill are made nonsensical if we don’t have a common understanding of what we are arguing for and against.

In attempting to understanding this concept of free will, I agree that it is the CHURCH which the authority for determining the sense of voluntas. I also know that the CHURCH does indeed teach that truly human acts are voluntary.