Predestination and Free Will

[RNRobert]

**sandusky . . . thank you for refuting Jerry-Jet. You just saved me about a half-hour of having to compile a reply myself. **

How so? Sandusky’s method of “refutation” seem to be by calling every Catholic argument a “strawman.”

 

[Truthstalker]

Jerry-Jet seems to be operating from a Molinist viewpoint. A Thomist would express it differently. Since I don’t understand it well enough, I will sit this out.

Basically, a Calvinist is a Thomist who has an insufficient grasp of theology in certain directions. Most Protestants haven’t heard much of Aquinas; I suspect many who become familiar convert.

“To be deep into Aquinas is to cease to be a Protestant.” Or something like that.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**itsjustdave . . .****Your previous post is well stated, thank you. My participation within this thread was motivated by this statement: ** **Any discussion about predestination must begin with what the word means, in its original greek text (see post #7). Catholic doctrine is derived from it.

Now, back to your example of what predestination is. You, the father, setting rules that your child must obey inorder to live within your house. You know he will disobey those rules. You know he will be punished, in a loving manner that is instructive. You also know that at some point he will think differently about he behavior and not break that rule again in the future. But you also know there will be new rules in the future that will have to be corrected. It is a continuous process. That’s Predestination!

When I say there is no free-will. What I mean is your child had no free-will in choosing you as his father. Any free-will he has is limited to what he can do within your household and not be punished for it.**

I agree that nobody has the free-will to determine that the one true God is not the one true God. They are stuck in that Father’s dominion, whether they admit it or not. Thus, nobody has the free-will to exist outside the authority of the one true God.

So, using the teenage analogy, each and every person is under the authority of the one Father, God–every human being that has ever existed and will ever exist. Thus, every human has the free-will to either know, love, and serve the Father, or not.

What predestination means is that the Father has already predetermined or preordained the consequences of the good use of free-will, in contrast to the evil use of free-will, which He Himself has given every human being.

Thus, predestination applies not only to the elect, but also to the non-elect.

 

[mike182d]

How can these coexist?

I’ll give you a hint:

How can God exist within time and outside of time simultaneously?

Once you figure that out, you’ll figure out the dilemma of predestination and free will.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Q: Who will choose God?
**

**
** Rom 3:23 says “all have sinned.” However, the Greek word for “all” is “pas” which does not necessarily mean “each and every individual.”

Scripture elsewhere states:

No one is good but God alone. [Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17]

The good person brings good things out of a good treasure. [Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45, 7:17-20, 22:10]

Can we take “no one” to be absolute? Of course not, as elsewhere Scripture does testify to “good and faithful servants” (Matt 2:21)

So, when Paul says (Rom 3:10-12) there is no one who does good [Hebrew, *tob], no not one. He is quoting from Ps 14:2-3 and 53:1-3. Paul knows that he is not being absolute, but using a common Jewish idiomatic expression.

In the immediately preceding Psalm, which Paul is no doubt familiar with, the Psalmist proclaims that he has trusted in God’s steadfast love (Ps 13:5). That’s what Catholics mean by “seeking” after God.

In Ps 15, the Psalmist refers to those who “walk blamelessly, and do what is right” (Ps 15:2). So obviously the Psalmist’s lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as meaning literally no individual is righteous or good.

The psalmist in 112:5 refers to a good man (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly (11:23, 12:2, 13:22, 14:14,19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Ps 14:2-3. And references to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9, 22:19, Ps 5:12, 32:11, 34:15, 37:16,32, Mt 9:13, 13:17, 25:37,46, Rom 5:19, Heb 11:4, Jas 5;16, 1 pet 3:12, 4:18, etc., etc.).

Who will choose God? Some will, some won’t.

Josh 24:15 - “Choose this day whom you will serve…as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

The Hebrew word, nedabah {ned-aw-baw’}, means:

1. voluntariness, free-will offering a) voluntariness b) freewill, voluntary, offering

God said, “I will love them freely (Heb nedabah)**.” (Hosea 14:4).

Humans also exercise their freewill…

Ex 35:29 - “The children of Israel brought a willing (Heb *nedabah) *offering unto the LORD.”

We cannot make ourselves holy. However, we can exercise our God-given freewill in choosing whom we will serve…the rest we leave to God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

God’s indictment of man is that none is good, and none seeks God (Rom 3:10ff); how then do you reckon that God could foresee anyone choosing Him?"

Because “all” does not always means “each and every individual,” nor does “no one” always exclude ever individual according to Sacred Scripture.

Man was made to seek God…

Matt 6:33 “seek*** first his kingdom and his righteousness***”

Matt 7;7 “seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened.”

Acts 17:26-26 "And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth***…****** that they should seek God***, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. "

 

[Truthstalker]

Dave,

I’m not sure you haven’t wandered into semi-Pelagianism. Look at Aquinas on grace:

Summa First Part of Second Part, Q 109, 2:

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ro 9:16): “It is not of him that willeth,” namely, to will, “nor of him that runneth,” namely to run, “but of God that showeth mercy.” And Augustine says (De Corrept. et Gratia ii) that “without grace men do nothing good when they either think or wish or love or act.”
I answer that, Man’s nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its integrity, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is corrupted in us after the sin of our first parent. Now in both states human nature needs the help of God as First Mover, to do or wish any good whatsoever, as stated above (1). But in the state of integrity, as regards the sufficiency of the operative power, man by his natural endowments could wish and do the good proportionate to his nature, such as the good of acquired virtue; but not surpassing good, as the good of infused virtue. But in the state of corrupt nature, man falls short of what he could do by his nature, so that he is unable to fulfil it by his own natural
powers. Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like; yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing; just as a sick man can of himself make some movements, yet he cannot be perfectly moved with the movements of one in health, unless by the help of medicine he be cured. And thus in the state of perfect nature man needs a gratuitous strength superadded to natural strength for one reason, viz. in order to do and wish supernatural good; but for two reasons, in the state of corrupt nature, viz. in order to be healed, and furthermore in order to carry out works of supernatural virtue, which are meritorious. Beyond this, in both states man needs the Divine help, that he may be moved to act well.

and the Catechism:

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

I’m not sure you haven’t wandered into semi-Pelagianism.

Can you point out where? Please quote me without paraphrasing what I’ve asserted. I’ve studied Aquinas extensively. How is my assertion “we cannot make ourselves holy” compatible with semi-Pelagianism?

I agree with both the Summa citation and the Catechism citation that you have provided, so I’m confused about your response.

 

[Truthstalker]

Can you point out where? Please quote me without paraphrasing what I’ve asserted. I’ve studied Aquinas extensively. How is “we cannot make ourselves holy” wandering into semi-Pelagianism?

Underlined added for emphasis.

Who will choose God? Some will, some won’t.

Josh 24:15 - “Choose this day whom you will serve…as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

The Hebrew word, nedabah {ned-aw-baw’}, means:

1. voluntariness, free-will offering a) voluntariness b) freewill, voluntary, offering

God said, “I will love them freely (Heb nedabah**).” (Hosea 14:4).

Humans also exercise their freewill…

Ex 35:29 - “The children of Israel brought a willing (Heb nedabah) offering unto the LORD.”

We cannot make ourselves holy. However, we can exercise our God-given freewill in choosing whom we will serve…the rest we leave to God.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I am under the impression that initial salvation is always a sovereign act of God. We were slaves; we are set free; it is only in Christ that it can be said that we have any free will You seem to be saying someone can choose God on their own without the help of God. Or am I reading too much into your post?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As long as we are quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, here’s some you should consider…

St. Thomas Aquinas on free will**…

It is written (Sirach 15:14): “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”; and the gloss adds: “That is of his free-will.” I answer that, **Man has free-will… **more]

St. Thomas Aquinas on *predestination…
*

It is written (Romans 8:30): “Whom He predestined, them He also called.” I answer that, It is fitting that God should predestine men. more]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I am under the impression that initial salvation is always a sovereign act of God…

Absolutely. However, I don’t remember mentioning salvation or justification in my post. I simply said, in accord with Scripture, that we have free will to choose whom we will serve. Whether God chooses to give me His gratuitous grace or not it His action alone.

Keep in mind too, that it is not just “initial” justification, but also any further grace given by God which is always a sovereign act of God. If, for example, a justified Christian were to fall from grace and become unjustified, then NOTHING he does before receiving restorative grace of justification can merit that grace. Nothing.

If he should have “sorrow” for his sins, that sorrow is nothing more than a gratuitous GIFT from God. Sorrow is not his own natural creation but ONLY comes from God. Thus, God gives grace upon grace to bring back his lost sheep. He gives these gifts (or doesn’t) by his own sovereign and just judgment.

Yet, we are all God’s creation, whether we are among the elect or not (which God only knows). According to Scripture, every man was made to SERVE God. Each and every human God created was created in his image and likeness in order to SERVE Him, "that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. "(Acts 17:26-26). Thus, even the non-elect are made to SERVE God, but they have been given freewill, such that as Josh 24:15 states, they can “***Choose this day whom you will serve…” ***I have not stated, nor do I contend that by our own natural use of freewill, we can become holy (justified) in the eyes of God. I explicitly stated, that this we leave up to God.

To clarify, let me quote from MSgr Paul Glenn’s commentary on the St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica…

…grace which disposes mind and will to receive and use operating grace is ***cooperating grace… ***[MSgr Paul J. Glenn, *A Tour of the Summa,

p. 180-181]With this kind of grace, God enlightens the intellect and strengthens the will. According to St. Thomas Aquinas:

“If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.” (Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4).

Thus, God might do so by sending a teacher or an angel. He might do so by prompting the Gideon’s to leave a Bible in a hotel room. There are many ways God can and does bring his light into the world. This kind of grace does not justify, but instead is intended to prepare a person for justification or further grace.

We have the freewill to pick up that Bible and prayerfully study it, or switch on the TV instead. “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15).

Msgr Glenn continues…

Grace given to make the receiver holy is sanctifying grace…[it] sets man directly in line with God *…

… By accepting cooperating grace, we enter into the disposition which prepares us for the receiving of sanctifying or habitual grace. (ibid.)
*This next part of Catholic teaching MSgr Glenn describes is very important, yet non-Catholics and Catholics alike seem to ignore it, but shouldn’t…

… By accepting cooperating grace, we enter into the disposition which prepares us for the receiving of sanctifying or habitual grace.

… In so far as the human will can thus (by accepting cooperating grace and using it) make preparation for grace, it can set up no necessity or demand that grace should actually follow upon the preparation.

So, if I should choose to pick up that Gideon’s Bible instead of watching TV, then I am indeed cooperating with God’s will, and in that sense, I am choosing to serve God. That does not therefore set up a demand that further grace should actually follow. This is very much misunderstood or willfully misrepresented by non-Catholics who claim Catholics teach a “works salvation” such that they can, by their own natural abilities, attain justification and eternal salvation. Right use of freewill does not cause justification or other grace to be given. Yet, a wrong use of freewill can place a barrier to justification or further grace.

This is why I think the Protestants are biased against our terminology of “cooperation,” as they believe we think our understanding of cooperation sets up some kind of demand upon God to give us sanctifying grace. This, of course, is an incorrect understanding of our use of "cooperation."

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…
For instance, we pray. Does that mean that because we prayed for something, that we therefore set up some kind of demand upon God that he indeed must give us what we pray for? No. We understand when we pray (either by our cooperative acts or our words), that “not my will, but thine be done.”

But choosing to pray (or not) is a freewill act of man. When we pray we choose to serve the LORD.

So, our job is to serve the LORD, and leave the rest to God.

… it is only in Christ that it can be said that we have any free will

Depends upon the sense that you use freewill. If you mean that those who are not justified have no freedom such that they are “altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good” (St. Thomas), then I disagree.

You seem to be saying someone can choose God on their own without the help of God. Or am I reading too much into your post?

God indeed does help man choose him. He would not even know of God without first God letting man know about him through revelation. This revelation we know to be natural and supernatural. However, that God has revealed himself to man does not necessarily mean that the man is justified and holy by virtue of this revelation. Man has to cooperate with this grace of revelation. Man can indeed freely choose to reject God’s revelation or he can freely choose to cooperate with it.

After all, St. Paul tells us that God’s “invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” The Romans are therefore held responsible for either responding or not responding cooperatively to that which God did indeed reveal to them.

Thus, we have freedom to reject or accept the grace of God.

I think if you stay clear of the false non-Catholics notions of free will and predestination, you will see that both are authentically taught by Catholicism and are entirely congruent with each other.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It may be regarded as heresy by some here but St. Thomas’ views on predestiantion do not amount to complete established doctrine.

I believe the truth lies in between the Molinists and the Thomists.

Father William Most espoused it–in any case it wasn’t the small minds of the Calvinists–they never have believed that God could walk and chew gum at the same time because they can’t!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It may be regarded as heresy by some here but St. Thomas’ views on predestiantion do not amount to complete established doctrine.

The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of peredestination and freewill, because that is the doctrine she received from the apostles.

I believe the truth lies in between the Molinists and the Thomists.

I’ve studied both and I am not advocating either view. Moreever, I’m not convinced St. Thomas was a Thomist.

Father William Most espoused it–in any case it wasn’t the small minds of the Calvinists–they never have believed that God could walk and chew gum at the same time because they can’t!

I’m not sure what you mean here.

 

[Ghosty]

The Molinists were Thomists in the fullest sense of following Aquinas; Aquinas did not advocate the kind of predestination that the Thomists who debated the Molinists did. Rather, his views could lead to either conclusion, or even others.

I think the most important thing here is to not put God within time. God is eternal, which means that every single moment is present to Him. We are in time, progressing from moment to moment.

Now when I make a choice to sit down I move in time to sit down, and once I am sitting down I’m infallibly sitting down. What this means is that it’s absolutely 100% true that I’m sitting down; there is no “in-between” fuzziness. Now, even though I’m infallibly and definately sitting down, does that negate the fact that I chose with my free will to sit? Of course not, it is in fact by my very will that I’m sitting down.

Now let’s look at the perspective of God in Eternity, where all moments in time are equally present. My choosing to sit is infallibly true from His perspective, just as my sitting is infallibly true. God knows this “before” I do simply because He exists in Eternity where “before” and “after” have no meaning; Eternity is a single “now” that includes all moments.

So does God know what I will choose before I choose it? In the sense of time He does because He knows in the moment before I choose, because all moments are one in Eternity. Does God know the determination of all acts of our will? Yes, because He sees the infallible results at once, like He sees me sitting. Does this negate free will? Of course not, because it is precisely by my free will that I choose and I sit. It’s not that God sees all things “before” they happen, it’s that He sees all things that do happen, but all at once in Eternity.

All difficulties with predestination and free will come from not properly discerning the difference between time and eternity, and as Aquinas said to the monks of Monte Cassino, “if the monks grasp the meaning of eternity vis-a-vis time, they will solve their problem “quasi fide occulata”, as if with a faith which has come to see.”

Peace and God bless!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

How can these coexist?

I’m still curious as to why you think that predestination and free will cannot coexist.

 

[Contarini]

The Molinists were Thomists in the fullest sense of following Aquinas

No, because they denied that foreknowledge is causative. Their understanding of God’s causation of our actions is much weaker and more “external” (i.e., God manipulates our circumstances) than that of St. Thomas.

Aquinas did not advocate the kind of predestination that the Thomists who debated the Molinists did.

He didn’t spell out the issue of efficient vs. sufficient grace (which is a weak point of Thomism, IMHO). He certainly taught predestination to life ante praevisa merita, and he taught that God’s knowledge causes our actions rather than the other way round.

Rather, his views could lead to either conclusion, or even others.

I can’t for the life of me see how St. Thomas’s views are compatible with Molinism. But maybe I don’t understand Molinism.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

How can these coexist?

Because God’s causation does not operate on the same “level” as ours. God is not a competing cause of our actions. All good actions are caused by God and by us simultaneously. (God can, of course, also operate on the level of secondary causation–as I understand it, that is what grace is, which is why the issue of grace and free will is separate from the question of predestination itself–something that has been greatly obscured by the Reformation debates and the Calvinist insistence on linking the two tightly.) The problem with Thomism in my opinion is the problem of how evil actions occur–I do not find St. Thomas’s account of this to be persuasive at all.

Edwin

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m still curious as to why you think that predestination and free will cannot coexist.

I didn’t say they cannot. I see both as true. Therefore they coexist. It seems to be a paradox. Should this be left as impenetrable mystery? No.

 

[Ghosty]

No, because they denied that foreknowledge is causative.

They denied that God’s foreknowledge is determinitive to the exclusion of contingent causes. Their entire emphasis on God “choosing worlds” in which certain choices would be made indicates a belief in God causing even free contingent realities; God activates the world in which certain choices are made. They never denied that God’s foreknowledge is causitive in the greater sense, merely that it isn’t the determinitive efficient cause of every single reality.

This doesn’t conflict with Aquinas’ view, but rather steps aside it and offers something that Aquinas didn’t directly deal with, namely the possible worlds in which different decisions could have been made. Aquinas never stated that God causes our choices in a determinitive sense; rather he held that God, being the Cause of all Being, gives act to everything we are and choose. That is really no different, in terms of cause, from the Molinist position that God enacts the world that has certain choices made.

Aquinas’ view can’t be reduced to efficient causality, which is the common mistake made by people reading in his writings that God causes us, in a determinitive way, to choose certain things. It must be understood in the sense of God giving being, as First Cause, to all actual realities, therefore making Him the ultimate cause of everything that occurs without destroying free will (which Aquinas constantly upholds in the Summa).

Peace and God bless!