Predestination Free Will and Eternal Damnation

[mythbuster1]

Consider also the multitude of saints who are descended from the wicked. To prevent their existence would also prevent the existence of a multitude of elect.

 

[catholicray]

The question is not “does God know ‘before’ creation”, since there is no ‘before’ or ‘after’ with God. After all, He is in the ‘eternal now’, as it were.

Again I thank you for your response to this and I have had time to think and I have time now to respond. I don’t think this works. While I agree that there is not a before or after with God I certainly believe there was a time when there was God without creation. Being explicit here is vital to our understanding.

The question, I would assert, is “does God know everything that actually occurs in creation, or does He know everything else – all that doesn’t occur?”

I would assert that God knows all that actually “is”, past, present, and future. I agree that God does not need to know that which “never will be” in order to maintain His omnipotence.

Now, back to your question: “why does God create that which he judges damned?”

I would answer “He doesn’t. The judgment comes about only by virtue of existence. Once destined for existence, a judgment exists and God knows it. With the lack of existence, there is a lack of judgment.

In conclusion I don’t think your answer actually moves us away from the fact that God creates the damned. Breaking down your understanding you would suggest that there is an order to creation.

-Destined to be created
-Judged
-Our life on a linear timeline

The problem I have with this understanding is that it would limit the power of God in the sense that God “must” create. It also seems to limit Gods knowledge of his creation. As if suddenly God is aware that creation must be created and then he judges it.

Destiny just doesn’t fit here for me. Even if it did it must be God who destined the creation. Are you suggesting that God does not know that which he destines?

 

[catholicray]

I’d say this is a bit of a simplistic understanding. Afterall, our capacity to sin is not simply due to free will but due to the fact that we were created good and even very good, but not perfect.

I would not agree here with you. I believe we were created perfect with free will. It is not a lack of perfection that led to our fall but a free will choice as far as I’ve ever understood it. Otherwise we are saying that Perfection purposely created imperfection and then judges imperfection. How would God then have a right to judge that which he is responsible for? I mostly ask this in the sense of a final judgment. If we are created imperfect how can we be judged for failing to choose perfection?

Evil is the negation of the good, it is the imperfection, the capacity to fall.

I would suggest that Evil left well enough alone is merely nothing at all. Having the capacity to sin and to actually sin are quite different. We have free will because we have the capacity to sin, to choose. We are sinners and judged because we “choose” to sin. Thus I would not say evil is merely the capacity to fall. Rather it is the embodiment of falling.

 

[Catholicwife32]

I would not agree here with you. I believe we were created perfect with free will.

This contradicts Scripture. In the first creation account in Genesis, God “saw that it is was good.” In the creation of humanity, God “saw that it was very good.” No where does it say that God saw that it was perfect. God ALONE is perfect.

It is not a lack of perfection that led to our fall but a free will choice as far as I’ve ever understood it.

Free will is better than slavery, that is for certain. But God is not a slave. God has a free and PERFECT will.

You may want to have a look at the Easter proclamation, more specifically at the Felix Culpa. God permits sin within the imperfection of His creation.

Our view of the fall of man is actually like this:

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer! (See here)

Where sin abounds grace abounds all the more.

If we are created imperfect how can we be judged for failing to choose perfection?

Indeed, the disciples pondered this as well. If salvation were nearly impossible for the rich and the religiously devout, who could be saved? Christ’s answer was that it is impossible for man to save Himself, but for God, all things are possible. As such, our lives must be ones of humbling ourselves before our Lord as sinners, receiving His grace (primarily through the sacraments) and being made holy or like God by a process we call divinization. The Orthodox calls it theosis.

Indeed, when the serpent says to Eve that God knows that if they eat of the fruit, God knows they will become like gods, it’s not exactly a lie. The lies the serpent says aren’t overt. They’re underhanded. It’s the idea that God is jealous, that God can’t be trusted. Those are the lies. Everything else from the scales falling from their eyes is true. It’s just a distorted understanding of the truth that the serpent presents.

It is this process of divinization that is often incomplete when we die. Hense Purgatory is a completion of this process.

The Satisfaction Theory of atonement isn’t bad, per se, if we have a correct understanding of justice. I think in our modern age, the focus needs to go back to the patristic understandings of the atonement though. But either way “Theologically and historically, the word “satisfaction” does not mean gratification as in common usage, but rather “to make restitution”: mending what has been broken, or paying back what was taken. Since one of God’s characteristics is justice, affronts to that justice must be atoned for.”

It’s best to appreciate all the atonement theories and recognize the limitations of such analogies.

 

[Catholicwife32]

It would suggest that Evil left well enough alone is merely nothing at all.

Evil is the negation of the good. Absolute evil does not exist. It can’t exist as it’s existence is relative to the goodness lost. Even demons are not absolute evil. Afterall, as St. Augustine said,

Yet the Creator’s goodness does not cease to sustain life and vitality even in the evil angels, for were this sustenance withdrawn, they would simply cease to exist. For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to not permit any evil to exist. (source)

 

[Catholicwife32]

More on how salvation is not merely restoring original innocence.

 

[catholicray]

This contradicts Scripture. In the first creation account in Genesis, God “saw that it is was good.” In the creation of humanity, God “saw that it was very good.” No where does it say that God saw that it was perfect. God ALONE is perfect.

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

If God’s will is an imperfect creation redeemed by a Savior, then how does God righteously condemn men who remain imperfect, who fail to be divinized? If our nature is fallen in the first place how can we be judged for remaining as we were created?

Unless God’s grace is irresistible. But irresistible grace is obviously not the answer because then condemnation is impossible altogether.

We are basically still dealing with my original question.

 

[TULIPed]

There is a way irresistible grace works.

It starts with an L and rhymes with:

Schmimited Shmashonement

 

[catholicray]

he does it to glorify the justice of his Son. The ultimate purpose of creation is not the happiness of man, but the glory of God. And for the greater glory of God, it is necessary for God to send certain sinners into Hell (to glorify His righteousness), and to choose to save others (to glorify His mercy).

No thanks to Hedonism. In the first place it suggests God needs creation to glorify himself. He does not need “to be” glorified. He is a perfect being and His glory is complete before the act of creation. Thus we were created by the Most High rather than by God for his glory.

He is glorified by us but it is not necessary as he is already perfect in His glory.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

Comparing the Genesis passage with the Mark passage at this level would involve a familiarity with the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, I’m sure neither you and I have. What I can say is that in the Genesis passage, the goodness of creation is contrasted with the “very goodness” of humanity. As such, it would be reasonable to say that creation is good, humanity is very good, and God is perfectly good.

In the Mark passage, we do not have this contrast. As such, the goodness being spoken about is perfect goodness… Otherwise, it would be a denial that there is goodness in anyone. Total depravity is a Protestant doctrine, not a Catholic doctrine.

Moreover, he’s not talking about goodness as moral goodness. They called him “Good teacher.” This has to do with them recognizing the Truth of His teachings. They are not commenting on his moral character. He then is directing them to see what this acknowledgment of Him as a “good teacher” means. “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” In this passage, He would seem to be pointing to His divinity.

 

[catholicray]

You may be right that I can not use Mark this way. Regardless I was merely suggesting that your evidence that creation was imperfect from the start is based on inconclusive evidence. Yet even if we allow for your version, there are many questions left unanswered.

For example:
Why did God create imperfection in order to perfect it when He is already perfect? Jesus is still the Son of God regardless of whether we were created or not. We can answer this question well enough. In this situation our imperfection is our will. We choose evil and it is this free choice that I believe is necessary in order for love to occur. That’s simple and well enough for me. However this only answers the question as it pertains to the elect.

Remember there are those who will not make the choice. Those who will not find love. Those who will embody evil and reject love. This is where my question occurs. We can say that it would be better for these who reject love if they had never been born at all.

God is loving. God knows all that actually is and He has does and always will know. So why does God create the damned? Would you agree that it is an act of love to create that which is damned?

 

[Catholicwife32]

If God’s will is an imperfect creation redeemed by a Savior, then how does God righteously condemn men who remain imperfect, who fail to be divinized?

Who fail to be divinized? In Catholicism, salvation is a process. A person living a sacramental life should not be perpetually falling into mortal sin, but rather continuing to grow in virtue. If a person is in a state of mortal sin, they are in open rebellion toward God.

There are three basic types of people we can see reflected on in Scripture.

1. The first type pridefully follows the letter of the law. The main obsticle to salvation is their pride. They generally believe they are such good people that God owes them Heaven. As such, their pride causes them to turn away from God.
2. The second type does not lead the type of life people look up to. The first type of people feel morally superior to them. This type is more prone to humility. As such, their acknowledgment of their sinfulness leads them to progress spiritually much faster than the first type.
3. The third type of people are lukewarm. These people are only motivated to go so far as to avoid Hell. As such, they obsess over mortal sin. Often, they feel the fear of Hell is the most powerful motivator when it is actually the weakest. They jump in and out of mortal sin, still making sincere confessions, but never getting beyond the self-preservation motivation. And the risk here isn’t whatever sin they’re obsessing about (usually it’s sexual in nature) but in that may be taken aback with jealousy at those who committed sins they denied themselves entering Heaven before them.

The first will be last and the last first. Those of us who have been given more (including spiritual knowledge) will have more demanded of us. We must be weary of that responsibility and not judge others. Afterall, those who labored in the field all day will get paid last. Those who worked a mere hour will get paid the same as us. If the parable of the workers in the vineyard bother us enough, our pride will damn us.

It is for this reason, pride is considered the worst of the seven deadly sins.

 

[Mboo]

No thanks to Hedonism. In the first place it suggests God needs creation to glorify himself. He does not need “to be” glorified

God does not need to be glorified, but he wanted to glorify his Son because he loves his Son. You see, a child who offers a flower to his mother, his mother does not need this flower, but because he loves his mother he offers her a gift, even if this gift is not going to help her mother.
In the same way the Father loves his Son, and out of love for his Son he wanted to give his Son an extrinsic glory, he does so, not because his Son needs it, but because he loves him.

 

[catholicray]

I’m fine with your analogy. Where I am coming from your analogy is spot on, but this is because it zooms in from the bigger picture. I believe much the same that there is so much more to the love between Father and Son. Just like in your analogy if we zoom out there is far more to the love between parent and child than the giving of a gift. Hedonism overemphasizes the gift in my opinion.

 

[phil19034]

Why would he create a man for whom it would be best that he did not create at all?

Well, God created Adam and Eve. The rest of use were co-created by God and our parents.

God gives each of us our souls, but our bodies are created by our parents. So anything that goes wrong with us is not God’s fault

I pray this makes sense.

 

[Gorgias]

While I agree that there is not a before or after with God I certainly believe there was a time when there was God without creation. Being explicit here is vital to our understanding.

The thing is, I don’t think you’re being precise. While acknowledging that there wasn’t ‘time’ (a ‘before’ or ‘after’), you try to assert that there was a time. See what I mean? You’re contradicting yourself!

In conclusion I don’t think your answer actually moves us away from the fact that God creates the damned.

That wasn’t your question, though. You didn’t ask “does God create the damned?”… you asked why God creates that which He knows is damned. These two are distinct questions!

The problem I have with this understanding is that it would limit the power of God in the sense that God “must” create. It also seems to limit Gods knowledge of his creation. As if suddenly God is aware that creation must be created and then he judges it.

No. He creates. Period. Having willed creation, He knows His creation. He does not create in order to condemn; He creates, and knows the choice His created humans will make. There isn’t an ‘obligation’ or ‘limitation’ on God here… God does what He wills, and He knows that which He does.

Are you suggesting that God does not know that which he destines?

No, I’m saying that ‘destiny’ (if you want to call it that; I would think it would be more precise to call it ‘knowledge’) does not precede ‘creation’. If it did, then you’d have a point (however, you’d be back into the ‘middle knowledge’ debate, but on the side of the folks who think God does have middle knowledge).

 

[catholicray]

The thing is, I don’t think you’re being precise. While acknowledging that there wasn’t ‘time’ (a ‘before’ or ‘after’), you try to assert that there was a time. See what I mean? You’re contradicting yourself!

Haha. No. While God is not limited by time, nor exists as we do within a linear time model, He nevertheless exists within his own model of time. A model which we do not comprehend. While linear time is created, the timeline upon which God exists is not. There was indeed a time when there was God without creation.

No, I’m saying that ‘destiny’ (if you want to call it that; I would think it would be more precise to call it ‘knowledge’) does not precede ‘creation’.

Our terms are confusing our disagreement. God “destines” (sets in place beyond change) the birth (creation) of a man.

Does God know (the biblical know an intimate knowledge) His creature (especially His judgment of His creature) before he creates him.

You say no. Yet I am not convinced. God said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end”. As I understand it God exists at all time His is an existence that covers all time. Imagine if you will that you exist at the beginning and the end at the same time. You thus have knowledge of the end even at the beginning.

His knowledge of his creation at the beginning includes his knowledge of creation at the end.

 

[Gorgias]

He nevertheless exists within his own model of time. A model which we do not comprehend. While linear time is created, the timeline upon which God exists is not. There was indeed a time when there was God without creation.

OK, but isn’t that so vague as to be practicably useless? I mean, what you’re really saying, it seems, is: “as a human, I think in terms of linear temporal frameworks. God doesn’t exist in our framework, but – for the sake of me trying to comprehend Him – He must exist within some framework that’s more or less (probably ‘less’) like our temporal framework.”

The big problem here is that it is not only unworkable… but also, it creates serious theological / metaphysical problems. If God exists within a framework, then that means that there’s something (i.e., that framework!) which pre-exists God. That’s a serious problem, which undermines everything we assert about God!

So… your assertion here creates a dilemma for you: either this framework is prior to God (which means He’s not God), or God is prior to the framework (which means He creates it… which implies that He can act without it… which implies that its utility is nil). Which is it?

Does God know (the biblical know an intimate knowledge) His creature (especially His judgment of His creature) before he creates him.

You say no.

That depends on what you mean by “before”. If you mean, trivially, “in 1800, did God know that @catholicray would be born in the 20th century?”, then yes, of course. God knows all of time without mediation or constraint. But, I don’t think you’re talking that trivially. That would lead me to believe that you’re talking about middle knowledge… which (IIRC), you said that you agreed with me isn’t part of God’s omniscience.

Your question, though, can’t be answered as simply as you’ve answered it. The fact that God knows everything on the timeline (from time t0 all the way through time tn) doesn’t answer your question. Now, don’t get me wrong – I get why you want to constrain God within His own sort of framework; after all, that allows you to say something like “if God creates the universe at point (X) within the context of His framework, then does he know that @Gorgias is doomed to eternal damnation at some point (X-1)? And therefore, doesn’t it mean precisely what Calvinists assert – that God creates for damnation?”

The problem is that you can’t place God in a framework (even if that makes it easy for you to solve your problem)… since that would simply push back your question one level. Ever hear of ‘infinite regress’? Your solution puts you on that train.

 

[catholicray]

So… your assertion here creates a dilemma for you: either this framework is prior to God (which means He’s not God), or God is prior to the framework (which means He creates it… which implies that He can act without it… which implies that its utility is nil). Which is it?

I do so love a good question. Your answer is as follows. My time construct, the time and the way in time God exists neither prexists nor was created by God. Call it actual time, true time, etc., it is a characteristic of God rather than something separate.

“I am the beginning and the end”

Speculation of course but it beats the alternative of trying to logically explain how God exists “at some point” when there was not time. That conversation can lead to complete gibberish. Though perhaps this one can too.

Also I don’t build logical constructs to support my arguments I merely seek them. If it is the truth then it already exists waiting to be discovered. You asked if I was contradicting myself, I gave you a solution to the contradiction.

OK, but isn’t that so vague as to be practicably useless?

I agree puzzles that are missing a piece generally do not detract too much from the bigger picture. However we are examining this particular part of said puzzle. It is useful for continuing our discussion rather than throwing our hands up in defeat.

To move the conversation forward, I suggest that perhaps the knowledge of judgment is withheld from the Son through whom all things were created. There is a point where the Son does not know all that the Father knows (the time of His return).

Thoughts?

 

[Gorgias]

I do so love a good question.

Me too.

Your answer is as follows. My time construct, the time and the way in time God exists neither prexists nor was created by God.

That answer doesn’t help us.

One clarification: when I say “pre-exists”, I don’t mean “pre-exists temporally”. (That would be begging the question.) . Rather, I mean “metaphysical priority.” That is, one is prior to the other (although not necessarily in a temporal way). At its heart, one way of attempting to describe this is dependence.

Now, to posit your notion of “real time” or “divine time”, I think you need to identify what is prior – ‘real time’ or God. If ‘real time’ is prior, then you have the problem I’ve already stated – God isn’t the cause of all things. If God is prior, then you have the other problem I’ve already stated – God doesn’t need it.

So, you still have the question before you. Which is it? In terms of priority, what are you talking about?

Call it actual time, true time, etc., it is a characteristic of God rather than something separate.

That’s an interesting approach. You seem to be saying that God measures the acts of God. That doesn’t help much, either, though, since it would continue to be something that’s both inaccessible to us and something that God doesn’t present to us in His self-revelation. (Therefore, it would fall purely into the realm of conjecture. You’re free to offer conjecture, of course, but it isn’t really useful to the assertions you make here. It’s like saying that God wears a special cosmic wristwatch on his non-physical wrist. )

You asked if I was contradicting myself, I gave you a solution to the contradiction.

Yeah, but it’s a solution that doesn’t answer the question. I’ll be interested in how you approach the question, now that I’ve expressed it in a way that gives you less wriggle room to sneak around it.