Predestination Free Will and Eternal Damnation

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
To clarify I am saying God is a time construct. He does not merely exist eternally, He actually is eternal. It should go without saying that God is not merely a time construct. Eternality is a characteristic of God. It is not separate from him as time is separate from us.

Scripture says as much as I have just stated. “I am the beginning and the end.” “In the beginning was the Word”, note Scripture does not say before the beginning was the Word. So I would insist that there is not a time when time was not just as I would insist there was not a time when God was not. I do maintain that there was a time when God alone existed and creation was not.

Does that answer your question?
 
Does that answer your question?
It does, but I’m not sure I agree.

To say that “God is eternity itself” is kind of weird. It ascribes as a personal characteristic something that applies externally. Worse yet, since we assert divine simplicity to God, your take on it runs afoul of that (generally accepted) stance, since now you’re creating a composite God.

I think that I’d respond to your Scriptural exegesis by pointing out that notions of a distinct ‘beginning’ – with respect to God – seem to posit that there was a distinct start point. That would thwart your notion of ‘eternity’ being a characteristic of God, wouldn’t it? I think I would rather assert that those are figures of speech, meant not to point to a definite start point, but to assert that we don’t precede God (that is, He precedes us, eternally). To take “in the beginning” and divorce it from its meaning (i.e., that there is a beginning), just so that you can use it to posit a temporality to God… well, that kind of stretches credulity.
 
It ascribes as a personal characteristic something that applies externally.
Something which applies externally to you. If something applies externally to you it does not follow that it must apply externally to God.

As far as a composite God this is more a matter of language limitations. Look at flame it possesses at least a few elements. The flame the light and the heat. Is fire therefore composite? Would saying that fire is light really be inaccurate?

As for your exegesis I don’t think it embraces the fullest understanding of those simple words “I AM the beginning and the end.” Much as the Lord said “This IS my body”.
 
If God had not created, those who are in Hell, then many predestined ones would not have their present glory in Heaven either.
No. It reflects badly on them if anything, as they likely could have helped more souls be saved while they were on earth.
 
I do not understand what you say. Who could have to saved more souls being on earth?
However, the saints in Heaven save more souls than when they were on earth, because they have greater perfection and are more closer to God. The virgin Mary is a perfect illustration of this, since her assumption, we do not count all the souls she has saved effectively.
There is also Saint Therese of Lisieux. She had the good intuition that in the Heaven, she would do more good to souls, than staying on earth. And there is also a lot of testimony from people who have received the help of St. Therese from Heaven.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Gorgias:
It ascribes as a personal characteristic something that applies externally.
Something which applies externally to you. If something applies externally to you it does not follow that it must apply externally to God.
We’re not talking about application, we’re talking about existence. A framework exists. And, if it exists and encompasses all of reality, then it is external to God.
As far as a composite God this is more a matter of language limitations.
No, it’s really not. It’s a pretty well-developed philosophical notion. Simple or composite. Single or composed of parts. One or the other. 😉
Look at flame it possesses at least a few elements. The flame the light and the heat. Is fire therefore composite? Would saying that fire is light really be inaccurate?
Fire is definitely composite. It’s made up of fuel molecules which vaporize and come into a reaction with oxygen, and then decompose into other particles. You’re conflating ‘characteristics’ with what a thing is (or, more to the point, what a thing is made up of).
As for your exegesis I don’t think it embraces the fullest understanding of those simple words “I AM the beginning and the end.” Much as the Lord said “This IS my body”.
🤷‍♂️
 
We’re not talking about application , we’re talking about existence . A framework exists . And, if it exists and encompasses all of reality, then it is external to God.
I think you are confusing the framework of time (our time) with eternity. I do not think it is necessary to understand them as the same construct. Nor is it necessary to imply that eternity is a construct in the first place. Our time as a construct is dependent on measurement. Eternity is time without measure.

As for my example of a flame, perhaps it is a poor example but I also think you are complicating the point unnecessarily. The point being that regardless of how you examine a flame at some point you step back and say, “look at that fire.” (singular and simple) Again language limitations.
 
I think you are confusing the framework of time (our time) with eternity. I do not think it is necessary to understand them as the same construct. Nor is it necessary to imply that eternity is a construct in the first place. Our time as a construct is dependent on measurement. Eternity is time without measure.
If it’s “without measure”, then there’s not “a time when there was God without creation”, as you’ve asserted that there is. You can’t have it both ways: either it’s “without measure” or it’s “some sort of notion of time”. So… which is it?
I also think you are complicating the point unnecessarily.
Nope. I’m being precise. That’s what you have to do when you’re talking metaphysics. Just waving your hands and saying “it’s kinda like this”, and ignoring the contradictions inherent in the assertion, lead to invalid conclusions.
The point being that regardless of how you examine a flame at some point you step back and say, “look at that fire.” (singular and simple)
Sure. You can take any system and abstract it out. That abstraction might help in certain ways. However, it doesn’t mean that the system is only abstract and without the specifics of its component parts.
 
If it’s “without measure”, then there’s not “a time when there was God without creation”, as you’ve asserted that there is. You can’t have it both ways: either it’s “without measure” or it’s “some sort of notion of time”. So… which is it?
Our discussion failed to make any progress just now. I’ll try again. You acknowlege with ease that time is a contruct. I am insisting that time as a contruct is time which is measured. A minute for example is a contruct. It is a man made measurement. Time which is measured or measurable is that which I would consider a construct.

Then there is eternity. I insist you can not measure eternity. Perhaps the problem is that we assume eternity is a contruct of our human measurement (time).

You can’t have it both ways: either it’s “without measure” or it’s “some sort of notion of time”. So… which is it?”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I would say that eternity is not time. How does that work?

Definition of terms:
Time: A point of eternity measured or measurable

Eternity: the perpetual progress of existence in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Free will is either just that, the freedom to choose, or it’s not. Man is accountable for his actions and therefore for his final destiny. While God’s foreknowkedge is unavoidable for Him, none of that changes the fact that man is free
 
A minute for example is a contruct. It is a man made measurement.
Since we’re defining things, I think I’d quibble a little. Neither time (i.e., the temporal framework) nor its measurements (e.g., “second”, “minute”, “millennium”) are ‘constructs’. They’re real. In fact, even the notion of a ‘minute’ is real (albeit a definition that’s made arbitrarily by humans). In other words, how we label time doesn’t change the fact the temporal dimension is real.
Then there is eternity. I insist you can not measure eternity.
And this, I think, is the basis upon which we start to disagree. Yes, I agree that we cannot measure eternity. And, since I stick to an Aristotelian definition of time (unless you want to propose an alternate definition for discussion), which is “time is the measure of change of physical objects”, then inevitably we reach the conclusion that, since there is no change in God and He is not physical, then there is no sort of temporal framework of any kind in eternity!

I agree with you that “eternity is not time”. But, that implies that eternity is not measurable. And therefore… there’s nothing akin to ‘time’ in eternity.
Eternity: the perpetual progress of existence in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Still too many holes here for your stance to float. There is no “past, present, and future” in eternity. That only exists inside the context of the created universe. There is also no ‘progress’ in eternity – or, for the sake of our discussion here, in God – since God is immutable.

At best, I think you’re coming close to the Scholastics’ idea of “aeveternity”, but even so, you’re misapplying it, since that theory only applied to created beings (and not to God).

So, I don’t think you’ve managed to move the discussion forward at all. 🤷‍♂️
 
Neither time (i.e., the temporal framework) nor its measurements (e.g., “second”, “minute”, “millennium”) are ‘constructs’. They’re real . In fact, even the notion of a ‘minute’ is real (albeit a definition that’s made arbitrarily by humans).
You might want to look into that friend. At best you might say it’s debatable but basically your wrong. Unless you care to cite sources that prove otherwise. Here is an interview with a physicist:


I am unwilling to debate this. My stance will remain that seconds, minutes, hours, etc. are human constructs, because they are.
I stick to an Aristotelian definition of time
“In Aristotle’s Metaphysics, eternity is the unmoved mover God
Wiki - Eternity

Which definition is it exactly that you are sticking to?
Still too many holes here for your stance to float. There is no “past, present, and future” in eternity. That only exists inside the context of the created universe. There is also no ‘progress’ in eternity – or, for the sake of our discussion here, in God – since God is immutable.
You simply must pay more attention to that which you read.

Perpetual - Never ending or changing
Progress - Onward movement
Existence - the fact or state of living or having objective reality

Thus:
Eternity - The never ending or changing onward movement, of the fact or state of living or having objective reality, in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

The never ending or changing onward movement, of the fact or state of living or having objective reality, in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

The never ending or changing onward movement, of the fact or state of living or having objective reality, in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

If you pay attention your objections are accounted for in the definition without changing the definition.
At best, I think you’re coming close to the Scholastics’ idea of “aeveternity”, but even so, you’re misapplying it, since that theory only applied to created beings (and not to God).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Are you just making stuff up at this point? I’m being trolled aren’t I?

Oh but I’ll update my previous definition of time:

Time: The human developed and relative point of eternity measured or measurable.
 
Last edited:
You might want to look into that friend. At best you might say it’s debatable but basically your wrong. Unless you care to cite sources that prove otherwise. Here is an interview with a physicist:
Your physicist is setting up a straw man that we’re not discussing here. I don’t recall us talking about “a present moment that is special; some kind of flow or passage; and an absolute direction.” But hey… keep setting up those straw men! They’re fun to knock down, aren’t they?!? 😉
I am unwilling to debate this. My stance will remain that seconds, minutes, hours, etc. are human constructs, because they are.
They’re human ways to describe the measurement, but they’re not the measurement itself. Your argument boils down to something like “colors are human constructs, because we describe such-and-such a wavelength as ‘blue’, and such-and-such as ‘red’.” See the difference? “Red” and “blue” are human descriptors of real things (just as “seconds” and “minutes” are real things.) If you want to claim that time – and color – is a human construct, though, rather than something real… well, have fun with that. 😉
Which definition is it exactly that you are sticking to?
Notice that, in your citation, God isn’t part of the temporal framework – he’s the “unmoved mover”. Not sure what you think you demonstrated there, then…?
Are you just making stuff up at this point?
Google is your friend. Look it up. 😉
Oh but I’ll update my previous definition of time:

Time: The human developed and relative point of eternity measured or measurable.
Ahh… wonderful! Now we get to trot out that old stumper: if time is “human developed”, then does that mean that, prior to humans, there was no time? Think about it, man… before you write it. 👍
 
Thank you for taking the time to have a conversation with me. I appreciate your time. Unfortunately I think we have begun to merely talk past eachother. So I will kindly remove myself from our discussion about time.
 
Last edited:
Moving the conversation forward, and returning to the original topic, you had mentioned a middle knowledge. Now as I understand it middle knowledge is knowledge of all possibilities regardless of whether they will happen or not. You and I agree God does not have middle knowledge.

Would you say that how you will be judged is middle knowledge?
 
Would you say that how you will be judged is middle knowledge?
No. I exist, therefore God has known “for all time” (in the context of this argument, we can specify a lower bound of “at least since the beginning of the universe”, if we’re willing to use the frame of reference of the created universe).

Even if you want to ask it in a more interesting way (i.e., “if you are to be judged for heaven, does God know that you’re not judged for hell?”), it still comes down to positive knowledge – that is, knowledge of the content of the judgment.

Now… you might ask “if we make the presumption (for the sake of argument) that I’m going to be judged for heaven, then does God know what my first meal in hell would be if I were judged for damnation?” Now… that’s middle knowledge. Another way to look at middle knowledge is “knowledge of counterfactuals.”
 
I appreciate your response. Please correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be explaining that what God “knows” is not necessarily what will actually be.

To clarify I said God creates man knowing his final judgment of his creation.
You said that mans free will can impact Gods final judgment.

As far as I can tell something has to bend here. Either God knows the final judgment of his creation prior to creating it which implies an unchanging fate.

Or mans free will choices determines Gods judgement and so God does not already know how he will judge a man before he creates him.

I do not see how it could be both and logically.
God’s foreknowledge that I will do “A” cannot imply that event A is necessarily so, i.e. I was forced to do “A”. To say otherwise is committing a modal logical fallacy.

Scripture says God created us for his glory. Not in the sense that God needs to boast about his glory or be showered with anyone’s glory but in that we can manifest in it, to receive and respond to His glory.

The problem with the “why did God create people if he knew they were going to be damned” question and questions like it is that we are trying to answer that question from our own perspective, as if WE were God and how WE would do things if so and what would seem rational to US. We cannot think like we would if we were God. So what the question asks seems irrational to US but that’s only because we are trying to understand the motivations and thoughts of an omniscient God, when we do not have insight into His omniscience nor have that capability ourselves. That’s why there will never be a universally satisfactory answer to such questions.

God created us in his image and the world as it is, and His omniscience ensures that all the details are there to make it a perfectly rational action.
 
God knows from all eternity everyone’s final judgment.

Our free will choices and actions impacts God’s final judgment, this is the very reason we will all have different rewards.
.
For God that we will FREELY chose to do a good ‘A’ action with the aids of His efficacious grace known from all eternity and predestined from all eternity in accordance with His all-embracing purpose.

For God that we will FREELY chose to do a bad (sin) ‘B’ action (permitted by God) by rejecting His sufficient grace known from all eternity and predestined from all eternity in accordance with His all-embracing purpose.

.
Based on Scripture and the teachings of the Church, St. Thomas is clear that man cannot do anything spiritually without being moved by God’s efficacious grace.

With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.
.
This means that when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace) that infallibly produces the end (the act willed by God).
.
Although Scripture is clear that God grants man grace that he resists, this refers to sufficient grace and not efficacious grace.

If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient grace, and not an efficacious grace.

.
Probably the hardest theological fact for us to understand is; sometimes or if we are among the slow learners many times, God permits us to do acts of sins for the reason to convert our sins into good.

By suffer the consequences of our sins we are on the road to sainthood.

Through our sufferings caused by our sins, we all learn far better to be a saint than to be a sinner.
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
I know this is rather late, but recently I found this that has the best explanation.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top