D
Doghouse
Guest
Right, wrong or otherwise…this is my understanding as a lay Catholic…Thank you for your reply, Father. I like the example you gave and it is certainly helpful but I’m still confused.
Would this statement be fair? - God wills all of us to Heaven and gives all the sufficient grace to achieve salvation. Some will accept it, some will not.
If this is a fair statement, and God knows of someone who will choose to reject his grace, how is that not double predestination? God knows that the individual will reject him and go to Hell. Yes, he had the grace to choose otherwise, but God knew that person would reject it. I’m sorry if I’m making this to be more complex than it is.
God does indeed “foreknow” all that will ever be. That does not mean that I can possibly foreknow the very same thing. To me…it all looks like choice. This is the reality God has given me…an apparent choice from among options, using reason and a rational mind, free to choose what it decides. Never-mind that it is possible for God to foreknow every choice that I will ever make…this omniscience is not my reality (one of the reasons is because I am a temporal creature, and God is an eternal one…but that’s another thread, I suppose)
The error in a hard-line view and belief of predestination the way that some Christians express it (Calvinists/Presbyterians, as an example) is that there cannot be charity within predestined acts, because charity requires choice - doing the act of charity as opposed to the choice of not doing the act of charity…is what makes something “charitable”.
There is no love if there is no choice.
Love has to be a choice, freely made, from options available, by the mind (or heart) and willed into actions. The author of “predestination” as some view it (the elect and the reprobate) was John Calvin, who in a knee-jerk reaction to some abuses going on with an improper practice of indulgences, dismissed the requirement of charity from Christianity. He then followed this dismissal with an attempt at rationalization, which is from where we all get TULIP and hard-nosed Calvinism.
If love and charity were not a requirement and a value of Christianity, it means God has created us as pre-programmed, mindless mechanisms.
If I make a little robot, and program that robot to “love” me, does the robot really “love” me, or does it simply reflect what it has been programmed to do? No doubt that grace is required for us to “love”, but grace allows this to happen, and may influence the choice required. We are not reflecting programming when we love, we are making a free choice, utilizing a rational mind, and engaging a free will…a will that is equally enabled and empowered to choose wrongly, as well.
This freedom and this choice is what defines love. I choose this over all other candidates vying for my choice. God asks us to consider Him in this exercise.
That’s how I explain it. Calvinism, to me, is one of the graver more serious innovations of Christianity, because it abandons the very thing that is absolutely essential to understanding Christianity, and that thing is a faith in God working through charity.