predestination

[Contarini]

**

St. Augustine

also admits that this verse may be understood in many ways…
From “On Rebuke and Grace” (De Correptione et Gratis) …
Quote:
CHAP. 44.–IN WHAT WAY GOD WILLS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.

And what is written, that “He wills all men’ to be saved,” while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: “He wills all men to be saved,” is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. …

CHAP. 47.–ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PASSAGE, “WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.”

That, therefore, in our ignorance of who shall be saved, God commands us to will that all to whom we preach this peace may be saved, and Himself works this in us by diffusing that love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us,–may also thus be understood, that God wills all men to be saved, because He makes us to will this; just as “He sent the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father;” ’ that is, making us to cry, Abba, Father. (ibid, 15:47)

Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas seem to “nuance” this verse in the same manner as Calvin did, do they?**

First of all, I said “Calvinist” not “Calvin.” I’m comparing Aquinas with the Reformed tradition, of which Calvin is the most famous representative. Actually, both Thomas’s and Augustine’s arguments here could easily be made by Calvinists. Augustine’s two interpretations in particular are exactly the interpretations of Calvinists. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise. Augustine is indeed “nuancing” the text in a “Calvinist” manner. You’re citing excellent texts for my purposes and claiming that they support your argument. This is very confusing!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

itsjustdave1988:

Thomists assert efficient grace is that which cannot fail to bring about what it intends. However, I can’t find where St. Thomas taught this. Can you point out an example where he disusses this?

Thomists are not Thomas, just as Calvinists are not Calvin.

I know that. I am speaking of Thomas. I did not mention efficient and sufficient grace (which I think is a rather unhelpful idea and definitely moves Thomism closer to Calvinism). I’m not sure why you suddenly bring efficient and sufficient grace into it. St. Thomas does not clarify just how God moves in the human will without violating its freedom–that’s what gave rise to the Thomist/Molinist controversy, in which both sides claimed to be interpreting Aquinas (though I think it’s pretty clear that the Molinists were departing from him more than the Thomists, whose interpretation is compatible with what he says even though he doesn’t flesh it out).

Edwin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini:

Another point on the “all” business. St. Thomas Aquinas takes the “Calvinist” position on this.

For clarity then, perhaps you can explain the above for me. What in your words is the “Calvinist” position on this? Does it mean as St. Thomas wrote, “God will have all men to be saved,” to be referring to “God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts.” (*Summa Theologica, *I, 19, 6)? Because this the Catholic view which my Calvinist seminarian friend believes to be heretical. Consequently, the “L” in the Calvinist TULIP theology refers to “Limited Atonement”, meaning that Jesus is ths savior of only the elect, not the damned. Catholic theology (and St. Thomas) rejects this thesis. Instead, Jesus is the savior of each and every person and wills all men to be saved antecedently, but consequently wills some to be damned.

Grace comes into play because it related to Christ being the “Saviour of ALL men”, even those not among the elect.

Man has the free will, according to Catholic theology (and St. Thomas’ writings), to do evil or natural good without supernatural grace. Furthermore, those actually regenerated and justified can, by their free will, fail to persevere to the end, thereby, become damned eternally. So, Christ’s grace is poured out upon even the damned. That’s St. Thomas’ view of “free will” and the universality of grace. Is that the Calvinist view?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini:

This is very confusing!

I think it would be less confusing if you interpreted Augustine and Thomas in the context of all their works, not just in isolation as Calvinist do. You might pretend, if you will, that they were Catholic.

For example, Augustine thought all baptized are really saved, regenerated, & justified, right? Thus the grace of Christ’s work at Calvary MUST have been poured out upon them. If all baptized are “saved” as Augustine asserts, then doesn’t Augustine believe that Jesus is their savior? Yes. Now, does Augustine teach that each and every baptized person will be glorified eternally? No. Hmmmmm… You see what I’m getting at? Do Calvinists see Jesus as the savior of all in the same way that Augustine and Thomas do? To include even those who are non-elect? No.

 

[wjp984]

One thing that seems intersting to me is on whether God knows all including the futre and everything. Therefore, basically God knows which ones of us goes to Heaven and which ones of us are damned to Hell when he creates us. Being all knowing God knows exaclty what we are going to do at every moment in our lives but we still have the free choice to do it. God may already know the choices we are going to make and which people he creates that are going to refuse him and go to Hell, but we still have free will. So I don’t think their argument is valid in saying God creates people specifically to go to Hell but perhaps they got confused because God knows which ones are going to Hell before they are born.

 

[exoflare]

wjp984:

One thing that seems intersting to me is on whether God knows all including the futre and everything. Therefore, basically God knows which ones of us goes to Heaven and which ones of us are damned to Hell when he creates us. Being all knowing God knows exaclty what we are going to do at every moment in our lives but we still have the free choice to do it. God may already know the choices we are going to make and which people he creates that are going to refuse him and go to Hell, but we still have free will. So I don’t think their argument is valid in saying God creates people specifically to go to Hell but perhaps they got confused because God knows which ones are going to Hell before they are born.

I think you’ve nailed it.

 

[flameburns623]

amgid:

I Why? I don’t demand of you to read X number of books in order to debate with me. Why should you expect that of me? I take you as you are, and debate with you on the basis of what you already know, and educate you about what you don’t. My reading time is limited, and valuable. The kinds of books you are suggesting come way down in the list of my reading priorities. I don’t see why I should have to reprioritize my reading list just so I can debate with you. I reckon I can point out the flaws in your argument without having to do that!

amgid

The issue at stake here is that you have absorbed so much information from a freewill/pelagian/Arminian point of view that you really can’t ‘see’ things from the Augustinian/Calvinistic/Reformational perspective. Explaining things post-by-post is time consuming for me and I can’t always find good links to suggest in lieu of spending hours working on a good post. Reading time is finite for all of us, and I do understand that problem but it is difficult to give you responses to each and every last point you are raising when your exchanges pack so many things which I don’t presume into them. I read very widely and pretty quickly–a novel takes me about two or three hours usually, and more ‘serious’ reading rarely takes more than twice that, assume an average book length of between 150 to 250 pages. (Massive tomes like the Catechism of the Catholic Church take me a couple minutes longer, LOL ).

Perhaps this would help: Issues, ETC, a Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod broadcast, did a program just last Sunday on Eastern Orthodoxy. They went into some detail about Eastern Orhtodox soteriology. The broadcast may clarify things considerably and help you or others to see what folks who start from an Augustinian perspective are saying. Try this link:

kfuo.org/ie_main.htm

Look for Sunday night, February 5, 2006, the discussion with Mike Horton from the White Horse Inn broadcast, another program which comes out of a Reformational/Augustinian/Calvinistic vantage point. Since you’re apparently online a lot you may be able to listen as you ‘surf’, at least if you don’t have a ‘dial-up’ connection. (I have dial-up and so I have to choose between listening online or surfing the Web). I may see if some of our Eastern Orthodox brethren want to join this discussion or even start one in the Eastern Catholicism section to deal with some of Horton’s comments on Eastern Orthodoxy. Happy listening!

 

[Contarini]

But I don’t agree that loving your neighbor is a good thing because God has determined that it must be a good thing; and defrauding your neighbor is a bad thing because God has said that it is a bad thing. My reading of the scriptures seems to suggest that these are independent principles which God chooses to adhere to, rather than being what they are because God has determined them so to be.

If anything is “independent” of God, then God is not God but merely one god among many.

Traditional Christian theology (and this includes Calvin, BTW, though some misinterpret him on this point) teaches that moral goodness is an expression of God’s *nature. *Moral law is determined by God, but God could not determine otherwise without ceasing to be God. (Obviously there may be some cases where God could have determined otherwise–He could perhaps have created us with three sexes, in which case moral issues having to do with sex and marriage would have been rather different.)

Some late medieval theologians challenged this, but they were wrong.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Fall wrought great harm: man lost those supernatural and preternatural gifts, but not free will. **Without grace man can still know God and other speculative and moral truths, and can do naturally *good ***acts. But he cannot keep the whole natural law, without grace, for a long time. (Fr. John Hardon, Course on Grace)

“For the performance of a morally good action, Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide)” [Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

, pg 234]

"The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (sent. certa)" [ibid.]

"Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [ibid., 235]

St. Thomas likewise asserted:
Quote:
“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 … yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing” (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).

So I disagree that free will is understaood as Calvin understands it, either by St. Thomas or Thom*ist. *

I didn’t say it was. I said that simply saying “Aquinas believes in free will” doesn’t settle the question. The Thomist quotes you cite definitely differ from Calvinism. Calvinists, like Protestants generally, would argue that good fruit can’t come from a bad tree–you have to be good before you can do good actions.

On the other hand, it’s interesting that Aquinas does not (like the later Thomists you cite) use the phrase “moral” good. I’m not going to swear that he never says anything like that. But I recall his examples of natural good done without grace being mostly things like building houses, which Calvin also lists as the sort of “good” thing people can do without grace. I remember discussing this a long time ago with my old friend Tim Gray (a Scott Hahn student who now has a Bible study on EWTN), and he thought that Calvin and Aquinas weren’t too far apart on this (of course that tends to be the way folks like Hahn and Akin interpret Catholicism).

So I wouldn’t say that Aquinas is the same as Calvinism here. He’s certainly using the word “good” in a sense that would make them nervous. But we’d have to look more carefully at just what he means by “good actions” and in what sense they are “good” before deciding that there’s a huge difference. I’m honestly not sure about this.

Edwin

 

[amgid]

flameburns623:

The issue at stake here is that you have absorbed so much information from a freewill/pelagian/Arminian point of view . . .

That is not true. The information I have absorbed is neither Pelagian nor Arminian. It is derived from LDS theology and scripture, which is independent of them. Just because we and them believe in freewill, it does not mean that we have been influenced by them, or that our theology has been derived from their teachings. Our theology has an independent source—divine revelation. It has nothing to do with them. If you cannot accept that modern LDS scripture originates from a divine source, then you will naturally assume there must have been be other sources influencing its contents. But here is where we fundamentally disagree.

. . . that you really can’t ‘see’ things from the Augustinian/Calvinistic/Reformational perspective.

That is not quite true either. I don’t claim to be an expert on Calvinist theology; but I have read enough of Evangelical/Calvinist literature to have a pretty good idea were their reasoning lies, and I simply don’t agree with it. Their arguments are flawed. Simple as that.

Explaining things post-by-post is time consuming for me and I can’t always find good links to suggest in lieu of spending hours working on a good post.

Issues relating to religious matters, and theology, and the Divine, ultimately rest on what God has chosen to reveal to us about Himself, or on the subject matter we are discussing; and assuming that you are a Christian, that source of authoritative divine knowledge must be the Bible. (Tell me if I am wrong!) There is no need to read hundreds of books on the subject. If those books you are recommending tell us things that go beyond, or that cannot be determined from the real source of divine knowledge—the Bible—then they go beyond their mandate, and I don’t see why I should spend a lot of time on them. If, on the other hand, they only expound on and make clear what is taught in the Bible, then it shouldn’t be such a difficult thing for you to discuss them post by post here. If you have read all those books, and think that they give you a deeper insight on Biblical theology, then good for you. You have an advantage that I do not have. You bring all that great knowledge with you here to this board, and convince me verse by verse from the Bible that predestination is true and freewill is false, and I will believe you.

Perhaps this would help: Issues, ETC, a Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod broadcast, did a program just last Sunday on Eastern Orthodoxy. They went into some detail about Eastern Orhtodox soteriology. The broadcast may clarify things considerably and help you or others to see what folks who start from an Augustinian perspective are saying. Try this link:

kfuo.org/ie_main.htm

Look for Sunday night, February 5, 2006, the discussion with Mike Horton from the White Horse Inn broadcast, another program which comes out of a Reformational/Augustinian/Calvinistic vantage point. Since you’re apparently online a lot you may be able to listen as you ‘surf’, at least if you don’t have a ‘dial-up’ connection. (I have dial-up and so I have to choose between listening online or surfing the Web). I may see if some of our Eastern Orthodox brethren want to join this discussion or even start one in the Eastern Catholicism section to deal with some of Horton’s comments on Eastern Orthodoxy. Happy listening!

I will take a look, but won’t promise I will spend much time on them. As I said, I can pretty much anticipate the kind of things they are going to say, and I don’t see any reason to spend any time on it. You prove to me from the word of God that freewill doesn’t exist, or predestination is true, and I will accept it.

amgid

 

[Contarini]

Dave,

Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’ve had a very important job interview this week.

God according to St. Paul (1 Tim 2:4) “wills that all men be saved.”

This is understood as that which is antecedently willed. By this antecedent will, God desires that each and every human be saved. However, God, consequently wills that impenitent wicked men and those never born again from above are damned eternally.

Yes, but of course if you read what Thomas has to say about predestination in ST Part 1 Question 23, you’ll see that this “consequence” is itself chosen by God. The problem is that Aquinas uses very careful language to preserve God’s goodness and human free will (as he believes). So it’s easy to think he’s less “Calvinist” (more accurately “Augustinian”) than he actually is. I recommend Fr. Brian Davies’ book The Thought of Thomas Aquinas for a good overview.

To be clear, the is only one Divine act of will.

Exactly. This is one of the Calvinist concerns.

**

St. Thomas

explains how this relates to God’s will that all men are saved, here:
Quote:
The words of the Apostle “God will have all men to be saved,” etc. can be understood in three ways.

First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), “God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will.”

Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. my note: Calvinist view]

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place. (Summa Theologica, I, 19, 6)

**

Yes, this is one of the passages I had in mind–he also talks about it in his Biblical commentary.

I understand from the above that St. Thomas favors the 3rd interpretation by St. John Damascene.

Maybe, but it isn’t very clear. He appears to approve of all three as legitimate interpretations. He certainly does not reject the first two.

 

[Contarini]

One reason I haven’t responded sooner is that I wanted to check my view against some Calvinist theology. I looked at some selections from Francis Turretin’s *Institutio Elenchica *which is one of the classic summaries of “orthodox” Calvinism from the 17th century.

I realize that I’ve been vague in using the term “moderate Calvinism.” As far as I can tell, Turretin wouldn’t agree with the antecedent/consequent distinction, though I’m not sure about that. He disagrees with a position held by a French Reformed theologian named Amyrauld. Amyrauld held that God first wills the salvation of all, but only on condition that they repent and believe. Then (this of course is a logical sequence, not a chronological one) He wills to give some the gift of faith and pass over others. Thus, God genuinely desires the salvation of all in the sense that He desires that all who repent and believe should be saved.

This is pretty close to Thomas’s position, and it’s the kind of thing I had in mind as “moderate” Calvinism. It’s a bit more marginal than I thought, but Turretin acknowledges Amyrauld and his followers as “Reformed theologians” and “brothers” even though he disagrees with them. So I stand by my claim that there is a form of the Calvinist tradition that agrees with Thomas on this.

Furthermore, Amyrauld wasn’t half the theologian Thomas was, and his position wasn’t as well argued as it could have been, I think. The categories are different–Turretin wants to maintain the unity of the divine will, which is a concern shared by Aquinas. I don’t know what Turretin thought of Aquinas’s position–he would not have been well disposed toward any “Papist” view.

In summary, I’ll grant that the third view might raise hackles among the bulk of Calvinist theologians, but something even more problematic (in the minds of folks like Turretin) did find a place within the Reformed tradition–even if only a minority place.

As further evidence, elsewhere St. Thomas describes that each and every person is given a guardian angel by God:

Why would this occur under Calvin’s interpretation of “all men?” Although I gather that John Calvin also believed in guardian angels for “each individual.” But I’m not sure he meant to include the rebrobate as well, as St. Thomas clearly meant.

Calvin believed in guardian angels but didn’t like to talk about them because he thought it was too speculative.

Unquestionably there are significant differences between Thomas and Calvin(ism) with regard to the relationship between God’s decree of election/reprobation and the way it works out in time. Thomas has a much more nuanced appreciation of human free will and the contingent (though infallible) ways in which God accomplishes His inscrutable purposes.

But the fact is that in the passage you yourself cited Thomas mentions approvingly two clearly Calvinist interpretations of “all men,” and gives a third that is reconcilable with a moderate minority view within Calvinism (at the very least).

That’s what I’m saying. You can cite differences between Thomas and Calvin or Thomas and Calvinism all day long, and chances are I’ll agree with you.

Edwin

 

[amgid]

Contarini:

If anything is “independent” of God, then God is not God but merely one god among many.

I don’t see the logic behind that argument. I must disagree. That may be true of the God of philosophy, but not necessarily of the God of the Bible. For example, it is reasonably certain that the primitive church, as well as many of the ECFs, and also the ancient Jews, did not believe that God created everything out of nothing. They believed that He created the universe out of pre-existent matter. He possessed the wisdom, the intelligence, and the power necessary to take that unorganized matter, and transform it into the beautiful creation that we now see. Therefore matter, according to them, is an independent principle, and exists independent of God. But that did not lead them to conclude that “God is not God but merely one god among many”.

My reading of the scriptures is that the principles of good and evil, in their abstract form, likewise have an independent existence from God. God simply chooses to adhere totally to the principles of good, and reject totally the principle of evil. If He did not, He would loose his divine power and cease to be God. I don’t see how that theology would make God in any way less than God, or “one god among many,” as you have put it. It is not a valid argument.

Traditional Christian theology (and this includes Calvin, BTW, though some misinterpret him on this point) teaches that moral goodness is an expression of God’s nature. Moral law is determined by God, but God could not determine otherwise without ceasing to be God. (Obviously there may be some cases where God could have determined otherwise–He could perhaps have created us with three sexes, in which case moral issues having to do with sex and marriage would have been rather different.)

Some late medieval theologians challenged this, but they were wrong.

I am not out to dismiss traditional Christian theology outright, by any means. Great Christian theologians in the past, both Catholic and Protestant, have done a lot of good work in extracting, defining, classifying, cataloguing, and systematizing Christian theology; and their work deserves commendation and study. But their work cannot be considered infallible. There are two fundamental premises that I consider to be absolutely sacrosanct before any fruitful thinking or discussion on Christian theology can take place. They are:

(1) We can know only as much about God and His attributes as He chooses to make known to us by revelation. There is no other source, such as philosophy or science, out of which such information can be obtained. As Job said, no one “by searching” can “find out God” (Job 11:7). For a Christian, that source of divine knowledge I take to be the Bible. As a Mormon, I of course accept additional sources of divine knowledge beside the Bible, which consist of modern LDS scripture. But if you don’t want to accept that, then that is fine; for this purpose I am willing to confine it just to the Bible. But then bear in mind that gives me an advantage which you don’t have, because I will know something that you don’t know!

(2) We must consider the revealed word of God to be an infallible guide to a knowledge of Him and His attributes.
Given these basic premises, then although I have a lot of respect for traditional Christian theological thinking, I cannot accept it as an infallible guide. I must test its assumptions by my understanding of the word of God. If I find that they agree, or of it adduces scriptural evidence in affirmation of its conclusions that are convincing, then I will accept it. If it does not, then I do not feel obliged to accept it. And if I find that it outright contradicts it, then I will also outright reject it. That is how I approach traditional Christian theological thinking.

amgid

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini:

… … He certainly does not reject the first two.

I think you are missing the distinction I’m trying to make. Thomas certainly does not understand any of the views as the Calvinists do.

Here’s my understanding of the Calvnist view, in St. Thomas’ words:

can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition.

Although Calvinists would use these same words, the Calvinist interpretation of this view is that “all men” who are saved are ONLY those among the elect, right? The “i” in TULIP = “irresistible grace” and the “L” is “limited atonement.” Thus, for Calvinists, that’s what “saved” means. Jesus did not share the grace of atonement with the reprobate. Is this St. Thomas view? No.

The problem is that Calvinists read Thomas and Augustine with their biased spectacles, and presume “saved” means nothing else but “predestined to eternal glory” or “elect.” However, both Thomas and Augustine held the Catholic view that Baptism truly saves. Thus, “saved” in their Catholic view includes the reprobate who are truly regenerated by the saving grace of baptism, but do not persevere in that grace. If you look at this context, it is clear that both men refute the Calvinist view that “all men” who are “saved” are necessarily only those who are the elect. In other words, Jesus saves (for a time) even the reprobate, and in that sense, Jesus is truly understood to be their Savior. “All men” according to St. Thomas must include those who are reprobate. In otherwords, the universality of saving grace includes even the reprobate, contrary to the Calvinist view of “all men.”

St. Thomas teaches explicitly that God gives grace to some, who He does not give the gift of perseverance.

“For to many grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is not given.” (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 10)

This means real justifying grace in the context of St. Thomas’ works.

Is this congruent with the Calvinist interpretation that “all men” whom Jesus saves? Don’t Calvinists teach that Christ is the savior of all men, meaning only the elect and consequently, the grace of Calvary is given only to the elect and not the reprobate?

From Easton’s Bible Dictionary (Calvinist):

Perseverance of the saints - their certain continuance in a state of grace. Once justified and regenerated, the believer can neither totally nor finally fall away from grace, but ***will certainly persevere therein and attain everlasting life. ***

When Calvnists interpret that Jesus is the Savior of all men, they mean ONLY the elect.

However, the grace which only comes from Calvary is given to even the reprobate, according to St. Thomas, right? Is this in any way congruent with any form of Calvinism’s view of “all men”?

Remember what St. Thomas (and St. Augustine) taught about Baptism, that those baptized are truly regenerated and justified, and forgiven of all sins. By what? The GRACE of justificaiton/regeneration, the GRACE of Christ’s atonement at Calvary. Yet, do you think St. Thomas teaches that all those baptized and given the real grace of justification are necessarily given the grace of perseverance?

One cannot simply say that Calvnists agree with Thomas on free-will and “all men” who are saved by Jesus. This is clearly inaccurate once you take the context of Thomas’ teachings into consideration.

The reprobate, according to St. Thomas (and St. Augustine) includes those *GRACE-FILLED AND TRULY JUSTIFIED AND REGENERATED BELIEVERS *who by free will, voluntarily act contrary to God’s will in such a way that they commit mortal sin which removes charity within them. That’s one aspect of “free will” that Calvinist deny can happen, as for them all justifying grace is irresistible grace.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Furthermore, Calvinists also deny that men without justifying grace can freely will to do good. Yet, St. Thomas calls all voluntary human acts “moral acts.” He asserts, “moral acts are the same as human acts” (ST, IIa, 1, 3). Thus, there’s no distinction between natural good acts of humans and morally good acts, in St. Thomas’ view. St. Thomas (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2) and St. Augustine both deny that fallen man is so totally deprave, so corrupt so as to not be able to do at least some good naturally (ie. by their natural gifts from God apart from supernatural gifts such as justifying grace).

St. Augustine asserted:

"If, however, we do naturally the things that are of the law (Rom 3:21) are not yet to be included in the number of those whom the grace of Christ justifies." (St. Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, 27,48)

“… since the image of God has not, even until now, been so completely erased in the human soul by the stain of earthly affections that nothing even of its barest outlines remains, whence it can rightly be said that man, even in the very impiety of his life, knows and does something of the law… [yet] some good works are of no avail for the advancement of an impious man to eternal salvation; for it would be most difficult to find the life of anyone, even the worst of sinners, without some good works” (ibid.)

Calvinists deny this aspect of “free will,” dont’ they? Those without justifying grace, according to Calvinism, can only do evil, right?

 

[Justice2006]

To all,

**Predestination **is a very delicate issue that can deceive anyone, if it is seen **‘out of CONTEXT’ **.

What I mean by ‘out of CONTEXT’’ is if you try to “solve” it just based on rational point of view and **free/loose thinking ** by leaving or forgetting all other matters/issues that are intrinsic, related and attached to man’s life.

So, before I go further, it is appropriate here to qoute the poetic-words of Dr. Iqbal:

**Free thinking ** can bring 'bout the ruin
Of those whose thoughts are low and mean
They don’t possess the mode and style
Of though that may be chaste and clean.

If thoughts are raw and immature
No good accrues to man in least:
The utmost. that such thoughts can do
Is change of wan to state of beast

What is most important to know and must realise is:

First, man is not **‘absolutely free’ ** and there is no such a thing as **‘absolute freedom’ ** in any sphere/area of human life (individual or collective life).
God gave man a **limited freedom ** only and within that limited freedom he is accountable on the day of Judgement and not on issues/matters in which God Himself has not given the freedom to man.

Second, we do not know ** what is God’s whole/entire/complete Wisdom of creation. He, as ‘the Creator’, obviously know and we as His creation did not, do not and will never be able to know. In order to know His whole/entire/complete Wisdom of creation, you have to have the capacity to grasp the whole nine-yards of His Whole Knowledge/Wisdom and since we don’t have, thus it is impossible. This is unknowable. This is a matter of Unseen (in Arabic it called : Al-Ghaib**).

Besides, we are in a physical and limited stage of our existence which is bound by so many restrictions/laws and these restrictions/laws reminds us all the time that we are not really totally/absolutely free.

So what is predestination then? and What is not?

Our main events of our existence, like birth and death are already written. No one can avoid/change that and at the same time no one knows when, where and how.

What is –appeared to us–left unwritten is man’s actions that are going to happen, in the future according to man’s given ability to act based on his limited free will and choice. This limited free will and choice ** too is given by God. It is His permission and it is not man’s own ‘property’.**

So, our destiny is already determined in a sense that:

Man is going to act according to God’s permission of **limited free will and choice ** given to man. The permission itself is not man’s property.
So whatever would be the result of man’s future actions is based on God’s Predetermination/Law which is **already set ** by God and He never changes His Way, as He said in the Koran:

It is the law of Allah which hath taken course aforetime. Thou wilt not find for the law of Allah aught of power to change. — ( The Glorious Quran 48:23 )
​

Had He not set the Laws/Predetermination, our action’s physical results would be either unpridictable or not comprehendable or there would be a chaos everywhere. Laws like cause and effect/or where there is a action, there is a reaction/or every advantage has a disadvantage etc.​

cont…

.

 

[Justice2006]

(cont)

Had He not set the Laws/Predetermination, our action’s physical results would be either unpridictable or not comprehendable or there would be a chaos everywhere. Laws like cause and effect/or where there is a action, there is a reaction/or every advantage has a disadvantage etc.

Now, just imagine if these laws of God were not in existence, what could have happened or what would be the scenario without His Laws?
Obviously the situation would be more mysterious/unpridictable than we can think of / have now.
But since there are such Laws that God has already set forth/placed and He doesn’t change them, thus based on His permission of limited free will and choice given to man, our destination too is already determined.

But, what God has decided for every issue/matter related to our existence is **not known ** and cannot be known for sure. So, see what the Koran has to say:

"It may be that you hate something when it is good for you and it may be that you love something when it is bad for you. God knows and you do not know." -------(The Glorious Quran 2:216)

Thus, to say that we have to believe in the Predestination ( Arabic: Qadr ) of being good (khair) or bad (sharr) * of our actions is purley rational and makes perfect sense and this is exactly what is required in the articles of faith of Islam.

But if somone stretch this issue (of Predestination) by leaving or forgetting the CONTEXT, then it is highly likely that he will misunderstand the Islamic view of Predestiniation and can deceive himself.​

.*

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

exoflare:

If God’s will “always” comes to pass, wouldn’t that contradict human free will altogether? Otherwise, you’re saying that God actually wants people to sin.

God’s Will is* always* done - even when it is done by His working in men so that their wicked purposes fulfil His good purposes even despite their intentions.​

Calvin illustrates this by the case of Joseph’s brethren. They sold him into slavery out of malice and envy - but God worked through their wickedness:

• to punish Joseph for his boastfulness and vanity
• to put him in a position where he could be raised from dishonour, to become second in honour to Pharaoh
• and so, be in a position to help his brothers in their time of need
• and so, be able to be reunited with them - and his father - once more.

This is an excellent example of how “all things work together for good, to those who love God” - and it is in full accord with Catholic doctrine, AFAICS

It is an example of the sovereignty, providence, and wisdom of God, which nothing can evade or withstand ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Robert in SD:

No argument here.
Again, no argument.
Could not disagree more. Greek philosophy included free will and deterministic theories. St. Paul is the source for Catholic teaching on free will. See the New Advent discussion of free will at the following link:

New Advent - Free Will.

The discussion includes the following quote:

They have both. It is precisely *because *humans have free will that they have culpability for their sins. If there were no free will, there would be no culpability.

Yes, he has allowed His Church to teach us in the matter, and the church concludes as stated in my earlier posts, that God desires for all to be saved, but salvation requires our participation, and free will results in some not acheiving salvation.

One other thought: Some earlier posts argue that if God wants all to be saved, why would He not simply save all, therefore He obviously does not want all to be saved. The argument fails to note the distinction between God’s love for ALL of His creation - giving rise to His desire for universal salvation, and His infinite Justice - which results in the damnation of those who, by their free will, decide not to attain the salvation that God makes available to all.

BUT - no one can be lost, if God did not allow, or rather positively so rule. This where the Catholic case is very weak, and needs to be filled out ​

-Peace

What flameburn is denying in using the term “free will”, is not what the CC is asserting when she insists on it.​

Same term - but two different things are meant. ##

 

[BryPGuy89]

I’m a little late into this so if I say something already said please tell me what post number so I can look over the posts please.

On the subject I beleive and have come to understand the teachings of the subject that we have free will on earth yes, but God is above the dimensions of time and thus knows our decisions though they be of free will they are in a sence predetermined.