The Immaculate Conception vs. Free Will (Predestination question)

[rcwhiteh]

The single point of Catholic doctrine with which I struggle most involves the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

In a nutshell, the Church teaches that Sts. Anne and Joachim conceived Mary without original sin; thus, she was fit to bear the Savior. (I can only imagine that conception without original sin is the kind of thing that requires a direct intervention by God to accomplish; I can’t think of anything a couple could do on their own that would ensure the similar conception of their own child.)

Now, according to the Catholic Answers tract “Immaculate Conception and Assumption” (catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp), when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary at the Annunciation and called her “full of grace”, we read that the original Greek used the word “kecharitomene”, the perfect passive participle of “charitoo”, meaning “to fill or endow with grace”. The tract goes on to say, "Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence."

I don’t speak Greek, so reading the relevant passages in Scripture would avail me nothing if they weren’t in English; nonetheless, something in this explanation gives me pause. Exactly what in the Greek Scripture gives credence to the idea that kecharitomene extended from Mary’s conception to the Annunciation? If it is true - and I’m not arguing that it isn’t - could this be seen as invalidating mankind’s free will?

I can see how the argument could hold water; I think it would depend on whether or not Mary was the only child so conceived prior to the conception of the Savior. If God had intervened in this fashion for only Mary, then it follows that God had predestined her to be the Theotokos (“bearer of God”), which would make the choice offered her at the Annunciation moot - she would only be doing what she was predestined to do.

If God intervened in a number of conceptions so that Mary was one of a number of young virgins from which He could choose, then free will remains viable.

Alternatively, suppose God sought a young virgin to bear His Son and found Mary acceptable. Suppose further that when He found Mary, he immediately infused her with grace such that the stain of original sin was utterly washed away - as though it had never happened. Then He sends Gabriel with the good news. Kecharitomene could still be used validly, since the infusion with grace happened before the Annunciation. (Isn’t this what the Orthodox teach?)

Since I believe that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has to be true because the Church teaches it and Christ would never allow His Church to fall into doctrinal error - some people think I’m either gullible or stupid for believing this, but there it is - there has to be an objective, solidly logical argument that not only makes sense but which is incontrovertible.

Folks, this is the one doctrine that really breaks my teeth. Has anyone got a better line on this than what I’ve posited?

 

[Della]

I’m no Greek scholar, either, but those who are tell us that the rendering of kecharitomene means “one who is filled with grace,” so Mary was filled with grace before Gabriel appeared to her. And when did that happen? The Church teaches us that it was at the moment of her conception because it was fitting that the Mother of the Messiah, the Son of God, be perfect.

As to Mary’s free will being negated by the Immaculate Conception, that is not at all the case. Adam and Eve were also created without sin. They had free will, and so did Mary. She could have refused Gabriel’s proposal because she was a free agent not a puppet.

Mary, however, had no desire to sin within her–God did this for her because she would not only give birth to his Son, but because she was the Second Eve, the Mother of the New Covenant of humans made a new creation in Christ her Son.

 

[Atreyu]

Reconciling free will and omnipotence can be quite a hard task. However, if you can reconcile these two things in the case of Mary, then you should be well on your way to reconciling these things for all cases. In other words, the case of Mary is a real litmus test for the reconciling of free will and omnipotence in general.

In this post, I will try to show that free will is not negated by the omnipotence of God. I will not be proving that Mary had free will, rather I will try to show that the teaching on free will is reasonable.

To start with, I will say that you were correct when you said:

If God had intervened in this fashion for only Mary, then it follows that God had predestined her to be the Theotokos

but your mistake comes straight after, when you said:

which would make the choice offered her at the Annunciation moot - she would only be doing what she was predestined to do.

No, this is incorrect. God of course knew what Mary’s choice as going to be, as He is omnipotent. But in no way does this make Mary’s choice “moot”, nor does it say in any way that Mary had no choice at all.

Picture this: I videotape a friend of mind (Bob) and ask him to say “yes” or “no”. He answers yes. Later on, a second friend of mine (Bill) is watching the videotape. I know what Bob is going to say to my question, but Bill doesn’t know. Bob could have said either “yes” or “no” - he had a choice. But from my perspective in watching the videotape later on, Bob is predestined to say “yes”.

From this analogy, I am God (strictly in the analogy!!!), and Bob is Mary. Bill is the rest of us, looking back at what happened. As God is omnipotent, not only has he “made” the videotape, but He’s already seen it as well (they go hand-in-hand). So God knows exactly what Mary will do when she is faced with the choice of “yes” or “no” at the Annunciation. Indeed, this is why she had the choice in the first place: because God knew that she would say yes. However, Mary still has to make that choice. Just because God knows the choice she will make in no way means that she had no choice at all.

Does that make sense? Mary indeed was predestined to be the Theotokos, but in no way does this negate her free will.

 

[rcwhiteh]

I’m no Greek scholar, either, but those who are tell us that the rendering of kecharitomene means “one who is filled with grace,” so Mary was filled with grace before Gabriel appeared to her. And when did that happen? The Church teaches us that it was at the moment of her conception because it was fitting that the Mother of the Messiah, the Son of God, be perfect.

I said as much in the original post, I think; the problem I see with the statement that “it was fitting for her to be perfect” is the contention that she was perfect from her very conception. I’m not going to argue that she wasn’t - being a faithful Catholic, I know better than to publicly express doubt in doctrine - but I want to know precisely what it was about what Gabriel said that “backdates” Mary’s perfection that far.

My wife, who is a cradle Catholic (I’m a convert), says that the doctrine was revealed to one of the Popes; I’m just a little bit skeptical of personal revelation that becomes doctrine. After all, the Koran was supposed to have been communicated directly to Mohammed by Allah…

Adam and Eve were also created without sin. They had free will, and so did Mary. She could have refused Gabriel’s proposal because she was a free agent not a puppet. Mary, however, had no desire to sin within her–God did this for her because she would not only give birth to his Son, but because she was the Second Eve, the Mother of the New Covenant of humans made a new creation in Christ her Son.

I’m not certain that drawing direct comparisons between Mary and Eve are valid, since the Catholic Church does not teach that the events described in Genesis are to be taken literally; instead, Genesis teaches certain valuable salvation truths (God created the world and all its creatures, including Man; Man fell from grace by sin; etc.).

Even if the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall of Man is literally true, it still raises the question, “Why would God create Adam and Eve with the desire to sin?” If conception without sin protected Mary from falling into sin, it stands to reason that Adam and Eve would have had similar protection, but they didn’t - the Serpent was able to cause Eve to doubt God.

I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that to have free will is to have the ability to choose what is sinful. If Mary had free will, she had to have been free to choose sin; it is possible that she never chose to sin, but she had to be free to do so.

I appreciate your reply, Della, but you’ve taken a few shortcuts that my desire to understand is not willing to take. I do not question the doctrine, but I am on a quest to understand the truth of the doctrine.

 

[rcwhiteh]

God of course knew what Mary’s choice was going to be, as He is omnipotent. But in no way does this make Mary’s choice “moot”, nor does it say in any way that Mary had no choice at all.

I take it you mean “omniscience”, not omnipotence.

Does that make sense? Mary indeed was predestined to be the Theotokos, but in no way does this negate her free will.

Okay, let’s get a couple of things straight: First of all, there’s the Calvinist view of predestination, which states that some people are going to go to Heaven when they die, regardless of their choices in life, because God has foreordained it. Calvin went on to proclaim that some people are going to go to Hell when they die, even if they are the most faithful, clean-living, obedient Christians ever born, because God has foreordained it. This is called “double predestination”, and it is not the viewpoint of the Catholic Church, which teaches that the only “predestination” that is valid is the idea that those who die in God’s favor will go to Heaven, and that those who do not will go to Hell. The destinations of the sinful and the saved are already known; it’s up to you which group you want to be in.

Second, “omniscience” does not mean that God knows everything; it means that there is nothing that God may not know. In simpler terms, you can’t hide anything from God. It does not follow that God actively knows all things, merely that He can know all things.

Third, God is eternal, which doesn’t mean that He has existed since the dawn of Time and will continue to exist forever; it means that He exists outside Time. If He is eternal, then it isn’t a question of His being able to move through Time in any direction; it means that past, present and future have no meaning to Him at all. If this is true (and I maintain that it is), then God sees all of Time at once.

To balance free will against God’s omniscience, you have to understand His eternal nature. With regard to your personal life, God knows all the choices you face in your life; He also knows the consequences of each of those choices. What He does not know is what you are “going to do” - because the idea of past, present and future have no meaning outside of Time.

This means, therefore, that God does not know if you are “going to go” to Heaven when you die. When you reach the end of your life and enter Eternity, you’ll be where your choices took you; it is at that point that God knows where you are - you’re either with Him or someplace less pleasant.

Now: If Mary truly had free will - and we generally believe that she did - she must have had the ability and the opportunity to say no. God being eternal, He couldn’t know what her decision would be. Therefore, your assertion that God knew what Mary’s answer was “going to be” would conflict with her free will. You can’t have Calvin’s predestination and free will; the Church says so.

So we find ourselves with what I said originally:

I think it would depend on whether or not Mary was the only child so conceived prior to the conception of the Savior. If God had intervened in this fashion for only Mary, then it follows that God had predestined her to be the Theotokos (“bearer of God”), which would make the choice offered her at the Annunciation moot - she would only be doing what she was predestined to do.

But this violates free will.

If God intervened in a number of conceptions so that Mary was one of a number of young virgins from which He could choose, then free will remains viable.

But this flies in the face of our understanding of God’s eternal nature.

Alternatively, suppose God sought a young virgin to bear His Son and found Mary acceptable. Suppose further that when He found Mary, he immediately infused her with grace such that the stain of original sin was utterly washed away - as though it had never happened. Then He sends Gabriel with the good news. Kecharitomene could still be used validly, since the infusion with grace happened before the Annunciation. (Isn’t this what the Orthodox teach?)

This strains against God’s eternal nature a bit; it’s possible for God to intervene directly in Man’s affairs (that’s what miracles are), and we know that He has done this multiple times in the past (and probably does today), but such interventions are usually very brief.

Ultimately, it may simply fall into the realm of those questions we call mysteries. My wife’s response to my line of reasoning was simple: “Ask Him when you see Him.” (She was trying to go to sleep.) I’d like to know before I see Him, if that’s possible.

A worthy effort, Atreyu, but the explanation was crippled by inherent conflict. Thanks very much for your reply.

 

[st_lucy]

I know better than to publicly express doubt in doctrine - but I want to know precisely what it was about what Gabriel said that “backdates” Mary’s perfection that far.

My wife, who is a cradle Catholic (I’m a convert), says that the doctrine was revealed to one of the Popes; I’m just a little bit skeptical of personal revelation that becomes doctrine.

I just posted the ECF belief on another thread and I will do that here as well.

The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Justin Martyr

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course that was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) (Dialogue with Trypho 100 [A.D. 155]).

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).

Hippolytus

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).

Ephraim the Syrian

You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is neither blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A. D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan

Come, then, and search out your sheep, not through your servants or hired men, but do it yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sarah but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace had made inviolate, free of every stain of sin (Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory Nazianzen

He was conceived by the virgin, who had been first purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor (Sermon 38 [d. A.D. 390]).

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Theodotus of Ancrya

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns (Homily 6:11[ante A.D. 446]).

Proclus of Constantinople

As He formed her without any stain of her own, so He proceeded from her contracting no stain (Homily 1[ante A.D. 446]).

Jacob of Sarug

[T]he very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary, if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary[ante A.D. 521].

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

 

[VociMike]

It does not follow that God actively knows all things, merely that He can know all things.
…
God being eternal, He couldn’t know what her decision would be.

Umm, help me out here. God can know all things, but He could not know Mary’s decision?

 

[Della]

I said as much in the original post, I think; the problem I see with the statement that “it was fitting for her to be perfect” is the contention that she was perfect from her very conception. I’m not going to argue that she wasn’t - being a faithful Catholic, I know better than to publicly express doubt in doctrine - but I want to know precisely what it was about what Gabriel said that “backdates” Mary’s perfection that far.

Gabriel’s address to Mary doesn’t “backdate” anything. He was only stating the simple truth of the matter–that Mary was “full of grace.” When one is full of something one cannot be also full of something else. Besides, this verse isn’t the only reference from Scripture to support the Immaculate Conception, nor does the Church teach a Sola Scriptura position. I think you need a better understanding of Sacred Tradition and the Bible’s place in it so that you can understand not only the teaching we’re discussing but many others, as well.

My wife, who is a cradle Catholic (I’m a convert), says that the doctrine was revealed to one of the Popes; I’m just a little bit skeptical of personal revelation that becomes doctrine. After all, the Koran was supposed to have been communicated directly to Mohammed by Allah…

With all due respect to your wife, that’s not the case. It was confirmed and declared by Pius IX as dogma, but it was believed for centuries and approved by many popes. It took no special revelation to anyone for the Church to accept the Immaculate Conception as true.

I’m not certain that drawing direct comparisons between Mary and Eve are valid, since the Catholic Church does not teach that the events described in Genesis are to be taken literally; instead, Genesis teaches certain valuable salvation truths (God created the world and all its creatures, including Man; Man fell from grace by sin; etc.).

I’m afraid you’ve been given some misinformation here. The Catholic Church does not teach that the creation account, especially of Adam and Eve, are not to be taken literally. By literally the Church does not mean literalistically, however, which is something else altogether. There are theologians and Bible scholars who believe the accounts to be mere myth, but the Church does not teach that.

Even if the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall of Man is literally true, it still raises the question, “Why would God create Adam and Eve with the desire to sin?” If conception without sin protected Mary from falling into sin, it stands to reason that Adam and Eve would have had similar protection, but they didn’t - the Serpent was able to cause Eve to doubt God.

He didn’t create Adam and Eve with the desire to sin. We, their descendants, are born with the desire to sin because of the fall. Mary, however, was preserved free of this wound of mankind.

I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that to have free will is to have the ability to choose what is sinful. If Mary had free will, she had to have been free to choose sin; it is possible that she never chose to sin, but she had to be free to do so.

She was perfectly free to decide to do anything she wanted to do whether it be a sinful act or not. God did not take her free will away from her anymore than he took Jesus’ free will from him, merely because he had a human nature. Human nature was never meant to be wounded, as it is for us, you see. Jesus and Mary are the Second Adam and Eve because they both were conceived without sin and without the wound of concupiscence (the desire to sin). That does not mean, however that they could not have sinned, but rather that it wasn’t in their nature to sin, which is quite another matter. You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing Jesus and Mary’s natures with those of fallen human beings and making assumptions based on that misunderstanding.

I appreciate your reply, Della, but you’ve taken a few shortcuts that my desire to understand is not willing to take. I do not question the doctrine, but I am on a quest to understand the truth of the doctrine.

I hope I have connected some of the dots for you. But no one can make this dogma live for you except God. Pray for enlightenment of the heart in this matter and the Holy Spirit will give it to you. I’ve had to ask for it about many such issues, too, and I’ve always found that God came through for me.

 

[rcwhiteh]

Umm, help me out here. God can know all things, but He could not know Mary’s decision?

No, but God being omniscient, He could know of Mary’s devotion and willingness to serve Him; thus, He could give the choice to the one person who heart was so perfectly open to Him that even though she had free will to say no, the very thought of saying no was never seriously entertained.

In that respect, Mary’s free will is intact, but it still begs the question about God causing her to be conceived without sin in preparation for becoming the Theotokos. If she was the only child of her generation so conceived, it brings predestination into the picture, which the Church rejects.

I readily admit that I may be proceeding from conflicting premises; I’m looking for someone to point them out to me.

 

[rcwhiteh]

The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary was full of grace and thus sinless.

Actually, Ambrose of Milan’s Commentary on Psalm 118:22-30 is the first really relevant one I see; the rest sort of fall into line behind Ambrose right up to Romanos the Melodist’s On the Birth of Mary.

Romanos’ description of the news that Anna had conceived immaculately is interesting, especially that he wrote this more than half a millennium after the fact. This piques my interest, because it points to knowledge that Anne and Joachim knew that she was carrying an immaculate child; how they knew that I just have to know. Where can I find On the Birth of Mary?

[sign]Thanks![/sign]

 

[VociMike]

If she was the only child of her generation so conceived, it brings predestination into the picture, which the Church rejects.

I readily admit that I may be proceeding from conflicting premises; I’m looking for someone to point them out to me.

I’m still confused. Are you claiming that God could not have been certain of Mary’s choice without forcing her to make the choice He willed?

Are you saying that predestination means compulsion? What does predestination mean to you?

 

[rcwhiteh]

I’m still confused. Are you claiming that God could not have been certain of Mary’s choice without forcing her to make the choice He willed? Are you saying that predestination means compulsion? What does predestination mean to you?

I’ll have to refer you to my previous posting where I reply to Atreyu; I don’t have time right now to retype it.

In essence, I’m saying that Calvinistic predestination negates free will, which is why the Catholic Church rejects it. If predestination were a fact - if we didn’t have free will - then all the “choices” we encountered in our lives wouldn’t be real, and we’d all be automatons.

 

[cienwen]

I may be way off here but the break in the logic seems to be with your concept of God.

Third, God is eternal, which doesn’t mean that He has existed since the dawn of Time and will continue to exist forever; it means that He exists outside Time. If He is eternal, then it isn’t a question of His being able to move through Time in any direction; it means that past, present and future have no meaning to Him at all. If this is true (and I maintain that it is), then God sees all of Time at once.

And

With regard to your personal life, God knows all the choices you face in your life; He also knows the consequences of each of those choices. What He does not know is what you are “going to do” - because the idea of past, present and future have no meaning outside of Time.

This argument is illogical. It contradicts itself. The idea that God may see all time at once yet not what we consider to be the future makes no sense. If God can see all time at once that means he sees past, present and future. Even though He may be outside of time (eternal) I do not see how you can thus conclude that he does not know of the concept. In other words, time may not affect Him but he may know that it affects us.

If you stick to the logic that God does not know the future, how do you rationalize the idea of Prophecy in the Bible?

I think that most of us here believe that God, even though he is outside/unaffected by time, he knows our future actions. When you believe that, the whole free-will and Mary thing makes sense.

 

[Atreyu]

I take it you mean “omniscience”, not omnipotence.

Yeah, I did. Sorry about that. Actually I should have been talking about God’s eternal nature, but not quite as you defined it below.

Second, “omniscience” does not mean that God knows everything; it means that there is nothing that God may not know. In simpler terms, you can’t hide anything from God. It does not follow that God actively knows all things, merely that He can know all things.

I disagree.

Third, God is eternal, which doesn’t mean that He has existed since the dawn of Time and will continue to exist forever; it means that He exists outside Time. If He is eternal, then it isn’t a question of His being able to move through Time in any direction; it means that past, present and future have no meaning to Him at all. If this is true (and I maintain that it is), then God sees all of Time at once.

Yes, in a way.

To balance free will against God’s omniscience, you have to understand His eternal nature. With regard to your personal life, God knows all the choices you face in your life; He also knows the consequences of each of those choices. What He does not know is what you are “going to do” - because the idea of past, present and future have no meaning outside of Time.

OK here is where I disagree. God does indeed know everything that we are going to do, as like you said, He exists outside of time. I think some of your problems stem from this misunderstanding of God’s eternal nature.

Now: If Mary truly had free will - and we generally believe that she did - she must have had the ability and the opportunity to say no.

Indeed she did. In fact, she had the exact same choice as Eve before her. Eve chose no, as Mary chose yes. Both of these women were born without the stain of Original Sin clouding their judgement. God knew the choices both would make before they made them, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t make that choice.

God being eternal, He couldn’t know what her decision would be.

Indeed as God is eternal, He does and did know what their decisions would be.

Therefore, your assertion that God knew what Mary’s answer was “going to be” would conflict with her free will. You can’t have Calvin’s predestination and free will; the Church says so.

We don’t have Calvin’s predestination, but we do have predestination. Like Mike said, how does predestination imply compulsion? It doesn’t.

A worthy effort, Atreyu, but the explanation was crippled by inherent conflict. Thanks very much for your reply.

Cheers. Unlike others here (I’m thinking of you, VociMike), I’m learning this subject as I go. Therefore I may well have made mistakes, even where I claimed that you have made a mistake. But this is the way I see things, and so hopefully someone else will correct me if it’s my understanding that is wrong.

 

[Atreyu]

In essence, I’m saying that Calvinistic predestination negates free will, which is why the Catholic Church rejects it. If predestination were a fact - if we didn’t have free will - then all the “choices” we encountered in our lives wouldn’t be real, and we’d all be automatons.

This is correct, if you added the word “Calvin’s” after the word “If” at the start of your second sentence. Predestination is a fact, but one that is not well understood (least of all by me). Try wading through this page some time.

 

[rcwhiteh]

This is correct, if you added the word “Calvin’s” after the word “If” at the start of your second sentence. Predestination is a fact, but one that is not well understood (least of all by me). Try wading through this page some time.

I did read that entry, and the way I understood what the article said merely confirms what I said originally about the difference between Calvin’s view of predestination (which is heresy) and the Catholic view.

Essentially: Predestination is correctly described when one understands that God has foreordained that all who die in His favor will see Him. The difference between the correct doctrine and Calvin’s heresy is that Calvin believed that certain individuals were condemned - before they were ever conceived - to a life of sin and eventual damnation, which would mean that God was a source of sin. Conversely, certain individuals would see God; in both cases, universal free will takes a hit it can’t recover from.

What makes Catholic doctrine correct is that each of us must accept God’s justification, conform ourselves to His will, and persevere until our death to be among the elect. Free will has to have its say because if God is going to make all the decisions for you, your choice is worthless to Him. He desires our love and devotion, but he wants us to want to love Him, not because He programs us that way; the love of a robot means nothing.

 

[rcwhiteh]

OK here is where I disagree. God does indeed know everything that we are going to do, as like you said, He exists outside of time.

Well, this is an issue I wrestled with for a long time; it was not until I read some of Scott Hahn’s work (and Patrick Madrid, I think) that I finally read an explanation that made sense. I’ve reiterated it as best I could, possibly to no avail.

Look: If God knows - perfectly and incontrovertibly - everything that you are going to do in your life, then He knows whether or not you are going to be with Him, and there won’t be anything you can do about it. You’d be suffering from Calvinistic predestination because your free will would avail you nothing.

If you were on the highway to Hell, and an angel appeared to you and said so, wouldn’t you want to amend your life and repent? Haven’t there been instances of people so warned? (I know I’m relying on fiction, but call it a “Scrooge moment”.) If God knows where you’re going and you can’t change it, why warn anyone?

Predestination as Calvin defined it can’t be true because it denies free will; predestination as the Catholic Church defines it must be true because it confirms free will and allows for participation in your own salvation.

God sees all the choices of your life, and He knows the consequences of each choice. He leaves making the choice up to you; He’s prepared for all eventualities and outcomes simultaneously, because past, present and future are all the same and are therefore no different from each other.

 

[Atreyu]

Look: If God knows - perfectly and incontrovertibly - everything that you are going to do in your life, then He knows whether or not you are going to be with Him, and there won’t be anything you can do about it.

I disagree with this sentence. Care to prove this statement?

 

[rcwhiteh]

I disagree with this sentence. Care to prove this statement?

Care to explain why you disagree first?

 

[Evan]

Look: If God knows - perfectly and incontrovertibly - everything that you are going to do in your life, then He knows whether or not you are going to be with Him, and there won’t be anything you can do about it.

There is a way of understanding God that makes this statement true. God knows what choices you make in life. God will not change the essensial thing that is YOU. There is nothing you can do about being who you are. There is nothing God will do about it being God and having given you the gift of free will. Your choices are made by you and God respects that.

You are predestined for heaven or hell because of your choices and God’s gift of free will.

Mary’s YES was because He knew her intimately (in her inner most being, in all that made her who she was) and He offered her a choice that was attractive to her, a choice to cooperate with His will, a choice in conformance with all the choices she made in her life. The choice she made is because she is the one who would do all things for God. She was a handmaiden not a God. Whereas Eve was tempted to ‘be like God’ Mary was tempted by God to serve God.

A way to look at predestination might be

I hold a ball in my hand. I say: when released it will fall.
I release, it falls. It was predestened but it was not my will that made it fall, it was the essential aspects of the ball.
If my will were able to change the ball into a helium balloon, then it would be my will rather than the ball that prevented the fall AND the ball would no longer be a ball.

If God had to change Mary to say yes, it would no longer be Mary. But her yes was part of her essential being and that God knew from her conception: who she was in her essence.