Thomistic Predestination

[lmelahn]

In New Advent it also states clearly that the Catholic God preordains all future events from all eternity. The links are all over the threads related to free will and predestination. It is Church Dogma. They attempt, with no offer of any logical proof to say that people still have free will…and it is almost sad, IMO.
This is the very reason that I left the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

I think thinkandmull is correct in saying that the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is exaggerating when it asserts that this is Catholic dogma. (Remember that an encyclopedia is not an instrument of the Magisterium, so it is only as reliable as its editors.)

In fact, the Church has specifically refrained from taking sides in the Bañez–de Molina controversy. (I think there is a solution that supersedes both of them, but that is a topic for another time.)

But I have not heard your reasoning. Why does the fact that God knows what will happen imply that God fixes what will happen? (I happen to think there are cogent arguments to the contrary, but I want to see your opinion.)

 

[oldcelt]

I think thinkandmull is correct in saying that the Old Catholic Encyclopedia is exaggerating when it asserts that this is Catholic dogma. (Remember that an encyclopedia is not an instrument of the Magisterium, so it is only as reliable as its editors.)

In fact, the Church has specifically refrained from taking sides in the Bañez–de Molina controversy. (I think there is a solution that supersedes both of them, but that is a topic for another time.)

But I have not heard your reasoning. Why does the fact that God knows what will happen imply that God fixes what will happen? (I happen to think there are cogent arguments to the contrary, but I want to see your opinion.)

My reasoning is quite simple: When a being that is all-knowing regarding future events creates someone, that creator does so with perfect knowledge of their ultimate fate. He has predestined them by the mere creative act. If you then add the power to preordain future events, and the fix is in.

BTW, so far as the encyclopedia goes, Catholic Answers thought enough of it to invest in a print edition in 2007 and has it here on its website. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Home Just maybe some don’t like what is in plain print.

 

[oldcelt]

I’d also like to point out, regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia, that each and every article contains this at the end.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Naturally, the names may be different, but that should put to rest any questions about its authority.

 

[lmelahn]

I’d also like to point out, regarding the Catholic Encyclopedia, that each and every article contains this at the end.

Naturally, the names may be different, but that should put to rest any questions about its authority.

Just so you know, the imprimatur does not make it Magisterium. It is just a permission to print. That does not mean that Catholic Encyclopedia is necessarily unreliable, just that it does not have the authority, say, of the Catechism, and much less of an official pronouncement of an ecumenical council or something like that. Hence, it is not a problem to be constructively critical of some of the Encyclopedia’s opinions.

 

[lmelahn]

Let’s leave the Catholic Encyclopedia aside for the moment; I would rather focus on the philosophical problem, if that is OK with you.

My reasoning is quite simple: When a being that is all-knowing regarding future events creates someone, that creator does so with perfect knowledge of their ultimate fate.

Up to here we are in agreement, and I think all schools (that accept God’s omniscience) affirm this without difficulty.

He has predestined them by the mere creative act.

I can accept this, provided we understand predestination as knowledge of the ordering of His creatures—a species of providence. (To say it in plain language, predestination means that God knows which creatures will make it to Heaven, even as He creates them.)

If we take predestination the way, say, John Calvin understood it—as God fixing each person’s destiny beforehand—then no.

If you then add the power to preordain future events, and the fix is in.

…

You don’t think that the Creator could endow His creatures with the power to decide for themselves?

If He can do that, what prevents Him from knowing in advance how they will decide?

 

[Bahman]

Up to here we are in agreement, and I think all schools (that accept God’s omniscience) affirm this without difficulty.

There is a difficulty.

I can accept this, provided we understand predestination as knowledge of the ordering of His creatures—a species of providence. (To say it in plain language, predestination means that God knows which creatures will make it to Heaven, even as He creates them.)

If we take predestination the way, say, John Calvin understood it—as God fixing each person’s destiny beforehand—then no.

God’s existence, God’s knowledge and the very act of creation are the same. God’s knowledge in regard to creation however contains the very destiny of each individual otherwise it is empty hence the very act of creation cannot be performed.

You don’t think that the Creator could endow His creatures with the power to decide for themselves?

Individuals could be free to act but they cannot change their fates. It is very simple to understand this. Lets assume that there is a person with two options A and B. With options we mean something which is approachable. God however knows that the person do A, for example. This means that B is not a real option since it is against the fate of the person. You are however free to choose only one option always but you cannot escape your fate. Fatalism.

 

[lmelahn]

There is a difficulty.

God’s existence, God’s knowledge and the very act of creation are the same. God’s knowledge in regard to creation however contains the very destiny of each individual otherwise it is empty hence the very act of creation cannot be performed.

Individuals could be free to act but they cannot change their fates. It is very simple to understand this. Lets assume that there is a person with two options A and B. With options we mean something which is approachable. God however knows that the person do A, for example. This means that B is not a real option since it is against the fate of the person. You are however free to choose only one option always but you cannot escape your fate. Fatalism.

I still don’t think we have resolved the question here.

Why does the fact that God knows the person will take option A imply that B is not within the person’s capabilities?

As a counterexample, if I see that John is sitting down, I know infallibly that he is not standing right now. However, I did not force him to sit, and standing is well within John’s capabilities.

 

[Bahman]

I still don’t think we have resolved the question here.

Ok, lets proceed.

Why does the fact that God knows the person will take option A imply that B is not within the person’s capabilities?

Then ask this simple question that what would happen if the person choose B?

As a counterexample, if I see that John is sitting down, I know infallibly that he is not standing right now. However, I did not force him to sit, and standing is well within John’s capabilities.

In your framework he is free to act but always choose the right option, his destiny.

 

[lmelahn]

Ok, lets proceed.

Then ask this simple question that what would happen if the person choose B?

In your framework he is free to act but always choose the right option, his destiny.

Well, if he chose B, he would do B, obviously. Why is that a problem?

 

[Bahman]

Well, if he chose B, he would do B, obviously. Why is that a problem?

The problem is that God knows that he does A and not B. Could he do B? No. This means that the person is trapped within his fate meaning that he always does what God knows although he is free.

 

[wmw]

In your description the conclusion you have reached is:
1 God or anyone who knows a decision it would make the decision unchangable.
2 When a decision is unchangeable the decision can not be freely made.
If is these are true
When a man knows a decision he has made in the past it is unchangeable. (This scenario also follows 1; so, now we can apply 2) The decisions made in the past are known and unchangeable; therefore the decision can not be freely made.

You see that this description can not be true with any sort of free will in existance. A much better discription of our universe must be that knoweldge of a decision in the past, present, or future does not inhibit the free will of the decision.

 

[oldcelt]

Let’s leave the Catholic Encyclopedia aside for the moment; I would rather focus on the philosophical problem, if that is OK with you.

Up to here we are in agreement, and I think all schools (that accept God’s omniscience) affirm this without difficulty.

I can accept this, provided we understand predestination as knowledge of the ordering of His creatures—a species of providence. (To say it in plain language, predestination means that God knows which creatures will make it to Heaven, even as He creates them.)

If we take predestination the way, say, John Calvin understood it—as God fixing each person’s destiny beforehand—then no.

You don’t think that the Creator could endow His creatures with the power to decide for themselves?

If He can do that, what prevents Him from knowing in advance how they will decide?

Knowing prior to creation of the individual is the problem. To know from all eternity, in human terns, before, during and after, and then create, is to send down a pre-destined individual. He could have chosen not to create one that will be damned, yet he did.
That is why I am a Deist and believe in a totally un-involved god.
We have the power to decide for ourselves BECAUSE god has preordained and foreknown nothing. Not because he lacks the power, but because he chose not to. He allowed creation to do what it would do.

 

[oldcelt]

Just so you know, the imprimatur does not make it Magisterium. It is just a permission to print. That does not mean that Catholic Encyclopedia is necessarily unreliable, just that it does not have the authority, say, of the Catechism, and much less of an official pronouncement of an ecumenical council or something like that. Hence, it is not a problem to be constructively critical of some of the Encyclopedia’s opinions.

Within the encyclopedia, they mark specifically what is Dogma. I find it to be a much more in-depth source than the Catechism…though both are useful.

 

[Tom_Baum]

My reasoning is quite simple: When a being that is all-knowing regarding future events creates someone, that creator does so with perfect knowledge of their ultimate fate. He has predestined them by the mere creative act. If you then add the power to preordain future events, and the fix is in.

BTW, so far as the encyclopedia goes, Catholic Answers thought enough of it to invest in a print edition in 2007 and has it here on its website. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Home Just maybe some don’t like what is in plain print.

You wrote, “If you then add the power to preordain future events”

By this, do you mean that God doesn’t just “know” future events but that these future events are in essence God’s events done by us?

In other words, we are just puppets on a string, in this case, God’s strings.

In the above question, what I meant by “God’s events” are the events that each one of us does in exercising our free will, not the events that God actually has a “hand” in doing.

I believe that God “knows” everything (Omniscience) but not that everything is preordained which by my understanding of preordainment would mean that we are merely puppets on a string as I already pointed out.

I just happen to believe that there are things about God that are beyond our understanding and one of these is that God can “know” what we do even before we do it and yet we still have free will in choosing what we do.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Let’s leave the Catholic Encyclopedia aside for the moment; I would rather focus on the philosophical problem, if that is OK with you.

Up to here we are in agreement, and I think all schools (that accept God’s omniscience) affirm this without difficulty.

I can accept this, provided we understand predestination as knowledge of the ordering of His creatures—a species of providence. (To say it in plain language, predestination means that God knows which creatures will make it to Heaven, even as He creates them.)

Or maybe God “knew” who would and would not repent this side of breath and took this into consideration, so to speak, when God came up with God’s Plan which God came up with before creation itself.

If we take predestination the way, say, John Calvin understood it—as God fixing each person’s destiny beforehand—then no.

I don’t know just how John Calvin understood predestination but from what you say here, it seems as if John Calvin thought of all of us as merely puppets in God’s Play, does that sound about right?

You don’t think that the Creator could endow His creatures with the power to decide for themselves?

If He can do that, what prevents Him from knowing in advance how they will decide?

I believe that God knows what we do before we do it but that we still have free will in deciding what we will do, as a matter of fact, I believe God knows this even before we come into existence.

I will also say that this “belief” I wrote about in the above sentence is beyond my understanding and I also believe that it is beyond the understanding of any human being.

 

[Tom_Baum]

There is a difficulty.

God’s existence, God’s knowledge and the very act of creation are the same. God’s knowledge in regard to creation however contains the very destiny of each individual otherwise it is empty hence the very act of creation cannot be performed.

Individuals could be free to act but they cannot change their fates. It is very simple to understand this. Lets assume that there is a person with two options A and B. With options we mean something which is approachable. God however knows that the person do A, for example. This means that B is not a real option since it is against the fate of the person. You are however free to choose only one option always but you cannot escape your fate. Fatalism.

Ever given any thought to the possibility that God is not the loser that so many seem to think God to be and that God’s “Fatalism” is that God has ALL OF THE BASES COVERED, so to speak, so that ALL will make it HOME, ultimately.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Well, if he chose B, he would do B, obviously. Why is that a problem?

If God “knew” that one chose A but then the person chose B the problem, quite simply, is that God’s Omniscience would be wrong, therefore God would not be Omniscient.

As I said before, I believe that God being Omniscient and us having free will is beyond human comprehension.

 

[Bahman]

If God “knew” that one chose A but then the person chose B the problem, quite simply, is that God’s Omniscience would be wrong, therefore God would not be Omniscient.

As I said before, I believe that God being Omniscient and us having free will is beyond human comprehension.

There is nothing wrong with human understanding. In fact it is very simple to understand what you believe. Individuals have different fate accepting that God sees. Individuals however free to perform a dance, not matter how hard they try, at the end of day what they do is what is written in the book. Fatalism.

 

[oldcelt]

You wrote, “If you then add the power to preordain future events”

By this, do you mean that God doesn’t just “know” future events but that these future events are in essence God’s events done by us?

In other words, we are just puppets on a string, in this case, God’s strings.

In the above question, what I meant by “God’s events” are the events that each one of us does in exercising our free will, not the events that God actually has a “hand” in doing.

I believe that God “knows” everything (Omniscience) but not that everything is preordained which by my understanding of preordainment would mean that we are merely puppets on a string as I already pointed out.

I just happen to believe that there are things about God that are beyond our understanding and one of these is that God can “know” what we do even before we do it and yet we still have free will in choosing what we do.

Precisely. That is Catholic teaching on predestination:

We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784)

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

As I have stated many times…their only answer to how this comports with free will is that it is a mystery.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This from the article on predestination in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

“The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in particular is claimed by the advocates of absolute predestination as that “classical” passage wherein St. Paul seems to represent the eternal happiness of the elect not only as the work of God’s purest mercy, but as an act of the most arbitrary will, so that grace, faith, justification must be regarded as sheer effects of an absolute, Divine decree (cf. Rom., ix, 18: “Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth”). Now, it is rather daring to quote one of the most difficult and obscure passages of the Bible as a “classical text” and then to base on it an argument for bold speculation. To be more specific, it is impossible to draw the details of the picture in which the Apostle compares God to the potter who hath “power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor” (Rom., ix, 21), without falling into the Calvinistic blasphemy that God predestined some men to hell and sin just as positively as he pre-elected others to eternal life. It is not even admissible to read into the Apostle’s thought a negative reprobation of certain men. For the primary intention of the Epistle to the Romans is to insist on the gratuity of the vocation to Christianity and to reject the Jewish presumption that the possession of the Mosaic Law and the carnal descent from Abraham gave to the Jews an essential preference over the heathens. But the Epistle has nothing to do with the speculative question whether or not the free vocation to grace must be considered as the necessary result of eternal predestination to celestial glory [cf. Franzelin, “De Deo uno”, thes. lxv (Rome, 1883)].”

Clearly, according to the Encyclopedia, the literal and extreme version of predestination by the Calvinists is blasphemy.