Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Vico]

and free-will only serves to our condemnation if God has simply decreed that he doesn’t wish us salvation

Not quite what you wrote, rather. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote “We must add this remark: Resisting sufficient grace is an evil which comes solely from ourselves.”

"But efficacious grace gives the actual fulfillment of the precepts here and now. Actual fulfillment is something more than real power to fulfill, as actual vision is something more than the real power of sight.[393]

To illustrate. God willed, by consequent will, the conversion of St. Paul. This conversion comes to be, infallibly but freely, because God’s will, strong and sweet, causes Paul’s will to consent freely, spontaneously, without violence, to his own conversion. God did not on the other hand will, efficaciously, the conversion of Judas, though He, conditionally, inefficaciously, antecedently, certainly willed it, and He permitted Judas to remain, freely, in final impenitence. What higher good has God in mind? This, at least: the manifestation of infinite justice."[394]

393 Ia, q. 19, a. 8. This article has special importance on this point. The commentators dwell on it at great length

394 For more extended exposition, see our work, De Deo uno, 1938, pp. 410-34; also Rev. thom.: May, 1937, "Le fondement supreme de la distinction des deux graces, suffisante et efficace. "

St. Thomas Aquinas give a detail on the will of God.

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 19. The will of God > Article 6. Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?​

Reply to Objection 1. 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.

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.

 

[Robert1111]

Not quite what you wrote, rather. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote “We must add this remark: Resisting sufficient grace is an evil which comes solely from ourselves.”

Once again and for the upteempth time: yes, resisting sufficient Grace is an evil which comes solely from ourselves, but we cannot possibly NOT resist to sufficient Grace unless God gives us efficacious Grace from the very start.

In other words: sufficient Grace is only sufficient for our damnation. This is why @Latin is a universalist thomist, because he understood that the thomistic concept of sufficient and efficacious Grace, if coupled with Reprobation, is just Calvin’s double predestination with some Catholic makeup here and there.

Also

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 19. The will of God > Article 6. Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?​

Reply to Objection 1 . 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.

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.

As you can see Aquinas was rightly denying God’s universal salvific will, because the only actual, true, divine will that counts is the will that actually comes to pass, that is, his consequent will.

What Aquinas wrote was just a more elegant and polite way to say that God doesn’t really wish salvation to all, and that’s inevitable since he also believed the following propositions:

Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 1

“God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life- He is said to hate or reprobated them”.

Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection

“Why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will”.

These propositions are completely irreconcilable with a genuine universal salvific will. This is not a loving and merciful God, this fictional monster who creates some people who are destined to everlasting misery for no reason except his own will is just a callous scumbag who deserves nothing but pain and hate.

 

[Vico]

…

St. Thomas Aquinas quotes St. Augustine with “not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved”

 

[Robert1111]

This tidbit from your quote, Vico

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.”

Is just double speak at its finest. If you don’t realize it, i don’t know what to do with you, really. Augustine and Thomas remind me of those advocates who manage to defend the worst criminals on heart with their slimy loopholes and technicalities

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Augustine and Thomas remind me of those advocates who manage to defend the worst criminals on heart with their slimy loopholes and technicalities

This is too much. You have a serious personal beef that is clouding most of your judgements. You want to make sure that all doctrine fits your preconceived notions of what constitutes right and wrong, or justice in your eyes. You even said that you’d rather worship Satan, if Thomism were true, because it would be too much of a grievance to your sensibilities.

Calling two of the church’s greatest saints hucksters is beyond the pale. There have been ample people in this thread who’ve been pretty cordial in responding to you but you insist on saying that what they believe is tantamount to believing in a God worse than Hitler, and that the doctrine they follow comes from two slimy hucksters.

You are not debating in good faith. This is a deep, deep personal issue with you, that I suggest you seek help with. You want it to be the way you want it to be no matter what, otherwise you’d sink into a supposed “dark, deep depression”.

 

[Robert1111]

This is too much. You have a serious personal beef that is clouding most of your judgements. You want to make sure that all doctrine fits your preconceived notions of what constitutes right and wrong, or justice in your eyes.

We know what is right and wrong, because original sin hasn’t completely overshadowed our capacity to judge in the right way.

Calling two of the church’s greatest saints hucksters is beyond the pale. There have been ample people in this thread who’ve been pretty cordial in responding to you but you insist on saying that what they believe is tantamount to believing in a God worse than Hitler, and that the doctrine they follow comes from two slimy hucksters.

They are not slimy hucksters, i said time and time again that i believe in their good faith, period. It’s just that they used arguments worthy of a slimy huckster because it was the only way for them to try and reconcile what they were teaching about God with an alleged fairness and justice on his part.

You are not debating in good faith. This is a deep, deep personal issue with you, that I suggest you seek help with. You want it to be the way you want it to be no matter what, otherwise you’d sink into a supposed “dark, deep depression”.

I’m debating in good faith and in good faith i tell you that to create a human being for the sole purpose of watching him while he inevitably drifts towards his eternal torture without lifting a finger to help him, all of this after having created him with all the defects that make his eternal misery an assurance in the first place, is just pure, unadulterated, sheer evil.

We wouldn’t do that to a dog, for God’s sake, and according to you a good God would do this to a human being. No, this “god” would not be worthy of worship. He would just be a cosmic thug who would never get his due simply because he is too powerful, but a deity like this one would deserve all the worst that the universe has the offer.

There is no kind of pain that i wouldn’t want to see being inflicted upon this fictional monster If he were real. Because a being who creates human beings for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal torture after having refused to give them the Grace they need to avoid this fate in the first place, would be a being deserving of the purest hatred and pain. I don’t wish hell to anyone, not even Hitler, but I would wish it to this horrific monster.

As for Augustine, if these words

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.”

Aren’t double speak, then feel free to tell me what they are.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

We know what is right and wrong, because original sin hasn’t completely overshadowed our capacity to judge in the right way.

AugustineFanNYC:

We all know a semblance of right and wrong. People come up with a moral order all the time, even criminal organizations have a moral code they believe to be right or wrong, it doesn’t make it compatible with the revealed truth. Romans talks about that while the truth was evident to people they still chose to twist it to fit their ends. We have a corrupted nature, that’s not totally depraved, but corrupts the truth.

They are not slimy hucksters, i said time and time again that i believe in their good faith, period. It’s just that they used arguments worthy of a slimy huckster because it was the only way for them to try and reconcile what they were teaching about God with an alleged fairness and justice on his part.

AugustineFanNYC:

So they were arguing in “good faith” about how best to create the worst possible version of God?

Dude, just give it up, all you are doing is just asserting and asserting that you just simply don’t like Thomism or Augustinianism because it doesn’t meet your preconceived notions of right and wrong. That’s it. That’s what this all boils down to. You clearly don’t understand original sin, you didn’t understand the arguments presented to you, you just keep twisting them to make them fit your slanderous misconceptions.

Even if Thomism were true, or at least your interpretation of Thomism, you said it yourself that you would not bow down and worship a God like this, not because you couldn’t believe God to be this way, but because it goes against what you consider to be right and wrong. That even if this was the true God, you would worship the Prince of the Power of the Air instead. So you’d bow down to anyone that placates your notions of right and wrong.

 

[Robert1111]

We all know a semblance of right and wrong. People come up with a moral order all the time, even criminal organizations have a moral code they believe to be right or wrong, it doesn’t make it compatible with the revealed truth. Romans talks about that while the truth was evident to people they still chose to twist it to fit their ends.

What we know is that it can’t be right to create a living being for the sole purpose of sending him to his eternal demise. Period. There is no human being on this earth who wouldn’t agree with this notion unless he is deeply indoctrinated.

So they were arguing in “good faith” about how best to create the worst possible version of God?

The worst possible version of God was created not by me, but by Augustine who decided to invent the notion of unconditional predestination, notion that no other father of the Church upheld at the time. He was ALONE with that horrific misconception. Unfortunately Aquinas decided to adopt Augustine’s understanding later on, but if they have been pretty much alone on this, there is a reason. And the reason is that most fathers could see how monstrous this kind of “god” is.

Dude, just give it up, all you are doing is just asserting and asserting that you just simply don’t like Thomism or Augustinianism because it doesn’t meet your preconceived notions of right and wrong. That’s it. That’s what this all boils down to.

What i know is that if i were to create a living being full of defects for the sole purpose of punishing it for said defects while i could prevented him from having them in the first place, I would be considered a psychopath by everyone. We aren’t nominalists, what is wrong for us cannot become magically just for God.

You clearly don’t understand original sin

I don’t understand it? What i don’t understand about it? Nobody chooses to be born with it, we are born with original sin tainting our souls simply because God WANTS IT.

Thus it is absolutely outrageous to say that a condition that we didn’t choose is enough to merit our eternal condemnation. It’s like blaming someone for being born crippled and whipping his butt because he cannot outrun Usain Bolt.

Yet, this is what Aquinas and Augustine taught. We receive graces that cannot possibly save us because God gives his saving grace only to the elect. And yet he blames us and punishes us because we suffered a death in mortal sin that we were never supposed to avoid in the first place.

you didn’t understand the arguments presented to you, you just keep twisting them to make them fit your slanderous misconceptions.

I didn’t twist anything, this is the real slanderous misconception. You say that i twisted the arguments because i’m not willing to put up with those loopholes that try to cover an alleged Catholic “double predestination” under a filthy blanket of hypocritical makeup.

 

[Robert1111]

quote=“AugustineFanNYC, post:187, topic:520144”]
Even if Thomism were true, or at least your interpretation of Thomism, you said it yourself that you would not bow down and worship a God like this, not because you couldn’t believe God to be this way, but because it goes against what you consider to be right and wrong. That even if this was the true God, you would worship the Prince of the Power of the Air instead. So you’d bow down to anyone that placates your notions of right and wrong.
[/quote]

I told you what i would do, let me quote myself.

I’d probably just fall back into the same heavy depression i was plunged into when i was a thomist back in the days. With the difference that in this case i would know that there is no way out, no other possible explanation.

Also i would be desperate for a very valid reason: i couldn’t possibly love a God like that. In the other topic i said that i would reject him and worship Satan if I was sure that thomism were true, but the thing is, i probably wouldn’t, because deep down I’m a chickenshit and i would be horribly scared of him (and with good reasons too since, you know, God isn’t exactly someone you can argue with if he turns out to be a jerk).

So yeah, i would be in a world of fat, stinky, ugly s**t. Because i could only fear this God, i could never love him.

But guess what? I don’t think that this scenario will ever happen, thank God.

And please stop with the “your “perceived” notion” etc. If i were to do what the thomist and the augustinians claim that God does, i would be labeled a psychopath by literally everyone, even if i was able to create life by myself, say in a lab or something.

It would be like a government who creates human beings in a lab and injects them with hormones that make them truly desire to adopt criminal behaviours. Then, the government decides to administer an antidote only to some but not to all, and those who don’t receive the antidote will inevitably commit some crime, crime that gives the government the excuse to punish them by subjecting them to the most horrible tortures known by man. A government who would do this, would be rightly labeled as a dispotic dictature by everyone,

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

What the know is that it can’t be right to create a living being for the sole purpose of sending him to his eternal demise. Period. There is no human being on this earth who wouldn’t agree with this notion unless he is deeply indoctrinated.

I am writing this because out of all of your posts, you mostly just assert and presume without telling us why it’s wrong. I am not saying your wrong, but that this has mostly been about what you perceive to be right or wrong.

The worst possible version of God was created not by me, but by Augustine who decided to invent the notion of unconditional predestination, notion that no other father of the Church upheld at the time.

You don’t understand Augustine. The case has been presented to you, and you still insist that it is the way you say.

What i know is that if i were to create a living being full of defects for the sole purpose of punishing it for said defects while i could prevented him from having them in the first place, I would be considered a psychopath by everyone.

Adam and Eve made the conscience choice to sin, we are all born into that sin as a result. God could’ve left us all to wallow in that misery forever. But He didn’t. And He didn’t have to save a single one of us, it’s a free gift, a gift He knows not everyone will accept. He doesn’t force anyone into heaven, just like he doesn’t force anyone into hell.

Thus it is absolutely outrageous to say that a condition that we didn’t choose is enough to merit our eternal condemnation. It’s like blaming someone for being born crippled and whipping his butt because he cannot outrun Usain Bolt.

Again, you keep asserting what YOU believe to be right and wrong, by saying that we didn’t choose this condition. You’re saying that it’s utterly unfair that we were born in this condition, and so we deserve better.

I didn’t twist anything, this is the real slanderous misconception. You say that i twisted the arguments because i’m not willing to put up with those gibberish that try to cover an alleged Catholic “double predestination” under a filthy blanket off hypocrite makeup.

Just because you don’t understand the arguments presented in front of you, doesn’t mean that they are what you assert. Please, deal with your depression with a Priest or someone more qualified. This is much more than you’re making it out to be. The Thomistic traditions are in the Church, deal with it. I don’t even see how Molinism aussages your guilt any better. Those beliefs cannot totally reconcile what your real beef is with any of this; that God has any sovereignty over his creation.
You even said it yourself, how you wish universalism were true as if God should just drop this entire experiment and just save everyone. If anything Molinism or Fr. Most’s interpretation, even if other disagree, is just your compromise with your guilt and the Church.

 

[Robert1111]

You don’t understand Augustine. The case has been presented to you, and you still insist that it is the way you say.

It’s not enough to say something. If you say that i don’t understand Augustine you have to prove where i’m wrong. Talk is cheap.

Adam and Eve made the conscience choice to sin, we are all born into that sin as a result.

They committed a sin, right, and we have nothing to do with them. We inherit that sin only because God wants it.

God could’ve left us all to wallow in that misery forever. But He didn’t.

He could have chosen to prevent us from inheriting that sin, since we inherit it through no fault of our own.

And He didn’t have to save a single one of us, it’s a free gift, a gift He knows not everyone will accept. He doesn’t force anyone into heaven, just like he doesn’t force anyone into hell.

This is true only if we have the true power to accept Grace without God’s further intervention. This is true only if our non-resistance to Grace is not a Grace but depends on us.

Otherwise it’s just a loophole to justify the inevitable condemnation of some people.

Again, you keep asserting what YOU believe to be right and wrong, by saying that we didn’t choose this condition. You’re saying that it’s utterly unfair that we were born in this condition, and so we deserve better.

Again, you cannot blame someone who was born a crippled if he doesn’t outrun Usain Bolt. Nobody would do that because it’s just retarded on top of being evil.

If we are required to outrun Usain Bolt we at least deserve the real and genuine power to do it, not someone who gives said power only to some and whips our butts for not doing what we were never supposed to do in the first place.

Just because you don’t understand the arguments presented in front of you, doesn’t mean that they are what you assert. Please, deal with your depression with a Priest or someone more qualified. This is much more than you’re making it out to be. The Thomistic traditions are in the Church, deal with it. I don’t even see how Molinism aussages your guilt any better. Those beliefs cannot totally reconcile what your real beef is with any of this; that God has any sovereignty over his creation .
You even said it yourself, how you wish universalism were true as if God should just drop this entire experiment and just save everyone. If anything Molinism or Fr. Most’s interpretation, even if other disagree, is just your compromise with your guilt and the Church.

I have no problem with a truly conditional reprobation. Yeah, I wish universalism to he true but this doesn’t mean that a truly conditional Reprobation is irreconcilable with God’s love and Mercy.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I’d probably just fall back into the same heavy depression i was plunged into when i was a thomist back in the days. With the difference that in this case i would know that there is no way out, no other possible explanation.

Also i would be desperate for a very valid reason: i couldn’t possibly love a God like that. In the other topic i said that i would reject him and worship Satan if I was sure that thomism were true, but the thing is, i probably wouldn’t, because deep down I’m a chickenshit and i would be horribly scared of him (and with good reasons too since, you know, God isn’t exactly someone you can argue with if he turns out to be a jerk).

So yeah, i would be in a world of fat, stinky, ugly s**t. Because i could only fear this God, i could never love him.

But guess what? I don’t think that this scenario will ever happen, thank God.

That’s what would happen to you? You’d fall into a “heavy depression”? I am sorry but this is no excuse. There are Thomists out there who believe Thomism through and through, and they do not sink into a deep dark depression that searches deeply for a compromise that will keep them in the Church. These Thomists sincerely and honorably go forth and evangelize. They become some of the best the Church has to offer. They don’t go around depressed, looking for a way out (another theological construct) and defame others that oppose them and call them "crypto-Calvinists who worship a God worse than Hitler, and praise two theologians who came up with hypocritical huckster rhetoric. "

Thomists such as John Salza or Ed Feser, don’t see these things the way you do. They are some of the best apologists for the faith out there today. They love God and love people. They wish for others to know Christ and His Church.

So, again this is mostly about your personal preconceived notions of right and wrong, and what you want God to do, not what trusting in what He does.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

They committed a sin, right, and we have nothing to do with them. We inherit that sin only because God wants it.

AugustineFanNYC:

He could have chosen to prevent us from inheriting that sin, since we inherit it through no fault of our own.

This is all I need to know, to see where you are coming from. He “could’ve done this”, or that “we have nothing to do with Adam and Eve”. It should be clear to anyone that you want things to be as you think it should be, based on what you believe right and wrong, and justice to be.

 

[Robert1111]

That’s what would happen to you? You’d fall into a “heavy depression”? I am sorry but this is no excuse. There are Thomists out there who believe Thomism through and through, and they do not sink into a deep dark depression that searches deeply for a compromise that will keep them in the Church. These Thomists sincerely and honorably go forth and evangelize. They become some of the best the Church has to offer. They don’t go around depressed, looking for a way out (another theological construct) and defame others that oppose them and call them "crypto-Calvinists who worship a God worse than Hitler, and praise two theologians who came up with hypocritical huckster rhetoric. "

Thomists such as John Salza or Ed Feser, don’t see these things the way you do. They are some of the best apologists for the faith out there today. They love God and love people. They wish for others to know Christ and His Church.

So, again this is mostly about your personal preconceived notions of right and wrong, and what you want God to do, not what trusting in what He does.

There is no preconceived notion. Let me repeat myself once again and read carefully.

If i were to do what the thomists and the augustinians claim that God does, i would be labeled a psychopath by literally everyone, even if i was able to create life by myself, say in a lab or something.

It would be like a government who creates human beings in a lab and injects them with hormones that make them truly desire to adopt criminal behaviours. Then, the government decides to administer an antidote only to some but not to all, and those who don’t receive the antidote will inevitably commit some crime, crime that gives the government the excuse to punish them by subjecting them to the most horrible tortures known by man. A government who would do this, would be rightly labeled as a dispotic dictature by everyone,

There are some things that every human knows they are wrong.

P.s: most modern thomists don’t believe in unconditional predestination and negative Reprobation either, because they see the huge flaws in the theory.

 

[Robert1111]

This is all I need to know, to see where you are coming from. He “ could’ve done this ”, or that “ we have nothing to do with Adam and Eve ”. It should be clear to anyone that you want things to be as you think it should be, based on what you believe right and wrong, and justice to be.

Ok, let me repeat myself AGAIN

you cannot blame someone who was born a crippled if he doesn’t outrun Usain Bolt. Nobody would do that because it’s just retarded on top of being evil.

If we are required to outrun Usain Bolt we at least deserve the real and genuine power to do it, not someone who gives said power only to some and whips our butts for not doing what we were never supposed to do in the first place

Ok?

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

If i were to do what the thomist and the augustinians claim that God does, i would be labeled a psychopath by literally everyone, even if i was able to create life by myself, say in a lab or something.

It would be like a government who creates human beings in a lab and injects them with hormones that make them truly desire to adopt criminal behaviours. Then, the government decides to administer an antidote only to some but not to all, and those who don’t receive the antidote will inevitably commit some crime, crime that gives the government the excuse to punish them by subjecting them to the most horrible tortures known by man. A government who would do this, would be rightly labeled as a dispotic dictature by everyone,

Yes, your post is full assertions. You assert what you believe to be the right way, how God should’ve done things, how you believe a right and just God would do things in your eyes, and then search for the theology that fits those preconceived notions. Then, you read back into Thomism, what you believe they’re saying through this lens. The summary you gave of what you believe Thomists to believe above is littered with misconceptions. But you assert it anyways.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

you cannot blame someone who was born a crippled if he doesn’t outrun Usain Bolt. Nobody would do that because it’s just retarded on top of being evil.

If we are required to outrun Usain Bolt we at least deserve the real and genuine power to do it, not someone who gives said power only to some and whips our butts for not doing what we were never supposed to do in the first place

Repeat yourself ten times if need be, you don’t understand original sin.

 

[Robert1111]

Repeat yourself ten times if need be, you don’t understand original sin.

Claiming something doesn’t make it true. Show me where is my error.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Claiming something doesn’t make it true. Show me where is my error.

That you think it has nothing to do with us.

 

[Robert1111]

Yes, your post is full assertions. You assert what you believe to be the right way, how God should’ve done things, how you believe a right and just God would do things in your eyes, and then search for the theology that fits those preconceived notions. Then, you read back into Thomism, what you believe they’re saying through this lens. The summary you gave of what you believe Thomists to believe above is littered with misconceptions. But you assert it anyways.

List the misconceptions.