Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

  • Thread starter Thread starter AugustineFanNYC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AugustineFanNYC said:
Read the books, and the stuff linked to you about Thomism.
Click to expand...
I already did. In the past I have also read many other works of Lagrange, Banez and many others.

Theories like the one of Fr.Most have been invented precisely because of the problems that were born from the concept of unconditional election and negative Reprobation.
 
AugustineFanNYC said:
Why would I repeat what others have already told you…and that you refuse to accept.
Click to expand...
Such as? If you say that thomism doesn’t believe in unconditional predestination and unconditional negative Reprobation, for example, i cannot accept it because it is simply no true.
 
Robert1111 said:
I already did. In the past I have also read many other works of Lagrange, Banez and many others.

Theories like the one of Fr.Most have been invented precisely because of the problems that were born from the concept of unconditional election and negative Reprobation.
Click to expand...
That’s fine. I don’t object to you believing in it, and think you’re a fine Catholic for believing in it. What I object to is that you have a personal belief with Thomism and even go so far as to call the Saints guilty of hucksterism.

This is a personal vendetta.
 
AugustineFanNYC said:
That’s fine. I don’t object to you believing in it, and think you’re a fine Catholic for believing in it. What I object to is that you have a personal belief with Thomism and even go so far as to call the Saints guilty of hucksterism.

This is a personal vendetta.
Click to expand...
Look, I don’t consider them to be personally guilty of hucksterism. I really think that they were genuinely good persons and real saints. It’s just that they came up with this theory and they had to struggle to reconcile it (impossibly) with God’s love, Mercy and salvific will.
 
Robert1111 said:
Such as? If you say that thomism doesn’t believe in unconditional predestination and unconditional negative Reprobation, for example, i cannot accept it because it is simply no true.
Click to expand...
I would only be repeating what has already been debated here by people way more qualified than I.
Robert1111 said:
But we didn’t choose to. God made that choice for us. I’m not against it per se, i just day that we deserve a fair chance at salvation, otherwise this life is just a trap for many of us.
Click to expand...
So what if we didn’t choose to? It’s the state we were all born with and which was defeated with Christ’s death on the cross. You’re not against it “per se”?? Again, with the “we deserve” , otherwise it doesn’t conform to what I think is a fair deal.
 
Robert1111 said:
Look, I don’t consider them to be personally guilty of hucksterism. I really think that they were genuinely good persons and real saints. It’s just that they came up with this theory and they had to struggle to reconcile it (impossibly) with God’s love, Mercy and salvific will.
Click to expand...
You like most people who struggle with this stretch this concept of God’s love and mercy so much that Thomism then appears irreconcilable. This reliance on the love and mercy, then has people chasing the globe for ideas that will make for a compromise between our wills and God’s sovereignty. A compromise that they don’t care takes away from God His right to do with He wants with His creation. We should be so lucky that He is as merciful as He is.
 
Last edited:
AugustineFanNYC said:
I would only be repeating what has already been debated here by people way more qualified than I.

a120ed6204271589c083945c70e55e8aed9ef44b.png
Robert1111:
Click to expand...
And none of them proved me wrong, otherwise i invite you or others to quote the posts where i have been proven wrong.
AugustineFanNYC said:
So what if we didn’t choose to? It’s the state we were all born with and which was defeated with Christ’s death on the cross. You’re not against it “per se”?? Again, with the “we deserve” , otherwise it doesn’t conform to what I think is a fair deal.
Click to expand...
Again, it’s not what i “think” would be a fair deal. Can you create someone in a lab, making sure that he is born a cripple through no fault of his own, and then kick his butt because he cannot outrun Usain Bolt? How is that supposed to be even remotely fair? Tell me, please.

If you give to him the means by which he can truly achieve the capacity to outrun Usain Bolt despite having been born a cripple than i’m fine with it, otherwise it’s just pointless cruelty.
 
Robert1111 said:
And none of them proved me wrong, otherwise i invite you or others to quote the posts where i have been proven wrong.
Click to expand...
How can anyone prove you wrong if your mind is not only strongly made up, but your sanity relies on it?
Robert1111 said:
Again, it’s not what i “think” would be a fair deal. Can you create someone in a lab, making sure that he is born a cripple through no fault of his own, and then kick his butt because he cannot outrun Usain Bolt? How is that supposed to be even remotely fair? Tell me, please.

If you give to him the means by which he can truly achieve the capacity to outrun Usain Bolt despite having been born a cripple than i’m fine with it, otherwise it’s just pointless cruelty.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is what about you think, and about this strawman you’ve created, and how we need to prove this strawman wrong, otherwise you have the moral high ground by asserting your preconceived notions of what is just.
 
AugustineFanNYC said:
You like most people who struggle with this stretch this concept of God’s love and mercy so much that Thomism then appears irreconcilable.
Click to expand...
But it is irreconcilable, this is why most modern thomists don’t adopt the concepts of unconditional election and unconditional negative Reprobation.
 
Last edited:
Robert1111 said:
With brutal facts. If i said something wrong, feel free to point it out.
Click to expand...
I just did, several times, and you refused to concede, instead continued to assert your presuppositions.
 
Last edited:
AugustineFanNYC said:
Yes, it is what about you think, and about this strawman you’ve created, and how we need to prove this strawman wrong, otherwise you have the moral high ground by asserting your preconceived notions of what is just.
Click to expand...
Strawman? Why would this be a strawman? The sufficient Grace that God according to the classic thomists gives to the reprobate has damnation as the end result. 100% guaranteed. You can only cooperate with Grace if God overwhelms you with efficacious Grace otherwise you are done for.
 
AugustineFanNYC said:
I just did, several times,
Click to expand...
Where? You just said that i brig my preconceived notion of right and wrong to the table. Is that supposed to be a brutal fact? How is that supposed to make the concept of unconditional election and unconditional negative Reprobation fair and compatible with God’s universal salvific will? I hear you.
 
Robert1111 said:
Strawman? Why would this be a strawman? The sufficient Grace that God according to the classic thomists gives to the reprobate has damnation as the end result. 100% guaranteed. You can only cooperate with Grace if God overwhelms you with efficacious Grace otherwise you are done for.
Click to expand...
God’s grace establishes what will be freely chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will’s freedom. Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top