Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Robert1111]

My problem with thomism is exactly the same outlined by @Latin

The weakness in Thomism; God is responsible for those who are goes to hell because He did not predestined them to heaven. – God provides the right (efficacious) grace, but provides it only for some to
His elect and the rest is doomed

Was he strawmanning too?

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

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.

First off, you don’t understand original sin, if you think it has nothing to do with us.

 

[Robert1111]

First off, you don’t understand original sin, if you think it has nothing to do with us.

Again, it’s true that we share in Adam’s sin but we aren’t culpable for it. We didn’t choose to be born like that with a personal act of will. This is why the Church came up with the solution of Limbo and perfect natural happiness for the infants born without Baptism (now we think that God somehow can save them, for example through Baptism of blood but this would be another long spat), because they had no fault for the state of their souls.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Was he strawmanning too?

Technically, the state of man is death, whether God lifted a finger to do anything or not.

 

[Robert1111]

Technically, the state of man is death, whether God lifted a finger to do anything or not.

But if he creates a man who is in the state of death and doesn’t give him the means by which he can attain life, he is creating a being predestined to eternal misery. And it’s not like this being chose to be born like that. God didn’t create his soul in a pure state to begin with, this being was born with these defects through no fault of his own.

 

[Robert1111]

If you have a child who is attracted by fire and you don’t help him by either keeping him away from fire or at least by preventing him from harming himself, then you don’t love him. Expecially if he was born with that insane attraction to fire because you wanted to.

 

[Robert1111]

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.

That’s the definition of efficacious Grace. And God gives this Grace only to the elect, all the others are left to their inevitable eternal demise.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

But if he creates a man who is in the state of death and doesn’t give him the means by which he can attain life, he is creating a being predestined to eternal misery. And it’s not like this being chose to be born like that. God didn’t create his soul in a pure state to begin with, this being was born with these defects through no fault of his own.

Again with the assertions of what you believe God should have done. He is not creating the being in a perfect state, due to the original sin. Why don’t you ask why He didn’t just create all of us perfect to begin with? Why do all of this then?

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

If you have a child who is attracted by fire and you don’t help him by either keeping him away from fire or at least by preventing him from harming himself, then you don’t love him. Expecially if he was born with that insane attraction to fire because you wanted to.

At this point, why even bother with Molinism? Why not just be completely universalist?

 

[Robert1111]

Again with the assertions of what you believe God should have done. He is not creating the being in a perfect state, due to the original sin.

As i said, i’m fine with it. But since original sin entails that we are attracted to things that are not compatible with our eternal happiness, then God needs at least to give us the means by which we can truly avoid eternal ruin if we wish to, otherwise we are born doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

To love someone means to desire his happiness.

If God creates beings whose happiness he doesn’t desire

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”.

He cannot be said to be all-loving and merciful. He would be a merciful father to some and the worst nightmare to others.

 

[Robert1111]

At this point, why even bother with Molinism? Why not just be completely universalist?

I have already answered

I believe that if a fallen human resists God still doesn’t give up and continues to call him until the end. Until the very end, when his life is about to end and we will not have another chance anymore.

Even then, God doesn’t give it up and he calls the sinner one last time, waiting for him to open his heart so that he will be able to bring him to the TRUE repentance needed for salvation.

If the fallen human keeps resisting, then yes, God will allow this person to experience the damnation he deserves for having refused every Grace until the very end. There is NO “game of chance” here nor some arbitrary decree according to which a common weak sinner deserves eternal hellfire because “the tree lays where it falls” and a genocidial Nazi goes to Heaven. No, God wants every human to reach his final end, that is, eternal happiness, both spiritual and physical. But we can refuse this gift.

This is also supported by the revelations of the Saints, revelations approved by the Church

“ “I received a deeper understanding of divine mercy,” she writes. “Only the soul that wants it will be damned, for God condemns no one” ( Saint Faustina, Diary , 1452)

Returning to my example, if my child sets himself on fire while i’m away because he went out of his way to find fire despite that the fact that i have done all that i could to prevent him from harming himself, then i have no fault.

But if i surround him with fire and, while he is crawling towards this dangerous element i gleefully watch him without lifting a finger, then i’m an animal of a father who deserves to be dismembered alive and impaled.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

As i said, i’m fine with it. But since original sin entails that we are attracted to things that are not compatible with our eternal happiness, then God needs at least to give us the means by which we can truly avoid eternal ruin if we wish to, otherwise we are born doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

We are freely attracted to these things because it’s in our fallen and corrupted nature, due to original sin.
God didn’t need to do anything? Nothing. Period. We are born doomed. This is nothing that we can necessarily do all by ourselves. Yes, you have it, you get it, you just don’t like it.

To love someone means to desire his happiness.

Assertion. I get what you’re saying but you keep wanting something to be true, more than arguing it is so.

If God creates beings whose happiness he doesn’t desire

We were born under original sin, trading in the wisdom of God for desiring to worship ourselves and creation. Our happiness would’ve been to stay eternally separated from God.

He cannot be said to be all-loving and merciful. He would be a merciful father to some and the worst nightmare to others.

See this is what I mean, what is the “all loving” that you speak of? You’re stretching this to mean what you want it to mean, and then reading back at all the things you think fall right off the mark of that preconceived notion.

I feel more that I am just arguing your morals and your sense of justice than I am theology.

 

[Robert1111]

We are freely attracted to these things because it’s in our fallen and corrupted nature, due to original sin.
God didn’t need to do anything? Nothing. Period. We are born doomed. This is nothing that we can necessarily do all by ourselves. Yes, you have it, you get it, you just don’t like it.

Again, if we aren’t given the means by which we can TRULY avoid eternal ruin, then we are predestined to Hell. This is an heresy.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Returning to my example, if my child sets himself on fire while i’m away because he went out of his way to find fire despite that the fact that i have done all that i could to prevent him from harming himself, then i have no fault.

But if i surround him with fire and, while he is crawling towards this dangerous element i gleefully watch him without lifting a finger, then i’m an animal of a father who deserves to be dismembered alive and impaled.

We are not children for the love of pete. Men can be cruel sadists who wish nothing but harm for evil too, not just children who run straight to the fire. We think, we choose, we desire to do wrong, and desire for not to be with God too.

 

[Robert1111]

Assertion. I get what you’re saying but you keep wanting something to be true, more than arguing it is so.

To want the happiness of the loved one is the very definition of love. We can see that mostly in the love of a mother towards of his child, which is the purest form of love we can know on this earth.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Again, if we aren’t given the means by which we can TRULY avoid eternal ruin, then we are predestined to Hell. This is an heresy.

To want the happiness of the loved one is the very definition of love. We can see that mostly in the love of a mother towards of his child, which is the purest form of love we can know on this earth.

Assertions on top of assertions to boot. The very definition of love, the purest form of love that happened on Earth , not being God’s actual death on the cross?

You are obsessed with man, and his definitions of love, and you want your theology to be man centered otherwise you will kick and scream that it doesn’t do justice to how you think man should be treated. You believe God should do it this or that way.

 

[Robert1111]

We were born under original sin, trading in the wisdom of God for desiring to worship ourselves and creation. Our happiness would’ve been to stay eternally separated from God.

Nonsense. Eternal separation from God is misery by definition, both spiritual and physical. And again, we didn’t inherit original sin through an act of personal will, we were simply born with it, just like a child who is born with AIDS because of the sins of his parents.

See this is what I mean, what is the “all loving” that you speak of? You’re stretching this to mean what you want it to mean, and then reading back at all the things you think fall right off the mark of that preconceived notion.

I feel more that I am just arguing your morals and your sense of justice than I am theology.

No, loving someone means to desire his good, period. There is no getting around it.

Let me quote Aquinas again

“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 THEM”.

 

[Robert1111]

Assertions on top of assertions to boot. The very definition of love, the purest form of love that happened on Earth , not being God’s actual death on the cross?

I was talking about the love we see among humans, i wasn’t talking about the love of God for us.

And yet, if thomism were true, God would have died for all but he wished to make his death effective only for some. What i believe and what most Catholics believe is that there is no human being whose salvation God doesn’t really desire.

 

[Robert1111]

On and yeah

Assertions on top of assertions to boot.

That some human beings are predestined to hell IS an heresy condemned by the Church.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Nonsense. Eternal separation from God is misery by definition, both spiritual and physical. And again, we didn’t inherit original sin through an act of personal will, we were simply born with it, just like a child who is born with AIDS because of the sins of his parents.

AugustineFanNYC:

Ok, if you look at sin as just AIDS, then you’re already starting at this from a purely man centered POV. AIDS doesn’t make men do unspeakable things that completely go against the Word of God, and everything under the sun that is written about in Romans or Ephesians 2. Sin does a lot of harm.

No, loving someone means to desire his good, period. There is no getting around it.

Let me quote Aquinas again

Perhaps, you are confusing how God loves HIS children, i.e. the Christians. A special bond, vs His love for the rest of humanity? Wouldn’t He just have saved everyone in one fell swoop if He truly desired everyone’s happiness?