R
Robert1111
Guest
And yet, they are both inherited through no fault of the child.
- Status
R
Robert1111
Guest
No, because free-will comes into play here. He cannot save those who really don’t want to be saved.
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
Yes, I know you were. But that pales in comparison to the type of love showed us. A love that surpasses anything that we would ever do. What mother is going to give up their only child to save the lives of strangers? Again, you rely a lot on man centered concepts of what is just, love, and right/wrong.
Why not just save all then?
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
So then no need for the saving grace? So in other words, we elect ourselves?
R
Robert1111
Guest
For sure, and this is why the strong predestinarian view is not compatible with Jesus Christ.
“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)
R
Robert1111
Guest
God elects us but we can refuse the election and turn ourselves into reprobates. This is what free-will is about. God is not the one who damns.
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
I don’t know a single Thomist who thinks this is so, except for the Molinists (and some modern Thomists) that read this back into Thomism.
Even then, there is an elect, an elect that God chooses, but we can refuse this election? How is this an elect?
R
Robert1111
Guest
I don’t see what’s the problem. I invite you to a party and this means you are invited, by all means. But you can refuse the invitation.
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
Who can resist his will?
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
It’s not an elect. That is the problem. Why call it an elect? Those passages make no sense then?
R
Robert1111
Guest
Man can resist his will.
Does predestination imply that salvation is not available to all human persons?
The Offer of Salvation The opportunity for salvation is offered to all persons; no one is excluded from the ability to obtain salvation by free will cooperating with grace unto eternal life. Pope J…
ronconte.com
The Offer of Salvation
The opportunity for salvation is offered to all persons; no one is excluded from the ability to obtain salvation by free will cooperating with grace unto eternal life.
Pope John Paul II: “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (Redemptoris Missio, n. 10).
Salvation is universal in that it is offered to all human persons. But this offer is not merely theoretical. Salvation is concretely available to all persons. The grace of Christ in the Spirit enables each person to obtain eternal life by free cooperation with grace. For “Christ died for all men,” not only for some (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
[Romans]
{8:32} He who did not spare even his own Son, but handed him over for the sake of us all, how could he not also, with him, have given us all things?
Since God sent His Son to die “for the sake of us all,” He must also have given us all things needed for salvation, including every necessary grace.
Therefore, it cannot be true (as the semi-Calvinists claim) that God chooses to give the type of grace needed for final perseverance unto eternal life only to some persons, by His own mysterious choice, apart from our free will. Those who believe this heresy have misunderstood the very nature of grace. For grace is defined in relation to free will. When grace is defined as if it were separate from free will, many false conclusions ensue. Although God is all-powerful, He is also humble and loving. His grace humbles itself before our free will. The love of God never omits anyone, even passively, from the possibility of salvation.
R
Robert1111
Guest
He was an elect, he simply squandered his opportunity. His Reprobation comes from himself. You seem to view election as something separated from free-will and this is the problem.
Last edited:
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
So God can lose a convert? We can triumph over his Will? Perhaps His grace was so wonderful that it’s something they;d always want. As in, He is not forcing anyone, it’s just no one is rejecting it.
R
Robert1111
Guest
This could be acceptable only under a universalist perspective, which i’m not willing to uphold. Without universalism, what you just wrote implies that God creates some people out of sheer hatred and hate, people who never had a chance to begin with
“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”.
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
I believe Thomas Aquinas.
R
Robert1111
Guest
I’d rather believe the Catechism
1037 God does not predestined anyone to go to hell;
And the saints who had revelations from Jesus, who “strangely” never said something that came even close to suggesting what Aquinas said in the Summa (maybe they were all fooled and duped).
A
AugustineFanNYC
Guest
Aquinas does not say this. You say he says this.
And I was under the impression that even some Molinists, such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez, taught unconditional election. Protestant Reformed Calvinist Alvin Plantinga upholds Molinism.
I don’t if William Lane Craig is Calvinist, but he’s a Molinist.
So what are you running away from here?
Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will - Ephesians 1:4-5
Last edited:
R
Robert1111
Guest
Long story short:
- Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 1
- Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection 3
- Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 3, Reply to objection 2
- Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 3
- Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 3, Reply to objection 2
Yep. What a storyteller I am. I am the one who wrote those propositions, yep yep.
R
Robert1111
Guest
It is true that some molinists believed in unconditional election. The point is that uncodntional election LOGICALLY IMPLIES unconditional Reprobation, which is exactly the same as double predestination, the outcome is absolutely exactly the same.
R
Robert1111
Guest
I’m running away from any concept of unconditional election under any shape and form, because without universalism, unconditional election implies double predestination, even if you can phrase it in a slightly different way from what Calvin taught it is exactly the same. One is an ugly girl without makeup and the other is the same ugly girl with a ton of “Catholic” makeup, but the girl is the same with the same unbearably ugly mug.
- Status