Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

here’s the problem with that. He freely chose to accept or reject God in the first place. Gods free will is that which is beforehand. God doesn’t give you the free will to walk into hell if he says go, he gave you the free will to avoid it while you were alive

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Yep. What a storyteller I am. I am the one who wrote those propositions, yep yep.

Aquinas, just like the Church, teaches that some are predestined to hell, on the basis of their foreseen sin and free rejection of God , as just retribution for their sin.

As we can see, the difference in John Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas is the basis for reprobation.

For Aquinas, no man was ‘created for the purpose of reprobation’ and for Aquinas man retains free will.

For Calvin, on the other hand, the reprobate is ‘created for that end’ and has no free choice of the will.

 

[Robert1111]

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?

He is an elect because he is powerless to save himself. If God didn’t wish him salvation, all of his efforts would be of no avail to him.

But he has the power to damn himself, squandering his election in the process.

 

[Robert1111]

Aquinas, just like the Church, teaches that some are predestined to hell, on the basis of their foreseen sin and free rejection of God , as just retribution for their sin.

The punishment for their sins was predestined on the basis of their foreseen sin and the free rejection of God. Reprobation however, as understood by the Augustinians and the Thomists, is before their foreseen demerits.

 

[Robert1111]

For Aquinas, no man was ‘created for the purpose of reprobation’

This is a good one

it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (I:22:2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. To this the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23): “What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory” and (2 Timothy 2:20): “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.” - Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, Reply to obj.3.

 

[Robert1111]

As we can see, the difference in John Calvin and St. Thomas Aquinas is the basis for reprobation.

There is no difference, because they both believe in unconditional election which logically implies unconditional Reprobation. Therefore, their foreseen demerits aren’t the basis of their Reprobation, otherwise even the merits of the elect would be the basis of their election and the entire concept of unconditional salvation goes out of the window.

 

[Robert1111]

here’s the problem with that. He freely chose to accept or reject God in the first place. Gods free will is that which is beforehand. God doesn’t give you the free will to walk into hell if he says go, he gave you the free will to avoid it while you were alive

But he does give you the free-will to choose to die in mortal sin or not, otherwise the sin of final impenitence would be involuntary, which would be absurd since it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. How can the sin against the Holy Spirit be involuntary?

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Calvin advanced beyond Augustine in two ways. The great African theologian had represented God as active in election to life only. The lost were simply passed over and left to the deserved consequences of sin. To Calvin’s thinking, election and reprobation are both alike manifestations of the divine activity. In Augustine’s estimate, not all believers even are given the grace of perseverance . . . Calvin’s severe logic, insistent that all salvation is independent of merit, led him to assert that damnation is equally antecedent to and independent of demerit . . . The sole cause of salvation or of loss is the divine choice. - (Williston Walker, John Calvin, New York: Schocken Books, 1969 [orig. 1906], 417)

 

[Robert1111]

for Aquinas man retains free will.

Which doesn’t count for squat because God will not give him, if he is a reprobate, the Grace he needs to achieve salvation. Again, I quote @Latin who outlined the core issue here

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

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

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

I already replied to this. We are just going in circles. You just don’t like classical Thomism. That’s it.

OK, what more do you want?

 

[Robert1111]

Calvin advanced beyond Augustine in two ways. The great African theologian had represented God as active in election to life only. The lost were simply passed over and left to the deserved consequences of sin. To Calvin’s thinking, election and reprobation are both alike manifestations of the divine activity. In Augustine’s estimate, not all believers even are given the grace of perseverance . . . Calvin’s severe logic, insistent that all salvation is independent of merit, led him to assert that damnation is equally antecedent to and independent of demerit . . . The sole cause of salvation or of loss is the divine choice . - (Williston Walker, John Calvin, New York: Schocken Books, 1969 [orig. 1906], 417)

Again, i’m aware of the difference between been passed over and directly predestined to damnation. But the final outcome is exactly the same, both kind of reprobates are absolutely powerless to avoid their final destiny. They WILL go to Hell, period, and God will take care that they die in their sin.

Directly, per Calvin.

Per Augustine and Thomas, he simply doesn’t give them the Grace they need to come to repentance or to avoid the last fatal temptation.

According to Aquinas “The lost were simply passed over and left to the deserved consequences of sin”. And the consequences of having been passed over are exactly the same of having been predestined directly to Hell. You WILL, absolutely, without a doubt, go to Hell.

 

[Robert1111]

If you had a child and God said to you that he is predestined to Hell or that he simply passed him over, you WOULD KNOW, without a doubt, without a single doubt, with utmost certainty, that your beloved child WILL go to Hell. Even if you sacrifice your own life for his own salvation. Even if you are willing to sacrifice your own soul. It will avail him nothing, he is doomed period.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Again, i’m aware of the difference between been passed over and directly predestined to damnation. But the final outcome is exactly the same, both kind of reprobates are absolutely powerless to avoid their final destiny. They WILL go to Hell, period, and God will take care that they die in their sin.

Directly, per Calvin.

Per Augustine and Thomas, he simply doesn’t give them the Grace they need to come to repentance or to avoid the last fatal temptation.

According to Aquinas “The lost were simply passed over and left to the deserved consequences of sin”. And the consequences of having been passed over are exactly the same of having been predestined directly to Hell. You WILL , absolutely, without a doubt, go to Hell.

There is a difference in actively predestining someone to hell, and allowing them to by letting them be passed over. Again, we’d have to tackle your ill conceived notion of original sin. We deserve death. It’s not like a baby with AIDS, that is the most absurd thing I have heard yet from you. If there is a disease you’d like to attach sin to, it is leprosy which spreads quick and fast and rots everything.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa]

who’s side are you on here mate

 

[Robert1111]

There is a difference in actively predestining someone to hell, and allowing them to by letting them be passed over. Again, we’d have to tackle your ill conceived notion of original sin. We deserve death.

But the also deserve the means by which to avoid death since we didn’t inherit original sin though an act of our will. Got it?

It’s not like a baby with AIDS, that is the most absurd thing I have heard yet from you. If there is a disease you’d like to attach sin to, it is leprosy which spreads quick and fast and rots everything.

Still, we had no say in the matter, we have been created with that kind of spiritual disease and we HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER. Is this clear?

This is why a just and merciful God cannot punish us unless he gives us the means by which we can avoid the final outcome of this disease and we don’t use it. Then, in that case, we truly deserve punishment.

You are the one with a wrong conception of original sin. The Church refused AugustineKs theory on Hell for the infants born without Baptism because it was UNJUST for them to be condemned to be pains of Hell since they didn’t have a say in the matter and they inherited original sin through NO FAULT OT THEIR OWN.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

If you had a child and God said to you that he is predestined to Hell or that he simply passed him over, you WOULD KNOW , without a doubt, without a single doubt, with utmost certainty, that your beloved child WILL go to Hell. Even if you sacrifice your own life for his own salvation. Even if you are willing to sacrifice your own soul. It will avail him nothing, he is doomed period.

It is HIS choice if HE wishes to pass him over. This is the Divine will. He has every right to do as He wants. But at the same time as explained above, he sends no one to hell.

Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end ; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end . Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin , and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin. - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Robert1111]

There is a difference in actively predestining someone to hell, and allowing them to by letting them be passed over.

The outcome is the same. If i’m watching someone who is drowning i have to help him otherwise he will die. He will die just like he would die if i drowned him myself.

 

[Robert1111]

It is HIS choice if HE wishes to pass him over. This is the Divine will. He has every right to do as He wants. But at the same time as explained above, he sends no one to hell.

If some persons are born and simply passed over without their foreseen demerits playing a part, they have no chance just like someone who is actively predestined to Hell.

This is why most fathers and doctors of the Church were REPULSED by this theory.

 

[Robert1111]

He has every right to do as He wants.

But no the right to be called merciful and loving father if he creates his own personal “jews” for the sole purpose of allowing them to merit a trip to his own Dachau. This “god” is evil. Pure evil.

I mean, i wouldn’t even think about creating someone who has no choice but to merit damnation if it wasn’t for the predestinarians, because it is such an evil concept that no normal human would ever even think about it.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Still, we had no say in the matter, we have been created with that kind of spiritual disease and we HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER . Is this clear?

So what?? It is our state. That is the state of the world. We cannot even use that in court as an excuse to get out of murder.

This is why a just and merciful God cannot punish us unless he gives us the means by which we can avoid the final outcome of this disease and we don’t use it. Then, in that case, we truly deserve punishment.

You are the one with a wrong conception of original sin. The Church refused AugustineKs theory on Hell for the infants born without Baptism because it was UNJUST for them to be condemned to be pains of Hell since they didn’t have a say in the matter and they inherited original sin through NO FAULT OT THEIR OWN.

I agree with that, but even then it doesn’t negate predestination because when they’re at an age of reason, it doesn’t automatically mean original sin doesn’t count.

So you’re saying God has to give us all the choice or it’s downright evil?