Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Mboo]

The Church, too, has never formally taught the opposite

 

[Mboo]

quote me then formally Trent who says that one can actually sin with effective grace

 

[Robert1111]

that’s what you say, the dogma tells me nothing. The effective grace by definition infallibly prevents, from sinning

Where is this effective grace taught in the catholic teaching?

 

[Robert1111]

quote me then formally Trent who says that one can actually sin with effective grace

Quote Trent who says that there is a Grace that infallibly prevents man from sinning, since you apparently want to argue that Trent was condemning a proposition never defended by the heretics (that is, that sufficient Grace cannot be resisted) which is something never done by the Church.

 

[Robert1111]

The Church, too, has never formally taught the opposite

What? The Church has taught the opposite, by teaching that man can resist God’s Grace and that God wishes the salvation of all, therefore if someone isn’t saved this cannot be due on God not having had Mercy on him.

 

[Robert1111]

“(God) DOES NOT SEEK OUR CONDEMNATION, BUT OUR SALVATION” the Pope continued, noting that this goes for everyone. The problem, then, DOESN’T CONSIST OF LACK OF MERCY, but rather of “WHO REALLY WANTS TO ALLOW GOD TO ENTER THEIR HEART”
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...tradict-each-other-pope-francis-says-no-75638

This would be utter nonsense under a strong predestinarian view.

 

[Mboo]

With the effective grace one can potentially sin, but one can never actually sin, it is the definition of effective grace.
One example, I can potentially coldly kill my child, but I can never actually kill him coldly because God has given me a natural love for him that makes it impossible for me to abuse my free will to kill him coldly.

 

[Robert1111]

With the effective grace one can potentially sin, but one can never actually sin,

And if this Grace exists and it is both infallible and necessary for salvation, and yet some people aren’t saved, this would mean that their damnation was inevitable, since they could have potentially not sinned but they could have never actually avoided sin (because thomistic sufficient Grace just mirrors the thomistic efficacious Grace, only in the opposite way). This is double predestination under another name.

 

[Mboo]

the church never specify what kind of grace it is

 

[Robert1111]

the church never specify what kind of grace it is

Efficacious Grace as understood by the predestinarians is BOTH infallible AND necessary for salvation, therefore implying that those who didn’t receive it had no choice but to actually merit damnation. Again, double predestination under a different name.

 

[Robert1111]

Also

the church never specify what kind of grace it is

Because it has not been settled, in the sense that it is not definitely clear if it is our consent that makes Grace efficacious or if efficacious Grace is intrinsically efficacious (this is what the predestinarians, Augustians and thomists, believe). Too bad that the latter view implies that some people simply don’t have any ACTUAL choice and they are infallibly guaranteed to merit damnation.

 

[Robert1111]

Someone care to explain how the predestinarian view is compatible with this, please

“(God) DOES NOT SEEK OUR CONDEMNATION, BUT OUR SALVATION” the Pope continued, noting that this goes for everyone. The problem, then, DOESN’T CONSIST OF LACK OF MERCY, but rather of “WHO REALLY WANTS TO ALLOW GOD TO ENTER THEIR HEART” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...tradict-each-other-pope-francis-says-no-75638

And if it isn’t compatible (and it obviously isn’t) please care to explain why the Church is misleading so many people who now have been fooled and duped into believing that God really, and not figuratively or antecedentely or whatever, really and genuinely wants the salvation of all when in all actuality it’s just a big lie.

 

[Mboo]

Efficacious Grace as understood by the predestinarians is BOTH infallible AND necessary for salvation,

I myself have difficulties accepting this proposal. But if I understood St Alphonsus Ligori well, by prayer everyone can transform a sufficient grace into Efficacious grace, and this possibility of praying is given to all.
But God can infallibly lead whoever he wants to heaven without the need to kill his free will. So if someone goes to Hell, it is because on the one hand, God did not absolutely want him to be in Heaven, God only wanted him to be saved hypothetically.

 

[Robert1111]

Oh and yeah, while we are at it, if the predestinarian god is true, i want someone to explain these words of Saint John Paul II to me

“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).

How can salvation be CONCRETELY AVAILABLE (that is, it cannot be only a potency for some people that cannot possibly come to pass unless God makes another intervention, otherwise it wouldn’t be concretely available, only potentially) to all if to accept God’s Grace I need God’s intrinsically efficacious Grace in the first place, Grace which he isn’t willing to give me unless i’m numbered among the elect?

 

[Robert1111]

I myself have difficulties accepting this proposal. But if I understood St Alphonsus Ligori well, by prayer everyone can transform a sufficient grace into Efficacious grace, and this possibility of praying is given to all.

Ok, but Liguori’s view is not compatible with unconditional election, since our salvation under his theory would be contingent upon our willingness to pray. I don’t agree with him and i believe that Fr.Most got it right, but still even Liguori’s view wipes away unconditional election.

 

[Mboo]

God has an absolute will, and a hypothetical will. God hypothetically wants everyone to be saved, but he absolutely wants some to be saved.

 

[Robert1111]

But God can infallibly lead whoever he wants to heaven without the need to kill his free will. So if someone goes to Hell, it is because on the one hand, God did not absolutely want him to be in Heaven, God only wanted him to be saved hypothetically.

Even Fr Most concedes that God CAN “force” man’s will to not resist to his Grade, but this is rarely done because it is not congruent with man’s nature.

Still, Fr.Most posits damnation only for the truly unrepentant, which is very compatible with what Saint John Paul II said about salvation being CONCRETELY available to all, which wouldn’t be true in a strictly strong predestinarian system.

 

[Robert1111]

God has an absolute will, and a hypothetical will. God hypothetically wants everyone to be saved, but he absolutely wants some to be saved.

It depends on what you mean by “absolutely”. Salvation, like i said, has to be made concretely available to all, and these are not my words, these are Saint John Paul II’s words, this means that unconditional election can’t be right even if it hasn’t been formally declared heretical.

 

[Mboo]

What God absolutely wants is always infallibly realized, what God wants hypothetically is realized under certain conditions

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on ‘predestination’ gives three limiting conditions for any orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation:

Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses: (a) At least in the order of execution in time ( in ordine executionis ) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness; (b) hell cannot even in the order of intention ( in ordine intentionis ) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds; (c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation.

For Calvin, God predestined men to hell and sin in the same ‘positive’ way He predestined the elect to heaven. (See Institutes III.XXII.11; XXIII) So, that would put Calvin’s doctrine at odds with the second and third conditions directly above. But Aquinas’s doctrine would satisfy all three conditions.