Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Robert1111]

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

But then again, these conditions need to be at least concretely achievable. Such is not the case when it comes to the reprobates according to the classical thomist system.

 

[Robert1111]

But Aquinas’s doctrine would satisfy all three conditions.

Only apparently, not actually. This is because man under his system cannot concretely and factually avoid the sin of final impenitence if he is a reprobate.

 

[Mboo]

But if someone goes to hell, it’s also because God did not infallibly want Him to go to Heaven

 

[Robert1111]

But if someone goes to hell, it’s also because God did not infallibly want Him to go to Heaven

There is a world, nay, a universe, nay, a multiverse, of difference between God not infallibly wanting him to go to Heaven because he foresaw this man’s stubborn unrepentance until the bitter end despite all the Graces given to him and God not infallibly wanting him to go to Heaven for no reason except his divine will.

 

[Mboo]

There is a world, nay, a universe, nay, a multiverse, of difference between God not infallibly wanting him to go to Heaven because he foresaw this man’s stubborn unrepentance until the bitter end despite all the Graces given to him

No God did not give him all possible grace, otherwise he would be in heaven

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Trent does say that grace is resistible but could one could argue that that resistibility is only temporal – that, in the end, God will always have his way?
Hebrews 12 teaches us that God chastens his people and that we may even know that we are his by this chastening. We may resist God’s grace but he will continue to chase us until we surrender?

 

[Robert1111]

No God did not give him all possible grace, otherwise he would be in heaven

This isn’t true. Per Fr.Most God only didn’t give him a Grace that would have FORCED him to not resist, but this Grace is outside his ordinary providence, most people go to Heaven without that Grace, it is not BOTH infallible and necessary for salvation like it is in the classical thomist system.

Per Fr.Most this person received every Grace he needed and he could have truly and factually accepted it. It’s not like he didn’t accept it because God passed him over and didn’t give him what he TRULY needed to avoid final damnation.

 

[Robert1111]

Trent does say that grace is resistible but could one could argue that that resistibility is only temporal – that, in the end, God will always have his way?
Hebrews 12 teaches us that God chastens his people and that we may even know that we are his by this chastening. We may resist God’s grace but he will continue to chase us until we surrender?

This, i believe, is the view upheld by @Latin, which is why he believes in universal salvation. I hope to highest Heaven that he is right even though i wouldn’t bet my pint on it.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

This isn’t true. Per Fr.Most God only didn’t give him a Grace that would have FORCED him to not resist, but this Grace is outside his ordinary providence, most people go to Heaven without that Grace, it is not BOTH infallible and necessary for salvation.

Per Fr.Most this person received every Grace he needed and he could have truly and factually accepted it. It’s not like he didn’t accept it because God passed him over and didn’t give him what he TRULY needed to avoid final damnation.

Let me see if I am getting this right. God can lose someone he wants into heaven? And if you say he wants all to be saved, why not just give everyone the necessary grace? And if you say because not all will want it, then I don’t see where God retains any sovereignty.

From a reading of the Bible, one can venture a guess that despite the stubbornness of many of the prophets and others, if he wants you, he gets you.

 

[Robert1111]

Let me see if I am getting this right. God can lose someone he wants into heaven? And if you say he wants all to be saved, why not just give everyone the necessary grace? And if you say because not all will want it, then I don’t see where God retains any sovereignty.

He GIVES to everyone the necessary Grace. Sometimes he even acts outside of his ordinary providence by giving some unfrustrable Grace but this cannot be done everytime because it is just not congruent with man’s nature, which is a free nature.

God gives to everyone the necessary Grace, other than that, not only to the elect.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

The difference between a Calvinist and a Thomist is that the former go around calling themselves the predestinate. Thomists live as to make their calling and election sure. We believe that God’s grace is all in all, but God’s grace also enables man to act. There is a response. God initiates it, of course. He also gives us the grace to respond and persevere.

 

[Robert1111]

And if you say because not all will want it, then I don’t see where God retains any sovereignty.

Because you are making the mistake of separating God’s Grace from man’s free-will. Although God is all-powerful, He is also humble and loving. His grace humbles itself before our free will. He couldn’t save without us but he wants us to play a role in our eternal destiny.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

God gives to everyone the necessary Grace, other than that, not only to the elect.

He gives everyone necessary grace? But apparently it’s not necessary enough that it can be ultimately rejected. It seems only the elect get the necessary grace to help preserve til the end.

 

[Robert1111]

The difference between a Calvinist and a Thomist is that the former go around calling themselves the predestinate. Thomists live as to make their calling and election sure. We believe that God’s grace is all in all, but God’s grace also enables man to act. There is a response. God initiates it, of course. He also gives us the grace to respond and persevere.

The problem is, that unless someone is both a thomist and a universalist, God simply omits some people from the possibility of salvation, which is not compatible with his universal salvific will, which is not salvific merely in a figurative, antecedent way. It is a truly and genuine salvific will.

Again, Pope Saint John Paul II has been very clear about this point

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).

In the classical thomist system, with both intrinsically efficacious Grace, sufficient Grace as understood by the thomists AND unconditional negative Reprobation on top of that, salvation is simply not concretely available to all. It is only potentially available to all, but the reprobate has no chance, no ACTUAL chance, to avoid the sin of final impenitence.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Because you are making the mistake of separating God’s Grace from man’s free-will. Although God is all-powerful, He is also humble and loving. His grace humbles itself before our free will. He couldn’t save without us but he wants us to play a role in our eternal destiny.

That is assuming much. This is sort of making a god out of free will. Basically, man’s will can triumph over God’s. I guess it can if he allows it to glorify himself.

But it’s not as though God has not taken away free will in the Bible. Do you not remember the story of Nebuchadnezzar? He took his free will away no? Even if briefly.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

His grace humbles itself before our free will.

Even then, I wouldn’t word it this way. I would say that he allows for it. Saying he humbles himself before our free will, is almost like saying he bows before the alter of our free will. As if God’s entire character and plan depends on our will.

 

[Robert1111]

He gives everyone necessary grace? But apparently it’s not necessary enough that it can be ultimately rejected. It seems only the elect get the necessary grace to help preserve til the end.

Not according to Fr.Most’s system. Most elect go to Heaven with the same Graces refused by the reprobates, because the elect didn’t resist to God’s Grace, thus ALLOWING him to bring them to repentance.

Sure, he concedes that sometimes God gives to someone an unfrustrable Grace but this is outside the ordinary providence by which most men reach eternal salvation.

So intrinsically efficacious Grace can still believed to be true (i think that this Grace is implied is some promises attached to some devotions such as the chaplet of divine Mercy or the first Fridays), but it cannot be BOTH infallible AND absolutely necessary.

The error in classical thomism is that they believe this Grace to be both infallible and absolutely necessary which brings all kind of problems because it implies uncodntional Reprobation useless someone is a full-blown universalist.

 

[Robert1111]

That is assuming much. This is sort of making a god out of free will. Basically, man’s will can triumph over God’s. I guess it can if he allows it to glorify himself.

It allows it also to respect man’s nature, which is a FREE nature in the first place.

But what is important to understand, is that the reprobate wasn’t SUPPOSED to reject that Grace.

That Grace had an actual, true, genuine saving power, and the reprobate simply resist thus not allowing said power to flourish. The difference between most elect and reprobate is that the former didn’t resist this Grace. It doesn’t lie in some unfrustable arbitrary decree decided ante praevisa merita.

 

[Robert1111]

Even then, I wouldn’t word it this way. I would say that he allows for it. Saying he humbles himself before our free will, is almost like saying he bows before the alter of our free will. As if God’s entire character and plan depends on our will.

It’s not that it depends on our free-will. It’s that he wanted us to play an ACTUAL, real role in shaping our eternal destiny, because he created us FREE.

Even then, intrinsically efficacious Grace does exist, and yes, it is infallible, it’s just NOT necessary in order to reach eternal salvation and most men don’t need this kind of Grace to be saved.

All the problems of classical thomism are in the fact that they view this Grace as BOTH infallible (which it is) AND absolutely necessary for salvation, misconception which implies that:

1. The elect couldn’t have factually died in mortal sin, thus they really never had any choice.
2. The reprobates couldn’t have factually avoided the sin of final impenitence, which means that they were scr***d from the very start, since they didn’t receive a Grace which wasn’t only infallible but also absolutely necessary for them to reach their final end.

 

[Mboo]

God does not give efficacious grace to everyone because he knew some of those who will not have efficacious grace, will go to Hell (but how many are there: a minority ? a majority? all without exception?). And He allowed some to go to Hell in this way to glorify His righteousness