Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Robert1111]

You make a lot of excellent points. Points which I am willing to give ample consideration. It’s just I am not at that stage yet

Don’t worry, it takes time. I can see the grip that calvinismhas on people. It’s a form or spiritual slavery.

It’s just “middle knowledge” to me sounds like trying to find middle ground between man and God, so as to reconcile beefs we may have with the sobering reality of predestination.

From the revelations of the saints, Fr.Most’s outlook seems the most correct about the true meaning of predestination from a catholic perspective.

I guess I just see the desire to reconcile this with “God’s love and mercy” as an attempt to have our way as well. Growing up Calvinist, I guess I see any theories that attempt to do this as being man-centered. I guess I grew up thinking it should be all about Him regardless of what we want, and what we want to be true. I honestly just do not have this obsession people have with wanting what they want to be true. I want what God wants to be true. I want His will to be done on Earth. The less man-centered my theology is the better.

I can see your point, really. The next is realizing that a certain predication is actually harmful to God, in the sense that it depicts an ugly and terrifying caricature of the only true God.

Perhaps you’re also not being fair to calvinists? While not agreeing with their heresy they don’t rejoice at the idea of God sending people to hell or making them objects of wrath. They too feel awful about that but rejoice that God spares them, and that it was nothing of what they did, so they cannot boast but of what God will do through them.

I don’t think that they are horrible people. I also was a thomist who believed in unconditional predestination back then, so i can understand where they are coming from. I don’t judge them, i feel sorry for them because they are prisoners of a lie. A very ugly lie.

Ephesians 2 was always a big thing to quote among calvinists. That we were but dead in our trespasses, hopeless, and were by nature children of wrath, BUT GOD…

The rest of it read, with no context, seems to be a home run for Calvinists. The despair is before the BUT, and the rejoicing is after the But God part.

The problem is when you have to leave before the “BUT” your mother, or your wife, or your child. That is the moment where the sheer ugliness of this doctrine really stands out.

To be continued…

 

[Robert1111]

Continued…

I remember that when i refused thomism i started to love more, not only my family but even complete strangers. As i was walking down the streets i remember watching all these people while they were minding their own business and i just couldn’t believe that many of them had been born for the sole purpose of being rejected by God before any faults on their part. I just couldn’t believe that many of them had been born only to see their affections towards their loved ones, and all of their passions and friendships, die out in Hell as they suffer eternal death.

It was just too painful to bear and absolutely irreconcilable with God’s love.

Just like i said to @fhansen in the other topic

Well, you see, fhansen, thomism is actually a really really ugly girl. But she uses a great deal of makeup, this is the reason why, when you see her walking down the street, you aren’t completely horrified by her.

Sure, you may not fall in love with her but still, she doesn’t horrify you either.

But if you just dare to accept her advances despite her ugliness, the next morning you will really regret it. Because the unbearably ugly mug of this girl will stand right in front of you in the full extent of its diabolical ugliness as you wake up, and you will hope to highest Heaven to not see it ever again.

I hope i got my message across.

The girl is the same. The only difference is some cleverly applied makeup here and there.

 

[Richca]

I agree with you in that I believe too that Fr Most’s book on Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God is the best book I have ever read on the subject and I personally agree with him. But I don’t entirely agree with you that Fr Most attempts absolutely to ‘sell Aquinas as someone who didn’t believe in passive unconditional reprobation’. Fr Most talks about the two lines of thought as I mentioned from Aquinas and he says we can eliminate the one coming from Romans 8-9, an interpretation he inherited from Augustine, and which appears to be Aquinas’ focus in the ST. And because, Fr. Most says, we have a better understanding of this passage from scripture today in that St Paul according to all or most modern exegetes say St Paul isn’t talking here about individual salvation and election but the election of Israel as the chosen people. I think a number of the fathers of the Church understood it this way too, i.e, the election of Israel as the chosen people.

 

[Robert1111]

But I don’t entirely agree with you that Fr Most attempts absolutely to ‘sell Aquinas as someone who didn’t believe in passive unconditional reprobation

In many points he seemed to imply that his (Fr.Most’s) was the original thomistic understanding and that Saint Thomas had simply been misrepresented by Banez and the other thomists. But maybe i’m wrong and i should just reread that part more carefully.

Fr Most talks about the two lines of thought as I mentioned from Aquinas and he says we can eliminate the one coming from Romans 8-9, an interpretation he inherited from Augustine, and which appears to be Aquinas’ focus in the ST.

Yeah, St. first Part Question 23 is augustinianism at its finest. Like, it’s a no brainer.

And because, Fr. Most says, we have a better understanding of this passage from scripture today in that St Paul according to all or most modern exegetes say St Paul isn’t talking here about individual salvation and election but the election of Israel as the chosen people.

Exactly. Unfortunately Saint Paul has been grossly misrepresented there.

I think a number of the fathers of the Church understood it this way too, i.e, the election of Israel as the chosen people.

Absolutely. Augustine was pretty much alone with his perspective on Grace and predestination. Expecially in the east, his perspective was never accepted or even fancied for that matter.

 

[Vico]

…
Yeah, of course the Church condemned these heresies. But still, what i said to AugustineFanNYC remains untouched.

However, God does not cause the reprobate to sin, even per St. Thomas Aquinas.

Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 79. The external causes of sin > Article 1. Whether God is a cause of sin?​

Objection 3. Further, the cause of the cause is the cause of the effect. Now God is the cause of the free-will, which itself is the cause of sin. Therefore God is the cause of sin.

Reply to Objection 3. The effect which proceeds from the middle cause, according as it is subordinate to the first cause, is reduced to that first cause; but if it proceed from the middle cause, according as it goes outside the order of the first cause, it is not reduced to that first cause: thus if a servant do anything contrary to his master’s orders, it is not ascribed to the master as though he were the cause thereof. In like manner sin, which the free-will commits against the commandment of God, is not attributed to God as being its cause.

 

[Robert1111]

However, God does not cause the reprobate to sin, even per St. Thomas Aquinas.

Yeah, of course, i never said that Saint Thomas believed that God causes the reprobate to sin. That would be full-blown Calvinism. He simply doesn’t give him the Grace that he gives to the elect, so that the reprobate will 100% freely sin and merit Hell.

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”.

Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection 3

“Why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will”.

Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 3

“ANYONE reprobated by God CANNOT acquire grace”.

So it is like saying “listen Vico, i don’t directly want you to die, so i’m not going to run you down with my car. But, you see, i don’t really want you to live either, so i will not prevent you from having a mortal accident with your car tomorrow morning, despite knowing with certainty that i’m the only one who could prevent you from using your driving skills in a deadly manner”

And guess what, Vico? The outcome is exactly the same in both scenarios. It’s not like if i run you down with my car you die and if i simply allow you to be infallibly killed by your own incompetence (knowing full well that you absolutely need my help otherwise you will 100% kill yourself with that goddamned car) you are better off. You are infallibly dead in both scenarios. Just like in both calvinism and thomism you are infallibly and royally scr**d from all eternity because God didn’t wish you salvation. Thomism is just a better advocate and tries to prevent that kind of “”””god”””” from looking like a complete douchebag, but it fails spectacularly at it. At least Calvinism is more sincere and doesn’t try to put lipstick on a pig. That, in itself, is commendable, since i, just like the Sergeant Hartman said at 02:15

, admire honesty very much.

 

[Vico]

…

In your thought example you posited, which does not reflect what Aquinas holds with regard to God:

• i don’t want you to die and
• i don’t want you to live.

Rather it is:

• i don’t want you to die and
• i want you to choose.

He begins with Providence whereas Calvin begins with Predestination. (S.T. Q23 “Thus it is clear that predestination as regards its objects, is a part of providence.”) It makes a big difference. As we know, mankind can do good even without grace, although it is not salvic, because we cannot save ourselves without God. We can save ourselves with Gods help, and God does provide one half of the solution.

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 23 > Article 4. Whether the predestined are chosen by God?​

Reply to Objection 2. When the will of the person choosing is incited to make a choice by the good already pre-existing in the object chosen, the choice must needs be of those things which already exist, as happens in our choice. In God it is otherwise; as was said above (I:20:2). Thus, as Augustine says (De Verb. Ap. Serm. 11): “Those are chosen by God, who do not exist; yet He does not err in His choice.”

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I don’t think that they are horrible people. I also was a thomist who believed in unconditional predestination back then, so i can understand where they are coming from. I don’t judge them, i feel sorry for them because they are prisoners of a lie. A very ugly lie.

AugustineFanNYC:

One of the main reasons why I loved being Calvinistic was because it relied heavily on exegesis and reason. Reason is always stressed, almost to a fault, by Reformed Protestants. When you ask a Calvinist, how do you know what good works are supposed to spring out of you once saved, they reply, you’ll know. How do you know? Well, by reason. So “works” that are a result of salvation to Calvinists can be anything from a bake sale to entering seminary. You’re basically just supposed to gather by reason how to discern what is truly Godly works.

While of course this is silly, I still found it useful that the emphasis on reason kept me from ever straying into other non-Christian religions and to be able to easily see the rather inconsistencies in the pagan mysticism of other religions. Most other religions are, frankly irrational. I don’t mean to be rude but if you study Eastern religions, it’s all ‘both and’, never ‘either or’. They don’t even realize that when they try to refute the ‘either or’ of Western thought, to promote their ‘both and’ philosophies, they’re still engaging in ‘either or’.

But Calvinism and Reformed Protestantism, while excellent at philosophy, has a methodology and a system that will heavily box you in. It’s weird to say, but it’s almost too rational. At some points you don’t know where the Enlightenment rationalism ends and where Christianity begins. The Reformation of course, was a precursor to the Enlightenment (as was to some extent the humanism of the Renaissance too). Major Reformed apologists are seen more as “scientists” than theologians these days because they concentrate so much on reason, logic, etc, and rarely go into the faith they’re supposedly defending.

Point is, I think Thomism and Augustinianism preserve that balance of rationality, (that the Eastern Orthodox refer to as too “intellectual”), and the mysteries of the faith, to essentially give us a reasonable faith.

I think all the other teachings, (not so much Molinism) are miring the faith into too much mysticism and universalism, all under the guise of “God’s infinite love and mercy”. They stretch the concepts of God’s love and mercy to a point where they begin to sound too mystical and too, well…Eastern, I guess, IDK. But it’s bordering of pelagianism and universalism.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

The problem is when you have to leave before the “BUT” your mother, or your wife, or your child. That is the moment where the sheer ugliness of this doctrine really stands out.

To be continued…

Brother, even non-Christians have a sense of right and wrong, the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness. They have a semblance of right and wrong, which they accuse and defend each other. Point, is, you’re never free from judgment.

 

[Robert1111]

In your thought example you posited, which do not reflect what Aquinas holds with regard to God:

• i don’t want you to die and
• i don’t want you to live.

Rather it is:

• i don’t want you to die and
• i want you to choose.

Holy moly, man, what part of “Why He chooses some for glory and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will” (Summa Theologiae, First Part, Question 23, Article 5, reply to objection 3) isn’t clear yet?

As we know, mankind can do good even without grace, although it is not salvic, because we cannot save ourselves without God. We can save ourselves with Gods help, and God does provide one half of the solution.

Esattamente.

And per Aquinas, God provides this “one half of the solution” only to the elect, because “ANYONE reprobated by God CANNOT acquire grace” (Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 3).

So we can stop trying to sell the idea that Aquinas wasn’t believing in the same strong predestinarian view upheld by Augustine many centuries earlier https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM when Saint Thomas as as Augustinian as one can possibly get when it comes to Grace and Salvation. Come on.

 

[Robert1111]

, I think Thomism and Augustinianism preserve that balance of rationality

I don’t know. The idea that some souls are simply created and passed over before their foreseen demerits so that they will infallibly and freely merit Hell (but literally everyone would merit Hell, under those circumstances, even Padre Pio or Mother Teresa) doesn’t seem very rational to me. Not if you also try to sell me the idea that God died for all and truly desires the salvation of all.

It’s not “stretching out” the concept of Mercy. It’s just Mercy. To create people for the sole purpose of allowing them to be tortured forever (and this, i repeat, knowing full well that if you don’t wish them salvation and you reject them before any foreseen demerits on their part they simply WILL - no matter the scenario they are put into, the family they grow up with of the education they receive- go to Hell) is the very definition of cruelty. A cruelty not of this world, because not even the worst tyrant who ever lived has ever been so cruel.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

God is sending no one to hell. The state of man after the fall was always one of death. Christ defeated death on the cross and now we have the free opportunity of salvation. Without Him, we were all condemned.

I don’t understand why this very topic concerns you so much. I am sorry but people have the choice, as does God to predestine. If you’re so concerned about this go out and evangelize. We don’t know the number that will be saved, nor are we told to dwell on it and judge others salvation. All we can do is witness to others. Who are you to question what the potter does with his clay?

And you would really say that no tyrant who has ever lived has been “that cruel”. Are you serious? Even if you’re not Thomistic, the attempt to explain predestination by Aquinas and Augustine was not to outdo the cruelty of earthly tyrants, but to explain God’s sovereignty, and man’s free will, and the mercy He has on us all. He didn’t have to save a single soul.

Look, I can understand your apprehension toward Thomism, but this is getting to be insulting. I think you have deep personal issues with this matter, that probably need to resolved with a Priest, because at this point you’re saying that what two great Saints of the faith taught was amount to tyranny that was worse than Hitler.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I don’t even see how Molinism assuages your guilt over this or makes it any better. That God has to swipe left on an I-pad at all the possible scenarios to appease both man and Himself? Seems slightly convoluted to give man an inch, but to take sovereignty from God. Stretching mercy to the point where we create a theology a bit more man-centered, forgetting that God didn’t even have to save a single one of us.

 

[Robert1111]

God is sending no one to hell. The state of man after the fall was always one of death. Christ defeated death on the cross and now we have the free opportunity of salvation. Without Him, we were all condemned.

Nobody chooses to be born with his soul tainted by original sin. God chooses this for us. And according to Thomas and Aquinas he also denies us (if we are not numbered among the elect) what we need to escape the horrible fate we are fated to face (because we will unavoidably, and yet willingly, choose to sin etc etc) with such a stained soul. If this is loving, well, i don’t know what to say.

Who are you to question what the potter does with his clay?

Nobody, but if someone requires me to believe that said Potter is also all-loving than i have a problem, because 2+2 will never be 7 or -3.

And you would really say that no tyrant who has ever lived has been “that cruel”.

I know quite a bit about history and i haven’t found nothing coming close to the idea of creating living beings who are simply destined to eternal suffering before having a say in the matter. Really. If you found something more evil than this, feel free to point it out and i will give it ample consideration.

Look, I can understand your apprehension toward Thomism, but this is getting to be insulting. I think you have deep personal issues with this matter, that probably need to resolved with a Priest, because at this point you’re saying that what two great Saints of the faith taught was amount to tyranny that was worse than Hitler.

Per Augustine even the infants who died in original sin alone were condemned to suffer the pains of Hell. Infants who literally don’t know right from wrong and were just born that way, with original sin, because God wanted it, since they had no say in the matter whatsoever.

If this is good, well, again, i’ll just say that we have very different concepts about what is good.

To me, to love someone means desiring his happiness, not his misery.

I do believe they were great saints and I also believe 100% in their good faith. But I also believe they were horribly wrong about this subject.

Or maybe all the other fathers who never upheld their strong predestinarian views were wrong, and all the saints who received private revelations from a Jesus who was as far from a predestinarian tyrant as one can possibly get were just duped by illusions.

 

[Robert1111]

I don’t even see how Molinism assuages your guilt over this or makes it any better. That God has to swipe left on an I-pad at all the possible scenarios to appease both man and Himself? Seems slightly convoluted to give man an inch, but to take sovereignty from God. Stretching mercy to the point where we create a theology a bit more man-centered, forgetting that God didn’t even have to save a single one of us.

Like i said, Fr.Most’s theory is the most compatible with God’s salvific will i have ever read. He believe that nobody is reprobated unless he is completely and stubbornly unrepentant until the bitter end, so it’s a 100% conditional reprobation.

God wants to save everyone and he wants to predestine everyone to Heaven, because Jesus truly died for all, not just figuratively. And yet some people simply choose to not avail themselves of the merits of His passion. This is why some are reprobates and have to endure God’s Justice in Hell.

Not because God didn’t wish them eternal life, only because they didn’t accept the gift.

This is also compatible to the revelations of Jesus to the saints, where i never heard about something that even came close to the ideas and implications of unconditional predestination and passive reprobation before foreseen demerits.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Nobody chooses to be born with his soul tainted by original sin. God chooses this for us. And according to Thomas and Aquinas he also denies us what we need to escape the horrible fate we are fated to face (becaus we will unavoidably, and yet willingly, choose to sin etc etc) with such a stained soul. If this is loving, well, i don’t know what to say.

But are you saying that God should not do this? Based on what? You’re understanding of what is just?

I would really like to know what your presupposed notions are of what is loving and what is just.

Nobody, but if someone requires me to believe that said Potter is also all-loving than i have a problem, because 2+2 will never be 7 or -3.

Again, “all loving” meaning what? What would be all loving to you? That He save everyone? That He cheapen the death of His Son on the cross to please a universal appeal at what men consider righteous?

I know quite a bit about history and i haven’t found nothing coming close to the idea of creating living beings who are simply destined to eternal suffering before having a say in the matter. Really. If you found something more evil than this, feel free to point it out and i will give it ample consideration.

AugustineFanNYC:

He creates living souls who are destined to hell because he allows them to freely make that choice. He knows the choices they’ll make. He doesn’t force them to live with him forever in heaven if they stubbornly refuse. Besides, we are all destined to the same faith. What He did on the cross was finally give man an opportunity at salvation.

If this is good, well, again, i’ll just say that we have very different concepts about what is good.

To me, to love someone means desiring his happiness, not his misery.

Yes, we have different conceptions about what is good. And yes, to you that’s what it means. That right there explains what this is all about. You want man’s happiness to be ultimate, even if it means taking away from God’s sovereignty. You even want a compromise which you assume Molinism does.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

I don’t have much issue with this. Look, it’s all speculative debate. Could Thomists and Augustinians be wrong. Sure. I am willing to concede that.

I am not so much worried with that. I am worried about you and other Catholics coming to grips with some of the harsher stuff like this, and desperately needing and looking everywhere, anywhere for compromise. And what if the debate was settled and Thomism was or IS the truth according to the Church? What then? Would you give up your faith?

I am trying to understand but perhaps it’s because I am not looking for this compromise in order to prove just how “loving” God is, loving of course meaning to try and be as inclusive as possible without denying Him his sovereignty.

 

[Robert1111]

But are you saying that God should not do this? Based on what? You’re understanding of what is just?

I would really like to know what your presupposed notions are of what is loving and what is just.

The Catholic Church teaches that our nature is corrupted, not totally depraved. This means that we can still tell right from wrong, and this also means that our sense of justice and fairness cannot he completely deformed to the point that God’s Justice and fairness is something completely alien and incomprehensible to us.

Again, “all loving” meaning what? What would be all loving to you? That He save everyone?

That he is genuinely and truly willing to save everyone, even though some souls simply refuse that gift.

He creates living souls who are destined to hell because he allows them to freely make that choice. He knows the choices they’ll make. He doesn’t force them to live with him forever in heaven if they stubbornly refuse.

Stubbornly refuse? Give me a break (i’m not being rude, don’t get it wrong here). Even Padre Pio would “stubbornly refuse” if God left him in the dust because he didn’t wish him salvation.

Besides, we are all destined to the same faith. What He did on the cross was finally give man an opportunity at salvation.

If thomism were true, what he did would be giving to some the gift of salvation while leaving all the others to an horrible fate they can’t possibly avoid without the Grace he gives to the elect and doesn’t give to the reprobates.

Summa Theologiae, First Part, Article 3, reply to objection 3

“ANYONE reprobated by God CANNOT acquire grace”.

Very loving indeed.

Yes, we have different conceptions about what is good. And yes, to you that’s what it means. That right there explains what this is all about. You want man’s happiness to be ultimate, even if it means taking away from God’s sovereignty. You even want a compromise which you assume Molinism does.

I just happen to think very highly of God, so that i don’t think that he is such a petty little man that granting to every single man a fair chance at salvation diminishes his sovereignty one bit. Like, at all.

 

[TULIPed]

Nobody, but if someone requires me to believe that said Potter is also all-loving than i have a problem, because 2+2 will never be 7 or -3.

(Don’t forget the whole “raised from the dead” thing.)

 

[Robert1111]

I am not so much worried with that. I am worried about you and other Catholics coming to grips with some of the harsher stuff like this, and desperately needing and looking everywhere, anywhere for compromise. And what if the debate was settled and Thomism was or IS the truth according to the Church? What then? Would you give up your faith?

I’d probably just fall back into the same heavy depression i was plunged into when i was a thomist back in the days. With the difference that in this case i would know that there is no way out, no other possible explanation.

Also i would be desperate for a very valid reason: i couldn’t possibly love a God like that. In the other topic i said that i would reject him and worship Satan if I was sure that thomism were true, but the thing is, i probably wouldn’t, because deep down I’m a chickenshit and i would be horribly scared of him (and with good reasons too since, you know, God isn’t exactly someone you can argue with if he turns out to be a jerk).

So yeah, i would be in a world of fat, stinky, ugly s**t. Because i could only fear this God, i could never love him.

But guess what? I don’t think that this scenario will ever happen, thank God.

I am trying to understand but perhaps it’s because I am not looking for this compromise in order to prove just how “loving” God is, loving of course meaning to try and be as inclusive as possible without denying Him his sovereignty.

Fr.Most’s theory doesn’t deny His sovereignty.