Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[AugustineFanNYC]

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.

You’re right, but can it not be corrupted to where we want compromise?

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

And that He did not have to do a single thing for us at all, but did so out of his eternal love and mercy. That is where I start this whole thing. That we’re forgetting that we never had a say in this. He wanted to save us.

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.

Possibly, but He didn’t. Again, we don’t know. We don’t know the names of the people in the book of life, we don’t the number of the elect, all we are told to do is not worry about that and go evangelize.

Very loving indeed.

Yes, very loving He even gives grace to anyone.

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.

Or possibly that you think very highly of man as to think He merits anymore than what God gives us.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

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.

Wow. I will pray for you. Not that you accept Thomism or anything like that at all. I have nothing against Molinism or anything like that, just that this is much more serious than just a theological spat, brother. This is about you ever being eternally separated from your loved ones. But regardless of whether Thomism or Molinism wins out in the end, the choice is still theirs to make. No matter what they cannot run away from judgement. Always know that. You have to come to terms with that no matter what is true theologically.

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

I know. I said come close to compromise and inclusivity as possible without denying his sovereignty. You may think well great, what’s wrong with that? It’s win-win, no? But I look at the intention, the purpose of what is being done here.

 

[Robert1111]

You’re right, but can it not be corrupted to where we want compromise?

There is no human being on this heart who would think that creating another human being whose finale outcome can only be excruciating and neverending pain and misery, both spiritual and physical (after the final resurrection), with said human being who never had a TRUE chance to avoid such an horrible fate in the first place, can be good.

Only deep indoctrination can bring someone to believe that this horrific concept can be good and fine.

And that He did not have to do a single thing for us at all, but did so out of his eternal love and mercy. That is where I start this whole thing. That we’re forgetting that we never had a say in this. He wanted to save us.

Robert1111:

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. If he didn’t, i hope you have some simpathy for the Devil

because you will 100% spend your eternity with him, and you never had a say in the matter.

Yes, very loving He even gives grace to anyone .

Yeah, even condemning infants who literally don’t know right from wrong to the pains of Hell is “loving”… Bruh… Come on.

Or possibly that you think very highly of man as to think He merits anymore than what God gives us.

Again, man doesn’t choose to be born with his soul already tainted. Man is still responsible for his choices but still original sin is like having a car with a malfunctioning engine, and God, per Aquinas and Augustine, maybe will simply NOT fix our engine because he never wanted to, and if that’s the case it is really not surprising that we will kill ourselves.

And remember, there is no third way. Not even the chance to cease to exist. It is either eternal bliss or eternal torment.

 

[Robert1111]

Possibly, but He didn’t.

No, if thomism is true the answer is not “possibly”, it’s “most definitely”. Otherwise his election would have been conditional, which is exactly what thomism denies.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

There is no human being on this heart who would think that creating another human being whose finale outcome can only be excruciating and neverending pain and misery, both spiritual and physical (after the final resurrection), with said human being who never had a TRUE chance to avoid such an horrible fate in the first place, can be good.

Considering your description of hell and how sardonic it sounded. Do you really just have a problem with God allowing anyone to go to hell? Are you upset at anyone going there?
To your point, are the names in the book of life already written in before the passage of time, and He scratches them out as time goes by, or does God write them down as time goes on?

How else can you make sense of an ‘elect’? Our fate, such as everyone’s was already destined. We all fall short of the Glory of God, all were predestined to the same fate, BUT God. So God doesn’t send anyone to hell, we were already well on our way. He saves us. He gave us all the free choice. He knows who will choose and who won’t and asks us to not worry about this but evangelize.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. If he didn’t, i hope you have some simpathy for the Devil

because you will 100% spend your eternity with him, and you never had a say in the matter.

I don’t worry about that. I worry about witnessing and bringing glory to Him, more so than my own eternal fate.

Yeah, even condemning infants who literally don’t know right from wrong to the pains of Hell is “loving”… Bruh… Come on.

Don’t know much about infant baptism to comment, but isn’t this a tenet of the Church?

Again, man doesn’t choose to be born with his soul already tainted. Man is still responsible for his choices but still original sin is like having a car with a malfunctioning engine, and God, per Aquinas and Augustine, maybe will simply NOT fix our engine because he never wanted to, and if that’s the case it is really not surprising that we will kill ourselves.

And remember, there is no third way. Not even the chance to cease to exist. It is either eternal bliss or eternal torment.

You keep asserting your interpretations of what is right and wrong. What is just? You keep asserting it as though it’s just “self evident”, like “c’mon bro, you know that’s not right” . Again I don’t see it that way, because I know that before Christ died we were as Ephesians said dead, but after Christ died, made alive in Him. Because of the flawed, not depraved, nature, we had a difficult time discerning truth. We had a total inability to please God without special grace. The fact that offers that grace is sufficient for me, because I know that He did not even have to apply that at all.

Why isn’t that enough for you? Why stop at Molinism? Why not go full fledged into liberalism and universalism if your intent is to make God save all?

 

[Robert1111]

“ There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38].

1. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul. What happens to such individuals when they appear before the Judge? Will all the impurity they have amassed through life suddenly cease to matter? What else might occur? Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians , gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” ( 1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.” Spe salvi (November 30, 2007) | BENEDICT XVI

 

[Robert1111]

As you can see, Pope Benedict XVI seemed to have the perspective that the great majority of people who aren’t that hardened and closed to God’s love, will be saved through Purgatory.

 

[AugustineFanNYC]

Well that’s a different matter entirely. I haven’t even considered Purgatory.

Again, brother, this isn’t at all about a theological spat. I am not an expert in Thomism. Heck I am new to all of this. So I am not here to keep on an endless debate, although it’s fun and I appreciate, greatly your responses. This is more about presuppositions, and more about this fear from being eternally separated from your loved ones. I just wouldn’t want it to get so bad that not even Molinism can assuage your guilt about this, and that liberalism, and universalism will soon come to be more enticing.

 

[Robert1111]

Considering your description of hell and how sardonic it sounded. Do you really just have a problem with God allowing anyone to go to hell? Are you upset at anyone going there?

To your point, are the names in the book of life already written in before the passage of time, and He scratches them out as time goes by, or does God write them down as time goes on?

How else can you make sense of an ‘elect’? Our fate, such as everyone’s was already destined.

The Council of Quiersy on Predestination

The Council of Quiersy, in 853 A.D., was a local Council, whose teachings fall under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium. These are not infallible Canons. Nevertheless, the Council’s teac…

ronconte.com

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

Hope this helps.

So God doesn’t send anyone to hell, we were already well on our way

Old argument, i didn’t decide to have a car with a malfunctioning engine to drive. God gave us this car, we never had a say in the matter. According to the strong predestinarian view, some of these cars are graciously fixed by the divine engineer and other cars are simply left to their own malfunctioning, so that the unfortunate driver will surely kill himself. If i had a father who knew that my car is trying to kill and did nothing to fix it or at least to prevent me from driving it, i don’t think that i would consider him a good father.

Here is the thing: God as “father” is never mentioned in your posts. You simply seem to view it as some kind of cosmic ruler, but if you realize that he is also a father, you will also understand how a father would act.

Don’t know much about infant baptism to comment, but isn’t this a tenet of the Church?

Robert1111:

That the infants had to suffer the pains of Hell despite not having committed any kind of actual personal sin, no, was never a tenet of the Church. That’s where the speculation about Limbo and perfect natural happiness came from, because the injustice implied in Saint Augustine’s theory was too big to bear.

 

[Robert1111]

You simply seem to view it as some kind of cosmic ruler,

You simply seem to view Him, obviously.

 

[Robert1111]

You keep asserting your interpretations of what is right and wrong. What is just? You keep asserting it as though it’s just “self evident”, like “c’mon bro, you know that’s not right” .

Because it’s not. God’s law and what is good or bad is written in our hearts, so that we KNOW when something is deeply wrong. I think you are still using a calvinist perspective about this matter. It’s not your fault, you were a calvinist so it’s only normal that you are still deeply influenced by it, but like i said, the Catholic perspective is that our nature is NOT completely depraved to the point that God’s ways can possibly seem downright evil to us.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught that the reprobate are left to the ruin due their sins, whereas Calvin taught the reprobate are rejected only because God willed it. [For Calvin see Wendel, Calvin, 280] One may not agree with the argument of Aquinas, but it is his view that God’s efficacious will does not destroy human free will (liberum arbitrium) and he defends his view without a compatibilist interpretation.

Questiones Disputatae de Veritate by St. Thomas Aquinas:​

Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis non esse effectus divinae voluntatis non possit simul stare cum divina voluntate, tamen potentia deficiendi effectum simul stat cum divina voluntate; non enim sunt ista incompossibilia: Deus vult istum salvari, et iste potest damnari; sed ista sunt incompossibilia: Deus vult istum salvari, et iste damnatur.
3. Although the non-existence of an effect of the divine will is incompatible with the divine will, the possibility that the effect should be lacking is given simultaneously with the divine will. God’s willing someone to be saved and the possibility that that person be damned are not incompatible; but God’s willing him to be saved and his actually being damned are incompatible.

Etiam similiter dicendum est ad quartum de effectu causae mediae.
4. The same is to be said about the deficiency of the intervening cause.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer23.htm#5
https://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer.htm

 

[Robert1111]

St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught that the reprobate are left to the ruin due their sins, whereas Calvin taught the reprobate are rejected only because God willed it

Even Aquinas taught the reprobate are rejected only because God willed it.

He stated it as clearly as possible: “ 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.

Calvin was just Aquinas on steroids in that he also denied free-will, but the reprobates were scr***d from the start for both.

Also Aquinas said (quoting from your own quote)

God’s willing him to be saved and his actually being damned are incompatible.

And that’s the whole point. Per Aquinas the reprobates are damned because they sinned, but they sinned unto death because God didn’t wish them salvation, otherwise they wouldn’t have been damned.

 

[Vico]

…
Even Aquinas taught the reprobate are rejected only because God willed it.

He stated it as clearly as possible.

It is not the same as Calvin states. St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that the human will can will something contingently even though God’s will that something obtain cannot be forsaken.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught that the reprobate are left to the ruin due their sins, whereas Calvin taught the reprobate are rejected only because God willed it

Even Aquinas taught the reprobate are rejected only because God willed it.

He stated it as clearly as possible: “ 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.

Calvin was just Aquinas on steroid in that he also denied free-will, but the reprobates were scr***d from the start for both.

It is always important to keep in mind that salvation is not due a human, but is a gift.

 

[Robert1111]

It is always important to keep in mind that salvation is not due a human, but is a gift.

And if God doesn’t desire salvation to all men, rejecting some from the very start while knowing what awaits them if he doesn’t wish them salvation, he cannot he said to be all-loving, because love implies that you desire the happiness of the person you love.

To claim that you love someone but you want them to be irreparably miserable is laughable at best, downright psychopathic at worst.

It is not the same as Calvin states.

It is exactly the same. Calvin is just a worse advocate and doesn’t try to prevent the “god” he has in mind from looking like the criminal he actually is.

Because not even Hitler was that bad. He wanted to get rid of the Jews, he didn’t want them to suffer eternally.

St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that the human will can will something contingently even though God’s will that something obtain cannot be forsaken.

Loopholes and tecnicalities. In one word: gibberish.

This: “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 is the actual core of the issue.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It is always important to keep in mind that salvation is not due a human, but is a gift.

And if God doesn’t desire salvation to all men, rejecting some from the very start while knowing what awaits them if he doesn’t wish them salvation, he cannot he said to be all-loving, because love implies that you desire the happiness of the person you love.

To claim that you love someone but you want them to be irreparably miserable is laughable at best, downright psychopathic at worst.

It is not the same as Calvin states.

It is exactly the same. Calvin is just a worse advocate and doesn’t try to prevent the “god” he has in mind from looking like the criminal he actually is.

You can read Calvin and see his argument is different, that is what I mean.

Now you have said God is a criminal which I cannot take seriously, are you being sarcastic?

You read it in the Gospel parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). Some got the same wage with less work than others, but it was the masters right not their due.

 

[Robert1111]

You can read Calvin and see his argument is different, that is what I mean.

I’ve read Calvin and while the argument is different, the outcome is the same. If you are a reprobate in a calvinist universe you are in the same position of a reprobate in a thomist universe. You are only born for the sole purpose of satisfying God’s wrath in Hell. The only difference is that in the calvinist universe God directly wishes you Hell, in the thomist universe he simply doesn’t wish you heaven. But to Hell you will go, in both scenarios. 100% guaranteed. You can bet your pint on it.

Now you have said God is a criminal which I cannot take seriously, are you being sarcastic?

Why do you think i wrote “god”? Because a “god” like that doesn’t exist to me. So no, i haven’t said that God is a criminal. The god imagined by some is a goddamned criminal.

The fictional “god” who creates some human beings for the sole purpose of allowing them to experience eternal misery because he never wished them salvation in the first place IS a criminal.

A criminal much worse than the worst human criminal who ever lived, because us humans at least have some compassion and would never create someone for the sole purpose of inflicting EVERLASTING pain on them. We wouldn’t do that even to a dog, for God’s sake, let alone a human.

Even the Mexican drug cartels are kind guys compared to this fictional monster. They have no qualms about peeling your skin off and gauging your eyes out but hey, that pain ends sooner or later. And at least you have to at least piss them off, they didn’t create you in a Mexican lab and injected you with some hormones that make you really want to behave badly so that they have the excuse to “justly” inflict pain on you.

And yet, this is what the predestinarian “god” would do. This, exactly.

You read it in the Gospel parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). Some got the same wage with less work than others, but it was the masters right not their due

This would be comparable to a great sinner who comes to repentance, such as Rudolf Höss. I have no problems with that.

That’s not what we were talking about, the problem is the idea of some people reprobated from the very start.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

You can read Calvin and see his argument is different, that is what I mean.

I’ve read Calvin and while the argument is different, the outcome is the same. If you are a reprobate in a calvinist universe you are in the same position of a reprobate in a thomist universe. You are only born for the sole purpose of satisfying God’s wrath in Hell. The only difference is that in the calvinist universe God directly wishes you Hell, in the thomist universe he simply doesn’t wish you heaven. But to Hell you will go, in both scenarios. 100% guaranteed. You can bet your pint on it.

Now you have said God is a criminal which I cannot take seriously, are you being sarcastic?

Why do you think i wrote “god”? Because a “god” like that doesn’t exist to me. So no, i haven’t said that God is a criminal. The god imagined by some is a goddamned criminal.

You read it in the Gospel parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). Some got the same wage with less work than others, but it was the masters right not their due

This would be comparable to a great sinner who comes to repentance, such as Rudolf Höss. I have no problems with that.

That’s not what we were talking about, the problem is the idea of some people reprobated from the very start.

No, the parable of the workers in the vineyard is on the topic. St. Thomas uses it in S.T. I, Q23 A5 R3

Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: “Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (Matthew 20:14-15).
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

 

[Robert1111]

No, the parable of the workers in the vineyard is on the topic. St. Thomas uses it in S.T. I, Q23 A5 R3

Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: “Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (Matthew 20:14-15).

I knew that but i don’t agree with it. We return to what i said before: loophole and tecnicalities. Thomas wanted to prove that, since God doesn’t strictly owe salvation to anyone, the creation of human beings for the sole purpose of sending them to eternal misery was not bad.

Too bad that this argument doesn’t work, at all. It doesn’t work because the God described by the Catholic Church is all-loving and merciful, and an all-loving being, by definition, doesn’t create other beings out of sheer hatred and hate for the sole purpose of making them experience his wrath after he placed them in a position where they would have 100% fu**ed up.

Calvin at least doesn’t try to sell is “god” as something better than the cosmic Mengele he is. Honesty is important.

And i still believe that Saint Thomas misused that parable, since ALL the workers got paid, even if some of them started to work much later.

None of them got kicked out, none of them was left out to starve to death.

What Thomas has in mind is a vineyard who has ample opportunity to give work and money to many people and yet decides to just let many of them without employment and means to sustain themselves because he doesn’t strictly owe them employment nor charity, so he just watches them while they starve to death without lifting a finger.