Understanding free will in light of God's sovereignty

[Robert1111]

In conclusion, I’m not defending what Aquinas seemingly says at face value in the reply to obj. 3, Q.23

The problem is not only what he taught in the reply to obj. 3, Q.23. The problem is what he taught in the entirety of the question 23 where he treated the subject of predestination. And in his entire work in the Summa he never contradicts what he taught in the question 23.

What Saint Thomas taught in the Summa about predestination is augustinianism at its finest. In fact, Fr.Most sees the contradiction in Aquinas because of what he wrote in SCG, Book 3, ch. 159. But the Summa is rather coherent, it is not contradictory. Maybe Aquinas just realized that he involuntarily taught a God who was a monster and he decided to tone it down a bit, that’s plausible and i can agree with Fr.Most on this. But to say that the Summa doesn’t teach a “strong” predestinarian view, a strong Augustinian https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM view, that, i cannot agree with.

 

[Robert1111]

This is not what either St Thomas taught, the ‘Older Thomists’, or the Church. Not all the actions of a man without justifying grace are sins so St Thomas said that man without grace can avoid sin but not all sin.

I’ve never said that all the actions of a man without justifying Grace are sins. What i meant is exactly what you said when you wrote “St Thomas said that man without grace can avoid sin but not all sin.”.

And the thing is, it only takes one sin to be damned forever.

 

[Robert1111]

I don’t entirely agree with you on the sufficient grace thing. I think the Church has known since the apostles that we may not cooperate with God’s grace which in a sense could be termed a ‘sufficient grace’. Certain Thomists gave a new understanding to this kind of grace that is rejected which they termed ‘sufficient grace’ but they gave it a meaning according to their system that for all intents and purposes it really isn’t sufficient enough because in itself it is unable to produce the desired effect which is what the efficacious grace is for. There are scriptural and doctrinal reasons for the Thomist ‘sufficient grace’ concept too which I mentioned in my last post. So, the general notion of a ‘sufficient grace’ I think is just common sense, meaning a grace we may not respond too from God which we all probably can relate too. But it does not necessarily connote what the ‘Thomists’ give it to mean. I mean, we could say that we could have absolutely responded to it without the ‘efficacious grace’ distinction or notion.

I completely agree with this, but my point is that the concept of sufficient Grace as understood by the thomists is a direct consequence of the concept of unconditional election.

If the reprobates were given a Grace truly sufficient to achieve salvation instead of a Grace that only makes them accountable for their sins, then their damnation would have been contingent upon their refusal, which would also imply that even the election of the elect is conditional upon their acceptance.

You cannot have a truly and wholly unconditional election without also positing an unconditional, albeit passive, reprobation.

Fr.Most avoids this by at least positing that our resistance or non-resistance to Grace are ontological zeros so that God’s causality doesn’t need to come into play here, but this means that our election is not wholly unconditional, because it is contingent upon our non-resistance.

In other words: unconditional election makes God a monster who also unconditionally reprobates and creates some human beings for the sole purpose of allowing them to merit eternal misery, unless we posit unconditional election AND universalism, like @Latin does.

 

[Robert1111]

I’m not defending what Aquinas seemingly says at face value in the reply to obj. 3, Q.23. The Church does not officially teach this and I do not personally believe it. At face value, the teaching of a ‘negative reprobation’ and a seemingly arbitrary choice of who is saved or not by God is, IMO, a very ‘dark’ and incomprehensible doctrine which the Thomists or others who adhere to this doctrine readily admit as an ‘impenetrable mystery’. I believe this doctrine is irreconcilable with God’s universal salvific will and Jesus Christ as the universal Redeemer of mankind.

I completely agree with this. It IS irreconcilable with God’s universal salvific will.

In the history of the Church, the saints, doctors, and theologians grappled with the mysteries of predestination, divine providence, grace, human free will and how to possibly reconcile all this if at all. Honestly, I don’t think we can perfectly reconcile it all in this life. Funny how if we simply admit that our eternal destiny and salvation is conditional in a certain sense, namely, due to our free will which we all believe we have, a lot of the mystery vanishes but perhaps not absolutely. I mean, I believe God antecedently and unconditionally desires the salvation of all but we need to cooperate with our free will with his grace which is the conditional part. It may be kind of scary to think that our salvation is in some manner contingent upon us but that is what hope and trust in God is all about I think. Also, as Fr. Most points out in his book, our free will power of resistance or non-resistance to God’s grace are ontological zeros which simply means we are ontologically entirely dependent on God from the get-go anyhow. It is just a matter of cooperating with God’s initiative and grace which goes before us, supports and sustains us, and brings us to its completion and eternal life in heaven.

I agree with this as well. We are ontologically dependent by God but whether or not we decide to resist to our Grace is up to us, we don’t resist to his Grace because he has passively omitted us from predestination and thus he doesn’t give us the Grace he gives to the elect. No, he gives to everyone every Grace he needs for salvation but the individual can decide to resist and vanify God’s salvific offer.

Continuing…

 

[Robert1111]

Continue…

I wrote

We are ontologically dependent by God but whether or not we decide to resist to our Grace is up to us, we don’t resist to his Grace because he has passively omitted us from predestination and thus he doesn’t give us the Grace he gives to the elect. No, he gives to everyone every Grace he needs for salvation but the individual can decide to resist and vanify God’s salvific offer

And this is why in the other topic i also wrote this post

What you are describing here is the difference between perfect contrition and imperfect contrition.

Perfect contrition allows you to be saved even without confession, imperfect contrition requires the Sacrament of penance to receive God’s Mercy. This is the Church teaching.

And now we are back to my point: if the kid had had a confessor he would have been saved, but since he is dying without a priest he is s**t outta luck.

We come back to my entire argument about “luck” and God’s unwillingness to save some people, otherwise he would have just made sure that a priest showed up to administer absolution to the kid.

How do i solve this paradox?

I think that in the final Grace is implied perfect contrition. Because, you know, having perfect contrition is a great Grace on God’s part. But you do have to accept it, so in this case, if this kid opens his heart enough, God will enlighten the kid’s heart and the kid will come to true repentance. But only if he is willing to let God enter, otherwise he will willingly die without true repentance, i.e in final impenitence.

This is what Saint Faustina said

Emphasis mine

“I often attend upon the dying and through entreaties obtain for them trust in God’s mercy, and I implore God for an abundance of divine grace, which is always victorious. God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things.

Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that IF THE SOUL IS WILLING, it has the possibility of returning to God."(1698)

Continuing…

 

[Robert1111]

Continue…

And also this post, using what is taught by the Saints

As you can see, it is the same concept explained by Saint Faustina when she said “The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God forgiveness of sin and punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that IF THE SOUL IS WILLING, it has the possibility of returning to God."( diary 1698)

Something similar has also been taught by Padre Pio.

From this link http://caccioppoli.com/St.%20Padre%20Pio%20Purgatory.html

“To John McCaffery: "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, WHEN WE APPEAR TO BE DEAD (my note: the operative words here are “when we appear to”), God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent”?

Because not admitting the very concrete possibility of a final Grace brings us back to the problem of unconditional election and unconditional negative reprobation, since we see people like Rudolf Höss coming to repentance and according to some people we would have other “common sinners” going to Hell for much lesser sins.

Continuing…

 

[Robert1111]

Continue…

So, unless a final Grace is given, we would have people who have all the potential to repent who would sinoly go to Hell because God would have made them die without them having a chance to repent while monsters like Rudolf Höss are given all time and Grace they need.

This, like i said, would bring right back to the problem of unconditional election and absolute negative reprobation even if we believe in a truly sufficient Grace.

This problem can be solved by positing a final Grace (which is also supported by the Saints) which would permit everyone to reach salvation, and the only ones who go to Hell are those who decide to be utterly unrepentant until the end, thus committing the sin against the Holy Spirit and dying in final impenitence.

This is also compatible with what Fr.Most said about the fact that God wants to predestine everyone to Heaven and Reprobation awaits only those whom he knows will be unrepentant until the end. For this kind of reprobation to be truly conditional, final impenitence necessarily needs to be a true choice and not something that simply overwhelms the reprobate by killing him and freezing him in the state of mortal sin when maybe he had the potential to repent (i guess that if this Grace is not given to someone who wouldn’t have accepted it either way doesn’t create any problem since the outcome would be exactly the same, what creates many “predestinarian” problems is the idea of your run-of-the-mill sinner going to Hell because he died in the wrong moment while a Nazi lives 100 years and dies with the Sacraments).

So i think that Fr.Most’s theory coupled with what we know from the Saints (we don’t have to believe in private revelations, but we can certainly believe in those revelations that have been approved by the Church, because they contain no doctrinal error) reconciles both God’s Mercy and the existence of Hell and of the reprobates.

 

[Latin]

Robert1111, Fr. Most’s non-resistance theory is in total contradiction with Catholic Soteriology.

Please don’t get me wrong, I like Fr. Most’s teachings, but his non-resistance theory is erroneous and I knew that when I read it first time.

Our predestination comes totally from God’s decision and it is wholly GRATUITOUS, entirely UNMERITED.
.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.

This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will. End quote.
.
2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace PRECEDES, PREPARES, and ELICITS the free response of man.

Phil.2:13; For it is God who works in you both to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose.

.
The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza totally demolish Fr. Most’s non-resistance theory on pages 88 – 91. …

Under the heading: A “Most” Unusual Alternative.

Fr. Most’s novel theory falls into the trap of giving man and not grace credit for the salutary act.
.
Thus, Fr. Most’s interpretation runs afoul of St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor.4:7.
Even though all good comes from God, Fr. Most’s theory makes man the principal determiner of his salvation.
.
Because the will of God is the cause of all things (ST, Pt I, Q19, Art 4.), and God alone is the cause of grace, (ST, Pt I-II, Q112, Art 1.), God wills the no-resistance in man.

This means “the first decisive step” does not come from man as Fr. Most argues, but from God.

.
According to the spiritual axiom agree sequitur esse (action follows being), man, as a being, either acts to cooperate with the grace (caused by God’s will in the case of efficacious grace) or acts to resist the grace (caused by mans will in the case of sufficient grace).

.
I could continue with the excerpts from The Mistery of Predestination by John Salza, but I believe the above excerpts gives you positive proofs that Fr. Most’s non-resistance theory is incorrect because God’s will and His efficacious graces the cause of our non-resistance.

.
With sufficient and efficacious graces God perfectly Governs/ controls the entire human race.

In heaven God will govern us only with efficacious graces.

Here in this side of eternity God uses sufficient grace only when He wills us to permit an act of sin for the reason to convert our sins into good.

If God would never permit sin, God would never use sufficient grace.
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence says.

Nor would God permit evil at all, unless He could draw good out of evil (St. Augustine, Enchir, xi in, LX, 236.

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in P.L.
.
God bless

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It is correct that we cannot save ourselves through the powers of human nature, therefore we are saved by teh grace of God, however that only addresses salvation. God’s will is that humans have free will to choose, therefore God does not damn them, rather they receive sufficient grace.

I have already commented on sufficient Grace in my previous post.

Yes, I read it before. Nevertheless St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that at least original sin justifies condemnation.

Summa Theologiae > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 2. The act of faith > Article 5 Whether man is bound to believe anything explicitly?​

Reply to Objection 1. If we understand those things alone to be in a man’s power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith. But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help “to whomsoever it is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original, sin,” as Augustine states (De Corr. et Grat. v, vi [Cf. Ep. cxc; De Praed. Sanct. viii.]).

Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. wrote in Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas, Chapter One:

…Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism erroneously maintain that “God wills equally the salvation of all men, namely, the elect and the reprobate.” The contradictory proposition: “God does not will equally the salvation of all men,” is true. This indeed is what the predestinationists, Calvinists, and Jansenists declare and in so doing they do not err, but they do err by denying the will of universal salvation, which is affirmed by Augustine when he says: “God does not demand the impossible.”

Likewise these contradictory propositions: “Grace is intrinsically efficacious,” and “Grace is not intrinsically efficacious,” cannot be true at the same time or false at the same time; one is true, the other is false. The first is maintained by Thomism, the second by Molinism and likewise by the congruism of Suarez. Which, then, is true remains to be discovered.

 

[Latin]

St. Thomas is correct, one is true, the other is false, the answer to the question is very simple:

If the Creator Governs/ controls his creation then Thomism is true.
If the creation Governs/ controls his Creator then Molinism is true.

.
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8

… We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which PRECEDE justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence answers the question.

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

[God] is the sole ruler of the world ([Job 34:13. His will governs all things; [Isaiah 40:22-6] [44:24-8]; [Sirach 16:18-27]. He loves all men, desires the [salvation]of all ([Isaiah 45:22], and His providence extends to all nations.

.
THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza. Page 119;

Hence, a sufficient grace has an operating effect only (empowering the will to act),

whereas an efficacious grace has both an operating and cooperating effect (applying the will to act).

Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act.

With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good. End quote.

.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.

Phil.2:13; For it is God who works in you BOTH to WILL and to ACT in order to fulfil his good purpose.

2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace PRECEDES, PREPARES, and ELICITS the free response of man.
.
God bless

 

[Robert1111]

Yes, I read it before. Nevertheless St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that at least original sin justifies condemnation.

Yeah sure, the same original sin we didn’t choose to be born with. We are born with original sin through no fault of our own (because God could prevent us from inheriting original sin, just like he did with the Blessed Virgin) and yet somehow this justifies the condemnation of human beings who never had a chance to begin with, according to Thomas, because “god” never wished their salvation in the first place.

Come on. This is like Hitler creating the Jews in a lab with the exact same characteristics he despised in them (despite the fact that the could have created them without those defects) so that he can have an excuse to deport them to Dachau.

This is how much loving is the “god” of Aquinas and Augustine.

Whether they realized or not they described a deity who creates some beings out of sheer hatred and hate for the sole purpose of satisfying his wrath.

 

[Robert1111]

Robert1111, Fr. Most’s non-resistance theory is in total contradiction with Catholic Soteriology.

Please don’t get me wrong, I like Fr. Most’s teachings, but his non-resistance theory is erroneous and I knew that when I read it first time.

Our predestination comes totally from God’s decision and it is wholly GRATUITOUS, entirely UNMERITED.

This is not what the Church teaches. The Church allows you to believe that predestination is unconditional but She also allows you to believe that predestination is conditional. So no, you can’t talk as if it was a settled matter.

Also, your theory is good and i like it, even if i can’t bring myself to accept it because you are a universalist and i’m not (since the words of Jesus in the Gospel seems too much clear to me, expecially in the Gospel of Matthew when he talks about the universal judgment), but you have to realize that your theory about efficacious Grace, in every system that doesn’t believe in universalism, turns God into a monster incomparably worse than Hitler or Pol Pot.

I’m not a universalist unfortunately (may God prove me wrong on this, though), that’s why i cannot accept your view.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Yes, I read it before. Nevertheless St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that at least original sin justifies condemnation.

Yeah sure, the same original sin we didn’t choose to be born with. We are born with original sin through no fault of our own (because God could prevent us from inheriting original sin, just like he did with the Blessed Virgin) and yet somehow this justifies the condemnation of human beings who never had a chance to begin with, according to Thomas, because “god” never wished their salvation in the first place.

Come on. This is like Hitler creating the Jews in a lab with the exact same characteristics he despised in them (despite the fact that the could have created them without those defects) so that he can have an excuse to deport them to Dachau.

This is how much loving is the “god” of Aquinas and Augustine.

Whether they realized or not they described a deity who creates some beings out of sheer hatred and hate for the sole purpose of satisfying his wrath.

They described what they said: a just God giving free will to mankind so that some could share in divinity, and his own Son, for the redemption of sin.

Adam choose the original sin for us as the head of all humans. However something great came out of it, Emmanuel. So Jesus freed the just from Hades, those from Adam and Eve until then, after his Crucifixion, and had instituted baptism for the remission of sin.

Yes, for the Blessed Virgin Mary the Father allowed her to share beforehand in the salvation that Christ would bring by His death, and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception. That would not work for all mankind however as it was a singular act fitting for the Mother of God.

 

[Robert1111]

They described what they said: a just God giving free will to mankind so that some could share in divinity, and his own Son, for the redemption of sin.

Adam choose the original sin for us as the head of all humans. However something great came out of it, Emmanuel. So Jesus freed the just from Hades, those from Adam and Eve until then, after his Crucifixion, and had instituted baptism for the remission of sin.

Yes, for the Blessed Virgin Mary the Father allowed her to share beforehand in the salvation that Christ would bring by His death, and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception. That would not work for all mankind however as it was a singular act fitting for the Mother of God.

Again, all of this makes sense if we discard Aquinas interpretation of unconditional election. Because said perspective has the consequences i have already outlined, and free-will only serves to our condemnation if God has simply decreed that he doesn’t wish us salvation, like Aquinas said. Garrigou Lagrange has explained very well the true thomistic perspective about these things, and he was very clear that the end result of the thomistic suffiicent Grace is always damnation, and guess what? Efficacious Grace is not given to the reprobate (or maybe he gives efficacious Grace to the reprobate only sometimes for some reasons -this is why some reprobates live in the state of Grace during this life for extended period of times- but he he never gives efficacious Grace to the reprobate when said reprobate needs it the most, namely when he is dying) despite said Grace being the only saving Grace.

And no, Garrigou Lagrange didn’t misrepresent Thomas teaching, quite the opposite.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

Robert1111, Fr. Most’s non-resistance theory is in total contradiction with Catholic Soteriology.

Please don’t get me wrong, I like Fr. Most’s teachings, but his non-resistance theory is erroneous and I knew that when I read it first time.

Our predestination comes totally from God’s decision and it is wholly GRATUITOUS, entirely UNMERITED.

This is not what the Church teaches. The Church allows you to believe that predestination is unconditional but She also allows you to believe that predestination is conditional. So no, you can’t talk as if it was a settled matter.

I’m sure Robert1111 you know, both Thomism and Molinism cannot be true, only one of them is true.

At the same time no one can believe both, only one of them.
.
In Thomism God Governs and controls the world, in Molinism the creation dictates to God and they are not under God’s control, in fact they control God, not God’s will be done but the fallen humans will be done.

If you are a Molinist, God is under the control of your will. – Do you think Robert1111 this is possible?
.
The Thomists are under the control of God’s will. – [God] is the sole ruler of the world ([Job 34:13. His will governs all things; [Isaiah 40:22-6] [44:24-8]; [Sirach 16:18-27]. He loves all men, desires the [salvation]of all ([Isaiah 45:22], and His providence extends to all nations.
.
God’s will governs all things. – All things means, nothing is excluded, not even the Molinists, even they believe their wills controls God.

I know you don’t believe the teachings of Tomism because of reprobation.

I believe the teachings of Thomism because I know the teaching is correct and God is in control, I only don’t believe the reprobation part.

When someone having the meal eat the meat and spit the bones out.

It is not wise to spit the meat out with the bones.
.
God bless

 

[Robert1111]

I’m sure Robert1111 you know, both Thomism and Molinism cannot be true, only one of them is true.

At the same time no one can believe both, only one of them.
.
In Thomism God Governs and controls the world, in Molinism the creation dictates to God and they are not under God’s control, in fact they control God, not God’s will be done but the fallen humans will be done.

If you are a Molinist, God is under the control of your will. – Do you think Robert1111 this is possible?
.

I do believe that God allows us to play a role in our salvation or damnation, yes. This doesn’t mean that God is under my control, this only means that his causality doesn’t need to come into play when my non-resistance to His Grace is involved.

I believe the teachings of Thomism because I know the teaching is correct and God is in control, I only don’t believe the reprobation part.

Yeah man, i’m aware of that. Unfortunately I see no rational reasons to believe in universalism, given the teaching of the Church and the Gospel. This is why i cannot accept your view even if i want it to be true.

What i can’t absolutely accept is the teaching of negative Reprobation before foreseen demerits, though, not Reprobation per se. The Reprobation of the stubbornly unrepentant (and i mean the truly unrepentant, not someone who didn’t repent simply because God didn’t give him the chance when he needed it the most like many people in this forum said, expecially in the other topic with all the “the three lays where it falls” stuff etc) doesn’t please me but i can accept it and it doesn’t contradict God’s universal salvific will.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

I’m sure Robert1111 you know, both Thomism and Molinism cannot be true, only one of them is true.

At the same time no one can believe both, only one of them.
.
In Thomism God Governs and controls the world, in Molinism the creation dictates to God and they are not under God’s control, in fact they control God, not God’s will be done but the fallen humans will be done.

If you are a Molinist, God is under the control of your will. – Do you think Robert1111 this is possible?
.

I do believe that God allows us to play a role in our salvation or damnation, yes. This doesn’t mean that God is under my control, this only means that his causality doesn’t need to come into play when my non-resistance to His Grace is involved.

COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8

… We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which PRECEDE justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.

Our non-resistance is the CAUSE of God’s efficacious grace.

Every our good decision and every our good acts are the products of God’s efficacious graces, of course we are FREELY COOPERATE.

God blass

 

[Robert1111]

Our non-resistance is the CAUSE of God’s efficacious grace.

This is taught anywhere.

Every our good decision and every our good acts are the products of God’s efficacious graces, of course we are FREELY COOPERATE.

This is another matter because our good acts come after our non-resistance. In other words, our good acts are a product of God’s Grace but our non-resistance (which allowed God’s Grace to act within us in the first place) is not strictly an act, therefore God’s causality doesn’t need to be involved here and our free-will can be the major player.

The council of Trent doesn’t explicitly endorse Aquinas understanding of unconditional predestination.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

Every our good decision and every our good acts are the products of God’s efficacious graces, of course we are FREELY COOPERATE.

This is another matter because our good acts come after our non-resistance. In other words, our good acts are a product of God’s Grace but our non-resistance (which allowed God’s Grace to act within us in the first place) is not strictly an act, therefore God’s causality doesn’t need to be involved here and our free-will can be the major player.

The council of Trent doesn’t explicitly endorse Aquinas understanding of unconditional predestination.

With other words, God depends on our non-resistance.
If we resists God can do nothing.

The Creator depends on the creation, like a father depends on a non-resistance of a 3 years old child. - Can he fulfil his duty of care?

Can God fulfil his duty of care if He depends on our non-resistance???

Meaning: If a fallen human resists God can do NOTHING. - This is what you believe Robert1111?

If our 3 years old child resists we can do NOTHING. - This is what you believe Robert1111?

The difference is far bigger between God and us then us and our 3 years old child.

God bless

 

[Robert1111]

With other words, God depends on our non-resistance.
If we resists God can do nothing.

He could override our free-will, but he chooses not to. The fact remains, that we have a true power to not resist, and it’s not like we resisted because God didn’t predestine us to salvation and we didn’t have the Grace we needed to not resist in the first place.

No, God wants to give the all-saving Grace to everyone, those who do not receive it have only themselves to blame.

Meaning: If a fallen human resists God can do NOTHING. - This is what you believe Robert1111?

I believe that if a fallen human resists God still doesn’t give up and continues to call him until the end. Until the very end, when his life is about to end and we will not have another chance anymore.

Even then, God doesn’t give it up and he calls the sinner one last time, waiting for him to open his heart so that he will be able to bring him to the TRUE repentance needed for salvation.

If the fallen human keeps resisting, then yes, God will allow this person to experience the damnation he deserves for having refused every Grace until the very end. There is NO “game of chance” here nor some arbitrary decree according to which a common weak sinner deserves eternal hellfire because “the tree lays where it falls” and a genocidial Nazi goes to Heaven. No, God wants every human to reach his final end, that is, eternal happiness, both spiritual and physical. But we can refuse this gift.

This is also supported by the revelations of the Saints, revelations approved by the Church

“ “I received a deeper understanding of divine mercy,” she writes. “Only the soul that wants it will be damned, for God condemns no one” ( Saint Faustina, Diary , 1452)