What is Catholic Predestination exactly

[The_Exodus]

I will state my views first:

When discussing this, it is important to really flesh out what is meant by “free will.” Do we mean that we are free to desire whatever we desire? I would think not, for no person is free to desire, say, happiness. Do we mean rather free choice? That is, in the Thomistic sense, do we have a free potentiality for making a certain action? In other words, do we have the potential of standing, or taking a walk, or eating, etc.? We should here say that yes, we really do have this potential, although we may never in fact stand, walk, etc. it is nevertheless true that we have the power of doing so or the potential.

Now, the Catholic doctrine really terminates in this mystery: all humans possess the power to accept the grace of God unto salvation. Yet not all possess the act of actually accepting it. Thomists will say that there are two graces given to man: one which is infallibly efficacious, and one which is infallibly sufficient. The former gives the act. The latter gives the power to act. Yet, they will say, since nothing can move from potency to act unless moved by the divine will, no agent which is not given efficacious grace ever attains salvation. Rather, such a one is merely potentially recepient, but, due to God’s will, is allowed to remain as it is and thereby merit damnation. It would seem, at first sight, that this makes God the cause of sin. It would seem that, since he does not give efficacious grace to all, he thereby causes those who do not receive it to sin, and that he also doesn’t really give them the power to accept efficacious grace. The Thomists, I think rightly, say two things here. a) The fact that God does not grant grace, is not therefore the cause of sin, even if grace if given does indeed prevent sin; the lack of grace is not then the cause of sin. Rather, the creature sins, it is true because it lacks grace, yet nevertheless this lack is not a cause. The creature sinning is the cause. b) In order for there to exist a power to act, it is not necessary for the power to actually be in act. For example, I possess the power of sight while I am sleeping or the power of speech while I am silent. It is not necessary, then, for me to be in act in order to possess actual power. This, the Thomists would say, is true also for a creature given sufficient grace. It is really true that it possesses the power for making a salutory act of repentence; nevertheless, it never in fact does exercise that power. The objectors to Thomism at this point would say that it is not in the creatures ability, in itself, to be in either potency to act toward salvation, or in the very act itself. In other words, the creature, in its very nature, cannot pass from one to the other on its own, but must be so moved by God. The Thomists would agree here, because, if we say that man has can pass from potential to act without God, we are effectively attributing to man a sort of divine causality. That is, we would be saying that he has, as part of his nature, actuality, since he can act in and of himself without being moved. In other words, we would be saying that man is or can be an uncaused cause, or pure act, or, to put it simply, God. This the Thomists find inadmissable. In all honesty I tend to side with them.

This is a very great mystery, and yet, St. Thomas himself taught that such things neither impugn the justice and goodness of God, nor deprive man of free choice. After all, those who never pass from potency to act are really and truly set against goodness. They really do, and freely, love the darkness and hate the light. It is true that, were God to turn them, they would freely come to him, yet his not turning is not the cause of their loving darkness. Rather, they really, of themselves, hate God and Christ. Does this make God the cause of their hatred? No. St. Thomas uses the metphor that though the power of motion in a limping man causes him to limp, it is not the moving power which causes limping, but rather the curvature of the leg itself. “The effect of the deficient secondary cause is reduced to the first non-deficient cause as regards what it has of being and perfection, but not as regards what it has of defect; just as whatever there is of motion in the act of limping is caused by the motive power, whereas what there is of obliqueness in it does not come from the motive power, but from the curvature of the leg. And, likewise, whatever there is of being and action in a bad action, is reduced to God as the cause; whereas whatever defect is in it is not caused by God, but by the deficient secondary cause.”

The real question is, why does God show grace to one man and not another? Yet the answer to this is found in his will alone, which is unsearchable. Yet we must always maintain that his distribution of grace is due to the order of the goodness of the universe as a whole. St. Thomas explains this in many examples, such as, when he gives the example of a builder, who, wanting to build a particular house, places certain stones at the bottom, and others at the top, as is fitting to the perfection of the house. So it is in the case of the universe. In order to display his almighty goodness, mercy, and justice most perfectly, God wills to display his effects in a manner fittingly reflective of his nature. To understand why he has ordered the universe in such a way - to see its utter and unfathomable harmony - we would have to contemplate the universe as God himself does. Such contemplation is had by those who see God as he is in the beatific vision. To us, we must refer all things to his hidden will, and have trust that God our father, in his infinite wisdom, orders all things sweetly, and that, in eternity, if we are so graced, we shall see the perfect reason for everything.

Father Garrigou-Lagrange:

ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp

“Reality” chapter 11
The entire work on Grace
The entire work on Providence

 

[Pitcharan]

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but its appears as if you are saying that God can change destiny. I am not sure I agree with the idea that God can change destiny. If something is destined to happen then it will happen. If God has you on the list for heaven, then nothing change that once it set in eternal stone, not even God. What I mean is that God cannot have actual knowledge of a future that will never exist. If God has actual knowledge of you in heaven, then that is were you are going to be. Nothing can change that.

The will of God cannot send you where the love of God cannot save you. If at all someone goes to hell, it is by their own free will after spurning all loving overtures from God. One must be hell-bent to end up in hell.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The above link does not work. But you can click on here - ewtn.com/vlibrary/search.asp and then type in ‘reality’ without quotes in the keyword search box and hit return. Then scroll down to number 18 - 'Reality", and click ‘view’ link.

A good short summary on Predestination (Catholic vs Calvinism) by James Akin can be found here
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp

 

[Pitcharan]

I am not sure I agree with predestination. But I am not sure that I understand what that is exactly. …

What is predestination as legitimately taught by the Catholic faith?

Is it a Dogma or is it a an accepted theological Theory?

Philosophically speaking, I think this doctrine to be the most difficult to accept.

Hi MoM,
Catholic Predestination is nothing but Bibilical Predestination and the simplest defintion taught by catholic Bible scholars is:The background of creation is salvation. This means, God made humans in order to share His abode of eternal joy and glory. The destination for which humans are created is Heaven.

• To realise God’s plan for us, this is the requirement to be met: we must freely exercise our will in harmony with God’s will.
• To meet this requirement there is a way: LOVE, which is our Lord’s way.

In an effort to clear existing confusions I am providing below some examples of Bible verses and their distorted versions from heretric view:
BIBLE VERSES:
And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

“If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4:7)

*But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. *(Genesis 6:9)

“I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22:17-18)

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today.(Deuteronomy 11:26-28ab)

HERETIC VIEWS
And the fraud god commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; the elect among you, even if they tried, will not be able to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which leads to death. Howvever, they have free access to the tree of life; the reprobate among you will be forced to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and shall surely die and they cannot go anywhere near the tree of life.” (Heresis 2:16-17)

Even if you do what is right, how can you be accepted O reprobate? But if you ever try to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it shall forcibly devour you and you can never resist it." (Heresis 4:7)

*But Moah found favor in the eyes of the fraud. This is the account of Moah. Moah was elected by fraud to be a self-righteous man, unculpable among the people of his time, and he walked with fraud. * (Heresis 6:9)

“I will by hook or crook ensure that I make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be cursed, because you have obeyed me like a pre-programmed robot who was elected by me even before being created." (Heresis 22:17-18)

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- the blessing for the elect who will automatically obey the commands of the fraud your god that I am giving you today; the curse for the reprobate who can never obey the commands of the fraud your god and shall be forced to turn from the way that I command you today.(Heretonomy 11:26-28ab)

 

[slywakka250]

The Thomists would agree here, because, if we say that man has can pass from potential to act without God, we are effectively attributing to man a sort of divine causality. That is, we would be saying that he has, as part of his nature, actuality, since he can act in and of himself without being moved. In other words, we would be saying that man is or can be an uncaused cause, or pure act, or, to put it simply, God. This the Thomists find inadmissable. In all honesty I tend to side with them.

I think in order to have free will, man MUST have this divine causality that you speak of here. If man does not have pure act, then God is supremely unjust because he doesn’t give everyone a fair shake at avoiding eternal torture in hell. The least God could do, would be to at least give everyone a chance, and not play favorites…
The Exodus:

The real question is, why does God show grace to one man and not another? Yet the answer to this is found in his will alone, which is unsearchable. Yet we must always maintain that his distribution of grace is due to the order of the goodness of the universe as a whole. St. Thomas explains this in many examples, such as, when he gives the example of a builder, who, wanting to build a particular house, places certain stones at the bottom, and others at the top, as is fitting to the perfection of the house. So it is in the case of the universe. In order to display his almighty goodness, mercy, and justice most perfectly, God wills to display his effects in a manner fittingly reflective of his nature. To understand why he has ordered the universe in such a way - to see its utter and unfathomable harmony - we would have to contemplate the universe as God himself does. Such contemplation is had by those who see God as he is in the beatific vision. To us, we must refer all things to his hidden will, and have trust that God our father, in his infinite wisdom, orders all things sweetly, and that, in eternity, if we are so graced, we shall see the perfect reason for everything.

the First Part, Question 23 article 7, “Whether the number of the predestined is certain?,” Thomas says in his answer that,

“Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is certain, not only formally, but also materially. It must, however, be observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows how many will be saved (for in this way the number of drops of rain and the sands of the sea are certain to God); but by reason of His deliberate choice and determination”

This is absolutely horrific, unless God means that he has determined that ALL will be saved without exception. Otherwise, this is very strong predestination. so what if “technically” God isn’t the primary cause of a soul in hell?? So God gives Grace to some, and others he doesn’t give his Grace. I always thought that the salvation of all souls was a great good itself (its something we pray for after all!)) are you really trying to say that the damnation of some, is for some “greater good”??? should we pray instead something like this,

“may your will be done Lord, may the souls you have choose not to give Grace to, receive eternal torment, and may those you have given Grace to receive Life,”

I always thought we ought to pray for the salvation of ALL! If in the end, that’s not possible, because God has determined something else…well that is just a terrible thought!!

 

[JDaniel]

I think in order to have free will, man MUST have this divine causality that you speak of here. If man does not have pure act, then God is supremely unjust because he doesn’t give everyone a fair shake at avoiding eternal torture in hell. The least God could do, would be to at least give everyone a chance, and not play favorites…

the First Part, Question 23 article 7, “Whether the number of the predestined is certain?,” Thomas says in his answer that,

“Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is certain, not only formally, but also materially. It must, however, be observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows how many will be saved (for in this way the number of drops of rain and the sands of the sea are certain to God); but by reason of His deliberate choice and determination”

This is absolutely horrific, unless God means that he has determined that ALL will be saved without exception. Otherwise, this is very strong predestination. so what if “technically” God isn’t the primary cause of a soul in hell?? So God gives Grace to some, and others he doesn’t give his Grace. I always thought that the salvation of all souls was a great good itself (its something we pray for after all!)) are you really trying to say that the damnation of some, is for some “greater good”??? should we pray instead something like this,

“may your will be done Lord, may the souls you have choose not to give Grace to, receive eternal torment, and may those you have given Grace to receive Life,”

I always thought we ought to pray for the salvation of ALL! If in the end, that’s not possible, because God has determined something else…well that is just a terrible thought!!

Below is a quote from one of my above posts, which, perhaps, you did not read:

God wills the salvation of all

men, and gives all men the grace to enable them to save their own souls. If some men [lose] that, it is their fault by their rejection of God’s grace and not God’s choice of eternal damnation. This is the fundamental truth about predestination and must be safeguarded no matter what theory of predestination is held by a man.

This is held by the Church, so far as I can tell. It means that you have a choice. But, God has no other choice but to “see” what your choice is at the moment of ongoing Creation. He’s Infinite. He cannot help that. You cannot think of Him simplistically any more. He wants all of us to make it to the Beatific Vision, but, knows many of us won’t, and He knows who those people are, immediately. Prayers are propitiations. They are spoken to plead for some, or all, men during our own time on Earth. It is like a supplication spoken to win a multi-million dollar lottery. It was considered by God, but, not in the time (of men). He is not involved in, or with, (our) time.

God bless and remain on guard,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The least God could do, would be to at least give everyone a chance, and not play favorites…

This is absolutely horrific, unless God means that he has determined that ALL will be saved without exception. Otherwise, this is very strong predestination. so what if “technically” God isn’t the primary cause of a soul in hell?? So God gives Grace to some, and others he doesn’t give his Grace. I always thought that the salvation of all souls was a great good itself (its something we pray for after all!)) are you really trying to say that the damnation of some, is for some “greater good”??? should we pray instead something like this,

“may your will be done Lord, may the souls you have choose not to give Grace to, receive eternal torment, and may those you have given Grace to receive Life,”

I always thought we ought to pray for the salvation of ALL! If in the end, that’s not possible, because God has determined something else…well that is just a terrible thought!!

I am glad that somebody else sees the problem.

This my attempt at a solution to the God/Freewill problem…

1. The existential act, or esse (God), is the power which determines that a potential thing will exist and will continue in its existence. An existential act is the ultimate reality by which potential things are rendered real.
2. A potential essential act, is the behaviour of a things nature when it exists.

God is the very act of reality in which our essences contingently participate. Therefore everything that will happen, happens only because God is the very existence in which it happens. Gods esse actualises all true events, but does so in a way that allows for the existence of true secondary causes which function according to their given principles while remaining dependent on the esse of God in-order to fulfil their potential act. God lends his existence to contingent things; and thus in this sense God is the ultimate predeterminer, but only in the strict sense that he determines the existence of all and any potential beings, but certainly does not directly determine what an “essential act” in particular will become or do or choose in respect of its nature or essence. Chance exists on the essential level; but not on the existential level.

Given this fact, in the sense of esse, it can be said that we have a destiny given by God. For example, by free choice I went to the shop yesterday, and thus it is true that I went to the shop yesterday, and thus it was always true from the beginning of time that I was always going to the shop yesterday; because everything that happens in time is eternally true from a timeless point of view; regardless of whether I have freewill or not. And this is for the simple fact that it happened in truth, and no truth can be false at the same time in the same context. Thus it seems to me that there is a different kind of determinism which isn’t purely casual in nature (at least not in the usual sense that we understand a cause) but rather, it is is existential. Therefore it can be said that it was my destiny to go to that shop and that it is God who existentially caused that destiny to occur because God is the very being or esse by which it is “true” that it occurred. And yet it is also true, within the context of essence, that I freely chose to go to the shop yesterday, and I will do things in the future that are destined to occur simply because I will do them. But this has no causal effect on God, since it is Gods that has eternally actualise that truth in which my freewill participates. Thus God remains the ultimate un-caused cause since no choice, thought, or action, can occur or exist without Gods eternal sustaining esse.

Once we understand God in respect of his “esse” the context changes and we are lead to perceive a different kind of causality that is almost passive in the sense that it allows free choice, but nevertheless by allowing this freedom God isn’t himself caused into existence. It is also vital that we understand the distinction between potential essences and the esse of God. If we do, we can see how God can determine the “existence” of potential essences through his esse without determining the essential “acts” of each particular essence. Potential Essential acts and existential acts are categorically different things when viewed through the lens of Gods esse. Thus through my own philosophical doctrine, of which I have yet to give a name, we perhaps see a way through the difficulty of creating a synthesis by which Gods act and our freewill can co-exist without one completely overriding the other.

In any case I don’t like the word predestination. Better to say destiny. Perhaps Aquinas was saying the exact same thing I just said above, but he certainly wasn’t clear. I realise people often read his arguments without taking in to account his metaphysical ideas about “being” as an existential. But then I see things in Aquinas writing that tends towards an almost careless idea of creatures. What I have said is not the same as saying that God decided it would be nice to invent people that are born to lose, and people that are born to win in order create a beautiful tapestry of good and evil so that God can act out his mercy and justice.

Not only does to seem to render freedom justice and mercy meaningless, it totally contradicts the fact God does not want or need anything; so it seems a bit bizarre that he want create a piece of art just so that he could run a puppet show about how vengeful he is and how merciful he is. That’s ridiculous and blasphemous in my opinion.

No. This is where me and Aquinas go our separate ways.

 

[The_Exodus]

I think in order to have free will, man MUST have this divine causality that you speak of here. If man does not have pure act, then God is supremely unjust because he doesn’t give everyone a fair shake at avoiding eternal torture in hell. The least God could do, would be to at least give everyone a chance, and not play favorites…

Perhaps it is possible, in some way known only to God, for man to be gifted with some sort of “divine act” ability. But it’s my opinion that this is Pelegian, and makes man the author of his own salvation. “What have you that you did not receive?” “For it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.” "As the divisions of waters, so the heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whitersoever He will He shall turn it.” “Without me you can do nothing.” “My sheep hear My voice . . . and I give them life everlasting and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father.” “No man can come to me unless the Father draw him.” And there are many more verses besides.

The Catholic teaching is that all men do receive sufficient grace. All receive the power to receive salvation from God. Otherwise, God would command the impossible in telling men to repent. Yet they never pass from potency to act with regard to that power. Is that because God has not given them efficacious grace? In a sense, yes. But the not giving of grace is not the cause of their sin. Rather, their evil choice, which springs from their will, is the cause. It also is not necessary to actually put a power into act, in order to properly have that power. Hence, when you are sleeping, you have the power of sight, though you are not putting that power into act.

It is true that people go to hell because they reject God, and that they reject God because of their own evil will, even if God could have turned their heart to good and choose not to.
sly":

This is absolutely horrific, unless God means that he has determined that ALL will be saved without exception. Otherwise, this is very strong predestination. so what if “technically” God isn’t the primary cause of a soul in hell?? So God gives Grace to some, and others he doesn’t give his Grace. I always thought that the salvation of all souls was a great good itself (its something we pray for after all!)) are you really trying to say that the damnation of some, is for some “greater good”??? should we pray instead something like this,

Sly, a few things to be mentioned here.

The doctrine of predestination follows from the doctrine of original sin, which Aquinas, as well as Augustine, held most firmly. That is, people are born into the world in a corrupt nature, and, unless changed or given grace by God, they will continually hate him and everything that is good. Now, sufficient grace is given to all these people, and they are truly able to turn to God, yet that potency is never made act, since a) they are sinners; and b) God allows them to continue in their way, and does not give them efficacious grace. Since the entire human race was all represented perfectly in Adam, and since we are all from him - our souls and bodies all coming from his original seed - we are Adam, in a sense. God then does not owe eternal life to any creature, particularly those who are in a state of mortal sin against him. Yet he wills, by his mercy, to grant grace to some. To the rest he gives justice.

Why or how could any person be reprobated, if God willed to give efficacious grace to all men?

 

[The_Exodus]

Thus through my own philosophical doctrine, of which I have yet to give a name, we perhaps see a way through the difficulty of creating a synthesis by which Gods act and our freewill can co-exist without one completely overriding the other.

In any case I don’t like the word predestination. Better to say destiny. Perhaps Aquinas was saying the exact same thing I just said above, but he certainly wasn’t clear. I realise people often read his arguments without taking in to account his metaphysical ideas about “being” as an existential. But then I see things in Aquinas writing that tends towards an almost careless idea of creatures. What I have said is not the same as saying that God decided it would be nice to invent people that are born to lose, and people that are born to win in order create a beautiful tapestry of good and evil so that God can act out his mercy and justice.

Not only does to seem to render freedom justice and mercy meaningless, it totally contradicts the fact God does not want or need anything; so it seems a bit bizarre that he want create a piece of art just so that he could run a puppet show about how vengeful he is and how merciful he is. That’s ridiculous and blasphemous in my opinion.

No. This is where me and Aquinas go our separate ways.

I appreciate your comments, and can appreciate some very honest wrestling with this question. I know how you feel!

The problem with your theory, as it seems to me, is that God’s knowledge is predicated on what creatures do, if they indeed have a sort of Godlike “act” ability. In other words, God could not know, causally speaking, what x creature was going to do, until he “saw” x creature doing such and such. God’s knowledge is then reactive; and there is potency in him.

Now, your theory could be put into a Molinist perspective (I have written more about this elsewhere; search my posts if interested) in which God, since he is pure act and has no potentiality, knows, by knowing himself all things whatsoever that he is not. In other words, by knowing himself perfectly, he knows any and every potentially existing thing. This knowledge would include what free agents would do in any given situation. God then would see, in his middle knowledge, maybe an infinite amount of universes, some of which all creatures freely accept him; some of which all creatures freely reject him. Yet in his wisdom, he chose to create the universe which he freely saw would happen such and such a way. Now, his knowledge of the creatures actions would not be based on his decreeing or predetermining them such. This is the Molinists bread and butter: “God’s foreknowledge precedes his will and decree, and guides it.” The reason, then, say Peter accepted Christ, is not because God or Christ gave him an intrinsically efficacious grace to do so, but because, from all eternity, in God’s middle knowledge, he saw that, should this creature Peter be placed in such and such circumstances and give such and such grace, he would accept it freely. Have you read Molina’s Concordia part IV?

 

[JDaniel]

I am glad that somebody else sees the problem.

This my attempt at a solution to the God/Freewill problem…

1. The existential act, or esse (God), is the power which determines that a potential thing will exist and will continue in its existence. An existential act is the ultimate reality by which potential things are rendered real.
2. A potential essential act, is the behaviour of a things nature when it exists.

God is the very act of reality in which our essences contingently participate. Therefore everything that will happen, happens only because God is the very existence in which it happens. Gods esse actualises all true events, but does so in a way that allows for the existence of true secondary causes which function according to their given principles while remaining dependent on the esse of God in-order to fulfil their potential act. God lends his existence to contingent things; and thus in this sense God is the ultimate predeterminer, but only in the strict sense that he determines the existence of all and any potential beings, but certainly does not directly determine what an “essential act” in particular will become or do or choose in respect of its nature or essence. Chance exists on the essential level; but not on the existential level.

Given this fact, in the sense of esse, it can be said that we have a destiny given by God. For example, by free choice I went to the shop yesterday, and thus it is true that I went to the shop yesterday, and thus it was always true from the beginning of time that I was always going to the shop yesterday; because everything that happens in time is eternally true from a timeless point of view; regardless of whether I have freewill or not. And this is for the simple fact that it happened in truth, and no truth can be false at the same time in the same context. Thus it seems to me that there is a different kind of determinism which isn’t purely casual in nature (at least not in the usual sense that we understand a cause) but rather, it is is existential. Therefore it can be said that it was my destiny to go to that shop and that it is God who existentially caused that destiny to occur because God is the very being or esse by which it is “true” that it occurred. And yet it is also true, within the context of essence, that I freely chose to go to the shop yesterday, and I will do things in the future that are destined to occur simply because I will do them. But this has no causal effect on God, since it is Gods that has eternally actualise that truth in which my freewill participates. Thus God remains the ultimate un-caused cause since no choice, thought, or action, can occur or exist without Gods eternal sustaining esse.

Once we understand God in respect of his “esse” the context changes and we are lead to perceive a different kind of causality that is almost passive in the sense that it allows free choice, but nevertheless by allowing this freedom God isn’t himself caused into existence. It is also vital that we understand the distinction between potential essences and the esse of God. If we do, we can see how God can determine the “existence” of potential essences through his esse without determining the essential “acts” of each particular essence. Potential Essential acts and existential acts are categorically different things when viewed through the lens of Gods esse. Thus through my own philosophical doctrine, of which I have yet to give a name, we perhaps see a way through the difficulty of creating a synthesis by which Gods act and our freewill can co-exist without one completely overriding the other.

In any case I don’t like the word predestination. Better to say destiny. Perhaps Aquinas was saying the exact same thing I just said above, but he certainly wasn’t clear. I realise people often read his arguments without taking in to account his metaphysical ideas about “being” as an existential. But then I see things in Aquinas writing that tends towards an almost careless idea of creatures. What I have said is not the same as saying that God decided it would be nice to invent people that are born to lose, and people that are born to win in order create a beautiful tapestry of good and evil so that God can act out his mercy and justice.

Not only does to seem to render freedom justice and mercy meaningless, it totally contradicts the fact God does not want or need anything; so it seems a bit bizarre that he want create a piece of art just so that he could run a puppet show about how vengeful he is and how merciful he is. That’s ridiculous and blasphemous in my opinion.

No. This is where me and Aquinas go our separate ways.

MoM:

Relax. You and St. Thomas are together, in general, on this. Only some of the specifics are different, but, they have more to do with descriptions than theodicy.

God bless and good job,
jd

 

[slywakka250]

MindOverMatter2, I like your last post; it gives me some things to think about, but I’m not quite convinced that this distinction between essential and existential act is enough to prevent God from interfering with our free will.

Consider this. I believe Tradition teaches that at the end of time there will be a countable population in heaven, and countable population in hell. I will call the ratio between the number of people in heaven and the number of people in hell, the “final ratio.”

The key question is, how is this final ratio determined?? I will consider two possible options.

(1)On the one hand, the final ratio could be determined as the summation of the radically free choices of every individual human person. In this case, each person is entirely responsible for his own destiny, with each person capable of either accepting or rejecting God.

(2)On the other hand, the final ratio could be determined in part by the free chocies of every individaul human person, in addition to some sort of influence from God, in order to guarrante a certain outcome, or a certain range of outcomes for the final ratio.

(1)

If free will operates according to option (1), notice that the entire result rests solely on human free agents. God has NOTHING to do with the result aside from the fact that he creates a certain number of free agents. Once God creates all the people he is going to create, the matter of each persons individual choice is out of God’s hands. He has no control, because he has given every person radically free will, and he must respect that free will.

Since God has no control, it is as if God “rolled the dice,” the final ratio generated in completely RANDOM. It may not seem so at first when you consider that each individual does indeed choose freely, such that each individuals free choice is not random for him or her indivudually.

Taken as a collective, and viewed existentially, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that one value for the final ratio, would be any more likely than any other value If the free chocie of every free agent is truly indepednent from all constraining factors, including man’s “nature” , then this randomness MUST be the case.

Notice then, that according to (1), God could have set the universe in motion, created any countable set of rational humans, and had every single person without exception choose hell, and God could do nothign about it because he gives us all radicaly free will. So I conclude option (1) was a “risk” on God’s part because he theoretically could have ended up with trillions in hell, and 0 in heaven. I don’t think God would take such a risk as this.

(2)

If free will operates according to option (2) as stated above, then I will argue God neccessarily “sets the stage” or “fixes the game”, thus violating our free will to some small extent. Now the most likely way for God to do this, is by means of what we call human nature.

In (2), unlike (1), we take human nature into account, and say that human nature has some sort of influence on our choices (as you would expect). It is the nature water to be wet, and the nature of fire to be hot. It is the nature of man to have the ability to act rationally (freely), but human nature is more than “naked free will.” I say it is also in man’s nature to seek hapiness and to desire God. but wait a minute…If it is our nature to desire God, and it is only because of original sin that our nature is fallen, then there is in fact some sort of predesposition within our very nature to choose good instead of evil.

This is a problem. If a certain desposition is “written into our nature” as it were (the desire to know and love God), then our wills cannot be truly free to decide for themselves equally among all possible options. Free will is “biased” towards good, or perhaps to a degree towards bad, after the fall. The issue is that because something in our nature other than “naked free will” affects free will, free will is not radically free.

Because God is the author of our human nature, God is able to use his middle knowledge (Molinist) to see how an individual human nature would act in any circumstances. If our nature did not bear some influence on our freely willed actions (see (1)) , God could not do this. So the Molinist solution involves God choosing one out of an infinite number of universes, and setting it in motion. If God chooses a universe where he forsees somebody choosing hell, God is in part responsible for willing that soul into hell, because he could have choosen to create a universe where he did not forsee anybody choosing hell.

Now I often hear it argued that hell must exist in order for heaven to exist, such that the creation of a soul who makes it to hell, is just an unintended negative consequence of the far surpassing glory which is God’s creation. To these arguments, I say, what if God were to have only created ONE single human person, and for whatever reason, this person choose hell. heaven could still exist as a wonderful plan of God’s in all its glory, except that it would be empty. Could God have done this, and would God be OK with an empty heaven?. If he gave this single person truly radical free will, he neccessarily would have to be OK with an empty heaven. and that just seems absurd.

 

[slywakka250]

SO, to SUMMARIZE.

Either we have radically free will which is existentially random (1) or we have free will which is influenced by our human nature, as we act according to our nature (2).
If our free will is random, then God rolled the dice and risked hell for everybody, which I think is absurd.
If we act according to our nature, then God fixed the game, because God is the author of human nature. So (2) isn’t really free will at all.

Conclusion:

If an eternal hell exists, God is either rolling the dice that nobody will end up there (leaving it to chance (1)), or God has designed our human nature such that given enough trials, somebody (existentially speaking now) can’t help but end up there. Thus, God is implicated in a soul suffering eternal torture which could not be prevented, thus God is unjust.

 

[The_Exodus]

SO, to SUMMARIZE.

Either we have radically free will which is existentially random (1) or we have free will which is influenced by our human nature, as we act according to our nature (2).

I think you make some outstanding observations in your above post. Let me try to reply.

Free will, in the classical libertarian sense, can still exist, even though our nature is necessarily determined to a certain thing; i.e. “the good.” This is because good, though we will it necessarily, can be considered under many different aspects, according to how a good is presented to the intellect. The object desired does not necessitate the will one way or another, at least not in this life, since no object appears to us as perfect goodness, or a good under every conceivable aspect. Hence, I may will to eat pizza, but, then again, I may will my health, and so refrain. In both cases we will good necessarily, yet the object of our will changes under different aspects.

Now, the problem is, what happens when a soul is presented with grace to turn to God, particularly in the case of Adam who, having no inclination to sin, and not being deceived, chose a good which was not absolutely best?

The answer, I think, is to consider the nature of a created human, whose very good is not, unlike God, the source of his own being. Adam’s good was not his own principle. He was not, by nature, impeccable. Thus he possessed, by nature, at least the possibility of not adhering to the highest principle, since he did not, by nature, have that highest principle as his good. However, it is not the case that he would necessarily sin, only that he was necessarily able to. Otherwise, we must posit that Adam was God. So, when the good of self is brought up against the good of an outside principle, no agent can necessarily assent to the good of the outside principle, although they can possibly do so, with help. Now, it seems to me that, since the intellect is, at times, determined by the will, then it falls to the will alone to order these two goods (self and other), since the good of self can always be considered good under a particular aspect, for the mere reason that it is the self, it can always possibly be chosen against the good of a higher principle, which must be chosen, as it were, out of trust, love, faith, etc: all theological virtues which involve a movement of the will. All that seems to me necessary then, is that this possibility be real (which, in the creation of rational creatures would seem to follow) to account for choosing sin.

sly:

If an eternal hell exists, God is either rolling the dice that nobody will end up there (leaving it to chance (1)), or God has designed our human nature such that given enough trials, somebody (existentially speaking now) can’t help but end up there. Thus, God is implicated in a soul suffering eternal torture which could not be prevented, thus God is unjust.

Or, suppose this universe is something God knows before any volitional (in the sense of freely determining) decree of his? I.e., since he is by nature omniscient, he knows an infinite number of universes, and an infinite number of different free creatures and what they would do in any circumstance. The only difference in this particular (fallen) universe, is that God chose to allow it to be actual. Yet it’s never the case that something happens which God did not already know - he’s not rolling the dice.

 

[slywakka250]

The_Exodus, Thank you for your replies. You help me clarify things, but I have yet to see a solution to the free will problem which makes sense to me.
The Exodus:

The only difference in this particular (fallen) universe, is that God chose to allow it to be actual. Yet it’s never the case that something happens which God did not already know - he’s not rolling the dice.

But the question remains, how is the final ratio determined?

Is man the sole author of his own destiny? Does man decide entirely for himself if he will accept or reject God? If man writes his own desinty, then God does not write it. In fact, God is bound by whatever man chooses, as God respects our free will.

So if man is truly free, man can write the final ratio to be anything he woud like, ranging from 0% to 100% going to heaven. It is like an political election; each man casts his vote for or against God, and the result of the election is entirely the will of the people, and the people alone.

Now if God is really bound by man’s collective choice, God will have to accept the outcome, whatever it may be, for God respects our free will.

So, when God turned over the destiny of man to man’s free will, God was taking a tremendous gamble, because he was giving up control of the outcome to man. God did everything he could to get a favourable result, including sending his own Son to die for man. But the tremendous love of God still had to respect out free will, and thus, for all God did to bring man to himself, God has no gaurrantte that even a single soul will be his in the end.

What a tradgedy if heaven were to be empty for all eternity, but when God allowed man to be the author of his own destiny, he neccesarily allowed for the possibility, leaving the result to a collassaul “roll of the cosmic dice.” I think that is highly dangerous and cruel for God to do such a thing as that.

---

Now this state of affairs I just described does not tell the whole story, because God is omniesceint. The problem is that, if God does not “roll the dice,” he instead deterimines the outcome. He can’t have it both ways. Either God let’s man decide his destiny, or God decides it for man.
The Exodus:

Or, suppose this universe is something God knows before any volitional (in the sense of freely determining) decree of his? I.e., since he is by nature omniscient, he knows an infinite number of universes, and an infinite number of different free creatures and what they would do in any circumstance. The only difference in this particular (fallen) universe, is that God chose to allow it to be actual

So indeed, the question remains, what criterion does God use to decide which universe to make actual? Is a fallen universe “better” than a universe that is not fallen? I can see that possibly yes, but only if every one who falls eventually makes it back to God.

The real question is, how is it that a universe where there are people in hell is better than a universe with only people in heaven? (with the possibiliy of hell remaining, just nobody choosing it).

The one answer which I often hear to this question is that in order for God to give us the full gift of free will, and the full gift of heaven, a necessary consequence would be that some might refuse that gift.

But I come back to my other point, what if God provided for heaven, but nobody ended up choosing it?? Would the mere existence of heaven, (albeit empty) be a justification for trillions of people in hell?? I think not.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The_Exodus, Thank you for your replies. You help me clarify things, but I have yet to see a solution to the free will problem which makes sense to me.

But the question remains, how is the final ratio determined?

Is man the sole author of his own destiny? Does man decide entirely for himself if he will accept or reject God? If man writes his own desinty, then God does not write it. In fact, God is bound by whatever man chooses, as God respects our free will.

So if man is truly free, man can write the final ratio to be anything he woud like, ranging from 0% to 100% going to heaven. It is like an political election; each man casts his vote for or against God, and the result of the election is entirely the will of the people, and the people alone.

Now if God is really bound by man’s collective choice, God will have to accept the outcome, whatever it may be, for God respects our free will.

So, when God turned over the destiny of man to man’s free will, God was taking a tremendous gamble, because he was giving up control of the outcome to man. God did everything he could to get a favourable result, including sending his own Son to die for man. But the tremendous love of God still had to respect out free will, and thus, for all God did to bring man to himself, God has no gaurrantte that even a single soul will be his in the end.

What a tradgedy if heaven were to be empty for all eternity, but when God allowed man to be the author of his own destiny, he neccesarily allowed for the possibility, leaving the result to a collassaul “roll of the cosmic dice.” I think that is highly dangerous and cruel for God to do such a thing as that.

Its cruel for God to love and respect our freewill? I think its cruel for us to reject Gods love. This doesn’t show an error on Gods side, but rather this shows how selfish we all are. First we must understand that to speak of God as a concept is to speak of that which is fundamentally good. We must also understand that if God exists, then God is the very act of reality in which contingent things participate, which is intrinsically good. God is reality/existence. Thus to participate in the act of reality is to participate in that which is good for you. Thus anything that contingently exists is subject to the moral nature of necessary reality; which is Love. Thus morality is defined by that nature in reference to the fact that our very being is a reality because of it. Therefore to merely exist in such a being is to be loved and to be subject to the moral ought of love, and this is because fundamental reality is as such that it has “shared” itself with you. We “ought” to love God, thus God is justified in creating us simply because God is good for us. Since a person ought to choose that which is good for them, and that it is also the nature of love to allow freedom of choice, no error can be found in God if a person knowingly chooses otherwise, since the moral good, for human beings, is ultimately bound up in the fact that we ought to choose God, since Gods nature is the reason why a thing is good and it is also the reason why a thing is true.

Thus I don’t understand your objection.

 

[JDaniel]

Its cruel for God to love and respect our freewill? I think its cruel for us to reject Gods love. This doesn’t show an error on Gods side, but rather this shows how selfish we all are. First we must understand that to speak of God as a concept is to speak of that which is fundamentally good. We must also understand that if God exists, then God is the very act of reality in which contingent things participate, which is intrinsically good. God is reality/existence. Thus to participate in the act of reality is to participate in that which is good for you. Thus anything that contingently exists is subject to the moral nature of necessary reality; which is Love. Thus morality is defined by that nature in reference to the fact that our very being is a reality because of it. Therefore to merely exist in such a being is to be loved and to be subject to the moral ought of love, and this is because fundamental reality is as such that it has “shared” itself with you. We “ought” to love God, thus God is justified in creating us simply because God is good for us. Since a person ought to choose that which is good for them, and that it is also the nature of love to allow freedom of choice, no error can be found in God if a person knowingly chooses otherwise, since the moral good, for human beings, is ultimately bound up in the fact that we ought to choose God, since Gods nature is the reason why a thing is good and it is also the reason why a thing is true.

Thus I don’t understand your objection.

Good analysis, my friend!

God bless,
jd

 

[The_Exodus]

The_Exodus, Thank you for your replies. You help me clarify things, but I have yet to see a solution to the free will problem which makes sense to me.

It’s a tough problem friend. But I think we can get closer to the answer.

sly:

Is man the sole author of his own destiny? Does man decide entirely for himself if he will accept or reject God? If man writes his own desinty, then God does not write it. In fact, God is bound by whatever man chooses, as God respects our free will.

Since man is a created being, he cannot be “entirely” responsible for anything. He would not exist, were God to withdraw his ever-gracious gift of being; not would he ever have existed, if God had not so chosen, for no inherent goodness in man, to create him.

Also, God is not “bound” by anything, unless he wills himself to be bound; i.e. "Do you think I could not ask my father, and he would send 12 legions of angels? “You have no power but what has been given you.” etc.

sly:

So if man is truly free, man can write the final ratio to be anything he woud like, ranging from 0% to 100% going to heaven. It is like an political election; each man casts his vote for or against God, and the result of the election is entirely the will of the people, and the people alone.

But God is never ignorant of what way the vote will turn out. There is, surely, a ratio of lost to saved, but it is not random or unknown to God.

sly:

Now if God is really bound by man’s collective choice, God will have to accept the outcome, whatever it may be, for God respects our free will.

God is not bound by anything he does not choose to be bound to. Futhermore, since God knows all things, he could never be bound by an “unknown.”

“Free will” is also a somewhat ambigous term.

sly:

So, when God turned over the destiny of man to man’s free will, God was taking a tremendous gamble, because he was giving up control of the outcome to man. God did everything he could to get a favourable result, including sending his own Son to die for man. But the tremendous love of God still had to respect out free will, and thus, for all God did to bring man to himself, God has no gaurrantte that even a single soul will be his in the end.

Do you think God did not know, in his infinite wisdom, all that would happen when he sent his son, our blessed Lord?

There is really no such thing as a “gamble” to God. To us, since we are ignorant of the outcome, we can “gamble” on things, like, say, whether or not our friends will go to church if we ask them. But since God is all knowing, there is no unknown variable he is “trying” to attain, unsure whether or not the outcome will be pleasing to him.

sly:

Now this state of affairs I just described does not tell the whole story, because God is omniesceint. The problem is that, if God does not “roll the dice,” he instead deterimines the outcome.

Does he? If his knowledge is predicated on his volitional decree, then yes. But if his decree is based on his knowledge, I don’t think so.

It may be the case that, God knows, in a sort Platonic Ideal way, every conceivable potentially existing thing - any idea. This is because, by knowing his own being perfectly, he knows all things that he is not. He knows, for example, that he is not matter. Therefore, he knows matter perfectly, and knows he is not that. He knows, also, you, or any conceivable created soul. He does not say "I am going to make sly this way, but, rather, I know sly as this conceivably created soul. It is this knowledge that God’s decree is based on, some say.

In other words, when God decides to make you, or Judas, instead of determining a “sly” or “Judas” soul, which necessarily does such and such because he has determined it to do such and such, he rather chooses to actualize a soul which just so happens to do such and such. This is what Molinists mean when they say God’s knowledge preceeds his will.

sly:

So indeed, the question remains, what criterion does God use to decide which universe to make actual?

What could the answer to this be, but what is most pleasing to the divine will?

sly:

But I come back to my other point, what if God provided for heaven, but nobody ended up choosing it?? Would the mere existence of heaven, (albeit empty) be a justification for trillions of people in hell?? I think not.

I think there is a conceivable universe in which all people go to heaven, and one in which all go to hell (in both cases freely). But God, in his wisdom, deems it best to create a universe in which some go to hell and some go to heaven.

At least it seems so to me. These are very tough questions though.

 

[slywakka250]

The Exodus:

I think there is a conceivable universe in which all people go to heaven, and one in which all go to hell (in both cases freely). But God, in his wisdom, deems it best to create a universe in which some go to hell and some go to heaven.

Well this is the best explanation I’ve seen so far, and Thank you much for it, but I still find it utterly unacceptable for a loving God to act like this. I am spending time coming up with some reasoned arguments, but for now, Consider this.

How is it that I could ever want to have children, to freely will to engage in human procreation, given the above quote.???

For if God choose to give me a child whom he KNEW would freely choose hell, I feel I could never forgive myself for bringing a precious child into the world, only to have him/her choose HELL as a foregone conclusion, that I could have prevented had I not been married or had sex. (I am not married btw, and as of now, would have a very hard time considering Catholic marriage because of this issue)

That is, I by not engaging in human procreation, could prevent a soul from choosing hell. why would I not want to do this?? And if it is the case that more than half of all men choose hell, my odds are good that I really am preventing the eternal suffering of somebody by not having kids.

Of course people will say that existence, even existence in hell, is better than non-existence, but I just don’t buy that; its too theoretical. If given a choice right now, between non-existence(annihilation) and hell, I would certainly choose annihilation, because then I would not have to suffer for eternity.

If you all can’t tell, this issue is much more to me than an intellectual curiosity. The issues of free will, and of hell in particular, are for me a huge stumbling block to my faith. I feel a profound anger at God for creating me, and for putting me up to this test. This anger, combined with OCD obsessive thoughts about a judgemental God, thoughts about my own sinfulness, and thoughts about the real possibility of hell, make it nearly impossible for me to form a thought in prayer, or to have any positive feelings about God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t think there’s a conceivable universe with free will and the amont of people that we have where everybody can shoose Heaven (or Hell).

 

[The_Exodus]

For if God choose to give me a child whom he KNEW would freely choose hell, I feel I could never forgive myself for bringing a precious child into the world, only to have him/her choose HELL as a foregone conclusion, that I could have prevented had I not been married or had sex.

But if a child, as it matured, continually chose evil, then by the time it became a “habitual” person, so to speak, it would not be precious at all. It would be a creature who hated God and goodness; a human who justly deserves wrath On the other hand, if there grew up a child who loved goodness, and had, by the grace of God, an clean, innocent soul, it would by no means go to Hell.

There is only one reason a creature goes to hell: because it deserves it. Only creatures who hate almighty God, and hate the light of goodness, are condemned.

The difficulty is not why God sends wicked men to hell; or why he abandons evil people to their own lusts. The difficulty is why he does not send everyone there. What man can say he deserves eternal life, or the grace of Almighty God? What sinner can say that God owes him forgiveness?

sly:

And if it is the case that more than half of all men choose hell, my odds are good that I really am preventing the eternal suffering of somebody by not having kids.

Or perhaps you will give birth to a child who will go to heaven and experience the everlasting happiness of glory?

sly:

If you all can’t tell, this issue is much more to me than an intellectual curiosity. The issues of free will, and of hell in particular, are for me a huge stumbling block to my faith. I feel a profound anger at God for creating me, and for putting me up to this test. This anger, combined with OCD obsessive thoughts about a judgemental God, thoughts about my own sinfulness, and thoughts about the real possibility of hell, make it nearly impossible for me to form a thought in prayer, or to have any positive feelings about God.

It is true that you are sinful, sly. We all are. But why are you angry with God about that? Did he force your hand to commit sin? Is it not rather that you sinned of your own, and willingly? Isn’t it rather that, you have sought after your own goodness on purpose? Perhaps it is the case that you hate your own wickedness; and that, seeing your sinfulness, you lash out against God. If God hadn’t created you, if he “left it to you” as it were, you would not exist. It is true that you were born under the curse of Adam, as all of us are. But, again, I ask you: did God force your hand to do the evil that you have done?

There is no hope in any of us, sly. But there is hope for us; in Christ.