FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? (/showthread.php?tid=51141)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - Melkite - 12-10-2011

Vetus,

I can follow that line of questioning that you yourself did.  My first question down that line is, if God is omnipotent in our salvation, if our salvation isn't dependant upon our response to grace, but is soley dependant upon God's election, how then are we not robots, at least, insofar as our salvation is concerned?  How then can the love we return to God be true love, if it wasn't our free will that loves him back, but God deciding for us that we love him back?  Perhaps my objection isn't so much to predestination as to the notion that predestination and free will are working together.  The two seem to me absolutely incompatible.  If God is in absolute control, and we don't make any good response to his grace that isn't basically moved by him, where then is our choice in the matter?  If we do have some free will in the matter, then God must necessarily relinquish his control, even if only for a moment, in order for it to truly be of our free will.  I don't see how it can possibly be both together.

I'm also wary of predestination because it seems to me to be the Catholic version of eternal security, though I admit I haven't seen anyone parading it around here arrogantly as the Protestants do.  But ultimately, if God has elected you, there is nothing you can do to refuse that election, and if he hasn't, there is nothing you can do to gain it.  It seems to me to have the potential to lead one dangerously close to either presumption or despair.  for example, I see things in my life that make me think both that I may be elect and that I may not be, if predestination the way you describe it is true.  If I focus on what makes me think I may be elect, I could easily fall into thinking it doesn't matter what sin I commit, God is in control and he will pull me back because I am elect.  If I focus on what makes me think I may not be elect, I could easily fall into thinking it doesn't matter what sin I commit, I can't possibly escape hell no matter how righteous a life I may live, so why not enjoy life as I see fit, since it would be an utter waste to mortify myself in this life only to be cast into hell for eternity.  The only way for me to not be defeatest in either direction is the belief that God leaves my salvation ultimately up to me.  He is the only one with the power to do it, I could never save myself on my own, yet, if I go to hell, it is no one' fault but my own, and if I make it to heaven, it is because I respond to the grace God has given me.  The choice ultimately is mine, and I don't see that giving me full freedom to choose in any way negates God's absolute sovereignty, because it is he who freely relinquishes that sovereignty of choice to us; no one or thing has the power to compel him to do so.  With all respect to you, to see free will in our choice to be saved or damned as an offense against the omnipotence and sovereignty of God seems to me to be a sign of an immature faith.


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - INPEFESS - 12-10-2011

(12-10-2011, 09:00 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-10-2011, 02:02 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: and yet you believe that God has no love for most. 

I wrote this?  Refresh my memory.

And Feeneyites are in good standing with the Church.  I personally disagree with part of what they teach, but agree they have a right to teach it.

You didn't write those words exactly, but the new advent page you quotes suggested it.  What I mean is, it stands to reason that if God is love, not that God loves, but he IS love itself, it seems very strange that he has no love for the majority of his human creatures.

Inpefess, thank you for trying, but I'm just as confused as ever by what you posted.  Are you saying that basically, God gives everyone the ability to will good, and then if they choose to will good, then God gives them the additional grace to act on it?  Like, God gives the farmer a little rain, and if the farmer decides to go out and plant, he'll get more, but God doesn't waste more rain on him if the farmer doesn't bother to use what rain he first received?  If so, I can see predestination as tolerable, if that is what predestination is.  But, the majority of what you posted just leaves me baffled.  It seems like a lot of unneccessary theological fluff that I can't understand how anyone could possibly know that's how things work, since it isn't even remotely covered in divine revelation.  If nothing else, if I do remain Catholic, it leaves me with the desire to never step foot in a Latin church ever again, because you all seem to make things so unneccesarily difficult.

I apologize. I was just trying to explain a complex theological teaching that you don't seem to get any other way. I thought an exhaustive step-by-step explanation might suffice to fill in the gaps. But you have tried to reduce the entire explanation to a sentence or two, which completely destroys all of the important theological nuances that makes this understandable.

The entire teaching can be summed-up in the conclusions that follow from the answers to two questions.

[1] Is there any injustice in God taking your life at a point in time when you are (freely) in the state of mortal sin?

Yes or no.

[2] Is there any injustice in God knowing before creating you:
(a) at what point you would be in that state of mortal sin, and
(b) at what point He would take your life?

Yes or no.

If you answered in the negative to both of those questions--that is, that there is no justice in God (a) taking your life at a point in time when you are (freely) in the state of mortal sin, (b) knowing at what point you would be in that state of mortal sin, and © knowing at what point He would take your life--then the entire teaching follows as a conclusion from this. Not to oversimplify it, but the salvation of the elect is primarily the reciprocal of this (with the acknowledgment that God shows His infinite mercy to some of those who don't deserve it, for even they had freely chosen to reject Him at some point in their life).

Please don't respond immediately. Think about this without simply trying to poke holes in it. Meditate upon these three ideas and consider that God has selects some for reprobation, but that all of those who are selected for it have likewise freely chosen it themselves knowing before commission of the sin that death in that state would cause their eternal damnation.

Think of it not only from God's point of view, but from ours. As it concerns reprobation, God selects; we effect. That is, God selects some for reprobation, but our free will puts His selection into effect. This is only possible based on our lack of knowledge of what God has selected. Since we do not know, we must do everything we can to stay in the state of sanctifying grace. This way, we can be absolutely certain that we will not be among the reprobate, for if we never choose to reject Him, then we cannot be among the reprobate. And if we fall into the state of mortal sin, it is absolutely necessary that we get to confession as soon as possible and beg for perfect contrition in the meantime. "[God] will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him" (Last words of St. Thomas More). 


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - JacafamalaRedux - 12-10-2011

I've read some of this, not all twenty some odd pages. Forgive me. I think the important thing is that God wants everyone to be saved. That's all we really need to know. He wants all of us.


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - DrBombay - 12-10-2011

I doubt seriously he wants Adam Sandler.


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - randomtradguy - 12-10-2011

I talked to a traditional priest tonight about this and if anyone wants to talk about what I found out PM me. I don't feel comfortable talking about it here since he agreed with me which means my old friend will be called a heretic.


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - INPEFESS - 12-10-2011

(12-10-2011, 10:19 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: I talked to a traditional priest tonight about this and if anyone wants to talk about what I found out PM me. I don't feel comfortable talking about it here since he agreed with me which means my old friend will be called a heretic.

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a heretic. Molina wasn't condemned as a heretic, after all.

The rejection of the Thomistic approach to this is due largely to a lack of understanding, I believe. Many of us were raised to think like Molinists because, frankly, it is much simpler to consider. If one takes Molina's conclusion to its end, however, it is like Walty said:
Walty Wrote:To hugely oversimplify things, in Molinism God has no direct control over the will of His creatures.  He's impotent when it comes to moving and touching men via grace.  He knows what his creatures would do in any specific situation, but He has absolutely no power to change that fact.  So the only way that He can get men to do this or that thing is to create the universe in such a way that men will do whatever He wants them to do.  He can manipulate the circumstances, but not the man. 

And this, especially in light of how we Christians fundamentally understand God as Creator, is a logical absurdity.  It also creates problems with free will.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas carried  this thought out to its conclusion and saw the logical absurdity it creates. And they took note of what Scripture has revealed concerning predestination. Please consider this passage from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's Thomistic synthensis:
Reality, Chapter 11, Article Two: Predestination Wrote:What we here attempt is a summary of the principles which underlie Thomistic doctrine on the high mystery of predestination. [431].

1. Scriptural Foundation

St. Thomas studied deeply those texts in St. John and St. Paul which express the mystery of predestination, its gratuitousness, and its infallibility. Here follow the chief texts.

a) "Those whom Thou gavest Me have I kept: and none of them is lost but the son of perdition that the Scripture may be fulfilled." [432].

b) "My sheep hear My voice. And I know them, and they follow Me. 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." [433].

c) "For many are called, but few are chosen." [434].

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange then goes on to explain how St. Thomas reconciled these texts without compromising a single word:
Quote:St. Thomas, based on tradition, interprets these texts as follows: There are elect souls, chosen by God from all eternity. They will be infallibly saved; if they fall, God will raise them up, their merits will not be lost. Others, like the son of perdition, will be lost. Yet God never commands the impossible, and gives to all men genuine power to fulfill His precepts at the moment when these precepts bind according to the individual's knowledge. Repentance was genuinely possible for Judas, but the act did not come into existence. Remark again the distance between potency and act. The mystery lies chiefly in harmonizing God's universal will of salvation with the predestination, not of all, but of a certain number known only to God.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange then goes to point on St. Paul's references to predestination in Scripture. Yes, God is said to "predestine" souls even in Scripture itself:
Quote:This same mystery we find often affirmed by St. Paul, implicitly and explicitly. Here are the chief texts.

a) "For what distinguisheth thee? or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received? " [435] This is equivalent to saying: No one would be better than another, were he not more loved and strengthened by God, though for all the fulfillment of God's precepts is genuinely possible. "It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will." [436].

b) "He chose us in Him [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and unspotted in His sight. He hath predestinated us to be His adopted children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to make shine forth the glory of His grace, by which He has made us pleasing in His eyes, in His beloved son." [437].

This text speaks explicitly of predestination. So St. Augustine. So St. Thomas and his school. St. Thomas sets in relief both the good pleasure of God's will and the designs of God's mind, to show the eternal freedom of the act of predestination.

c) "We know that to them who love God all things work together unto good, to those who are called according to His designs. For those whom He foreknew, these also He predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His son, that His son might be the firstborn among many brethren. And whom He predestinated, these He also called, and whom He called, these He also justified. And whom He justified, these He also glorified." [438].

"Those whom He foreknew, these also He predestinated." How does St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, understand these salient words? Nowhere does he understand them of simple prevision of our merits. Such a meaning has no foundation in St. Paul, and is excluded by many of his affirmations. [439] The real meaning is this: "Those whom God foreknew with divine benevolence, these He predestinated." And for what purpose? That His Son might be the first among many brethren. This is the genuine meaning of "foreknew."

d) This same idea appears clearly in the commentary on Romans, [440] where St. Paul is magnifying the sovereign independence of God in dispensing His graces. The Jews, the chosen people of old, have been rejected by reason of their unbelief, and salvation is being announced to the pagans. St. Paul sets forth the underlying principle of God's predilection, applicable both to nation and to individuals:

"What shall we say? Is there injustice in God? Far from it. For He says to Moses: 'I will have mercy on whom I will, I will have compassion on whom I will. ' This then depends not on him who wills, not on him who runs, but on God who shows mercy." [441] If predestination includes a positive act of God, hardening of the heart, on the contrary, is only permitted by God and comes from the evil use which man makes of his freedom. Let no man, then, call God to account. Hence the conclusions: "Oh unsounded depth of God's wisdom and knowledge! How incomprehensible are His judgments, how unsearchable His ways!. Who hath first given to Him, that recompense should be made? For of Him and by Him and in Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen." [442].

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange then goes on to define predestination:
2. Definition of Predestination Wrote:The Scripture texts just quoted are the foundation of the doctrine, Augustinian and Thomistic, of predestination. The definition of St. Augustine runs thus: Predestination is God's foreknowledge and preparation of those gifts whereby all those who are saved are infallibly saved. [443] By predestination, he says elsewhere, God foreknew what He Himself would do. [444].

The definition of St. Thomas runs thus: That plan in God's mind whereby He sends the rational creature to that eternal life which is its goal, is called predestination, for to destine means to send.

This definition agrees with that of St. Augustine. In God's mind there is an eternal plan whereby this man, this angel, reaches his supernatural end. This plan, divinely ordained and decreed, includes the efficacious ways and means which lead this man, this angel, to his ultimate goal. This is the doctrine of Scripture. [445] This is the doctrine of the two saints, Augustine and Thomas.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange then goes on to answer some general questions about predestination:
3. Questions Wrote:Why did God choose certain creatures, whom, if they fall, He raises ever again, while He rejects others after permitting their final impenitence? The answer of St. Thomas, based on revelation, runs as follows: In the predestined, God manifests His goodness under the form of mercy. In the reprobate, He manifests His goodness under the form of justice. This answer comes from St. Paul: "If God, willing to show His wrath (His justice): and to make His power known, endured (permitted) with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, and if He willed to show the riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy which He had prepared for glory... (where is the injustice?)."

Divine goodness, we recall, tends to communicate itself, and thus becomes the principle of mercy. But divine goodness, on the other hand, has the inalienable right to the supreme love of creatures, and thus becomes the principle of justice. Both the splendor of infinite justice and the glory of infinite mercy are necessary for the full manifestation of God's goodness. Thus evil is permitted only in view of a higher good, a good of which divine wisdom is the only judge, a good which the elect will contemplate in heaven. To this doctrine Thomists add nothing. They simply defend it. And this holds good likewise of the answer to the following question.

Why does God predestine this creature rather than the other? Our Lord says: "No man can come to Me unless the Father who hath sent Me draw him." [446] St. Augustine [447] continues: Why the Father draws this man, and does not draw that man, judge not unless you would misjudge. Why did not the saint find an easier answer? He could have said: God predestines this man rather than the other because He foresaw that the one, and not the other, would make good use of the grace offered or even given to him. But then one man would be better than the other without having been more loved and strengthened by God, a position contrary to St. Paul [448] and to our Lord. [449] The merits of the elect, says St. Thomas, far from being the cause of predestination, are, on the contrary, the effects of predestination. [450].

Let us here repeat the saint's formula of the principle of predilection: "Since God's love is the source of all created goodness, no creature would in any way be better than another, did God not will to give it a good greater than the good He gives to another." [451] Hence, as the saint says elsewhere, [452] God's love precedes God's choice, and God's choice precedes God's predestination. And in that same article he adds that predestination to glory precedes predestination to grace. [453].

The Pelagians thought of God as spectator, not as author, of that salutary consent which distinguishes the just from the wicked. The Semi-Pelagians said the same of the initium fidei et bonae voluntatis. St. Thomas, following St. Augustine, teaches that from God comes everything there is in us of good, from the beginning of a good will to the most intimate goodness of our free and self-determined salutary acts.

To the question, then, of God's motive in choosing one rather than the other, St. Thomas answers that the future merits of the elect cannot be the reason of their predestination, since these merits are, on the contrary, the effect of their predestination. Then he adds: "Why God chose these for glory and reprobated others finds answer only in the divine will. [454] Of two dying men, each equally and evilly disposed, why does God move one to repentance and permit the other to die impenitent? There is no answer but the divine pleasure. [455].

Thomists restrict themselves to defending this doctrine against Molinism and congruism. They add to it nothing positive. The more explicit terms they employ have no other purpose than to exclude from the doctrine false interpretations, which favor simultaneous concursus or premotio indifferens.

Mystery there is in this doctrine, mystery unfathomable but inevitable. How harmonize God's gratuitous predestination with God's will of salvation for all men? How harmonize infinite mercy, infinite justice, and infinite freedom? Mystery there is, but no contradiction. There would be contradiction, if God's salvific will were illusory, if God did not make fulfillment of His precepts really and genuinely possible. For thus He would, contrary to His goodness, mercy, and justice, command the impossible. But if these precepts are really possible for all, whereas they are in fact kept by some and not by all, then those who do keep them, being better, must have received more from God.

St. Thomas [456] thus sums up the matter: "One who gives by grace (not by justice) can at his good pleasure give more or less, and to whom he pleases, if only he denies to no one what justice demands. [457] Thus, the householder says: 'Take what is thine and go. Or is it not lawful for me to do as I will? ' " [458].

This doctrine is expressed by the common language of daily life. When of two great sinners one is converted, Christians say: God showed him special mercy. This solution of daily life accords with that of St. Augustine and St. Thomas when they contemplate the mysterious harmony of infinite mercy and infinite justice. When God with sovereign freedom grants to one the grace of final perseverance, it is a gift of mercy. When He does not grant it to another, it is a deed of justice, due to last resistance to a last appeal.

Against all deviations in this matter, toward predestinationism, Protestantism, and Jansenism, on the one hand, and, on the other, toward Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, we must hold fast these two truths, central and mutually complementary: first, "God never commands the impossible," and second, "No one would be better than another were he not loved more by God." Guided by these truths we can begin to see where the mystery lies. Infinite justice, infinite mercy, sovereign liberty are all united, are even identified, in the Deity's transcendent pre-eminence, which remains hidden from us as long as we do not have the beatific vision. But in the chiaro oscuro of life here below, grace, which is a participation of the Deity, tranquillizes the just man, and the inspirations of the Holy Spirit console him, strengthen his hope, and make his love more pure, disinterested, and strong, so that in the incertitude of salvation he has the ever-growing certitude of hope, which is a certitude of tendency toward salvation. The proper and formal object of infused hope is not, in fact, our own effort, but the infinite mercy of the "God who aids us," [459] who arouses us here to effort and who will there crown-that effort. [460].

One of the biggest obstacles making the Thomistic and Augustian approach so difficult to understand is a sort of exclusivism whereby we view only one dimension of the teaching at a time.

First, ask yourself: [1] Is there any injustice in God taking your life at a point in time when you are (freely) in the state of mortal sin?

(Yes or no.)

Second, ask yourself: [2] Is there any injustice in God knowing before creating you: (a) at what point you would be in that state of mortal sin, and (b) at what point He would take your life?

(Yes or no.)

If you answered in the negative to both of those questions--that is, that there is no justice in God (a) taking your life at a point in time when you are (freely) in the state of mortal sin, (b) knowing at what point you would be in that state of mortal sin, and © knowing at what point He would take your life--then the entire teaching follows as a conclusion from this. Not to oversimplify it, but the salvation of the elect is primarily the reciprocal of this (with the acknowledgment that God shows His infinite mercy to some of those who don't deserve it, for even they had freely chosen to reject Him at some point in their life).

To properly understand it, then, you have to approach the matter with the answers to both questions in your mind at the same time. If you consider the question only through [1] you destroy the omnipotence of God. If you answer the question only through [2] you destroy free will. Viewing the doctrine exclusively through only one question at a time will fail to understand the Thomistic approach. It must be understood that both answers must be considered at the same time in order to understand the Thomistic view. It is impossible to understand exactly how they fit together, but we do know that there is no contradiction in acknowledging that they do fit together. It is both [1] your free and uninhibited choice to commit sin and [2] God's free and uninhibited choice to take your life whenever His will so determines.

What will the reprobate say when they are damned and their friends saved? They might say, "You let them go to Heaven but you let us go to Hell!" But God would say, "Yes, and you chose it, too, when you freely placed yourselves in the state of mortal sin. You could not have gone to Hell if you had not willfully rejected your salvation by casting off My law."

Or the reprobate might say, "But it is unjust to help them and not us!" But God might say, "No, it was unjust that I should help either of you. But I desired that some of you should be saved in spite of your own willfull rejection of salvation, so I, foreseeing a greater manifestation of My goodness in the election of your friends, chose to help them out of pure, undeserved mercy. Your punishment is your own doing, as would have been theirs if I had not intervened in order to bring about an even greater good. Their salvation is My own doing. Do I not have a right to do with my possessions as I see fit?" Once again, recall the parable of the laborers in the field:
Matthew 20 Wrote:[1] The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. [2] And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. [3] And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle. [4] And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just. [5] And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner.

[6] But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle? [7] They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard. [8] And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first. [9] When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. [10] But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny.

[11] And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, [12] Saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. [13] But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? [14] Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. [15] Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?

[16] So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.

And what response would the reprobate have to this? They could have none, for they know that they could have remained free from the stain of mortal sin because God had given them all the help they needed to do this, that their damnation is their own doing, and that the salvation of their friends is God's.

Like I said, think of it not only from God's point of view, and not only from ours, but from both at the same time. As it concerns reprobation, God selects; we effect. That is, God selects some for reprobation, but our free will puts that selection into effect. Our reprobation could not be brought about if God did not choose our damnation; but consider, too, that our reprobation could not be brought about if we did not choose to reject salvation when we placed ourselves in the state of mortal sin. The reconciliation between God's selection and our freely putting His selection into effect by our own free will is only possible based on our lack of knowledge of what God has selected. Since we do not know, we must do everything we can to stay in the state of sanctifying grace. This way, we can be absolutely certain that we will not be among the reprobate, for if we never choose to reject Him, then we cannot lose our souls. And if we fall into the state of mortal sin, it is absolutely necessary that we get to confession as soon as possible and beg for perfect contrition in the meantime. "[God] will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to Him" (Last words of St. Thomas More). 


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - Doce Me - 12-10-2011

(12-10-2011, 07:35 PM)Melkite Wrote: The choice ultimately is mine, and I don't see that giving me full freedom to choose in any way negates God's absolute sovereignty, because it is he who freely relinquishes that sovereignty of choice to us; no one or thing has the power to compel him to do so. 

God can't relinquish His absolute sovereignty over anything.  It would be making what is absolute non-absolute, making God unnecessary for an instant.

Man's free will can be the secondary cause, and that is God's way of giving man a sort of amazing sovereignty in choosing good. But God remains the primary cause

An example of primary and secondary causes: gravity is the cause of an apple falling from a tree.  Gravity truly IS the cause here, but God is the primary cause all along.  Free will IS the cause of good choices - but not the primary cause. God made all things from nothing, and they absolutely would be nothing if God didn't hold them in existence and cause all that is in them  - including our free-willing.

I actually agree with you, Melkite, in the things you say:  that God saves us because we freely accept Him.   I just think God is necessary to our accepting, by His grace (far more than what the falling apple needs!) and as a primary cause.

The mystery of grace and free will is something that is hard to accept, practically unbelievable.  How can God cause free willing and yet leave the will free?   I understand that it seems impossible to accept to you. I think it takes a certain humility to accept the fact that you can't entirely understand.But I think two FACTS have to be accepted: God's sovereignty and free will.  Putting them together is another thing.  I think Catholic saints have not put them together; predestination is an advanced controversial topic for theologians.  What Catholic saints have understood was that their choices  were in the deepest sense to God's credit and not their own, and that it was God who would save them by His power alone.




Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - randomtradguy - 12-11-2011

First of all, S. Thomas disregarded because I don't like him, not because I would disagree with him but because he makes things complicated as shit, man has free will, and I'm pretty sure that the way to reconcile the two is to claim that man actually has free will. It appears that people here are denying free will, only to say yeah but that's not at face value whats happening blah blah blah.
Short version of my claim against this understanding is that Trent canon 4 anathematizes those who say free will is passive to God's.
I submit that some here are Jansenists.
Happy Sunday.


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - DrBombay - 12-11-2011

(12-11-2011, 04:04 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: First of all, S. Thomas disregarded because I don't like him, not because I would disagree with him but because he makes things complicated as shit, man has free will, and I'm pretty sure that the way to reconcile the two is to claim that man actually has free will. It appears that people here are denying free will, only to say yeah but that's not at face value whats happening blah blah blah.
Short version of my claim against this understanding is that Trent canon 4 anathematizes those who say free will is passive to God's.
I submit that some here are Jansenists.
Happy Sunday.

Quoted for truth.  And the fact that you called people here Jansenists.  And the fact that you don't like Thomas and his over complicated shit.


Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - randomtradguy - 12-11-2011

(12-11-2011, 09:50 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(12-11-2011, 04:04 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: First of all, S. Thomas disregarded because I don't like him, not because I would disagree with him but because he makes things complicated as shit, man has free will, and I'm pretty sure that the way to reconcile the two is to claim that man actually has free will. It appears that people here are denying free will, only to say yeah but that's not at face value whats happening blah blah blah.
Short version of my claim against this understanding is that Trent canon 4 anathematizes those who say free will is passive to God's.
I submit that some here are Jansenists.
Happy Sunday.

Quoted for truth.  And the fact that you called people here Jansenists.  And the fact that you don't like Thomas and his over complicated shit.
someone agreed with me? Holy shit. Thanks sir/ma'am (didn't look at your gender symbol)