Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others?
(12-19-2011, 11:54 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Wrong. That is the false dichotomy that results from failing to understand the relationship between sufficient and efficacious grace. There is free will, but the accomplishing of the act is due to God, not to man. Nevertheless, man's free will actively chooses to cooperate via a correspondence with God's grace.

I think the false dichotomy is the difference between sufficient and efficacious grace itself. 

Quote:No. That is a false conclusion. I am giving you the correct principles but you are reaching the wrong conclusions with them. I explained this earlier. The man's destination is chosen for him by God, but the man's arrival at that destiny is the result of his own choice.

Impossible.  That is completely contrary to reason.  Man's destination cannot be chosen by God unless God also chose the arrival to that destination.  If I choose someone else is destined to live in Florida, they won't arrive at that destination unless I choose to pick up and move them there.

Quote: Again, not so. There are two factors involved: God's choice and man's choice. God selects; man effects God's selection with his own free will. 
You have to consider both factors at the same time. The juxtaposition of both of those realities is impossible for our minds to fully grasp, but therein lies the mystery of the doctrine as presented in the writings of Scripture itself. If you consider only one factor at once, you will arrive at an erroneous conclusion.

I know you're trying, but at this point it sounds as if you're not really countering my argument, but merely disagreeing with it.  It is plainly irrational to consider both factors at the same time.

Quote:(It would be contrary to justice were God to literally force a person in spite of their lack of free cooperation [via the influences of grace].)

Stop and think about how irrational that is.  Despite a person's lack of free cooperation, via the influences of grace, God does not force their hand.  Then how are they not freely cooperating if they're not being forced?

Quote:No, because goodness is composed of two elements: justice and mercy. This means that in goodness requires that both justice and mercy be satisfied. If only one is expressed, then the other is a non-existence, which represents a privation of good. Both need to be present in order for good to be expressed. Since God has chosen to express His goodness through us, it requires that He show both His infinite justice and His infinite mercy. Without either of these, God would only be showing partial goodness, which is (dare I say) impossible (it is a logical contradiction) for an infinitely good God.

Who on earth came up with that?  First, who determined that only justice and mercy, and those particular two, are required for goodness, and both must be present?  And second, the base argument for predestination is that God doesn't owe mercy to anyone.  So he doesn't owe anyone mercy, yet he can't be good unless he shows mercy to at least one?  The inconsistencies in this doctrine are just falling out of the woodwork now.

Quote:Because it would not be just. Please see above. God's spilling of His blood is both an expression of justice and mercy, as Scripture says. On the Cross, justice and mercy kissed. Christ's blood both satisfied Divine Justice and expressed God's infinite mercy at the same time. But there would be no justice if all were saved. This was even true of the angels before us: not all were saved. This was an expression of Divine Justice.

Absolutely rediculous, unneccesary and, I suspect, constructed to support the foundational flaw in the doctrine.  There would be no justice if all were saved?  If it is unjust to show mercy to all, then it is unjust to show mercy to one.  That God must show justice, but only to some so that justice is preserved, and arbitrarily chooses to whom he will show justice and to whom he will spare justice by showing him mercy is irrational and, in that irrationality, frankly, Islamic. 

Quote:Absolutely not. Just because a person loves God does not mean that person is assured of their own salvation. Remember, if your loving God is caused by God in the first place, then the only One to Whom your love of God can be attributed is Him. Love of God is a free gift. (NOTE: Don't use this as a new premise; use this as an expression of all the explanations I have provided thus far. In other words, don't start here to devise a new argument against Catholic predestination. Understand that last sentence as an expression of the principles it is assumed you understand thus far, given the forward progress of this present discussion). So, God could permit such a person to reject Him at any moment. Hence, a person cannot know if he is elect until after He is dead and meets God face to face. Perfect love for God is a free gift from God, so if God withdraws His supernatural aid, a person could easily succumb to temptation and reject God even at the last moment. God could easily permit this for a variety of reasons. For example, remember the martyr who, after having been laid out on ice to freeze to death, jumped back up and plunged himself into the hot water tub. He died instantly. It is never too late to reject God; nor is it ever too late to accept Him.

Ok, so basically what I was getting at with this line of questions was if one can't know their election status, but God can give someone who is unelect the grace to truly love him, and may only remove that grace a second or two before death, this means someone could spend their life truly loving God and praying to be spared hell, spending their whole life hoping in God out of love for Him to be saved, but because he is unelect, he will never receive it and his hope and love was in vain.  In other words, you don't worship a god, you worship a sadistic monster.

Quote:Loving God is but a moment in time. Election depends on the state in which death finds you. That is why it is absolutely essential that we spend our entire lives living in the state of grace like saints and fleeing even venial sin, the commission of which brings us closer and closer to the commission of mortal sins. That way we can be sure that whenever death finds us, we will not be lost.

But it must also be kept in mind at the same time that just because you're living in the state of grace isn't a sign that you're going to be elect. You could fall from grace at any moment and then die. And the moment of your death has already been established by God from all eternity. So, from our perspective, we are always potentially reprobate and potentially elect at the same time.

So, God, who is outside of time, elects someone or not based on how they die, but ignores perhaps a lifetime of devoted love that they couldn't even do on their own, but only because God gave them the grace?  Tell me again why God would allow someone to love and serve him for a life time if he knew in the end he had chosen to reprobate that person?

Messages In This Thread
Re: Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others? - by Melkite - 12-20-2011, 11:33 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)