Why do some people receive the gift of faith and not others?
(12-21-2011, 06:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 05:40 PM)JoniCath Wrote: 5) God predestines no one to Hell.

Wrong.

If the elect are predestined unto blessedness, it naturally follows that the reprobate are predestined unto damnation. As Ott freely admits in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, "God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection." This is classified as a de fide doctrine.

I suppose it should read 'God predestines no one to Hell unconditionally'.

The mention of foreseen sins means that definition from Ott fits quite nicely with the Molinist system.

I suppose a good way of summing up my problem with this would be to say that if election is unconditional, how is reprobation truly conditional?

More from Ott:

Quote:"Both attempts at explanation [conditional, unconditional election to glory] are ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not decisive for either side…Citations from the Fathers or from the scholastics are not cogent, as the question arose in post-Tridentine Theology only. While the pre-Augustinian tradition is in favour of the Molinistic explanation, St. Augustine, at least in his later writings, is more in favour of the Thomistic explanation. The Thomist view emphasizes God's universal causality while the other view stresses the universality of the Divine salvific will, mans freedom and his cooperation in his salvation. The difficulties remaining on both sides prove that Predestination even for reason enlightened by faith, is an unfathomable mystery AOM. XI, 33 et seq (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan:1955,p.243f)
Reply
(12-21-2011, 06:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 05:40 PM)JoniCath Wrote: 5) God predestines no one to Hell.

Wrong.

If the elect are predestined unto blessedness, it naturally follows that the reprobate are predestined unto damnation. As Ott freely admits in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, "God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection." This is classified as a de fide doctrine.

(12-17-2011, 03:10 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: "God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness." (De fide)

Cf. Rom. 8:29 et seq., Mt. 25:34, John 10:27 et seq., Acts 13:48, Eph. 1:4 et seq., St. Augustine against the semi-pelagians teaches: "The belief in this predetermination, which is now being zealously defended against new errors, has always been held by the Church." (De dono persev. 23, 65) and also the doctrinal definitions of the Council of Trent that presuppose it (D 805, 825, 827, 316 et seq., 320 et seq.)

"God, by an eternal resolve of His will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection." (De fide)

Cf. Mat. 25:41, Rom 9:22, the synod of Valence (855): fatemur praedestinationem impiorum ad mortem (D 32).

Like the resolve of predestination, the divine resolve of reprobation is immutable but, without special revelation, its incidence is unknown to men.

I think there is a danger  that the qualification "on account of their foreseen sins" is minimized in our understanding of this truth, or left out of its explanation  (I'm not saying for you, Vetus Ordo, but for some, such as Calvin.)    God doesn't , first, select  some men for damnation, and second arrange things so all they can do is sin (albeit freely).  Their sinning is from top to bottom free, and their damnation is on account of their sins. God's predestination to hell only eternally permits and causes punishment for their sins. 

Saying "God predestines men to Hell" can SOUND like it means God predestines some to mortally sin - but this is false:

Council of Orange Wrote:[III. Predestination] According to the Catholic faith we believe this also, that after grace has been received through baptism, all the baptized with the help and cooperation of Christ can and ought to fulfill what pertains to the salvation of the soul, if they will labor faithfully. We not only do not believe that some have been truly predestined to evil [to sin - my comment] by divine power, but also with every execration we pronounce anathema upon those, if there are [any such], who wish to believe so great an evil. This, too, we profess and believe unto salvation, that in every good work we do not begin, and afterwards are helped by the mercy of God, but He Himself, with no preceding good services [on our part], previously inspires us with faith and love of Him, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacraments of baptism, and after baptism with His help be able to perform those [acts] which are pleasing to Him. So very clearly we should believe that the faith-so admirable-both of that famous thief, whom the Lord restored to his native land of paradise [Luke 23:43], and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent [ Acts 10:3], and of Zacheus, who deserved to receive the Lord Himself [Luke 19:6], was not from nature, but a gift of God's bounty.
Reply
(12-21-2011, 06:45 PM)Martinus Wrote: I suppose a good way of summing up my problem with this would be to say that if election is unconditional, how is reprobation truly conditional?

Because election is directly willed by God and is truly merficul : "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) : it's not earned or caused by us, lest we should boast in ourselves. Thus, no-one should glory but in Him who predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies His elect. (Romans 8:30)

On the other hand, reprobation is just permitted by Him, not directly willed. It's the other side of the same coin. Men are left to their own freedom to perish justly in their sins. It's conditional upon their own sins. No-one is damned if he dies in the state of grace.
Reply
(12-21-2011, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:45 PM)Martinus Wrote: I suppose a good way of summing up my problem with this would be to say that if election is unconditional, how is reprobation truly conditional?

Because election is directly willed by God and is truly merficul : "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) : it's not earned or caused by us, lest we should boast in ourselves. Thus, no-one should glory but in Him who predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies His elect. (Romans 8:30)

On the other hand, reprobation is just permitted by Him, not directly willed. It's the other side of the same coin. Men are left to their own freedom to perish justly in their sins. It's conditional upon their own sins. No-one is damned if he dies in the state of grace.

I'm sure it must work. If it didn't, the Church would no doubt have declared it heretical.

But it sill seems to me to be the difference between God not willing to save certain people and God willing not to save certain people. They seem equivalent.

Election being conditional makes reprobation also seem more truly conditional.

Reply
(12-21-2011, 07:24 PM)Martinus Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:45 PM)Martinus Wrote: I suppose a good way of summing up my problem with this would be to say that if election is unconditional, how is reprobation truly conditional?

Because election is directly willed by God and is truly merficul : "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) : it's not earned or caused by us, lest we should boast in ourselves. Thus, no-one should glory but in Him who predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies His elect. (Romans 8:30)

On the other hand, reprobation is just permitted by Him, not directly willed. It's the other side of the same coin. Men are left to their own freedom to perish justly in their sins. It's conditional upon their own sins. No-one is damned if he dies in the state of grace.

I'm sure it must work. If it didn't, the Church would no doubt have declared it heretical.

But it sill seems to me to be the difference between God not willing to save certain people and God willing not to save certain people. They seem equivalent.

Election being conditional makes reprobation also seem more truly conditional.

You are probably thinking of God doing things in sequence
1) Select the elect (unconditional)
2) Everyone else is reprobate  (really unconditional, nothing but the left-overs)
3) Work in the elect by His mercy to will and accomplish ... and die in the state of grace
4) Permit the reprobate to sin ... and die in sin

But really all these things are simultaneous (outside of time) for Him.

I think it is helpful to remember that God does will all men to be saved ("only antecedently" but really).  Before you consider the elect and the reprobate you can consider all men who are created for God, and redeemed by Our Saviour. There is sufficient grace for each one to be saved.  But some men freely impede that grace, and die in the state of sin.  These men are the reprobate - God foreknows, permits, and wills to punish their sin from all eternity, but the sin is all theirs.  The rest of men - all men but the reprobate! - are the elect! Because they did not turn away from God, God does not turn away from them - He works by His mercy in them to will and accomplish and die in the state of grace (*). All their goodness is God's.  He did choose them from the beginning both because He foreknew them, and willed to save them, and in His "eternal now" worked all their good from all eternity.  (*) But there was a certain cooperation required - man had to not turn away.  Even that required God's help, but God required man to be a cause...although not the primary cause.

God chooses these elect and reprobate from all eternity, but we can think of it in time, where we cooperate (albeit with Him as the primary cause) or not.

(*) God is the primary cause of all man's good works and willing.  But man is the secondary cause.  It is possible to take the truth "God does all" to mean that man need not do anything at all but just  "sit around not turning away".  That is not what is meant here. Man must act freely as secondary cause.

Questions and Mystery remain...

Reply
(12-21-2011, 10:19 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Because [the elect] did not turn away from God, God does not turn away from them - He works by His mercy in them to will and accomplish and die in the state of grace. All their goodness is God's.  He did select them from the beginning both because He foreknew them, and desired to save them, and in His "eternal now" worked all their good from all eternity.  But there was a certain cooperation required - man had to not turn away.  Even that required God's help, but God required man to be a cause...although not the primary cause.

Yes, this is true. But keep in mind that the bold part is caused by God, too. God does not fail to turn away from them because they did not turn away from him; they didn't turn away from Him because God's grace was too compelling for them to do so. Hence, their free wills were infallibly inclined to accept His all-powerful grace.
Reply
(12-22-2011, 12:42 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 10:19 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Because [the elect] did not turn away from God, God does not turn away from them - He works by His mercy in them to will and accomplish and die in the state of grace. All their goodness is God's.  He did select them from the beginning both because He foreknew them, and desired to save them, and in His "eternal now" worked all their good from all eternity.  But there was a certain cooperation required - man had to not turn away.  Even that required God's help, but God required man to be a cause...although not the primary cause.

Yes, this is true. But keep in mind that the bold part is caused by God, too. God does not fail to turn away from them because they did not turn away from him; they didn't turn away from Him because God's grace was too compelling for them to do so. Hence, their free wills were infallibly inclined to accept His all-powerful grace.

I'll just run this by you:

When the free will is infallibly inclined (by God) to accept sufficient grace, then man freely does not turn away..  Because (since) man is then freely not turning away, God does not turn away but gives efficacious grace.  (Both are true:  God loves us if  we love Him, yet we only love Him because He loves us; now replace "loves" with "does/do not turn away from")

But  you know the theology better than I do.
Reply
(12-21-2011, 07:24 PM)Martinus Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:45 PM)Martinus Wrote: I suppose a good way of summing up my problem with this would be to say that if election is unconditional, how is reprobation truly conditional?

Because election is directly willed by God and is truly merficul : "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) : it's not earned or caused by us, lest we should boast in ourselves. Thus, no-one should glory but in Him who predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies His elect. (Romans 8:30)

On the other hand, reprobation is just permitted by Him, not directly willed. It's the other side of the same coin. Men are left to their own freedom to perish justly in their sins. It's conditional upon their own sins. No-one is damned if he dies in the state of grace.

I'm sure it must work. If it didn't, the Church would no doubt have declared it heretical.

But it sill seems to me to be the difference between God not willing to save certain people and God willing not to save certain people. They seem equivalent.

Election being conditional makes reprobation also seem more truly conditional.

If election were conditional on our foreseen merits then Scripture wouldn't have said "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16)

Mercy is not earned, it's gratuitous.
Reply
(12-22-2011, 02:05 AM)Doce Me Wrote:
(12-22-2011, 12:42 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 10:19 PM)Doce Me Wrote: Because [the elect] did not turn away from God, God does not turn away from them - He works by His mercy in them to will and accomplish and die in the state of grace. All their goodness is God's.  He did select them from the beginning both because He foreknew them, and desired to save them, and in His "eternal now" worked all their good from all eternity.  But there was a certain cooperation required - man had to not turn away.  Even that required God's help, but God required man to be a cause...although not the primary cause.

Yes, this is true. But keep in mind that the bold part is caused by God, too. God does not fail to turn away from them because they did not turn away from him; they didn't turn away from Him because God's grace was too compelling for them to do so. Hence, their free wills were infallibly inclined to accept His all-powerful grace.

I'll just run this by you:

When the free will is infallibly inclined (by God) to accept sufficient grace, then man freely does not turn away..  Because (since) man is then freely not turning away, God does not turn away but gives efficacious grace.   (Both are true:  God loves us if  we love Him, yet we only love Him because He loves us; now replace "loves" with "does/do not turn away from")

But  you know the theology better than I do.

I see what you're saying. This is the distinction I tried to make in noting the intrinsic difference between sufficient and efficacious grace. The key to this is in an understanding of sufficient grace and how our failure to use our free wills to reject the primitive desirability of grace predisposes our souls to the acceptance of efficacious grace if we do not reject it (sufficient grace). But it requires efficacious grace to "accomplish" the good end of the grace.

Based on this understanding, what you said makes perfect sense. Thank you, and may God bless you!
Reply
(12-22-2011, 02:18 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 07:24 PM)Martinus Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:57 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-21-2011, 06:45 PM)Martinus Wrote: I suppose a good way of summing up my problem with this would be to say that if election is unconditional, how is reprobation truly conditional?

Because election is directly willed by God and is truly merficul : "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16) : it's not earned or caused by us, lest we should boast in ourselves. Thus, no-one should glory but in Him who predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies His elect. (Romans 8:30)

On the other hand, reprobation is just permitted by Him, not directly willed. It's the other side of the same coin. Men are left to their own freedom to perish justly in their sins. It's conditional upon their own sins. No-one is damned if he dies in the state of grace.

I'm sure it must work. If it didn't, the Church would no doubt have declared it heretical.

But it sill seems to me to be the difference between God not willing to save certain people and God willing not to save certain people. They seem equivalent.

Election being conditional makes reprobation also seem more truly conditional.

If election were conditional on our foreseen merits then Scripture wouldn't have said "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16)

Mercy is not earned, it's gratuitous.

But we are allowed to believe election is conditional. Ott was clear on that, as I quoted him:

Quote:"Both attempts at explanation [conditional, unconditional election to glory] are ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not decisive for either side…Citations from the Fathers or from the scholastics are not cogent, as the question arose in post-Tridentine Theology only. While the pre-Augustinian tradition is in favour of the Molinistic explanation, St. Augustine, at least in his later writings, is more in favour of the Thomistic explanation. The Thomist view emphasizes God's universal causality while the other view stresses the universality of the Divine salvific will, mans freedom and his cooperation in his salvation. The difficulties remaining on both sides prove that Predestination even for reason enlightened by faith, is an unfathomable mystery AOM. XI, 33 et seq (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan:1955,p.243f)

Apparently 'the scruptural proofs are not decisive for either side'.

I suppose it doesn't mean mercy is earned because it's based on God's knowledge of what man would do in any given situation, rather than on what he is going to do.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)