tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.comments2023-12-25T09:58:54.563-06:00The Christian FreethinkerMark Hausamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comBlogger340125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-49905778435842508572023-12-25T09:58:54.563-06:002023-12-25T09:58:54.563-06:00This is grreatThis is grreat3x3https://medium.com/@3x3_80689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-74464798356789676602023-10-25T07:35:24.912-05:002023-10-25T07:35:24.912-05:00Hi thankks for posting thisHi thankks for posting thisUntitledhttps://paulinecroze.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-9418858734486311442023-09-10T19:59:58.243-05:002023-09-10T19:59:58.243-05:00Thanks great bllog postThanks great bllog postlifaraucahttps://lifarauca.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-87308004919050257022023-08-06T09:58:36.761-05:002023-08-06T09:58:36.761-05:00Yes, that would be fine. I'm glad you've ...Yes, that would be fine. I'm glad you've found the article helpful, and I hope it will be helpful to your audience as well!Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-2378723341904376972023-08-02T03:43:00.360-05:002023-08-02T03:43:00.360-05:00Dear Mark,
I run a blog with fellow catholics and...Dear Mark,<br /><br />I run a blog with fellow catholics and we like to translate apologetics articles into french to share knowledge with french speaking circles. <br /><br />Would you give us the authorization to translate your article about Vigilius ? Full credit would be given to you and a link to the article and your blog at the beginning of the translation (and anything else you may require.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />JérômeArchidiacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11471323832991368050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-29299098553963103102023-06-09T14:31:21.797-05:002023-06-09T14:31:21.797-05:00Thanks for the ppostThanks for the ppostMuffin Recipeshttps://www.bakemuffins.com/muffins/cinnamon_bun_muffins_14609125173.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-70143205952081895392023-03-08T14:24:23.271-06:002023-03-08T14:24:23.271-06:00I am still intending to give a reply to you.
Thank...I am still intending to give a reply to you.<br />Thanks for you clarification about your issue with the secondary sources. I have been reading a lot of Summa Theologica (It's a lot to try to understand) and I see that you are right in that he does indeed imply a type of Sufficient and Efficacious grace.Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-9117734947592475502023-02-17T12:28:48.526-06:002023-02-17T12:28:48.526-06:00Secondary sources are not invalid. But when we...Secondary sources are not invalid. But when we're reading a secondary source talking about what someone else taught, especially on a difficult-to-understand and controversial matter, it's important to check to make sure the secondary source is accurately conveying what the other person taught. In this case, I think that Feingold and Most have conveyed a misleading impression of what St. Thomas actually taught, which I think you can see if you go back and actually read St. Thomas himself, which is why I provided links and references to St. Thomas original texts in that connection.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-16791984279742887202023-02-16T22:17:20.595-06:002023-02-16T22:17:20.595-06:00"While it can be helpful to read secondary so..."While it can be helpful to read secondary sources to understand a primary source, you have to be careful to check the primary source to ensure the secondary sources are accurately interpreting the primary source." Ok come now. This is unfair. You have provided multiple links to secondary sources, to which I haven't complained. <br /> Now that I do, you act like it's invalid?Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-29113307961962758922023-02-16T16:35:49.087-06:002023-02-16T16:35:49.087-06:00Interestingly, Pope Paul VI, in a letter to a Span...Interestingly, Pope Paul VI, in a letter to a Spanish ambassador shortly after the end of the Dominican-Molinist controversy, comments on why he did not condemn either side, and he explains that one reason is that both sides accepted the "Catholic truth" of efficacious grace:<br /><br />"I postponed making a decision in the matter of de auxiliis [the great controversy between the Molinists and the Dominicans] for three reasons: . . . The second, because both parties are in substantial agreement with Catholic truth, namely that God through his efficacious grace makes us act and turns us from unwilling to willing subjects, bending and changing human will. There is disagreement about that, but only concerning the manner in which God does this: the Dominicans say that he predetermines our wills in a physical manner, namely, really and efficaciously, while the Jesuits claim that he does so congruously and morally. Both opinions can be defended." (http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2018/08/clearing-up-another-concern-about.html)<br /><br />Pope Paul VI refers to the Molinist congruist position which argued that God moves the will by producing circumstances, including grace, which he knows will result in the will choosing something. (This is much like I've talked about above and Bishop Barron does in his quote.) But, with both the Dominicans and the Molinists, grace is efficacious. That is, God is able, in his providence, to apply grace in such a way to the will as he knows will infallibly move the will to assent to grace, for that assent itself is an effect and gift of grace (as the Second Council of Orange taught emphatically).<br /><br />Anyway, the ideas of efficacious and sufficient grace, if not the terminology, is rooted in perennial Catholic doctrine. All people are given grace to have the ability to assent to God. Some people assent, some people do not. If a person does not assent, this non-assent is not from God but is allowed by God and not prevented by him. If God does not move the will to assent, it will not assent, but it COULD assent if it wanted to. If a person DOES assent, it is because God has moved the will to assent. The idea that all people have grace to give them the ability to assent has come to be called "sufficient grace." The idea that the assent itself is a product of grace which effectively moves the will to assent has come to be called "efficacious grace." Sufficient grace and efficacious grace are not two different kinds of grace. They are simply descriptions of grace being applied in different ways. Sufficient grace is simply grace being applied to provide ability but without actually, effectually moving the will to actually assent to it, while efficacious grace is just God applying grace in such a way as to actually, effectively move the will to assent.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-60890630790761804692023-02-16T16:25:02.332-06:002023-02-16T16:25:02.332-06:00Read also St. Thomas's comments on predestinat...Read also St. Thomas's comments on predestination in this section of the Summa Theologica:<br /><br />https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm<br /><br />And his thoughts on grace in this section of the Summa Theologica:<br /><br />https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2111.htm<br /><br />What I've said in our conversation about sufficient and efficacious grace, and how these tie into predestination and free will, etc., are fully consistent with St. Thomas's teaching. I do not see where I have disagreed with him at all in this conversation.<br /><br />You may be right that the terminology of "efficacious grace" does not occur before the Reformation period. But the idea is certainly there in Catholic theology and doctrine from the beginning. It follows from what is taught in the Catechism, as I tried to show in my article, and all, or at least the majority, of Catholic theologians since the Reformation have affirmed efficacious grace.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-62106629872806822872023-02-16T16:19:51.465-06:002023-02-16T16:19:51.465-06:00While it can be helpful to read secondary sources ...While it can be helpful to read secondary sources to understand a primary source, you have to be careful to check the primary source to ensure the secondary sources are accurately interpreting the primary source. If we want to discuss the views of St. Thomas, I suggest we actually look at what St. Thomas has said from his own texts in their own context. First of all, Feingold quotes St. Thomas's work Summa Contra Gentiles regarding the idea of people putting an impediment in the way of grace. It is true that he talks about that, but it is instructive to read the whole context of what he says about it. Here is a link to the discussion there:<br /><br />https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/ContraGentiles3b.htm#159<br /><br />I recommend reading from here to the end of the link. Particularly notice 160, 161, and 163. St. Thomas's view, overall, goes like this: Without grace, no one can choose good, and specifically no one can avoid putting an impediment in the way of grace. In some people, the reprobate, God allows them to continue to put an impediment in the way of grace and so reject grace. That is, he doesn't give grace to move their will to stop putting that impediment in the way. But to others, the elect, he gives grace which moves their will to stop impeding grace and instead to accept it.<br /><br />St. Thomas doesn't use the language of efficacious and sufficient grace (that terminology evolves later in the history of Catholic theology), but he expresses the same basic ideas. Grace is offered to all, but sinful men impede it with their free will. This is what later theologians will call "sufficient grace." In some, but not all, God applies grace such as to move the will to stop impeding grace and instead to accept it. This is what later theologians will call "efficacious grace." The terminology is different, but the ideas are basically the same.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-79515891506492696392023-02-14T12:51:43.304-06:002023-02-14T12:51:43.304-06:00When St. Thomas is being quoted by Thomists, (or p...When St. Thomas is being quoted by Thomists, (or people with almost the same view as Thomists,) It only kind of supports their arguments, but it seems more like these quotes serve to not deny the argument rather than to positively support the argument. In this article ( https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/actual-grace-12237 ) the author says that St. Thomas was not a Thomist at all. I’m led to believe him on this, as I have yet to see any quotes that positively support the Thomist view. <br /><br />Another article https://www.thomasaquinas.edu/news/lecture-dr-lawrence-feingold-aquinas-predestination-grace talks about what Thomas Aquinas taught, and he also points out that St. Thomas never divides grace between Efficacious and Sufficient. Personally, this article’s explanation of grace makes sense to me. Though it may leave some unanswered questions (maybe, idk.) Anyway, the point being St. Thomas doesn’t seem to support Thomist ideas on Efficacious and Sufficient Grace. <br /><br />One other point: In a quote you gave from the Catholic Encyclopedia it mentions Efficacious Grace: “The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil.” What does it mean by efficacious graces here? It could mean that the graces given to adults is a type of grace known as Efficacious, but not necessarily. It may be using the word efficacious to mean, a grace that has become (but is not inherently) efficacious because it brought about it’s purposed result (because all grace is oriented towards salvation, but does not always bring it about.) If it’s the latter, then this grace is still intrinsically the same as the sufficient grace God gives to all. (Thanks for the video from Bishop Baron, I’m sure he’s a very well-read man, and knows his stuff quite well. That being said, he didn’t really go into enough detail in his explanation to tell what his thoughts are.) <br /><br />I don’t have enough time right now, but I have some thoughts on “choice” that I intend to write out and post. Until then I hope this will be able to further the discussion.Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-49769498854471403602023-02-14T12:51:21.530-06:002023-02-14T12:51:21.530-06:00I don’t know if you do or don’t, but I ask that yo...I don’t know if you do or don’t, but I ask that you read the full comment before replying as it may not make sense if it is taken one paragraph at a time. (though I understand if you lose the point of it while reading.) <br /><br />Thanks for the article on Predestination, Grace, and Free Will in Catholic Theology. I have read it already, but then I went back to read it again. After looking at your sources sighted for Efficacious Grace, I am still left to believe that Efficacious Grace (the term itself), is not a common term in Catholic theology and that the earliest description of something nearly the same came from Calvin when he wrote about irresistible grace. Also, efficacious grace does not seem to be a proper teaching (or doctrine) of the Catholic Church per se, but it is defiantly taught by some in the Church in our day and age. The only Catholics sighted as using the term Efficacious Grace seem to be after 1550 or there abouts. At that time Calvin had already published his work “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” in 1536. (Domingo Banez, Molina, and others related to the Dominican and Jesuit controversy would have been very young at that time.) It seems like no coincidence that mention of Efficacious Grace by Catholics came only after Calvin had started using the term irresistible grace. This is not to say that Catholics copied Calvin, but that Calvin probably prompted the debate with his own ideas. Now if a quote of some respected Catholic about Efficacious Grace can be found before the time of Calvin, I will happily conclude that Calvin did not develop the idea, but that it is founded on former Catholic teachers. <br /><br />The quote from Fr. John A. Hardon, “It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that there exists a truly sufficient but inefficacious grace, and also that there exists a truly efficacious grace which, however, is not necessitating,” is an interesting statement. Depending on how he understands Efficacious Grace, this statement might be true. Though, his claim that it is a dogma, remains unsubstantiated. That is assuming that Church Dogma has to be formally defined (like the Trinity and Cannon of Scripture.) <br /><br />He wrote another article on the History of Efficacious Grace, and in it he also sights no one before Calvin. http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_015.htm <br /><br />Your quote from St. Thomas would seem like it is implying Efficacious Grace, but it doesn’t say it. “In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts.” That’s as close as he gets, but St. Thomas is showing how some can be Damned and it still fits into God’s will, even though He wills all to be saved. He is not here saying that the ones who are saved have received a unique grace that is different from the grace received by others. “However, all things considered, He sees that it is better to allow some to be lost than to bring all to salvation through efficacious grace.” This conclusion does not follow from what St. Thomas said, as St. Thomas was not talking about the reason some become reprobated.Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-46902115789810131442023-02-13T13:16:27.977-06:002023-02-13T13:16:27.977-06:00"When you write stuff on this blog, do you ha..."When you write stuff on this blog, do you have irl friends (priests, church doctors, scholars, ect) that you ask to check your work to see if it's valid, or do you just post conclusions you have regardless of whether anyone agrees with you or not?"<br /><br />I don't formally submit my blog posts to anyone. I've thought about doing something like that, but I think it would be impractical. You can do that with books, but to do it with blog posts would be beyond the ability of bishops and others to keep up with, etc.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the stuff I talk about on this blog I talk about in lots of places - in my teaching in my local church (I teach in the RCIA program in sometimes in other adult education events), in my classes as a Theology teacher, etc., so my teaching is very public. And I also share my blog posts with people, etc. So, informally, I get feedback and dialogue in various contexts (like with our conversation right now).<br /><br />I also try to make distinctions between my own thoughts and Church teaching, and I try to avoid claiming anything about Church teaching that I can't back up from Church teaching. You can see that from the articles I've given you. (You might watch that Bishop Barron link I gave you just above. Do you know Bishop Barron? He's a very well-known Catholic bishop and teacher. In the short clip I referenced, he says pretty much everything I've been saying in this conversation. And that's because what I'm saying, in terms of doctrine, is standard Catholic theology and has been for thousands of years. Of course, I'm adding some of my own arguments and analysis to explore it futher, etc.)Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-38063747192828606942023-02-13T13:07:09.959-06:002023-02-13T13:07:09.959-06:00"One thing you seem to think is that God'..."One thing you seem to think is that God's foreknowledge depends on choice being predictable. Not so. I wouldn't limit Him to having to predict what is going to happen in order to know."<br /><br />God's foreknowledge depends on there being a logical and certain connection between what God knows and does and the choices we make, and the certain connection between God's knowledge as it exists now and choices that will be made in the future.<br /><br />The main point that I am trying to stress is this discussion of foreknowledge is simply that, right now, knowledge exists of all that I will do in the future, and therefore the future of my choices is certain before I make those choices. That fact has a crucial bearing on how we think about free will.<br /><br />See here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hli1fo1p2s&ab_channel=BishopRobertBarron - for a clip from Bishop Robert Barron basically making the same point I'm making. (See time index 17:00-20:53.)<br /><br />"You are assuming that for something to be certain it has to be predictable, that is not a given."<br /><br />It is evident that if something is certain, it is inherently predictable. If my future free choice is certain to happen, there is something that makes it certain. If God is all-knowing, he knows all the facts involved in making my future free choice certain. So he can predict with certainty my future free choice. (I know that God is outside of time. That's not the point here. If it helps, imagine a time-bound all-knowing being. My point right now is simply to point out that it is indeed the case that certainty inherently implies predictability.)Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-76200508572548936902023-02-13T12:47:54.670-06:002023-02-13T12:47:54.670-06:00"God doesn't operate that way, because th..."God doesn't operate that way, because there is no first stage or second or third. He just knows. So why does God need to be able to predict something in order to know what will happen?"<br /><br />I agree that God doesn't predict things in the way a being in time who did not have direct experiential knowledge of the future would. But there is a kind of non-temporal, logical "prediction" in God's knowledge. That is, God knows that if he does certain things, produces certain conditions, refrains from doing other things, etc., his creatures will make certain choices and not other ones. That is, God knows the logical connection between his actions and the choices of his creatures. But this only works if there IS such a connection. If we have a First-Causal view of free will, then there is no connection at all between a particular choice and anything else, so choices of creatures can in no way be part of the plan of God, contrary to Catholic doctrine.<br /><br />"Was God able (in your lunch prophecy example) to tell you what you would do because He predicted it, or because He sees all things at once and therefore He foreknows what you will do? I would say the latter."<br /><br />He knows what I will do in the future. Therefore, knowledge of what I will do in the future exists now. Therefore, that knowledge can be made known to me. Therefore, it is certain what I will in fact choose in the future. Therefore, future certainty is compatible with free will and we must have a view of free will that can accommodate that.<br /><br />I agree, though, that God does not predict things the way he would if he were in time like we are. He sees all times as present. That does not preclude, however, that there is a logical connection between his actions and our choices, nor does it alter the fact that there exists, right now, certain knowledge of what I will choose in the future.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-36264873459286647622023-02-13T12:02:05.237-06:002023-02-13T12:02:05.237-06:00When you write stuff on this blog, do you have irl...When you write stuff on this blog, do you have irl friends (priests, church doctors, scholars, ect) that you ask to check your work to see if it's valid, or do you just post conclusions you have regardless of whether anyone agrees with you or not?Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-85267863363969258462023-02-12T10:14:58.484-06:002023-02-12T10:14:58.484-06:00"God's foreknowledge indicates that nothi..."God's foreknowledge indicates that nothing can happen that He does not already know. Really that's it. This doesn't have much bearing on how Grace or Predestination or Free Will works."<br /><br />I agree that God is outside of time and so his knowledge is not "looking forward" in his point of view the way it would be for us. Nonetheless, God's foreknowledge has a very significant bearing on free will, etc., because it implies that there exists a reality of what the future will be before it is. God is outside of time, but it is still nonetheless true that he exists right now. His reality is fully real right now. He is present fully in all times, while his experience transcends being limited in one time. So all that God knows exists right now as well. That's why prophecy is possible. God can send an angel and tell us anything about the future he wants, because that knowledge exists right now. That means that all the events in what we call the future are already planned out right now in God's mind. There is, right now, an existing reality and plan about all the things that will happen in the future.<br /><br />So, right now, there already exists an unchangeable plan that describes every single thing I am going to choose tomorrow, the next day, and every day for the rest of my life. It is absolutely certain that these things will all happen, for God's foreknowledge cannot be wrong. So if we have a view of free will that can't handle that, we have a problematic view of free will. This is why the most consistent advocates of First-Causal free will deny God's foreknowledge, like the Open Theists. But I would say that he proper response is to have a more rational view of free will. Future choices can be absolutely certain but still fully free because what makes a choice free is not exemption from the general flow of causes and effects, broadly speaking, in the universe, or an intrinsic uncertainty, but simply that a choice flow from a person and from that person's mind, reason, willing capacity, etc., without anything circumventing or overwhelming it. Not to belabor the point, but it is crucial - a choice is nothing other than a settled preference, and so it is inherently connected and flows out of desires and beliefs. We do not choose randomly, but our choices flow from our desires and beliefs, and there are reasons we have those desires and beliefs. If we have a view of free will that does not violate the law of causality and make nonsense our of our own psychological experience, we will not have a problem with foreknowledge or predestination rightly understood. The Catholic tradition, as well as the Reformed tradition, has historically understood this.<br /><br />More to come . . .Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-76819936569384124752023-02-09T08:52:11.079-06:002023-02-09T08:52:11.079-06:00A point about foreknowledge: The reason God is sai...A point about foreknowledge: The reason God is said to have foreknowledge is not to indicate He has any kind of predictive powers. What it tells us is something unique to God. If the bible said post-knoledge or current-knowledge, that wouldn't tell us much. Humans have both those things. God's foreknowledge indicates that nothing can happen that He does not already know. Really that's it. This doesn't have much bearing on how Grace or Predestination or Free Will works. Like, I can know that somebody is sitting in front of me, but my knowing this doesn't indicate my controlling in any way whatsoever. I'm not even predicting what's happening in front of me, I just know. So God doesn't predict what's going to happen, He simply knows. He can't predict. That would require a lack of foreknowledge. <br /><br />Remember how predction works. 1st lack of knowledge, 2nd knowledge gained, 3rd based on current knowledge a guess is made about the future. That is predicting. The accuracy of the guess depends on the completeness of the knowledge gained. But remember it is still a guess. God doesn't operate that way, because there is no first stage or second or third. He just knows.<br /><br />So why does God need to be able to predict something in order to know what will happen?<br /><br />Was God able (in your lunch prophecy example) to tell you what you would do because He predicted it, or because He sees all things at once and therefore He foreknows what you will do? I would say the latter.<br /><br />"Choice is the Settling of preference." OK I get it. You don't have to tell me again. One thing you seem to think is that God's foreknowledge depends on choice being predictable. Not so. I wouldn't limit Him to having to predict what is going to happen in order to know.<br />"therefore choice is inherently preditable to a being with enough knowledge" this does not logically flow from your example. You are assuming that for something to be certain it has to be predictable, that is not a given. Yet again you are limiting God's foreknowledge to having to predict things, in order to know. He is not limited to seeing only the here and now, like we are. (More to come)Claytonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-88137648609932756752023-02-08T09:23:31.881-06:002023-02-08T09:23:31.881-06:00"https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm&..."https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04756c.htm"<br /><br />In my opinion, this is a poorly-written article, because it confuses causal necessity which would circumvent free choice with the certainty of a choice as it arises from beliefs and desires. Or at least it doesn't adequately distinguish between them, which I believe is a serious blunder. This would lump together determinists who deny free will with pretty much all Catholic theologians in history, including Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Fortunately, other articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia do a better job, like the article on "Predestination," which, among other things, makes this comment:<br /><br />"In order to emphasize how mysterious and unapproachable is Divine election, the Council of Trent calls predestination "hidden mystery". That predestination is indeed a sublime mystery appears not only from the fact that the depths of the eternal counsel cannot be fathomed, it is even externally visible in the inequality of the Divine choice. The unequal standard by which baptismal grace is distributed among infants and efficacious graces among adults is hidden from our view by an impenetrable veil. Could we gain a glimpse at the reasons of this inequality, we should at once hold the key to the solution of the mystery itself. Why is it that this child is baptized, but not the child of the neighbour? Why is it that Peter the Apostle rose again after his fall and persevered till his death, while Judas Iscariot, his fellow-Apostle, hanged himself and thus frustrated his salvation? Though correct, the answer that Judas went to perdition of his own free will, while Peter faithfully co-operated with the grace of conversion offered him, does not clear up the enigma. For the question recurs: Why did not God give to Judas the same efficacious, infallibly successful grace of conversion as to St. Peter, whose blasphemous denial of the Lord was a sin no less grievous than that of the traitor Judas? To all these and similar questions the only reasonable reply is the word of St. Augustine (loc. cit., 21): "Inscrutabilia sunt judicia Dei" (the judgments of God are inscrutable)."<br /><br />See my article (https://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2019/02/predestination-grace-and-free-will-in.html) for other quotes from Catholic sources showing a more balanced view.<br /><br />"I didn't ever say our choice comes from nowhere, I would say our choice is from the self, and thus we are self-determining."<br /><br />Of course our choices come from ourselves. Who thinks otherwise? An act of choice is the act of the mind settling on a preference. My choice is my act. But that doesn't answer the question of why I make the particular choices I make. To answer that fully, we have to talk about how choices arise out of beliefs and desires, for that is the stuff of which preferences are made. That's the material out of which the mind settles on a preference. If you have different beliefs and desires, you have different preferences and different choices.<br /><br />These are questions that tend to be difficult for people to think through, which is one reason, I think, why there tends to be so much confusion on these topics. I appreciate your willingness to engage on these difficult subjects, which I think is a very fruitful endeavor.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-48246055208971817982023-02-08T09:10:09.623-06:002023-02-08T09:10:09.623-06:00"So is it the case that God brings a human in..."So is it the case that God brings a human into this world with a will that can only desire evil, (and this man didn't choose his own will, but was given it,) and then God offers this man grace? When this man (with a will made to only desire evil,) ultimately rejects God's offer, because he is unable to desire otherwise, does he get condemned? Doesn't this mean that man is condemned because of an unchangeable inclination to evil? I suppose he was "freely" able to make a preferential choice, but that "free" choice makes no difference when his desire was made to only choose evil. If God is selecting certain ones to get this amazing Efficacious grace, and withholding it from everyone else, and that without this Efficacious grace no one will want God's sufficient grace, and these people can't choose to change their own heart or desires,"<br /><br />A lot of your difficulty here is because you confuse the certainty of a choice arising out of beliefs and desires with a FORCED action that circumvents choice. So you are imagining that I am saying that there are people who are condemned becuase they are forced to be evil and there is nothing they can do about it, as if they are evil without or against their own will. But that is not the case. No one is condemned except as a result of his own truly free choice. Your use of words like "can't" are important here. People CAN'T not be evil, people CAN'T reject Christ, etc. The use of the word "can't" creates the impression of a person who is forced without or against his will, but that is not the idea. Choices flow from beliefs and desires, and so are certainly predictable from these for an omniscient being, and yet they are truly free because the essence of freedom in the will is that he mind is free to deliberate upon options in order to settle on a preference arising out of beliefs and desires.<br /><br />"He is effectively Choosing who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell. I mean how else could you put it? You have clearly stated that No Man (without God's Efficacious Grace) will choose to accept God's Sufficient Grace. Which means that God knows that if He doesn't step in an give man His efficacious grace too, then nobody is going to accept His Sufficient Grace."<br /><br />It is true that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, like all other events, fall under the purview of God's eternal plan for history. Nothing happens outside of that overall providential plan, for, if it did, God would not be God. The universe would ultimately be a product of chance. If someone goes to heaven, it is because they choose freely to follow Christ, and that choice was both their own choice and the gift of God by means of his sufficient and efficacious grace. The good will is the gift of God. (See the Council of Orange - https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/local-council-history-and-text-1472) Id a person ends up in hell, it is because they freely chose to reject Christ. God knew that if he set up the world the way he did, one result would be some people choosing to reject Christ and end up in hell, and he deliberately set up the world in this way anyway. He knew all the evils that would happen. Nothing has taken him by surprise. He has chosen not to prevent some evils in order to bring about a greater good. Again, the only alternative to this is to deny God's Godhood, to make God a bystander in a universe ultiately run by chance, wishing things were different but unable to produce what he wants. God hates evil, but he deliberately allows it in order to bring about a greater good. So that, while the evil is hateful to him, the overall product of reality that even allowed evil contributes to, is exactly what God wants. This is the ultimate victory of good and defeat of evil.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-61927916382619911342023-02-08T08:42:10.953-06:002023-02-08T08:42:10.953-06:00"Why Not? How do you know he won't "..."Why Not? How do you know he won't "prefer" to? You have simply stated THAT he won't, but you have given no reasons for WHY he won't. I want to know WHY man Certainly won't choose this good."<br /><br />He won't choose it because he won't want to choose it. He will prefer not to, all things considered. And God, in his sovereign plan of history, sometimes allows that to happen and does not prevent it. God could produce a world in which all people would have the beliefs and desires that would lead them to choose Christ, but, instead, he deliberately allows people to form beliefs and desires that lead to the free choice of rejecting Christ. (Again, I didn't say that their beliefs and desires FORCE them to reject Christ apart from their will. Rather, their free choice to reject Christ certainly arises out of their beliefs and desires, as ALL choices, by definition, arise out of beliefs and desires.<br /><br />The only alternative to this scenario is to imagine a universe in which God is not God, where things happen outside of God's overall control and reality turns out overall differently than God wants it to be in his overall plan, where God is fundamentally dissapointed with his creation, where some chains of being do not originate in God, making God not the true First Cause and source of all reality, where there other Ultimate Beings (other Gods) and the universe is ultimately the product of chance and not a monotheistic God.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-87699279446998077402023-02-08T08:36:05.536-06:002023-02-08T08:36:05.536-06:00Theism, as well as the Christian faith, as well as...Theism, as well as the Christian faith, as well as Catholicism in particular, requires an absolutely sovereign God, for that idea flows from the very nature of God as the Supreme Being, the First Cause, the Creator of all things, all-knowing, etc. All being comes ultimately from God. All chains of causes and effects ultimately stem from his creative acts. All good is a positive product of his being. All evil is deliberately and with full knowledge allowed by him in its exact parameters according to his good and wise purposes.<br /><br />Does God want us to sin? We must distinguish between "God's will" in the sense of what God has planed to cause and allow to happen in history, and "God's will" in the sense of what God loves and hates. God hates evil, but he willingly allows it to happen because he chooses to use it to bring about a greater good. So evil is evil, but it is good that some evils be allowed to happen. When God created the world, he knew every single detail of the history that would result from his acts (of course, he saw all of this from a timeless point of view), including all our sins. In that sense, our sins are a part of his plan. He knew that if he did certain things and refrained from certain things, specific sins would happen, and he deliberate chose to bring about a reality in which he would allow them to occur. But sin, in its own nature, is displeasing to God. He allows it not becaue he likes it, but because allowing it brings about a greater overall good.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-32398567728258909192023-02-08T08:30:25.211-06:002023-02-08T08:30:25.211-06:00"So it would be like, He doesn’t see what we ..."So it would be like, He doesn’t see what we are going to do, but that He sees what we did, and it just didn’t happen yet."<br /><br />I'm glad that you are trying to protect God's foreknowledge.<br /><br />I do see a problem with your reasoning here: Just because God is outside of time, that doesn't eliminate the fore in foreknowledge, because there must be a real sense in which God's knowledge of the future exists now, before the future happens. Right now, God knows what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. Therefore, right now, it is certain what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. If free will is inconsistent with certainty of any sort, then free will is inconsistent with foreknowledge.<br /><br />We can see the present reality of foreknowledge even more clearly when we think about prophecy. Let's say God sent an angel to me this afternoon telling me what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. At that point, it is crystal clear that right now it is certain what I will eat for lunch tomorrow. It will certainly happen as God has told me it will happen, for God cannot be wrong. (We know that God can do this, because in Scripture God often tells what will happen in the future.) So it is absolutely, unchangeably certain what I will choose to eat for lunch tomorrow, and yet that choice is no less real, because it will be a true result of my own mind deliberating on my options and settling on a preference. This reality is not diminished by the fact that, given all the factors involved in my choice at the time of my choice, it is certain what I will choose, and therefore my choice is inherently preditable to a being with enough knowledge. But if you think of a choice as an event completely isolated from God and from all other reality, then it could not be certain until it happens, and so there could be no foreknowledge or prophecy. That's why the Open Theists come to that conclusion - they are committed to a false view of free will and are trying to follow that out to its logical conclusion.Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.com