Ah, I apologize then, as obviously your comments may have not had anything to do with the controversy at hand. What you are saying is, in fact, off topic. (no offense) The subject of predestination is very complex, and the Church has not resolved its mystery. The reason why many people haven’t responded is probably because it is a very difficult think to talk about correctly. If the topic interests you, there is a whole section about it in the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, also Aquinas’ commentary on the book of Job is all about predestination and God’s providence, the catholic encyclopedia has an article on it as well. Predestination is not Calvinism btw. Even the priest who conducts the local bible study admits how difficult predestination is to comprehend
**1. **Predestination is the doctrine that all events are willed by God
God wills that we determine our own destiny
God also wills that our destiny is heaven
We will that our destiny is hell (for the sake of argument!)
God knows His will conflicts with our will
God wills that our will prevails because love entails sacrifice
If God always willed that His will prevails we would be incapable of love
God’s will, by definiton, always does prevail
It is difficult to respond to all your points unless you use the quote facility.
God’s Will always does prevail but **it is His Will that our will prevails **because otherwise we would be incapable of love.
there is a complication… I will post the short version…there is more to it
The words of the Apostle, “God will have all men to be saved,” etc. can be understood in three ways.
First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), “God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will.”
Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition.
Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.
I am not feeling offended, but would like to reiterate that my post is not off topic. You are basing your comment on the title of the thread while my post was a normal response to the post #1 wherein DasErlibnis who started the thread clearly invited all thoughts and views on “predestination”. I am entitled to my own view and enjoy the same right as Aquinas. I see nothing complex in our Lord’s teachings but only clarity
There can be no two views on that. There is also no denial of the fact that every move of ours and all creation are in accordance to His will. However, He does not interfere when it comes to human choice between good and evil. That decision is entirely free and only influenced to the extent of letting us have a foretaste of the consequence of our choices thereby making it truly free will, exercised after full knowledge of the consequences
speaking of the original poster…where is he? probably busy writing his essay…
have you actually read anything on predestination…or on the Trinity or Incarnation…these are not clear and simple matters…they are very complex…if they are simple to you, then you must be a genious
Even St. Augustine acknowledges that it is an [unfathomable] “mystery!”
We are not here to describe each other, but discuss “predestination”. If you are satisfied with convincing yourself that it is a complex mystery, then why discuss at all. Why question my credentials or knowledge just because I claimed clear understanding and then call me ‘genius’ (sarcastically?).I have shared my understanding plainly for meaningful discussion and not for unwarranted comparison. If there is anything objectionable in my explanation, why don’t you simply point it out, instead of referring to Aquinas, Molinism, Thomism or Augustine? It is not my fault if they found this is complex.
Ooooh, now we letting it out!
I’ll add a question that was alluded to, and is the basis of the writing:
It’s the question of Foreknowledge.
For example, it was said that God, despite foreknowledge, offers salvation but “acts” according to what we choose…that’s parahrasing.
But I argue that God is not reactive at all. All that will be done is done already. God does not live moment by contiguous moment, not chronological. God’s time is the Xairos, he us outside of time itself. All that will happen, he has seen, and foreknown, including rejection.
Are you serious? lol, I don’t need to say anything else, the CHURCH declares infallibly that it is a mystery
btw, since church says it is a mystery, then if you think you fully understand it, you are wrong
I should point out that the Church’s definition of “mystery” is not that it cannot be solved, but that it points us eventually to the ineffible. This is opposite of the secular definition of mystery. To those outside the Church, mystery just means “unsolvable”.
No, the paper is written. But I realized the 17 pages I wrote were just a summary, ughhh…
Everything in the whole world is tied-in to providence, God’s will, Predestination. Lots of ground to cover. So, I’m covering it. For better or worse, it’ll be my magnum opus. But so far the logic I’ve followed is online with Catholic instruction, and it solves the Thomist-Molinist problem. What I’m hoping to find are further extractions of thought, not just what has already been said; or some Scripture I had not considered yet (which we have found here! P.s. you low what the proper "wedding garment is? Paul describes it. He says “the breastplate…guard your loins…helmet…” He gives a whole description of how we should be adorned for the consummation of out .heavenly marriage.) And I’m hoping that someone will pick up on those things in predestination happening before we encounter it. Also, can we fairly say that Prots have a different definition of predestination? In fact can we call theirs “Pre-Destination”, while we call Catholic doctrine “Predestination”? I think that one reflects Determinism while the latter reflects “a plan”.
I’m not always online tracking every word said, but usually between midnight and 2am, more or less…
My being right or wrong in claiming clear understanding is irrelevant for the discussion. You only expose your own shallowness and pettiness by avoiding discussion on the subject and digressing into malicious comments
What do you think ‘foreknowledge’ is?