A Calvinist view of God and Free will.

[Michael Wilson]

One of our newest members here: Zzyzx,  is a Calvinist that holds to the traditional 5 points of Calvinism; which are as follows:
I believe in complete omniscience and omnipotence and omnipresence of God.  With these traits, I believe that God controls all... down to every bit of minutia.

I don't believe that free will can exist if God is truly O3 [omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent].  I think God created all - both evil and good - in order to serve His purpose.  There are necessary things - both good and evil - that must exist because of His predetermined, infinite plan.

I don't believe in free will or any type of synergistic relationship with God.  I believe God has to act on a person in order for a person to act upon a relationship with God.  I believe that once God acts on a person, they cannot deny His choice.

I believe any type of choice or free will on a human's part subjugates God to our whims and destroys His sovereignty.

I believe that you can have free will with omniscience because the knowledge of doesn't mean that you have the power over; however, I don't believe that omniscience and omnipotence working together can coexist with free will.  This means you have knowledge and power over all and there isn't anything that be against your choice and decisions.

If God has these traits, then there is no free will.

[Michael Wilson]

a good start to this discussion,  would be for somebody (maybe me latter) to lay out the Catholic position on the above five points. This would be greatly helpful to "Zz" as he is interested in learning more about Catholicism.

[Zzyzx]

As an FYI:

Here are the "5 Points".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism

[Mr.Crowley]

Should be good. I'm sure there's closet Calvinists in here.

[Inquisitor]

I am curious at this point, how the defenders of the Thomist grace system explain to us, how their system is different with respect to the Calvinist system.
And I mean here true defense: not just that they believe in free will (which is dogma) while the Calvinists deny it (which is heresy). I expect true defense that in their system free will is truly preserved and more just lip service to a defined dogma.

[Michael Wilson]

Ref. To Zz's post
The Catholic position:
1. God is the 3-O's; Nothing happens without God either willing it or permitting it.  ei. He wills the good, yet permits evil to occur.
2. God endows intelligent creatures (angels and men) with free will. Creatures in-themselves as God created them are good. Evil comes from the misuse of free will. God does not will evil, but permits it to happen, in order to draw out a greater good.
3. Free will exists. Creatures cannot act without God's concurrence as He is the prime mover. Yet, at the same time Angels and men are free to obey or disobey God's will.
4. God is supreme, yet He can also allow intelligent creatures the power to determine their own course of action. This does not in any way take away from God's sovereignty. As God rewards the good and punishes the evil. Rewards and punishments would be arbitrary if there were no free will.
5. Both God's sovereignty and free will are true; how both can co-exist is explained by various solutions in the Catholic Schools. Ultimately its a mystery.
Free will is clearly manifested in our daily lives. We make choices in not only small matters, but also in matters that involve our eternal salvation. God's continuous call to men to turn away from sin and to do good, would be meaningless without man being able to freely respond to God's call. 

[LouisIX]

I think what may be helpful to Zz is a look at secondary causes. As as secondary cause of the acceptance of grace, man's will is not frustrated by election but moves with grace.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

As I said
No Free will (calvinism)=

No crucifixion
No resurrection
The Bible is just a fancy book of myth

its no wonder a calvinist could fit right in within an atheist world view.

[Gardener]

Thomism is problematic on this issue.

I personally side with St. Francis de Sales' view of the elect:

The theory of predestination post prævisa merita

This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prævisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:, who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm Bottom of page.

To me, this explanation of Predestination preserves much which Thomistic understandings abandon, and thus almost seem Calvnist in a way.

I also reject Aquinas' understanding of the Predestination of Christ in favor of Dun Scotus, explained here: http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/duns-scotus/

The video is a must watch.

Combining these two, we see a much BETTER picture of free will and grace in the economy of Salvation and lets the damned be truly on their own and at fault, whereas Aquinas, erroneously in my opinion, lending towards Calvinism, argues not a "Thomistic" line, but an Augustinian one. Augustine was alone in his understanding on this issue.

[LouisIX]

Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward).

So God and grace become radically passive to good works and holiness rather than their cause. You don't see this as a problem?

[Gardener]

No; for those merits would ultimately be due to the freewill response to His Grace.

This is the teaching of St. Ambrose and explained, and accepted, by St. Francis de Sales. It's perfectly acceptable to hold this as a position unless one is a diehard Thomist. But I'm not.

Aquinas is not right on everything, but I think that in starting with the Predestination of Christ in the manner of Duns Scotus we can see a much better line drawn to the elect within this understanding of the foreknowledge > predestination vs predestine > foreknown. It does a better job of preserving free will, and in line with Thomas' own response to his sister on how to be saved, it must be willed. God desires the salvation of all, but it really is up to man to cooperate with, and thus merit, in a sense, salvation.

It's a highly complicated line of thought in sifting the two camps and figuring out how to make it more understandable. I'm working on it, but it will take some time as I need to REALLY make sure I have the argument down on both sides.

However, I don't want to discuss it much right now. Merely giving where I stand, as it may help those leaning towards heresy (Calvinism) back to a place where they can trust in God's goodness and love, even if they don't "get" it as concerns the reprobate or elect.

Thank you, LouisIX.

[Zzyzx]

Thank you Michael for trying, but I think I'm done with SD.

I didn't come here to get ridiculed; I came here to learn about what Catholic believe.  And, it's really not the ridiculing that bothers me, it's the close-mindedness of this forum in particular.  I'm not allowed to counter assertions made against my faith because there is a admitted double standard when it comes to protecting the Catholic belief on SD.  I could be banned at the whim of a mod just for debating a Catholic teaching with something from my Calvinistic point of view.

So, I think it would be more productive and better use of my time if I just do research on my own... as there have only been a handful of you that have been helpful and welcoming.

I wish all of you the best,

-Jeremy (Zzyzx/kingschosen)

[ts aquinas]

Thank you Michael for trying, but I think I'm done with SD.

I didn't come here to get ridiculed; I came here to learn about what Catholic believe.  And, it's really not the ridiculing that bothers me, it's the close-mindedness of this forum in particular.  I'm not allowed to counter assertions made against my faith because there is a admitted double standard when it comes to protecting the Catholic belief on SD.  I could be banned at the whim of a mod just for debating a Catholic teaching with something from my Calvinistic point of view.

So, I think it would be more productive and better use of my time if I just do research on my own... as there have only been a handful of you that have been helpful and welcoming.

I wish all of you the best,

-Jeremy (Zzyzx/kingschosen)

Sorry it didn't work out. If you're going research this on your own I suggest Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's books Providence and Predestination. God bless.

[Michael Wilson]

Thanks Zz,
I would carry on a private discussion with you, but I would be in over my head very quickly. 
I wish you the best.
Mike

[Lynne]

He should go to Catholic Answer's forums. They're much more tolerant there...