Romans 6:1

[Mono no aware]

"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"

Naturally St. Paul answers this question by saying, "God forbid."  This seems to be an idea along the lines of "God permits evil in order to bring about a greater good," since in the preceding chapter, Romans 5, it says "where sin abounded, grace did more abound."  He is basically responding to the question of why God allowed man to be enslaved to the Law.  I could be wrong, but St. Paul seems to be thinking along the lines of "O Felix Culpa" and The Dream of Gerontius:

"O loving wisdom of our God!
When all was sin and shame,
A second Adam to the fight
And to the rescue came."

Romans 5:19 says, "by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just."  So essentially this seems to indicate that God allowed the Fall, and subsequently sin and death to enter the world, in order bring about the greater good of man being redeemed by Christ, which I imagine a theologian might say is "God being glorified."

But St. Paul is also dealing with the question of: since sin brought grace (i.e., God permitted evil in order to bring about a greater good), wouldn't it make sense to keep on sinning in order that even more grace might abound for future generations?  Obviously, he answers it in the negative.  He does not advise sinning.  Yet would it be theologically accurate to say that the reprobate actually do cooperate with God's will?  They do not cooperate with his grace, but they do cooperate with his permissive will.  This also goes to the question of Judas, who seemingly chose his fate out of his own free will, yet it was necessary that Christ be betrayed and handed over to be crucified.  The sin of Judas was required, just as the sin of Adam was required.

Any assistance with these ideas would be appreciated.  Gracias.

[Vetus Ordo]

Yet would it be theologically accurate to say that the reprobate actually do cooperate with God's will?  They do not cooperate with his grace, but they do cooperate with his permissive will.  This also goes to the question of Judas, who seemingly chose his fate out of his own free will, yet it was necessary that Christ be betrayed and handed over to be crucified. The sin of Judas was required, just as the sin of Adam was required.

The reprobate fulfill God's will. That is to say, they fulfill His eternal decree that makes whatsoever comes to pass, come to pass.

Can we say that the sin of Judas, just as the sin of Adam, was required? In the ultimate causal sense, yes. Just as the crucifixion was certainly decreed to come to pass. It was a requirement of God's foreordinance: it could not fail to happen, just as the secondary causes that led to it could not fail to happen. Peter declares it: "You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the middle of you, as you yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts 2:22-23)

By the determinate counsel - The word translated "determinate" - ???? ???????????? te? ho?rismene? - means, properly, "what is defined, marked out, or bounded; as, to mark out or define the boundary of a field," etc. See Romans 1:1, Romans 1:4. In Acts 10:42, it is translated "ordained of God"; denoting His purpose that it should be so, that is, that Jesus should be the Judge of quick and dead; Luke 22:22, "The Son of man goeth as it is determined of him," that is, as God has purposed or determined beforehand that he should go; Acts 11:29, "The disciples ...determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea," that is, they resolved or purposed beforehand to do it; Acts 17:26, "God ...'hath determined' the times before appointed and fixed," etc. In all these places there is the idea of a purpose, intention, or plan implying intention, and marking out or fixing the boundaries to some future action or evens. The word implies that the death of Jesus was resolved by God before it took place. And this truth is established by all the predictions made in the Old Testament, and by the Saviour himself. God was not compelled to give up his Son. There was no claim on him for it. He had a right, therefore, to determine when and how it should be done. The fact, moreover, that this was predicted, shows that it was fixed or resolved on. No event can be foretold, evidently, unless it be certain that it will take place. The event, therefore, must in some way be fixed or resolved on beforehand.

Counsel - ?????? boule?. This word properly denotes "purpose, decree, will." It expresses the act of the mind in willing, or the purpose or design which is formed. Here it means the purpose or will of God; it was his plan or decree that Jesus should be delivered: Acts 4:28, "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel ?? ?????? ??? he? boule? sou determined before to be done"; Ephesians 1:11, "Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"; Hebrews 6:17, "God willing ...to show ...the immutability of his counsel." See Acts 20:27; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Luke 23:51. The word here, therefore, proves that Jesus was delivered by the deliberate purpose of God; that it was according to his previous intention and design. The reason why this was insisted on by Peter was that he might convince the Jews that Jesus was not delivered by weakness, or because he was unable to rescue himself. Such an opinion would have been inconsistent with the belief that he was the Messiah. It was important, then, to assert the dignity of Jesus, and to show that his death was in accordance with the fixed design of God, and therefore that it did not interfere in the least with his claims to be the Messiah. The same thing our Saviour has himself expressly affirmed (John 19:10-11; John 10:18; Matthew 26:53).

Foreknowledge - This word denotes "the seeing beforehand of an event yet to take place." It implies:

1. Omniscience; and,

2. That the event is fixed and certain.

To foresee a contingent event, that is, to foresee that an event will take place when it may or may not take place, is an absurdity. Foreknowledge, therefore, implies that for some reason the event will certainly take place. God is represented in the Scriptures as purposing or determining future events; as they could not be foreseen by him unless he had so determined, so the word sometimes is used in the sense of determining beforehand, or as synonymous with decreeing (Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2). In this place the word is used to denote that the delivering up of Jesus was something more than a bare or naked decree. It implies that God did it according to his foresight of what would be the best time, place, and manner of its being done. It was not the result merely of will; it was will directed by a wise foreknowledge of what would be best. And this is the case with all the decrees of God. It follows from this that the conduct of the Jews was foreknown. God was not disappointed in anything respecting their treatment of his Son, nor will he be disappointed in any of the actions of people. Notwithstanding the wickedness of the world, his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure (Isaiah 46:10).

[Non Nobis]

Just a remark (I'm not saying this contradicts VO)

What God permits always happens, and He did permit the Crucifixion of Christ as part of His eternal plan.  So it was "what is defined, marked out, or bounded; as, to mark out or define the boundary of a field,".  Still, the malice of evil is not correctly said to be caused by God, but only permitted.  I'll only say this much at present.

[Non Nobis]

Yet would it be theologically accurate to say that the reprobate actually do cooperate with God's will?  They do not cooperate with his grace, but they do cooperate with his permissive will.  This also goes to the question of Judas, who seemingly chose his fate out of his own free will, yet it was necessary that Christ be betrayed and handed over to be crucified. The sin of Judas was required, just as the sin of Adam was required.

The reprobate fulfill God's will. That is to say, they fulfill His eternal decree that makes whatsoever comes to pass, come to pass.

Can we say that the sin of Judas, just as the sin of Adam, was required? In the ultimate causal sense, yes. Just as the crucifixion was certainly decreed to come to pass. It was a requirement of God's foreordinance: it could not fail to happen, just as the secondary causes that led to it could not fail to happen. Peter declares it: "You men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the middle of you, as you yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts 2:22-23)

By the determinate counsel - The word translated "determinate" - ???? ???????????? te? ho?rismene? - means, properly, "what is defined, marked out, or bounded; as, to mark out or define the boundary of a field," etc. See Romans 1:1, Romans 1:4. In Acts 10:42, it is translated "ordained of God"; denoting His purpose that it should be so, that is, that Jesus should be the Judge of quick and dead; Luke 22:22, "The Son of man goeth as it is determined of him," that is, as God has purposed or determined beforehand that he should go; Acts 11:29, "The disciples ...determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea," that is, they resolved or purposed beforehand to do it; Acts 17:26, "God ...'hath determined' the times before appointed and fixed," etc. In all these places there is the idea of a purpose, intention, or plan implying intention, and marking out or fixing the boundaries to some future action or evens. The word implies that the death of Jesus was resolved by God before it took place. And this truth is established by all the predictions made in the Old Testament, and by the Saviour himself. God was not compelled to give up his Son. There was no claim on him for it. He had a right, therefore, to determine when and how it should be done. The fact, moreover, that this was predicted, shows that it was fixed or resolved on. No event can be foretold, evidently, unless it be certain that it will take place. The event, therefore, must in some way be fixed or resolved on beforehand.

Counsel - ?????? boule?. This word properly denotes "purpose, decree, will." It expresses the act of the mind in willing, or the purpose or design which is formed. Here it means the purpose or will of God; it was his plan or decree that Jesus should be delivered: Acts 4:28, "For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel ?? ?????? ??? he? boule? sou determined before to be done"; Ephesians 1:11, "Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"; Hebrews 6:17, "God willing ...to show ...the immutability of his counsel." See Acts 20:27; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Luke 23:51. The word here, therefore, proves that Jesus was delivered by the deliberate purpose of God; that it was according to his previous intention and design. The reason why this was insisted on by Peter was that he might convince the Jews that Jesus was not delivered by weakness, or because he was unable to rescue himself. Such an opinion would have been inconsistent with the belief that he was the Messiah. It was important, then, to assert the dignity of Jesus, and to show that his death was in accordance with the fixed design of God, and therefore that it did not interfere in the least with his claims to be the Messiah. The same thing our Saviour has himself expressly affirmed (John 19:10-11; John 10:18; Matthew 26:53).

Foreknowledge - This word denotes "the seeing beforehand of an event yet to take place." It implies:

1. Omniscience; and,

2. That the event is fixed and certain.

To foresee a contingent event, that is, to foresee that an event will take place when it may or may not take place, is an absurdity. Foreknowledge, therefore, implies that for some reason the event will certainly take place. God is represented in the Scriptures as purposing or determining future events; as they could not be foreseen by him unless he had so determined, so the word sometimes is used in the sense of determining beforehand, or as synonymous with decreeing (Romans 8:29; Romans 11:2). In this place the word is used to denote that the delivering up of Jesus was something more than a bare or naked decree. It implies that God did it according to his foresight of what would be the best time, place, and manner of its being done. It was not the result merely of will; it was will directed by a wise foreknowledge of what would be best. And this is the case with all the decrees of God. It follows from this that the conduct of the Jews was foreknown. God was not disappointed in anything respecting their treatment of his Son, nor will he be disappointed in any of the actions of people. Notwithstanding the wickedness of the world, his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure (Isaiah 46:10).

FWIW

Source for quote comes from commentary by Charles Ellicott, an Anglican theologian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ellicott
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/acts/2.htm

[Mono no aware]

Thank you both.

Still, the malice of evil is not correctly said to be caused by God, but only permitted.

Correct.  Would it be wrong to word it the way I did, though: that a person who uses his or her free will to sin is "cooperating with God's [permissive] will"—or would that be theologically perverse?  I apologize for the splitting of hairs.

Slightly off the OP, but does anyone know if there's an internet resource where you can search the pre-NOM epistolary by book, chapter, and verse?

[Non Nobis]

Thank you both.

Still, the malice of evil is not correctly said to be caused by God, but only permitted.

Correct.  Would it be wrong to word it the way I did, though: that a person who uses his or her free will to sin is "cooperating with God's [permissive] will"—or would that be theologically perverse?  I apologize for the splitting of hairs.

I wouldn't say that without adding the word "permissive".  Even then I think not - it sounds like a man is willfully doing good on his own part by cooperating. Maybe "never escaping God's permissive will", or maybe "always in the confines of", or something better, instead.

Slightly off the OP, but does anyone know if there's an internet resource where you can search the pre-NOM epistolary by book, chapter, and verse?

Do you mean just for the epistles said at Mass?  I don't know that, but drbo.org is a good source for the Douay–Rheims  Bible online, which lets you search like that.

[Mono no aware]

Do you mean just for the epistles said at Mass?  I don't know that, but drbo.org is a good source for the Douay–Rheims  Bible online, which lets you search like that.

I think what I'm looking for is more of a "searchable missal."  If, say, I wanted to know the days where Judas or John the Baptist is mentioned in the lectionary, I could search for "Judas" or "John the Baptist."  Or if I wanted to know if Romans 6:1 is included in an epistle reading, I could search for "Romans" or "shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?"  I used to have a study version of the New American Bible, and one of its appendices was a Novus Ordo lectionary listed by book, chapter, and verse.  (Being included in a bible, one could simply turn back and read the passages right then and there).  But the SSPX-published 1962 Tridentine missal I own doesn't have such an index.

[An aspiring Thomist]

Vetus Ordo, are you a Calvinist now? I ask because some of what you say sounds like it.

Non Nobis, depending on how you define permit, not all that God permits comes to pass. I recommend anyone interested in predestination to read Marin Sola. Basically, it's not enough for God not to cause sin. He also cannot be the necessary and sufficient condition for sin. He cannot put man in a situation before consideration of merit or demerit in which man cannot act other than to sin. In some cases God moves man to a good but does so in such a way that man can resist or not resist. In a certain way He "permits" sin "before" it happens and wether or not it happens.

@ Pon

If we assume ends don't justify the means, we cannot do evil to get a greater good. The reprobate do not corporate with God's will, which is why they end up in hell. God wishes to save all men (did Paul say that, don't remember?) but the reprobate nevertheless cannot stop God's ultimate ends and even their evil is turned to good. Also, if no one would have killed Jesus, God would not have said "well I guess no on can get to heaven...". Given our fallen state and Jesus message of showing the world the flesh and the devil, something like the crucification was bound to happen. If no one would have killed Jesus I'm sure he would have done some mortification and redeemed us that way. Our redemption is primarily a function of God's love. Jesus suffering was a fitting way to show His love.

[Non Nobis]

Vetus Ordo, are you a Calvinist now? I ask because some of what you say sounds like it.

I remember he was saying similar things on the fisheaters form.

Non Nobis, depending on how you define permit, not all that God permits comes to pass. I recommend anyone interested in predestination to read Marin Sola. Basically, it's not enough for God not to cause sin.

He also cannot be the necessary and sufficient condition for sin. He cannot put man in a situation before consideration of merit or demerit in which man cannot act other than to sin.

Is God's eternal foreknowledge a necessary and sufficient condition for sin?  In some way it seems it is, but it certainly isn't "putting man in a situation" where he is not free.  I think the same is true for eternal permission of sin, although it is harder to understand.  It is true THAT a man will sin, but he sins FREELY in either case.  In the first case we give the explanation that God is outside of time and can see what comes before and what comes after all at once. In the second case, God plans the permission as a sort of outline outside of time (in His magnificent eternal design) foreknowing that man will fill in with sin freely over time. Perhaps permission and foreknowledge happen simultaneously.  Certainly I don't understand, and my analogies are probably off.

I'm not going to say that Marin-Sola is wrong; I don't know. I'd like to read him, in theory, but various things get in the way (besides lack of intellect and discipline).  For one thing, expense, where can you get his writing for less than $70-$80?.  If you want to explain his views in more detail, I will at least read your posts!

In some cases God moves man to a good but does so in such a way that man can resist or not resist. In a certain way He "permits" sin "before" it happens and whether or not it happens.

If God permitted some evil and it did not happen, then some good must have happened instead.  Who was the primary cause of the good?  If it is God, didn't He know from eternity that He would cause the good; what sense does it make to say He permitted the evil? (Man is still the complete SECONDARY cause of the good. )