Theory about The Crisis and the chaos

[Quaremerepulisti]

I was simply pointing out that wider scriptural context can determine the exegesis of a particular text. I'm sure you're not the only one honest about presuppositions playing a key factor in the interpretation of texts, sacred or otherwise.

OK.

My contention is that there are exegetical grounds to interpret those passages in an Augustinian way that do not do any violence to reason or to the texts themselves.

And my contention is that the Augustinian way does do violence to reason as well as basic human decency.

Arguing that it can't be doing violence to reason because it is sound exegesis is a circular argument.

[awkwardcustomer]

Why didn't you answer the question?

I already did, upthread.  Your insinuation that I am denying the reality of hell is, frankly, ridiculous.

All the fuss that you and others are making really boils down to this one issue.

No, it doesn't.  Your claim that it does shows you don't understand the issue.  At all.  Start by reading the CE article or some other piece on predestination then get back to us.

If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out.  But I thought you were also arguing about how mean and nasty God is for not saving everyone.

I didn't insinuate that you were denying the existence of hell.  The thought didn't occur to me. How could you deny hell's existence if you are so angry about people ending up there?

And all the arguments do boil down to the same thing in the end.  Who gets to heaven, who doesn't, and why? 

You don't like God's arrangement?  Then explain how you would do it differently.

[mikemac]

So you guys are saying that it was the devil that said the following.

"cease offending God"

"Say the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war."

"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled by these thorns with which men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You, at least, strive to console me, and so I announce: I promise to assist at the hour of death with the grace necessary for salvation all those who, with the intention of making reparation to me, will, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say five decades of the beads, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary."

You actually believe that the devil would say these things?

You guys have lost your collective minds.  This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on any Catholic forum.  Even more ridiculous than Impy.

Kaesekopf it's time for you to put an end to this blasphemous nonsense once and for all.

If Kaesekopf is not going to do anything about it then there needs to be prayers of reparation said for the blasphemies committed against the Blessed Virgin Mary in this thread by some members of this forum.

From the Raccolta, prayer 84.

http://www.liturgialatina.org/raccolta/index.htm

84.  PRAYERS FOR EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, WITH THREE "AVE MARIA'S" ETC.

Pope Pius VII., of holy memory, at the prayer of the Chapter of the Basilica of St. Mary in Cosmedin here in Rome, by a Rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, dated June 21, 1808, kept in the Archivium of the said Basilica, granted -
i. An indulgence or 300 days, once a day, to all the faithful who, with contrite hearts, say the following prayers to our Blessed Lady, extracted from the spiritual works of the holy Bishop Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori, each on that day of the week to which it has been assigned, together with three Ave Maria's, with the intention of making some reparation to her for the many blasphemies which have been, and are daily uttered against her, not only by unbelievers, but even by bad Christians.
ii. A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who say these prayers, with three Ave Maria's, daily for a whole month, with the intention above named, on any one day when, after Confession and Communion, they shall pray to God for the Holy Church, &c.

PRAYER FOR TUESDAY.

Most holy Mary, Mother of Goodness, Mother of Mercy; when I reflect upon my sins and upon the moment of my death, I tremble and am confounded. O my sweetest Mother, in the Blood of Jesus, in thy intercession, are my hopes. Comforter of the sad, abandon me not at that hour; fail not to console me in that great affliction. If even now I am so tormented by remorse for the sins I have committed, the uncertainty of my pardon, the danger of a relapse, and the strictness of the judgment, how will it be with me then? O my Mother, before death overtake me, obtain for me great sorrow for my sins, a true amendment, and constant fidelity to God for the remainder of my life. And when at length my hour is come, then do thou, Mary, my hope, be thyself my aid in those great troubles wherewith my soul will be encompassed. Strengthen me, that I may not despair when the enemy sets my sins before my face. Obtain for me at that moment grace to invoke thee often, so that I may breathe forth my spirit with thine own sweet name and that of thy most holy Son upon any lips. This grace thou hast granted to many of thy servants; this, too, is my hope and my desire.

Then say three Ave Maria's to the Blessed Virgin Mary in reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her.

[Vetus Ordo]

My contention is that there are exegetical grounds to interpret those passages in an Augustinian way that do not do any violence to reason or to the texts themselves.

And my contention is that the Augustinian way does do violence to reason as well as basic human decency.

Arguing that it can't be doing violence to reason because it is sound exegesis is a circular argument.

Yes, it is circular and I'm not proposing it.

[Quaremerepulisti]

If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out. 

OK.

You don't like God's arrangement?  Then explain how you would do it differently.

Well, since you asked...

Ensure everyone is saved.

This issue (in addition to Vatican II) is how I know for certain the traditionalist worldview is flawed, right from the start.  Everyone must either evade the question, posit absurdities, or simply let loose with paroxyms of anger.

Now, to forestall some objections:

"But that means allowing the wicked and unrepentant to enter heaven!"  No, it means God ensuring no one is wicked and unrepentant.

"But free will doesn't exist if everyone must be good!"  This is a modal fallacy; there is nothing logically impossible about everyone using free will properly in the actual world and it still being free; it is a statement about the actual world, not about other possible worlds.

"But if God infallibly brings about the proper use of our free will it isn't free."  This was denied by all theologians in the West in the Middle Ages (whether Thomistic or Molinist) as a denial of God as First Cause so if this is your response time to turn in your traditionalist card.  The only debate was regarding exactly how God infallibly brings about the proper use of free will.

No matter how you slice it, all are not saved either because: 1) God can't save everyone or 2) He can but doesn't.

1) is, on the face of it, a denial of omnipotence.  The only answer IS to say God's bringing about the proper use of free will, at least in certain situations, is logically impossible and hence not a violation of omnipotence.

2) is a denial of love, proof that the alleged love of Jesus Christ is really not all that great, since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, and He didn't love enough to cause grace, salvation, and heaven in the vast majority of mankind.  But they resisted?  He could have caused them not to, or given grace powerful enough to overcome it.  This will of course get the angry rejoinder of "But God doesn't owe us anything!!!".  Which is the irrelevant thrashing about of one who knows he's lost the argument: love is not the payment of a debt, but precisely the voluntary giving of what you do not owe.

[TheReturnofLive]

If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out. 

OK.

You don't like God's arrangement?  Then explain how you would do it differently.

Well, since you asked...

Ensure everyone is saved.

I'm no scholar, at least to the level of where you are Quare, so bare with me that my argument isn't as philosophically rigorous or dense, but

You like to use the parent - son relationship analogy a lot - but as you like to point out, parents must allow their children to develop on their own with their own free will and intellect - for to force a reliance without free will or intellect will not only hinder the child's development, but also create a false form of True Love.

Could we ever have a normal relationship with God as Our Father if we were never allowed to run away from Him or reject Him? Would our worship of Our Father ever be considered normal or rational if we had no choice but to worship Him and Love Him? It would be like a parent that forces their child to live with them until the parent's death.

The fact that God is able to open His arms to us whenever we choose to run away from Him truly makes Him Omnibenevolent, and lets us truly understand Paradise and why it's Paradise.

[awkwardcustomer]

If you're arguing about predestination then, yes, I'll stay out. 

OK.

You don't like God's arrangement?  Then explain how you would do it differently.

Well, since you asked...

Ensure everyone is saved.

This issue (in addition to Vatican II) is how I know for certain the traditionalist worldview is flawed, right from the start.  Everyone must either evade the question, posit absurdities, or simply let loose with paroxyms of anger.

Now, to forestall some objections:

"But that means allowing the wicked and unrepentant to enter heaven!"  No, it means God ensuring no one is wicked and unrepentant.

"But free will doesn't exist if everyone must be good!"  This is a modal fallacy; there is nothing logically impossible about everyone using free will properly in the actual world and it still being free; it is a statement about the actual world, not about other possible worlds.

"But if God infallibly brings about the proper use of our free will it isn't free."  This was denied by all theologians in the West in the Middle Ages (whether Thomistic or Molinist) as a denial of God as First Cause so if this is your response time to turn in your traditionalist card.  The only debate was regarding exactly how God infallibly brings about the proper use of free will.

No matter how you slice it, all are not saved either because: 1) God can't save everyone or 2) He can but doesn't.

1) is, on the face of it, a denial of omnipotence.  The only answer IS to say God's bringing about the proper use of free will, at least in certain situations, is logically impossible and hence not a violation of omnipotence.

2) is a denial of love, proof that the alleged love of Jesus Christ is really not all that great, since God's love is the cause of goodness in things, and He didn't love enough to cause grace, salvation, and heaven in the vast majority of mankind.  But they resisted?  He could have caused them not to, or given grace powerful enough to overcome it.  This will of course get the angry rejoinder of "But God doesn't owe us anything!!!".  Which is the irrelevant thrashing about of one who knows he's lost the argument: love is not the payment of a debt, but precisely the voluntary giving of what you do not owe.

You may as well ask why God didn't prevent Satan from entering the Garden of Eden and starting the whole drama.  Didn't He realise that Satan was lurking in the undergrowth?

Or perhaps God should not have created Adam and Eve, knowing as He did that Satan would be an ever-present threat to His new Creation, and that a significant number of their offspring would join forces with Satan against Him and eventually choose to join him in hell.

What should God have done, in your opinion?

[Vetus Ordo]

No matter how you slice it, all are not saved either because: 1) God can't save everyone or 2) He can but doesn't.

The enunciation of the question is correct.

The answer is that God can save everyone but He does not will it. Or, rather, He has not decreed it. For whatsoever God decrees, infallibly comes to pass. We know that the execution of God's decrees does not depend on any condition which may, or may not, be performed by men. For everything that He decreed, He not only decreed its end but every means to that end. The one who decreed the salvation of His elect, also decreed to work faith in them (2 Phil. 2:13). Indeed, He "works all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph 1:11). God's decrees are necessarily unchangeable, absolutely free, holy and comprehend all things that come to pass.

A full explanation of the tension between God's decrees and men's autonomous actions may be beyond our capacity, though. However, we can say without peril that His love for the elect is particular, or familiar, whereas His love for mankind is general. In other words, He does not love the sheep and the goats the same way.

Or, if you would prefer a more anthropocentric perspective, the love of God has different effects upon the sheep and the goats.

Is this a denial of love? Yes, insofar as divine love equates with allotting every human being that ever existed with the same "chance", if we dare use that word, of being saved. Can we say that God loves the goats? Yes and no. Yes, because they were created in His image, they are called unto repentance and God laments and hates their deaths (Ezekiel 33:11). No, because God also hates them, insofar as they are wicked (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5).

The pre-determination of their existence and eternal state is God's prerogative alone which no human mind has the ability to scrutinize. It is a mystery.

[Quaremerepulisti]

You may as well ask why God didn't prevent Satan from entering the Garden of Eden and starting the whole drama.  Didn't He realise that Satan was lurking in the undergrowth?

Or perhaps God should not have created Adam and Eve, knowing as He did that Satan would be an ever-present threat to His new Creation, and that a significant number of their offspring would join forces with Satan against Him and eventually choose to join him in hell.

What should God have done, in your opinion?

Ensured the angels didn't fall either.

[Quaremerepulisti]

I'm no scholar, at least to the level of where you are Quare, so bare with me that my argument isn't as philosophically rigorous or dense, but

You like to use the parent - son relationship analogy a lot - but as you like to point out, parents must allow their children to develop on their own with their own free will and intellect - for to force a reliance without free will or intellect will not only hinder the child's development, but also create a false form of True Love.

Could we ever have a normal relationship with God as Our Father if we were never allowed to run away from Him or reject Him? Would our worship of Our Father ever be considered normal or rational if we had no choice but to worship Him and Love Him? It would be like a parent that forces their child to live with them until the parent's death.

The fact that God is able to open His arms to us whenever we choose to run away from Him truly makes Him Omnibenevolent, and lets us truly understand Paradise and why it's Paradise.

Agreed, this is an acceptance of 1) essentially.

Because it cannot be considered to be normal and rational if our "choice" is predetermined by God, with God punishing those predetermined to run away and reject Him.  There's no real learning how to make good choices (which is what a good parent should teach a child how to do), but merely a farce of us "learning" better choices God has already preordained for us.

[Quaremerepulisti]

The answer is that God can save everyone but He does not will it. Or, rather, He has not decreed it. For whatsoever God decrees, infallibly comes to pass.... 

Is this a denial of love? Yes, insofar as divine love equates with allotting every human being that ever existed with the same "chance", if we dare use that word, of being saved. Can we say that God loves the goats? Yes and no. Yes, because they were created in His image, they are called unto repentance and God laments and hates their deaths (Ezekiel 33:11). No, because God also hates them, insofar as they are wicked (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5).

So much for God's great "love" of the world.  And everyone is shocked, shocked I tell you, that man in turn has so little love for God Who has simply "decreed" who loves Him and who does not.

He calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.

This is psychologically deranged.

[Vetus Ordo]

The answer is that God can save everyone but He does not will it. Or, rather, He has not decreed it. For whatsoever God decrees, infallibly comes to pass.... 

Is this a denial of love? Yes, insofar as divine love equates with allotting every human being that ever existed with the same "chance", if we dare use that word, of being saved. Can we say that God loves the goats? Yes and no. Yes, because they were created in His image, they are called unto repentance and God laments and hates their deaths (Ezekiel 33:11). No, because God also hates them, insofar as they are wicked (Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5).

So much for God's great "love" of the world.  And everyone is shocked, shocked I tell you, that man in turn has so little love for God Who has simply "decreed" who loves Him and who does not.

He calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.

This is psychologically deranged.

On the contrary.

There no shock, or surprise, that man has little love for God. He is a fallen creature whose heart is "desperately wicked"(Jer. 17:9). Only those who are born again of water and the spirit (John 3 et al.) can love and serve Him. In fact, Christ's beautiful speech to Nicodemus is aptly prefigured in Ezekiel:

"For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezek. 36:24–27)

The alternative to God not having decreed the salvation of all (but just some), is the hypothesis that:

A. God has decreed the salvation of all. This is, in short, universalism, a proposition I find, as of yet, unconvincing and unable to be harmonized with any school of Christian thought that takes Scripture seriously;

Or

B. God's eternal decree is limited by man's actions. In other words, man's free agency is ultimately without a known cause besides himself and falls beyond the scope of God's ultimate agency of prime mover. God is thus not actually free but determined by others, a proposition I find intellectually repulsive.

[awkwardcustomer]

You may as well ask why God didn't prevent Satan from entering the Garden of Eden and starting the whole drama.  Didn't He realise that Satan was lurking in the undergrowth?

Or perhaps God should not have created Adam and Eve, knowing as He did that Satan would be an ever-present threat to His new Creation, and that a significant number of their offspring would join forces with Satan against Him and eventually choose to join him in hell.

What should God have done, in your opinion?

Ensured the angels didn't fall either.

By breaking their wills, just as you think God should break the will of repentant sinners in order to save them. 

Consider this passage from 'The Fellowship of the Ring'.

Gandalf laughed grimly.  'You see?  Already you too, Frodo, cannot easily let it go, nor will to damage it.  And I could not "make you" - except by force, which would break your mind....'

Gandalf cannot make Frodo want to give up the ring or damage it of his own free will, except by breaking Frodo's mind.  The ring can be stolen from him, or taken by force.  But Frodo cannot be made to will to give it up.

As God, would you be prepared to break the minds/wills of those who refuse to follow you?

[Quaremerepulisti]

On the contrary.

There no shock, or surprise, that man has little love for God. He is a fallen creature whose heart is "desperately wicked"(Jer. 17:9).

Because God failed to decree that he be any better, and man cannot make himself better on his own.

So, all of this involves holding man responsible for what he is metaphysically impossibly unable to avoid, and releasing God from responsibility for what He is metaphysically possibly able to avoid.  This is morally repulsive.

The alternative to God not having decreed the salvation of all (but just some), is the hypothesis that:

A. God has decreed the salvation of all. This is, in short, universalism, a proposition I find, as of yet, unconvincing and unable to be harmonized with any school of Christian thought that takes Scripture seriously;

Or

B. God's eternal decree is limited by man's actions. In other words, man's free agency is ultimately without a known cause besides himself and falls beyond the scope of God's ultimate agency of prime mover. God is thus not actually free but determined by others, a proposition I find intellectually repulsive.

Right.  So we're caught between moral repulsivity, not taking Scripture seriously, and intellectual repulsivity.  Not a good place to be.  Maybe we've been looking at the question the wrong way around and anthropomorphizing God, ascribing to Him human ideas like "decrees", "agency", "freedom", "determination", and so on.

[John Lamb]

He calls them unto repentance but fails to decree that they actually repent, laments and hates their death which are the result of Him failing to decree for life for them, and hates them insofar as they are wicked, which wickedness is a result of failing to decree that they be good.

You're making a deficient cause out to be an efficient cause. If a boat falls over a waterfall the cause of it isn't that I failed to pull it out of the river; the cause of it is the river's current carrying the boat along. The cause of man's death, wickedness, or lack or repentance is not that God merely fails to decree otherwise; the cause of it is to be found in man himself.

Imagine if a group of citizens demanded the right to secede from the State, demanded the right to govern themselves autonomously, then began to murder their children and commit suicide en masse, and when the Head of State offered to intervene and cure their sickness they obstinately refused, cursed him, and demanded the right to slaughter themselves. Would the Head of State be "deranged" or "morally repulsive" for withdrawing himself and allowing them to do what they please?

You really need to reconsider the nature of sin.