That is what you wrote in the previous post I responded to. It might not be what you intended to write, or what you thought you wrote. But it is what you wrote.
But that is a separate issue, and has to do with the fact that we will never fully understand predestination (no matter how you slice it, taken to its logical conclusion it ends up either with semi-Pelagianism or Calvinism - but both are wrong)...
Indeed, that was poorly worded by me. What I meant is that if you try to explain predestination through a theological system it ends up either in Calvinism or semi-Pelagianism - but of course we know that explanation exists, whether we are capable of understanding it in this world or not. I wrote more specifically later on:
So far we don't have an explanation - Thomism, Banezianism and Molinism all fail on different, but crucial points, as their logical conclusions lead to Calvinism or semi-Pelagianism. However, we know that there is no contradiction between God wanting to save all and God not predestining all, because the Church teaches both (and the Church cannot contradict herself). So, predestination remains a mystery, but there is no contradiction, and there cannot be.
Anyway, all theological systems fail to explain predestination. Why am I not justified in throwing all of them out?
You are, the Church never made a definitive pronouncement in regard to how predestination works, so there is no binding system we have to adhere to. And I agree with you that all theological systems proposed so far which attempt to explain predestination are flawed (I think you argument against Thomism/Banezianism is irrefutable).
