What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Sovereignty of God" verses the "Free will of Man

Vic C.

Vic C.

Member
I wnated to get some input on this from the RCs here, but the original thread got a "little" out of hand. So, here's the question I originally asked "John the Baptist":

What are your views on the "Sovereignty of God" verses the "Free will of Man"? Is it either one, without the other, or is it that both can exist concurrently?

Your thoughts?

*edited to fix typos*
 
The Catholic Church acknowledges both free will and predestination. In other words they can co-exist.

First of all though I think a definition of "free will" is in order. Augustine and others have defined it as the freedom to do good. This is true freedom and this is what grace is all about. The man of sin is enslaved by his sins. He does not truly have free will. But God sent his son that we might have free will. That we have the grace to choose good. Something we cannot do when we are controlled by the flesh.

Another thing that should be understood is that Catholicism teaches that noone is predestined to heaven. i.e. God gives every man sufficient grace for his salvation, ie. for him to overcome sin. If he did not, the verse "He desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" Titus I think, would make no sense. He must do something in order to bring abotu the salvation of all men. Something sufficient for them to attain salavtion. That is the predestination. Yet why do some not? Because grace is not irresistable. Thus there must be a will that resists the grace and that is the cause of man's damnation. God is not responsible for damnation. It is the rejection of grace by men that causes damnation.

So God gives sufficient grace for men to be saved. For men to become filled with his grace. Yet he knows that some will resist. That is not his fault.

Here is a good article on the matter:

http://mafg.home.isp-direct.com/predes01.htm
 
Vic, you might want to google Augustine vs. Pelagius, where the church sided with Augusine at both the Council of Ehpesus [431ad] and then again afirmed at the Council of Orange [529ad]. If I'm not mistaken the works of John Cassian [360-435ad] influanced the church at large and a form semi-pelagian was welcomed contrary to both council's that dealt with freewill.

Peace,

jm
 
No the Catholic Church is not semi-pelgian. Sorry. Grace works on man to draw him toward the Church, influencing the will. Grace works within once in. We are saved by grace alone. Period. But it begins before we are Christian. Grace is given to each man to draw them toward God but some resist. All creation cries out to his glory. This is grace. The laws are implanted on all men's hearts such that they have a conscience (rom 2:15). This is grace. All is grace.
 
Sem`i-Pe`la´gi`an
n. 1. (Eccl. Hist.) A follower of John Cassianus, a French monk (died about 448), who modified the doctrines of Pelagius, by denying human merit, and maintaining the necessity of the Spirit's influence, while, on the other hand, he rejected the Augustinian doctrines of election, the inability of man to do good, and the certain perseverance of the saints.
a. 1. Of or pertaining to the Semi-Pelagians, or their tenets.
Click to expand...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Semi-Pelagian

Really? You deny the human merit in salvation, but you reject Augustinian doctrine...so I thought. How does the RC view differ?
 
JM said:
Sem`i-Pe`la´gi`an
n. 1. (Eccl. Hist.) A follower of John Cassianus, a French monk (died about 448), who modified the doctrines of Pelagius, by denying human merit, and maintaining the necessity of the Spirit's influence, while, on the other hand, he rejected the Augustinian doctrines of election, the inability of man to do good, and the certain perseverance of the saints.
a. 1. Of or pertaining to the Semi-Pelagians, or their tenets.
Click to expand...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Semi-Pelagian

Really? You deny the human merit in salvation, but you reject Augustinian doctrine...so I thought. How does the RC view differ?
Click to expand...

Yep. There is no "human merit" that gets us to heaven. Nothing that man does apart from grace gets him to heaven. No act of faith. no works, no avoidance of sin apart from grace is anything. All is grace and the will cannot come to God without grace. Grace works in and through us to bring about our salvation. It brings forth acts of faith, obedience, and good works. These are merritorius but in the latin the merritt is of another for they are brought about by the grace of Christ won for us on the cross. Grace however is not however irresistable. In detaching works from grace it seems to me you are creating a dilema in sanctification by the way. If grace is not a part of works then we are in some part sanctifying ourselves. I do not believe that we can sanctify ourselves. God however through grace leading to works and faith sanctifies the soul. It's the same issue that you debate with Catholics about but from the other side of the street.

Grace is not just some sort of handwaving or forgetting about sin, ie. God being nice. Grace moves the sinner, bringing about the action of God in him. It is life giving.

As for Augustine, he did not deny free will. His views on predestination are debatable. Did he teach predestination to damnation? I don't see it in his writings.
 
JM said:
Sem`i-Pe`la´gi`an
n. 1. (Eccl. Hist.) A follower of John Cassianus, a French monk (died about 448), who modified the doctrines of Pelagius, by denying human merit, and maintaining the necessity of the Spirit's influence, while, on the other hand, he rejected the Augustinian doctrines of election, the inability of man to do good, and the certain perseverance of the saints.
a. 1. Of or pertaining to the Semi-Pelagians, or their tenets.
Click to expand...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Semi-Pelagian

Really? You deny the human merit in salvation, but you reject Augustinian doctrine...so I thought. How does the RC view differ?
Click to expand...

Yep. There is no "human merit" that gets us to heaven. Nothing that man does apart from grace gets him to heaven. No act of faith. no works, no avoidance of sin apart from grace is anything. All is grace and the will cannot come to God without grace. Grace works in and through us to bring about our salvation. It brings forth acts of faith, obedience, and good works. These are merritorius but in the latin the merritt is of another for they are brought about by the grace of Christ won for us on the cross. Grace however is not irresistable. In detaching works from grace it seems to me you are creating a dilema in sanctification by the way. If grace is not a part of works then we are in some part sanctifying ourselves. I do not believe that we can sanctify ourselves. God however through grace leading to works and faith sanctifies the soul. It's the same issue that you debate with Catholics about but from the other side of the street.

As for Augustine, he did not deny free will. His views on predestination are debatable. Did he teach predestination to damnation? I don't see it in his writings.
 
Wow, I didn't know that our belief on this subject was so similar, Thess. Good, and thought provoking posts, thanks.

The Lord bless you.
 
As for Augustine, he did not deny free will. His views on predestination are debatable. Did he teach predestination to damnation? I don't see it in his writings.
Click to expand...

For the record:
1. Calvinist DO DON'T deny freewill.
2. Augustine and Calvin both taught reprobation, this isn't "predestination to damnation," put simply, God leaves some men in their sin while electing to save others.

Peace,

jm
PS: I'll find reprobation quotes from Augustine latter tonight/tomorrow, Bavinck and Calvin both quote him often on these topics.
 
lovely said:
Wow, I didn't know that our belief on this subject was so similar, Thess. Good, and thought provoking posts, thanks.

The Lord bless you.
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately, I took the technical, analytical approach in the other thread to express what I believe and as a result, I failed and was misunderstood... and got a bit defensive. For that, I say sorry to those (Jason, :wink: ) I was debating with.

Oh, btw Jason, Pastor Steve was the Pastor of our congregation seven years ago. ;-)
 
thessalonian said:
Yep. There is no "human merit" that gets us to heaven. Nothing that man does apart from grace gets him to heaven. No act of faith. no works, no avoidance of sin apart from grace is anything. All is grace and the will cannot come to God without grace. Grace works in and through us to bring about our salvation.
Click to expand...
So I take it that you see things as follows:

1. All men are "drawn" by God.

2. Some men resist, presumably of their own "free will".

3. Those who do not resist acquire the salvation that God desires for all men.

4. Those who acquire salvation have done no work to attain that state. They could have resisted (like the guy in item 2) but they do not. However, the absence of such "resistance" is not really a "work" on their part - they merely do not resist, and, as such, cannot be said to have "done" anything to meritoriously earn their salvation.

Is this a fair characterization of your view (at least in part)?

It is an interesting position that I have not hitherto considered. But I shall, my preciousssssss, I shall.......
 
Augustine wrote:

"Therefore the mercy is past finding out by which He has mercy on whom He will, no merits of his own preceding; and the truth is unsearchable by which He hardeneth whom He will, even although his merits may have preceded, but merits for the most part common to him with the man on whom He has mercy. As of two twins, of which one is taken and the other left, the end is unequal, while the deserts are common, yet in these the one is in such wise delivered by God's great goodness, that the other is condemned by no injustice of God's. For is there unrighteousness with God? Away with the thought!"

"It is, therefore, in the power of the wicked to sin; but that in sinning they should do this or that by that wickedness is not in their power, but in God's, who divides the darkness and regulates it; so that hence even what they do contrary to God's will is not fulfilled except it be God's will."

"The wills of men are so much in the power of God, that he can turn them whithersoever it pleases him."

"God does whatsoever he wills in the hearts of even wicked men."

"Who can help trembling at those judgments of God by which He does in the hearts of even wicked men whatsoever He wills, at the same time rendering to them according to their deeds?"

"t ought to be remembered that God is the universal, principal, and most immediate cause of each individual thing and the prime agent of all actions. Therefore, though there are different kinds of work, it is one God who works all in all."

That's just a few.

Peace,

JM
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestinatio ... n.html#toc
 
Drew wrote:
But I shall, my preciousssssss, I shall.......
Click to expand...

Drew, I didn't expect to read this at the end of your post, and I admit I giggled...what does it mean? Is this some inside joke? Caught me off guard...lol :-D

\
 
JM,

The balance between predestination, free will, and the role of grace has been debated throughout history. There is of course Paul getting knocked off his horse so to speak and literally, by which he consented to God's plan for the rest of his life. God strongarmed him in in a sense. Yet God with others such as cornelius gently called him along. Free will was never violated in any instance in the Bible. In Catholicism we have the thomosts and molinists. One side is predesinationist and the other focuses on free will. The bottom line is it is a mystery in some sense how they both can be true and what the correct balance is but neither must be denied. I don't and I think most Catholic theologians don't agree with Augustines overly predestinationist view. It is not however considered heretical.
 
thessalonian said:
The bottom line is it is a mystery in some sense how they both can be true and what the correct balance is but neither must be denied.
Click to expand...
I don't think things are impenetratingly mysterious. I believe that there is a conceptualization of free will and a conceptualization of divine sovereignty that are true to the Scriptures as well as being accessible to the human mind. I have expressed my conceptualization of divine sovereignty on many occasions and will not repeat (unless asked). I think free will is difficult for us to grasp in a world dominated by a mechanistic model of nature. But I suspect the notion of free will is coherent in the specific sense that we make a model consistent with the known facts that still includes free will.

While I think that "mystery" has its place in our faith experience, incoherence does not. The line between the two is rather fine at times. Incoherence exists when 2 blatantly contradictory things are both claimed to be true. For example, some assert that all human actions have fully sufficient causes that reside outside of the human person. And yet these same people claim that humans have free will. Such a view is incoherent since it involves a direct and obvious contradiction.

But, at the end of the day, I agree that neither free will nor divine sovereignty can (nor need) be denied (as long as one conceives of these things properly).
 
My concept of free will is one of a will surrounded by grace that moves one toward God, who knows whether or not that individual will open up to the grace given, by grace. It's not coherent but it's a little chicken before the egg. God can and does overwhelm the will in some, by grace, yet his overwhelming is not contrary to free will. I think the same question of does God provide for our children or do we provide for our children exposes similar false dichotomies as those in the predestination/free will and grace debate. It seems there is an aversion to a man having a will that can be in opposition or in alignment with God. Something apart from God, inside the man, that is moved by God is bothersome to those who want all salvation to be from God. Well if our child is fed by our work it is God feeding him using his creation (our bodies) as well so I am not so bothered that there may be a will within man that has to accept God and is free to do so, motivated by his grace. That will was created by him in the first place as were the laws written on the hearts of man.
 
Thess,

Would it be safe to say Molinism is commonly held by Roman Catholic theologians?

Would it also be safe to say it’s formulation is largely a reaction to Reformation theology, aka Calvinism?

Molina, it seems, tried to reconcile the sovereignty of God with semi-pelagianiam as taught by John Cassian, but "Middle Knowledge is a non-entity. The reasons for this are many: First, both natural and free knowledge embrace the knowing of all things for God. There is nothing left to know after these. There is nothing in the nature of any thing whatsoever which is not possible or future. God’s knowledge cannot be said to move out of these bounds. He knows all things possible or future before the foundations of the world. Middle knowledge, then, is a non-entity. Second, no future conditional thing can be knowable before the divine decree. Thus, things not true cannot be foreknown as true. Third, all things are under the power of God’s providence, and thus, no thing can be independent of that providence. Fourth, the Bible does not ascribe to God any type of knowledge this is uncertain (the author is aware of the resurgence of “Open Theism†which is adequately dealt with by Bruce Ware in his book, “God’s Lesser Gloryâ€Â)." Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Peace,

jm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top