The Philosophy of Irresistible Grace

[mondar]

I have always enjoyed what John MacArther said about free will. He said "I have the free will to choose any path of sin I desire." I agree with that! I like that!

"Let it be done to me according to your word" is a fine example of free will as it exists in the saints.

Francis, that quote is from the Gospel of Luke? Mary was already regenerate when she said that. I am not referring to those already regenerate. It is the unregenerate that are enslaved to a sin nature.
Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
18 and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.

We become neutral and allow God to work within us. We allow Him to move our wills and desires. This neutrality is in line with the Council of Orange, St. Augustine, and Sacred Scriptures.

What it also says is that we don't just choose which way to sin. We also can allow God to work within us, placing within us the desire and thought of even having a good desire.

"Do your work within me, Lord" vs. "I will not serve". It is indeed free will.

Regards

We can also once again discuss the 2nd Council of Orange. That creed was not written to support free will but was written to counter Pelagius himself. Pelagius articulated the free will position, not Augustine. I do not see Orange is articulating a position of moral neutrality, but one that we are in bondage to sin. Orange is more in line with total depravity.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, I suspect this is the doctrine that I was speaking of, Pelagiaism. Unfortunately, in protestantism it is common. True Arminianism is much closer to Calvinism then the doctrine you suggest, that God does not change mans nature. Correct me if I am wrong, but is not your doctrine a denial of original sin? Are not you more in line with Pelagius then Arminius when you suggest that regeneration has nothing to do with a change in mans nature by the HS?

I'm not up on the different doctrines, but regeneration has everything to do with the Holy Spirit.
We are born again by the Spirit, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We're saved by grace and the faith of Jesus...I have no problem with it being God's work and not our own. But man must choose to look unto Jesus...he can resist the grace of God. It's like a baby turning his face from the spoonful of mush his mother has prepared and holds in front of his mouth.

Certainly no Calvinist would deny that the preaching of the Word of God and the Gospel is part of the path to faith. To suggest otherwise is to create a straw man. However, the preaching of the Word alone does not cause or define regeneration.

Faith does come by hearing...the Word is powerful, which was my point in quoting James 1:18.
It doesn't "define" regeneration, but it certainly does show it's power to lead to regeneratation.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The preaching of the Word, the Gospel, does not change the nature of man, if it did, then would not everyone we preach the gospel to be regenerate? Or should we be inconsistent on that point. Maybe you think regeneration is dependent on mans free will? The scripture says nothing of the sort.

No, because man can and does resist the power of the Gospel.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

The term of course is used in Titus 3:5... not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

Is this verse not a denial that regeneration is by our works, or something "which we did ourselves,"
How can regeneration be dependent on man in any way in this verse?

It's the power of the Gospel that opens the eyes of the blind. When man believes the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, faith is imparted to him. Believing is not an act of the will...so it's not a "work" in the sense you're talking about. Man's choice comes in when he chooses to act on that belief by repenting of his sins. Even the devil believes.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The "washing of Regeneration" is alluded to in John 3 and 4.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

However, even in John 3 the concept of being born again is under the sovereign control of the HS, and not by the will of man.
8 The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

John 1 speaks of being born of God, and it is not by the will of man, but the will of God.
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

So are you pelagian?

I'm a Christian...plain and simple.

Since it's God who looks at the heart...He alone judges whether there is true repentance. That's when the Holy Spirit works on the repentant heart, circumcising it and imparting life....regeneration takes place and we're born again.

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

 

[mutzrein]

I'm not up on the different doctrines, but regeneration has everything to do with the Holy Spirit.
We are born again by the Spirit, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We're saved by grace and the faith of Jesus...I have no problem with it being God's work and not our own. But man must choose to look unto Jesus...he can resist the grace of God. It's like a baby turning his face from the spoonful of mush his mother has prepared and holds in front of his mouth.

A baby cannot turn his face from mush without first being born.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm not up on the different doctrines, but regeneration has everything to do with the Holy Spirit.
We are born again by the Spirit, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We're saved by grace and the faith of Jesus...I have no problem with it being God's work and not our own. But man must choose to look unto Jesus...he can resist the grace of God. It's like a baby turning his face from the spoonful of mush his mother has prepared and holds in front of his mouth.

A baby cannot turn his face from mush without first being born.

The point is...man can and does resist the Gospel message.
Or, his heart can be convicted by the Gospel message.

 

[mutzrein]

I'm not up on the different doctrines, but regeneration has everything to do with the Holy Spirit.
We are born again by the Spirit, but faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We're saved by grace and the faith of Jesus...I have no problem with it being God's work and not our own. But man must choose to look unto Jesus...he can resist the grace of God. It's like a baby turning his face from the spoonful of mush his mother has prepared and holds in front of his mouth.

A baby cannot turn his face from mush without first being born.

The point is...man can and does resist the Gospel message.
Or, his heart can be convicted by the Gospel message.

For a child to reject mush it must first have life to make the decision. We are agreed on this. Yet what child can choose to have life or be born? It’s not possible because they have not yet received life. This is the physical.

And so it is in the Spiritual. It is not possible for a spiritually dead person to ‘choose’ to be born of God. It is only AFTER he has been born of the Spirit that he can believe. It is only AFTER he is a child of God that he can repent.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, that quote is from the Gospel of Luke? Mary was already regenerate when she said that. I am not referring to those already regenerate. It is the unregenerate that are enslaved to a sin nature.

I certainly am not suggesting that I or anyone else can even begin to come to the Lord without the grace of God to do so. I am quite aware of the Council of Orange. I am merely saying that this grace is made available to all and all have the option of saying "let it be done to me". I was not making a statement about Mary, just using her example of what we all have the power to say, due to the grace of God, even before we are regenerated. It is that "let it be done to me" that leads one to accept baptism and entrance into the Church.

We become neutral and allow God to work within us. We allow Him to move our wills and desires. This neutrality is in line with the Council of Orange, St. Augustine, and Sacred Scriptures.

What it also says is that we don't just choose which way to sin. We also can allow God to work within us, placing within us the desire and thought of even having a good desire.

"Do your work within me, Lord" vs. "I will not serve". It is indeed free will.

Regards

We can also once again discuss the 2nd Council of Orange. That creed was not written to support free will but was written to counter Pelagius himself.

It was also written to counter double predestination. Mondar, this is one of the paradoxes of Christian faith, and to take one extreme is to ignore the other side of the story that God has revealed. God doesn't entirely pick and choose, since God desires all men to be saved. Grace falls on all men, so there is a component that can be called "free will" that utilizes the grace of God to say "let it be done to me".

Pelagius articulated the free will position, not Augustine. I do not see Orange is articulating a position of moral neutrality, but one that we are in bondage to sin. Orange is more in line with total depravity.

Not quite true. Pelagius articulated a position that man can come to God without God's grace. This destroys the position of original sin. Orange re-affirms the doctrine and the idea that we utterly need God's grace, but does not say we cannot choose to come to God WITH that Grace, not does it mention that man has no free will. Utter depravity is not found in the Council's text. Trent reaffirms that, as well.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I can honestly say that so far, nothing you have said is anything new. I have heard it all before. I cannot accept any system of theology that implicitly rejects sola gratia. It seems an oxymoron to me that any synergistic system of theology can claim that the Grace of God is sufficient for their salvation.

Sola Gracia. yes, indeed, but that does not rule out man's free will, which ITSELF is a grace, Mondar. St. Augustine clearly notes that God does not save us without us. A more synergistic point of view also depends upon the grace of God to grant free will! To say this dismisses sola gracia is to ignore the Ancient Tradition that has always balanced the idea of God's sovereignty with man's free will, a paradox of the faith that must not ignore either. To ignore synergy in Scriptures is to be bound to a doctrine, rather than realizing that the Sacred Scriptures AFFIRMS the existence of synergy. The Ancient Tradition does not cast God's Sovereignty vs man's free will, for it is God who has GIVEN man the ability to accept or reject Love in the first place! In other words, it is not an "either/or", but a "both/and". God is sovereign and man has free will. A paradox that exists, just the same. To declare otherwise is to attempt to rationalize the faith.

This all stems from Christianity's view of God as a God of Love, the Trinity. By accepting the extreme that leads to double predestination, one has forgotten that God is a Triune Being of Love. By keeping focused on the BIG picture, that God is a Loving God, it is less likely that you will be misled on more secondary matters of the faith.

Regards

 

[Vince]

Brilliant philosophers have always found religion to be an interesting field, allowing them to develop complex systems for their group. In the early centuries of Christianity, it became apparent that Christianity was rising, and paganism was dying, and this attracted brilliant men.

These philosophers sought to blend Christianity and paganism into a new and better religion. Some, professing to be Christians, became known as "Church Fathers." Others took a different direction, improving paganism by "Christianizing" it. Monstrous gods became kindly and benevolent. Uncaring gods would now answer prayer. The gods of Greece and Rome forsook their wicked ways and became moral. And this helped extend the life of paganism.

And one of the greatest of these philosophers was a false prophet named Mani.

 

[Dude named Louis]

Brilliant philosophers have always found religion to be an interesting field, allowing them to develop complex systems for their group. In the early centuries of Christianity, it became apparent that Christianity was rising, and paganism was dying, and this attracted brilliant men.

These philosophers sought to blend Christianity and paganism into a new and better religion. Some, professing to be Christians, became known as "Church Fathers." Others took a different direction, improving paganism by "Christianizing" it. Monstrous gods became kindly and benevolent. Uncaring gods would now answer prayer. The gods of Greece and Rome forsook their wicked ways and became moral. And this helped extend the life of paganism.

And one of the greatest of these philosophers was a false prophet named Mani.

I really don't see where you are going with this Vince.

I guess I'll bow out of this thread for now. It is disheartening that we can't allow the love of Christ to override these doctrinal disputes. For me it is parlor room conversation and at the end of it I'm happy to say to my brother who disagrees "let's go get a sandwich". But it seems to get personal, everyone wants to be right. I believe God's grace is irresistible to those he has chosen but offered to all, yet that does not leave me off the hook — I must choose. How those truths coexist, I'm not sure. I'll lean to the side of saying that I chose because God first chose me. But I understand those who have the opposing viewpoint. But whatever, I just pray for civility in discussing these issues.

 

[mondar]

Sola Gracia. yes, indeed, but that does not rule out man's free will, which ITSELF is a grace, Mondar.

Francis, I dont think what you are saying is the same as what glorydaz is saying. There are actually 3 different positions being articulated here. I would articulate the 3 positions as
1- (francis)--the necessity of grace---universal but insufficient prevenient grace--resistable grace
2- (me)--The sufficiency of Grace---limited in scope but sufficient prevenient grace--irresistable
3-(glorydaz)-- a denial of grace--no prevenient grace except the preaching of the word--resistable.

The difference between you and me is not about necessity of Grace. I would agree that the RCC recognizes the necessity of grace. Even Trent speaks of the concept of prevenient Grace. While we agree on prevenient grace, we differ about the scope and nature of prevenient grace. I see prevenient grace as sufficient to bring one to faith, but limited in scope. You see prevenient grace as unlimited in scope, but limited in its sufficiency. glorydaz is denying prevenient grace but says that the person becomes regenerate only by the preaching of the word.

I see RCCC theology in this matter as being identical to protestant Arminianism. However, I do not see glorydaz as articulating an Arminian position, but one little or no prevenient grace at all. He is denying that there is any change in the nature of man at all before salvation. This denial of outright denial of grace is the position that I am articulating as possibly pelagian and outside 2nd Orange.

I guess the bottom line is, with all the differences in theology, there is going to be confusion. I just want to point that out.

 

[glorydaz]

Sola Gracia. yes, indeed, but that does not rule out man's free will, which ITSELF is a grace, Mondar.

Francis, I dont think what you are saying is the same as what glorydaz is saying. There are actually 3 different positions being articulated here. I would articulate the 3 positions as
1- (francis)--the necessity of grace---universal but insufficient prevenient grace--resistable grace
2- (me)--The sufficiency of Grace---limited in scope but sufficient prevenient grace--irresistable
3-(glorydaz)-- a denial of grace--no prevenient grace except the preaching of the word--resistable.

The difference between you and me is not about necessity of Grace. I would agree that the RCC recognizes the necessity of grace. Even Trent speaks of the concept of prevenient Grace. While we agree on prevenient grace, we differ about the scope and nature of prevenient grace. I see prevenient grace as sufficient to bring one to faith, but limited in scope. You see prevenient grace as unlimited in scope, but limited in its sufficiency. glorydaz is denying prevenient grace but says that the person becomes regenerate only by the preaching of the word.

I see RCCC theology in this matter as being identical to protestant Arminianism. However, I do not see glorydaz as articulating an Arminian position, but one little or no prevenient grace at all. He is denying that there is any change in the nature of man at all before salvation. This denial of outright denial of grace is the position that I am articulating as possibly pelagian and outside 2nd Orange.

I guess the bottom line is, with all the differences in theology, there is going to be confusion. I just want to point that out.

Actually, you can claim you know what I believe, but you obviously don't. I happen to agree with francisdesales on this one. He just articulated it better than I did. The power of the gospel is greater than you claim, but not everything...as I tried to explain.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, I dont think what you are saying is the same as what glorydaz is saying. There are actually 3 different positions being articulated here. I would articulate the 3 positions as
1- (francis)--the necessity of grace---universal but insufficient prevenient grace--resistable grace
2- (me)--The sufficiency of Grace---limited in scope but sufficient prevenient grace--irresistable
3-(glorydaz)-- a denial of grace--no prevenient grace except the preaching of the word--resistable.

To be honest, Mondar, I hadn't read and digested glorydaz' position on the subject, I was only stating that on this sort of subject, it is unlikely that any side will come to an ultimate rationale conclusion, since I believe our topic is a paradox. I have learned to try to be more open on hearing other's point of view, and on such subjects, we ought to, since there is no "definitive" position.

You have stated my position very succinctly - and I hope you notice that it states an absolute necessity of God's grace - Orange is quite clear on this, although at times, the pendulum has shifted away from this focus, admittedly. Part of my reply was directed at your remarks regarding synergy that refutes sola gracia. I do not believe that synergy refutes this concept (as it is clearly found in Scriptures)

The difference between you and me is not about necessity of Grace. I would agree that the RCC recognizes the necessity of grace. Even Trent speaks of the concept of prevenient Grace. While we agree on prevenient grace, we differ about the scope and nature of prevenient grace. I see prevenient grace as sufficient to bring one to faith, but limited in scope. You see prevenient grace as unlimited in scope, but limited in its sufficiency.

Limted in its EFFICIENCY, my brother. God desires all to be saved and so all grace is sufficient. It is not "EFFICIENT" when men reject God freely. God allows this, knowing who the elect will be.

I see RCCC theology in this matter as being identical to protestant Arminianism.

My friend, that is an oversimplification of the the reality. While Arminianism has many points of contact, it is NOT identical. I think, if you desire to continue, you would find Catholics in between you and the Arminians, agreeing with one, than the other, depending upon the subject.

However, I do not see glorydaz as articulating an Arminian position, but one little or no prevenient grace at all. He is denying that there is any change in the nature of man at all before salvation. This denial of outright denial of grace is the position that I am articulating as possibly pelagian and outside 2nd Orange.

If you are accurately stating his position, I would agree with you, man does change upon regeneration, because of the Holy Spirit's particular presence that draws the man to Christ in greater steps as he becomes more sanctified. Certainly, man changes.

Regards

 

[Vince]

Mani was born in the third century into a family that believed that a gigantic angel had added new revelations to improve the Christianity of the Bible. Deciding that the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, and others had been corrupted, Mani strove to blend Christianity with other religions to form a new and better religion.

Mani taught that God used unconditional election to move the elect from the world of darkness into the world of light. During his lifetime, Manichaeism spread from the edges of the Roman Empire to the edges of China, and after his death , it entered both. At its height, Manichaeism was one of the world's great religions, and it remains a pillar of Reformed Theology today.

Absorbing and blending with false religions as it spread, Manichaeism relied on various philosophers to blend it with local religions to build an improved religion. And the greatest of these philosophers was Augustine of Hippo.

 

[mondar]

Mani was born in the third century into a family that believed that a gigantic angel had added new revelations to improve the Christianity of the Bible. Deciding that the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, and others had been corrupted, Mani strove to blend Christianity with other religions to form a new and better religion.

Mani taught that God used unconditional election to move the elect from the world of darkness into the world of light. During his lifetime, Manichaeism spread from the edges of the Roman Empire to the edges of China, and after his death , it entered both. At its height, Manichaeism was one of the world's great religions, and it remains a pillar of Reformed Theology today.

Absorbing and blending with false religions as it spread, Manichaeism relied on various philosophers to blend it with local religions to build an improved religion. And the greatest of these philosophers was Augustine of Hippo.

LOL, this sounds like a Dan Brown fiction novel.

 

[Drew]

I suggest that it is profitable to challenge our fundamental assumptions about what the concept of “grace†really meant to Paul. And in particular, I wish to suggest that the very concept, at least as used by Paul, might carry a number of unstated, yet very important, antecedent qualifying assumptions. I am here making a plausibility argument – a suggestion as to what might be true. To actually make a case is definitely too time-consuming a task.

Let’s remember: what matters is what the word “grace†meant to Paul, not to us. And I suggest that it is entirely possible that Paul uses the term “grace†in a sense that accommodates human freedom. In short, it is possible that Paul’s “grace†has human free will bundled into it. Paul may well have been so convinced of the element of human freedom, he may have taken it for granted that his readers would understand “grace†as acknowledging that. For Paul, then, a statement that “salvation is by grace alone†is equivalent to saying “The freedom of choice that is entailed by creaturehood in God’s image is a non-negotiable a priori: Given this, I (Paul) assert that the achievement of human salvation is otherwise entirelythe work of Godâ€.

 

[Vince]

"LOL, this sounds like a Dan Brown fiction novel."

(sigh) No Dan Brown fiction novel has done that much harm.

 

[francisdesales]

I suggest that it is profitable to challenge our fundamental assumptions about what the concept of “grace†really meant to Paul. And in particular, I wish to suggest that the very concept, at least as used by Paul, might carry a number of unstated, yet very important, antecedent qualifying assumptions. I am here making a plausibility argument – a suggestion as to what might be true. To actually make a case is definitely too time-consuming a task.

Let’s remember: what matters is what the word “grace†meant to Paul, not to us. And I suggest that it is entirely possible that Paul uses the term “grace†in a sense that accommodates human freedom. In short, it is possible that Paul’s “grace†has human free will bundled into it. Paul may well have been so convinced of the element of human freedom, he may have taken it for granted that his readers would understand “grace†as acknowledging that. For Paul, then, a statement that “salvation is by grace alone†is equivalent to saying “The freedom of choice that is entailed by creaturehood in God’s image is a non-negotiable a priori: Given this, I (Paul) assert that the achievement of human salvation is otherwise entirely the work of Godâ€.

Well, this is a good way to look at it...

Regards

 

[mondar]

....For Paul, then, a statement that “salvation is by grace alone†is equivalent to saying “The freedom of choice that is entailed by creaturehood in God’s image is a non-negotiable a priori: Given this, I (Paul) assert that the achievement of human salvation is otherwise entirely the work of Godâ€.

If a libertarian free choice is a part of the image of God that is a non-negotiable, a-priori, God given part of humanity, then one of two things is true about heaven. Either...
1---We have free choice in heaven and can reject or accept him in heaven.
2---We are no longer human in the resurrection, or in heaven.

Which is it?

 

[Vince]

One of the most brilliant thinkers in history, St. Augustine had excelled as a Manichaeist philosopher. Now, choosing his own direction, he turned to Christianity, seeking to blend it with his choice of the best of pagan beliefs.

Attracted to the Biblical doctrine of salvation through faith, Augustine blended it with the Manichaeist doctrine of unconditional election. From both the Bible and history, we find no record of any Christian believing in unconditional election before Augustine's new religion. And even then, Mani's doctrine was never widely accepted.

Accepting the Biblical doctrine that man is dead in trespasses and sin, Augustine taught that a dead man could not respond to God. This contradicted Scripture, which gives at least three examples of Jesus speaking to a dead person, who both heard and obeyed Him. Discarding the Biblical doctrine that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, Augustine taught that grace was only given to the elect. And here he made a fatal philosophical error.

St. Augustine would become a hero to later philosophers, who eagerly accepted his blending of other pagan philosophies with Christianity, but Mani's doctrine of unconditional election would languish for another 1100 years before another philosopher would popularize it.

 

[Drew]

....For Paul, then, a statement that “salvation is by grace alone†is equivalent to saying “The freedom of choice that is entailed by creaturehood in God’s image is a non-negotiable a priori: Given this, I (Paul) assert that the achievement of human salvation is otherwise entirely the work of Godâ€.

If a libertarian free choice is a part of the image of God that is a non-negotiable, a-priori, God given part of humanity, then one of two things is true about heaven. Either...
1---We have free choice in heaven and can reject or accept him in heaven.
2---We are no longer human in the resurrection, or in heaven.

Which is it?

I do not think this is a problem for the position I hold. There is something I need to clarify - I agree with you, at least in some sense, that our "freedom" is indeed constained by our nature. I know that you have made this point several times in the past to posters who at least seem to believe that our "freedom" is entirely unconstrained. I agree with you that it is constrained.

Where we seem to differ is that I see "fallen man" as still retaining enough freedom to choose a remedy to his sin nature - he is like the alchohic who cannot resist the bottle but is also "free" to understand that if he takes a certain pill, he can be cured. If I recall, you think fallen man is totally incapable of freely making choices that can play a role in his ultimate rescue. Fair enough, we can discuss that if you like.

With that as background, I can engage your question. I believe the Scriptures make it clear that God “pre-destines conformance to the image of the Sonâ€. And, although this is more controversial, I believe that I can assert at least the plausibility of the position that this “contingent pre-destination†– God is telling us (via Paul) that those who “freely†accept the remedy of grace will indeed be molded to the image of the Son. Now I will say that, probably in agreement with francesdesales, that I think a person can indeed “leave the program†– choose to walk away from God. And that person will be lost. I think this is a legitimate position for the very same reasons that I gave in relation to concepts “bundled†into “graceâ€. In short, I believe that Paul takes human freedom as a non-negotiable a priori. So when he writes that people have been pre-destined to be conformed to the Son, in the back of his mind he still believes that people can disentangle themselves from that God-generated process of transformation.

In any event, someone who “stay with the program†will be transformed through the work of the Spirit. For this reason, “heaven†will be filled with people who have become, in their very natures, those who would not choose to reject God. As you say, we choose in accordance with our natures. So I am inclined to say that saved saints in heaven are still free, but their nature is such that they almost certainly will not choose to reject God. But I actually see nothing in the scriptures that requires us to see “heaven†or what comes after – resurrection life here on earth – as without “problemsâ€. There is scriptural evidence that “heaven†is still a “projectâ€. So I actually do not a problem with granting the unlikely possibility that someone in “heaven†might “turn awayâ€.

But let’s be clear, this is only a tangent to my answer. If I become convinced that there are Biblical reasons to say that a person cannot turn their back on God in “heavenâ€, I can still legitimately claim that people in heaven are still âœfree†but they have been perfected, so the choice to reject God is basically impossible for them.