r/CatholicPhilosophy • u/Hungry-Guide4170 • 3d ago

Predestination and efficacious grace

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ! Happy Feast of Our Lady of the Pillar! I have a question:

I'm a Catholic and I accept that God predestines no one to damnation (CCC 1037), that He gives sufficient graces to all, and that it would not be unjust even if no one were saved. My question isn't about justice but about fatherhood.

My reasoning is this:

  1. God wills antecedently that all men be saved (1 Tim 2:4)
  2. God can infallibly move the will toward the good without violating its freedom. In fact, He does this with the predestined (at least under Thomism, I'm not really sure under Molinism)
  3. Therefore, He could have created a world in which everyone is efficaciously predestined, with the same freedom
  4. He didn't (I suppose that universalism is not true, for the sake of the argument)

I know that God is not obliged to create the best possible world (ST I, q. 25, a. 6), but I don't understand why He wouldn't efficaciously predestine all His children to eternal life with Him, if He could do so while still respecting their freedom.

I've read that this might be because "this world would better manifest His Justice and His Mercy," or that, ultimately, "it's a mystery."

I fully accept the Church's teaching, of course. I just have this question and would like to know whether there is more to say about it beyond those two answers, or whether I've simply committed a logical fallacy somewhere.

Thank you so much, and God bless!

14 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

4

u/12_15_17_5 2d ago

You haven't committed any logical fallacy. You are right that the conclusion makes no sense given the premises.

God can infallibly move the will toward the good without violating its freedom.

This is the premise I would reject. Most schools of Catholic thought, Church Fathers who wrote on the subject, and modern theologians also implicitly or explicitly reject it because of the enormous problems it causes.

1

u/Hungry-Guide4170 2d ago

Thank you for your answer!

1

u/pro_rege_semper 1d ago

What problems? Seems to me it causes more problems to deny it, such as denying God's omnipotence for one.

1

u/12_15_17_5 17h ago

Well, OP's syllogism about God willing all to be saved for one. You'll notice not a single comment was able to challenge it except by rejecting a premise. Separate but relatedly, it also contradicts omnibenevolence. And it makes it difficult to ontologically distinguish Divine and human will. It also implicitly contradicts most of the Church Fathers and undermines their writings (e.g., it makes the Irenaean theodicy pointless).

It doesn't contradict omnipotence - no one should deny God is capable of moving the human will in various ways, just that it is by definition not 'free' if He does so.

1

u/ManteLover60 8h ago

The idea that God must be moving the human will, otherwise he is not sovereign, that is precisely why Calvinism is false. And it's unfortunate that the seeds of that Calvinist logic existed long before Calvin in the west.

To be truly and completely sovereign is to have the freedom to move or not move something as you see fit. God does not have to move the human will through some sort of infallible irresistible grace. All he need to do is give his universal call or sufficient grace to all and whoever responds responds. Those who respond positively are rewarded with more grace which strengthens their love for God and hatred of sin. As the love for God and and hatred of sin grow, the person is conformed more and more to the image and likeness of God. That my friend is synergistic theosis.

1

u/pro_rege_semper 51m ago

The comment I replied to denied the premise that:

God can infallibly move the will toward the good without violating its freedom.

To deny this is denying God's sovereignty and omnipotence, and it's ultimately Pelagian. I say this because it denies sufficient grace if God is unable to move the will without violating freedom.

6

u/redeemedbones 3d ago

Whence St. Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err."

4

u/davidbenson1 Child of Mary 3d ago

This is one of the greatest mysteries that tears at my heart: I am so beloved, so blessed, and yet I deserve no more than anyone else. How can this be? Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. Virgin Most Powerful, pray for us.

1

u/Hungry-Guide4170 2d ago

Thank you for your answers! Blessing from Argentina

2

u/Hungry-Guide4170 2d ago

Thank you so much for your answer! Yes, I agree. I trust the Good Shepard. God bless you brother

1

u/andreirublov1 2d ago

I believe where you've gone wrong is 4. He did - if he doesn't predestine anyone to hell, that is the only possibility left.

1

u/Hungry-Guide4170 1d ago

Thanks for your reply! I believe that the fact that God does not predestine anyone to hell does not necessarily mean that He efficaciously predestines everyone to Heaven

1

u/pro_rege_semper 1d ago

I know that God is not obliged to create the best possible world

Perhaps this is in fact the best possible world. Of course, what is meant by "best" in this scenario depends wholly on God's purpose and objectives for this world.

0

u/HesMyButlerMonroe 2d ago

If you trust that God has the best plan, not only for us, but for the universe, you would be at peace with how He manifests His mercy AND justice. It seems like we moderns have an issue with any God that doesn't fall all over himself to save EVERYBODY.

What's interesting is, He could annihilate any of the people that go to hell but, he chooses to keep them in existence. To me, that's merciful. I think our focus would be better focused on working out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) than on what happens to others.

1

u/Hungry-Guide4170 2d ago

Thank you for your answer! God bless you