The Problem of Evil and Divine Monergism

For those deep thinkers out there.
User avatar
dasmokeryaget
Has short thumbs
Has short thumbs
Posts: 12261
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Gentry Arkinsaw
Contact:

Post by dasmokeryaget » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:48 pm

The answer to the question is completely out of the realm of human understanding. If it were not, it would have been answered conclusively after several 1000 years.

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27306
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:54 pm

Bigwill wrote:... So far, all I've been offered by two Monergists seems to be 'don't worry about it'.
This is mostly true. My point was that God has not given us a comprehensive answer to the problem of evil. We can use our time beneficially by drawing boundaries around the problem (such as, "We affirm God is good, man is sinful, etc."), but any attempt to give a full and complete answer will involve undue speculation.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
Thoth
Never had a corndog taco shake
Never had a corndog taco shake
Posts: 12119
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: Jersey City, World's Greatest City
Contact:

Post by Thoth » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:29 pm

First can we define evil?
"Go and reconcile with him who has trespassed against you before he comes and apologises to you and steals your crown" - H.H. Pope Cyril VI<br><br>"O Lord I was not aware of the treasure within me that is You" - H.H. Pope Shenouda III

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35995
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Post by Del » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:36 pm

Thoth wrote:First can we define evil?
:lol:

Evil is that which is contrary to God's will.

It's marks are harm and hurt and death, often for the benefit of the strong and inflicted upon the weak.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27306
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:51 pm

Del wrote:
Thoth wrote:First can we define evil?
:lol:

Evil is that which is contrary to God's will.

It's marks are harm and hurt and death, often for the benefit of the strong and inflicted upon the weak.
Moral evil is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.

"Evil" may also be used in relation to unwanted effects brought about by impersonal causes, such as in the statement: "That tornado was evil." We are not saying the tornado is a sinner, but rather that it brought about undesirable destruction. This kind of evil we might call "natural evil."

The Problem of Evil primarily concerns the former, though the latter is still a part of the question.

(EDIT: In Western theology, the question of substance has been an issue. Is evil a "something" that God created? Augustine and Thomas said that it is the "privation of the good," and not a substantial thing that God made. To say otherwise would be to imply a metaphysical dualism.)
Last edited by coco on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18242
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:03 pm

+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27306
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:19 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?

EDIT:
- God is sovereign over every action of man, including the morally evil ones
- Men are responsible for their every action

The monergist would freely admit that there is a degree of mystery here.
Last edited by coco on Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18242
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:19 pm

+JMJ+
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get some time in on Zelda: Skyward Sword.

:P




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27306
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:35 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get some time in on Zelda: Skyward Sword.

:P
:D
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:46 pm

coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addiction removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Last edited by Bigwill on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
Irish-Dane
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
I'm a pro at tobacco canning
Posts: 32863
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:00 pm
Location: The beautiful mountains of Western North Carolina
Contact:

Post by Irish-Dane » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:50 pm

Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addition removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Interesting.

Please don't let me sidetrack the conversation... just stopped by to say I'm enjoying this back-n-forth. Really.
It's not available because if you try it you will die. Your face will melt off and your children will weep over your exploded body. --Colton

User avatar
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:54 pm

Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addition removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Interesting.

Please don't let me sidetrack the conversation... just stopped by to say I'm enjoying this back-n-forth. Really.
Hi I-D. 'Sup?

/TwoCubed
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27306
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:07 pm

Bigwill wrote:
Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addition removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Interesting.

Please don't let me sidetrack the conversation... just stopped by to say I'm enjoying this back-n-forth. Really.
Hi I-D. 'Sup?

/TwoCubed
In Will's example, the lack of freedom is self-imposed by men. Will and I agree that addictions to sin are a form of bondage. However, I'm asking about whether or not God has any part in influencing men's freedom with respect to their actions (and how).
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
Bigwill
Near! Far!
Near! Far!
Posts: 10000
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Woodstock, IL
Contact:

Post by Bigwill » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:12 pm

coco wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addition removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Interesting.

Please don't let me sidetrack the conversation... just stopped by to say I'm enjoying this back-n-forth. Really.
Hi I-D. 'Sup?

/TwoCubed
In Will's example, the lack of freedom is self-imposed by men. Will and I agree that addictions to sin are a form of bondage. However, I'm asking about whether or not God has any part in influencing men's freedom with respect to their actions (and how).
That wasn't apparent in the way you phrased your question. At least not in my reading.

Short answer: of course he does.

How? By grace, the very life of God. Grace gives us the ability to choose the good. Grace aids us in our calling to be holy as our Heavenly Father is holy.

(Now, ask me how he dispenses grace! ;))

/JayCutler6
And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good? Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27306
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:21 pm

Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addition removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Interesting.

Please don't let me sidetrack the conversation... just stopped by to say I'm enjoying this back-n-forth. Really.
Hi I-D. 'Sup?

/TwoCubed
In Will's example, the lack of freedom is self-imposed by men. Will and I agree that addictions to sin are a form of bondage. However, I'm asking about whether or not God has any part in influencing men's freedom with respect to their actions (and how).
That wasn't apparent in the way you phrased your question. At least not in my reading.

Short answer: of course he does.

How? By grace, the very life of God. Grace gives us the ability to choose the good. Grace aids us in our calling to be holy as our Heavenly Father is holy.

(Now, ask me how he dispenses grace! ;))

/JayCutler6
Totally justified. I asked poorly.

Lemme start over. Is freedom of the will to be defined: An action is free, if when that action is performed, the agent could have done otherwise. (Note: This definition is to apply to both good and bad options that may be present in the choice.)
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
hogleg
Chief Strong Wind (Pops to TLO)
Chief Strong Wind (Pops to TLO)
Posts: 10836
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: ~3.99 feet east of 4 feet west of here.
Contact:

Post by hogleg » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:54 pm

coco wrote:In Will's example, the lack of freedom is self-imposed by men. Will and I agree that addictions to sin are a form of bondage. However, I'm asking about whether or not God has any part in influencing men's freedom with respect to their actions (and how).
GOD's influence is in allowinf man to be man, whether unreginerate or of renewed mind and spirit.
Aye. Happiness has been achieved. I can now love you all because I'll never know what you actually think. --- Hugodrax, 16 July 2016

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18242
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:15 am

+JMJ+
coco wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
Irish-Dane wrote:
Bigwill wrote:
coco wrote:
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+
coco wrote:
coco wrote:The OP seems to assume that synergists have a good and complete answer for the Problem of Evil and that the monergists do not. Let's hear it.
EDITS: Please use the Bible in your response. Or at least some sort of ecclesiastical authority with a cool, pointy hat.

Please include an explanation of God's sovereignty, or the lack thereof, in your response.
It is readily admissible that Synergists do not have a logically airtight, philosophico-theological solution to the Problem of Evil. A paradox is certainly involved, as is apt and right.

And I readily admit that the Monergist solution is logically airtight regarding the salvific process.

The paradox of "Man has free-will" with "God is Sovereign" is the juxtaposition of two positive and affirming doctrines that glorify God and dignify Man. This demonstrates the sublimity of a paradox.

But the juxtaposition of "Man has no Free Will" with "God is Sovereign" is not a paradox. These are just two alternate wordings that both express one and the same doctrine. There is no paradox here (unlike the juxtaposition of "Man has Free Will" and "God is Sovereign".) To say that In the Calvinistic system, to say that "Man has No-Free Will" logically implies that "God is Sovereign", just as the reverse is true.

This shows that, as regards the operations of the salvific economy, Calvinism is logically airtight.

And so, Calvinism simply transfers the paradox to a different ground of debate and proposes a new, irreducible dogmatic paradox:

1) a paradox that juxtaposes "God absolutely determines the destiny of persons" with "God is not the author of Evil".

2) Or, with the above said differently, it juxtaposes "Man has no Free Will" with "Man is not without responsibility".

What is interesting in the above two paradoxical juxtapositions is that, in either case, both propositions must be juxtaposed on the same side of the Human/Divine divide. Gone is the mysterial and ineffable connection that spans the Human World and the Divine World. Regardless of how it is stated, the paradox resolves manifests itself on the same "plane". IOW, it must be a juxtaposition between "God is 'X', but God is not 'Y'". Or "Man is 'X' but Man is not 'Y'". Is this paradox? Or is it straight-up contradiction?

Ultimately though, the reason that Monergism is not acceptable in RCC theology is, not so much that it can be "disproven", but because it violates the irreducible standard of Church Dogma. We believe that "Man has Free Will" simply because the Church teaches it; simply because She claims to hold this truth from God. This standard is not logically "provable", but it is irreducible. We either believe it or not.

For the Catholic, the problem with Calvinism lies in with the deformation of Man (and which implies concomitant implications for God). For the Catholic, "Man has Free Will" is a non-negotiable dogma that exists right alongside the dogma that "God is Sovereign". In Catholicism, any theology which attempts to give an answer (no matter how ultimately "unsolvable" it may be as regards airtight logic) must take both of these dogmas into account. This holds true regardless of the frustration that the theologian may encounter when he realizes that he can never make these two terms balance out on the human level. This is a leap of Faith that Calvin was not able to make.

So sure, if Calvin wanted to create a new Church, one in which "Man has no Free Will" is an irreducible dogma, he was free to do that. But then, he has simply replaced the Magesterium with Calvin, a position which the Synergists have repeatedly stated.
From the RC perspective, in what way is man's will "free"? In a decision, is he always completely free to do the one thing, as well as the other?
I sent this via PM, but, honestly, it's important enough that it justifies one of the FINAL 10.


To answer for our Skyward Sword-playing friend, No. He's not always free to do one thing as well as the other.

That's where accountability comes in.

As a specific example, addition removes (an element of) freedom. The first times someone looks at pornography, he was free to look or not to look. Accordingly, he is morally culpable for that choice (if he knew it was wrong--and he almost certainly did).

But, after looking and looking and looking and looking, he may get to the pint where he is physically addicted to pornography. As such, he is (in a sense, at least) no longer free not to look.

That is why sin is bondage. It REMOVES our freedom. The more we sin, the more we have no freedom NOT TO sin.

/ThreeSquared
Interesting.

Please don't let me sidetrack the conversation... just stopped by to say I'm enjoying this back-n-forth. Really.
Hi I-D. 'Sup?

/TwoCubed
In Will's example, the lack of freedom is self-imposed by men. Will and I agree that addictions to sin are a form of bondage. However, I'm asking about whether or not God has any part in influencing men's freedom with respect to their actions (and how).
That wasn't apparent in the way you phrased your question. At least not in my reading.

Short answer: of course he does.

How? By grace, the very life of God. Grace gives us the ability to choose the good. Grace aids us in our calling to be holy as our Heavenly Father is holy.

(Now, ask me how he dispenses grace! ;))

/JayCutler6
Totally justified. I asked poorly.

Lemme start over. Is freedom of the will to be defined: An action is free, if when that action is performed, the agent could have done otherwise. (Note: This definition is to apply to both good and bad options that may be present in the choice.)
I wonder if this loose end will bring Biggie back.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
colton
Spiffy Enough
Spiffy Enough
Posts: 8154
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:00 pm
Contact:

Post by colton » Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:25 pm

wosbald wrote:+JMJ+

I wonder if this loose end will bring Biggie back.
I heard that if you say his name three times into a mirror, he'll appear.

Image

Image

User avatar
GiantNinja
Dragon Warrior
Dragon Warrior
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:00 pm
Location: Behind you. Really.
Contact:

Re: The Problem of Evil and Divine Monergism

Post by GiantNinja » Tue May 09, 2017 9:45 pm

I liked this thread.
And what is good, Phaedrus? And what is not good?
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

TNLawPiper
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
BrotherOfTheBriar YouHeartlessBastards
Posts: 16961
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:00 pm

Re:

Post by TNLawPiper » Tue May 09, 2017 9:54 pm

colton wrote:
Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:25 pm
wosbald wrote:+JMJ+

I wonder if this loose end will bring Biggie back.
I heard that if you say his name three times into a mirror, he'll appear.

Image

Image
colton colton colton

Post Reply