Jimmy Akin

One of the biggest schools of thought in the Protestant world is known as Arminianism, and today we’re going to find out if an Arminian would need to change his views in order to become a Catholic.

Over thirty years ago, I wrote a piece called A Tiptoe Through Tulip, in which I explored how close a Catholic could be to Calvinism without violating Catholic teaching. I concluded—based on the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas—that he could be very close indeed!

This piece led some to think that I, myself, am a Thomist, though I am not. I’m not a member of any particular theological school within Catholicism. I’m just an orthodox Catholic.

For a long time, I meant to write a balance piece on how far away from Calvinism one could be without violating Catholic teaching, but I haven’t done that yet.

I decided, though, to go ahead and write a piece about the main rival to Calvinism in Protestant circles, which is known as Arminianism, and discuss it from a Catholic perspective. So that’s what we’re considering today.

 

Jacob Arminius

First, a bit of history to set the stage. Jacob Arminius was a theologian in Holland in the late 1500s. He had been taught by Calvin’s successor—Theodore Beza—but he came to question some of Calvin’s teachings. This led to a controversy, but before it could be settled, Arminius passed on to his reward in 1609 at the age of 49.

However, the next year—1610—Arminius’s followers put forward 5 claims based on his writings. His followers were called the Remonstrants.

To remonstrate means to lodge an objection, and Arminius’s followers were lodging objections to Calvinism, so they were call the Remonstrants.

The claims they made were known as the Five Articles of Remonstrance. In 1618 and 1619, a Dutch national synod was held known as the Synod of Dort, and the synod condemned the five articles.

But that did not put an end to the matter, and the Five Articles became the central tenets of Arminianism, which has become very influential in the Protestant world and is found among Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Holiness, and Pentecostal churches. In fact, Arminianism is the main rival to Calvinism.

Today we’re going to be looking at the Five Articles and considering whether a Catholic could agree with them.

 

1. Conditional Election

Here’s the first article. Arminians hold:

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, has determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes in the Son has everlasting life, and he that does not believe in the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God remains on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

What the Remonstrants are objecting to here is what is commonly known in Calvinism as Unconditional Election.

Unconditional Election is the idea that God has elected or chosen certain people to be saved on the last day, and he did this without them meeting any kind of condition. That’s why the election is said to be unconditional. God just picks certain people—for no reason connected with them—and decides that they will go to heaven.

The Remonstrants objected to this idea, and so in this article they say that God elected or chose “those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus.” In other words, God chooses those who believe in Jesus to be saved, and the ones he does not choose to be saved are those who don’t believe.

So election is not unconditional on the Arminian view. There is a condition that needs to be met to be chosen by God—it’s whether you will believe in Jesus or not. And here we’re not talking about babies or the mentally handicapped or people who’ve never had a convincing presentation of the gospel. Those are separate issues. We’re talking about the normative, mainstream way of getting to heaven.

Because it’s not unconditional, the Arminian position is thus called Conditional Election.

So what would a Catholic make of it? Well—as we saw in my TULIP article—he would not have to agree with this, as there are Catholic figures like St. Thomas Aquinas who held to Unconditional Election. But he also would not have to disagree with this, because Catholic thought on this subject is mixed.

In Catholic circles, there are two schools of thought about when God predestines someone to go to heaven. One school says that God predestines them ante praevisa merita, which is Latin for “before foreseen merits,” and the other says God predestines people to heaven post praevisa merita, or “after foreseen merits.”

And—because the term merit has become theologically loaded since the Reformation—I should point out that it doesn’t mean that you “earn” heaven. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out:

With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator (CCC 2007).

So don’t think of “merits” as earning heaven, though they do refer to good things that we do by God’s grace, such as believing in Jesus.

According to the first Catholic school of thought, God predestines certain people to go to heaven before he looks at their lives and sees if they do things like believe in Jesus and cooperate with God’s grace. This is equivalent to Unconditional Election, and this view is held by St. Augustine, by St. Thomas Aquinas, by the Thomists, and by some of the older Molinists.

The second school says that it’s the other way around. First God looks at a person’s life and sees if he does things like believe in Jesus and cooperate with grace and—if he does—then God predestines him to go to heaven. This view is held by most of the Church fathers—both Latin and Greek—by St. Albert the Great, by most Molinists, and by St. Francis de Sales.

This second position is equivalent to the Arminian view of Conditional Election, and since it’s a permitted Catholic opinion, an Arminian would not need to change his view upon becoming a Catholic.

In fact, in recent times the Church’s Magisterium has begun to use language that is suggestive of this view. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination,” he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace (CCC 600).

In fairness, I should point out that here the Catechism is discussing the predestination of Christ’s death on the Cross. However, if this is a general principle that God uses when predestining other things, it would mean that—from his viewpoint outside of time—he takes into account “each person’s free response to his grace,” meaning that he predestines them conditionally rather than unconditionally.

 

2. Unlimited Atonement

Now we turn to the Second Article of Remonstrance. Arminians hold:

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Here the Remonstrants are responding to what is known in Calvinism as Limited Atonement, which is the idea that Jesus only died for those who will be going to heaven. His death did not atone for all human beings, but only for the elect.

Arminians reject that idea and take verses like 1 John 2:2 literally—that Christ died “for the sins of the whole world.” Their view is thus called Unlimited Atonement since it isn’t made for a limited group of people. Christ’s death atoned for everyone, and those who believe in Jesus get the benefits of that atonement.

What would a Catholic make of this? Frankly, he’d agree! As we saw in my TULIP article, this is one of the places where a Calvinist who becomes Catholic needs to modify his view to an extent, because the Catholic Church is very firm on the fact that Jesus died for everybody.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons and constitutes himself as the head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all (CCC 616, emphasis in original).

An Arminian thus would not need to change his view on this point, either.

 

3. Total Inability

We now turn to the Third Article of Remonstrance. Arminians hold:

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Here the Remonstrants are essentially affirming what is known in Calvinist circles as Total Depravity. However, that term has led to a lot of confusion, because it has led many people to think that Calvinists hold that humans are as wicked as they could possibly be—that they are totally depraved and can never do anything but constant evil.

But that’s clearly false. Your sweet little grandma is not Hitler or the Antichrist, and Calvinists know this. Consequently—despite the TULIP acronym—some have preferred other ways of expressing this point. For example, Calvinist Loraine Boettner referred to this point as “Total Inability,” meaning a total inability to turn to God without divine grace.

The Remonstrants essentially agree with that position, and so does the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent thus infallibly rejected the following proposition:

That without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without his assistance man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him (Trent, Decree on Justification, can. 3).

So, yes, we all agree that we need God’s grace in order to be able to come to God. Because of original sin, we can’t do it on our own. God must take the initiative to give us his grace and enable us to come to him. An Arminian thus would not need to change his view on this point.

 

4. Resistible Grace

We now turn to the Fourth Article of Remonstrance. Arminians hold:

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But respecting the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost [in] Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.

Here the Remonstrants are objecting to what in Calvinism is known as Irresistible Grace. According to Calvinists, God gives those he chooses an “efficacious grace” that infallibly assures that those who receive it will come to faith in Christ. They cannot resist it and refuse to come to faith, and so it is called Irresistible Grace.

Arminians disagree, and they commonly refer to the grace that God gives people as “prevenient grace”—as they do here. Prevenient means “coming before,” so this grace is given to you before you come to faith in Christ. However, they hold that this grace is not irresistible; people can refuse to act on the grace they are given and refuse to turn to God. This position is thus sometimes called Resistible Grace.

What would a Catholic make of this? First, Catholics have no problem with the concept of prevenient grace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Every time we begin to pray to Jesus it is the Holy Spirit who draws us on the way of prayer by his prevenient grace (CCC 2670).

You’ll note that this refers to prevenient grace being given to us every time we pray to Jesus, and it is generally understood that the same is true of every good action we perform—which is one of the things the Fourth Article of Remonstrance is concerned with. The Council of Trent stated:

Christ Jesus himself as the “head into the members” [Eph. 4:15] and “as the vine into the branches” [John 15:5] continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, a virtue which always precedes their good works, and which accompanies and follows them (Trent, Decree on Justification 16).

Second, the Catholic Church does not have a problem with the idea that prevenient grace can be resisted. The Catechism states:

God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love (CCC 2002, emphasis in original).

Third—although this goes beyond what the Remonstrants explicitly said in the Fourth Article—they held that God offers prevenient grace to everyone, making it possible for everyone to be saved if they would believe in Jesus. The Catholic Church agrees. The Second Vatican Council stated:

Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes 22).

“Being associated with this paschal mystery” means being saved through Jesus.

In view of the above considerations, an Arminian would not need to change his views regarding prevenient grace.

 

5. Conditional Perseverance

We now turn to the Fifth Article of Remonstrance. The Remonstrants stated:

Article 5

That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

Here the Remonstrants are questioning what in Calvinism is known as Perseverance of the Saints, which is the belief that God will keep the elect from performing those actions that would cost them their salvation, so that all of them—without fail—will persevere in grace until the end of life and thus be saved on the last day.

In other words, if you are ever saved, God will stop you from committing mortal sin so that you would lose salvation.

At the time they drafted the Five Articles in 1610, the Remonstrants were questioning Perseverance of the Saints and suspected that people could lose their salvation, but they were not yet fully convinced that this was true. This is why they say that it “must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture”—in other words, they needed to study the issue more.

By the time the Synod of Dort met in 1618 and 1619, they had become convinced that Perseverance of the Saints is false and that people can lose their salvation. This has been the standard belief among Arminian Christians ever since.

So, what would a Catholic make of this rejection of Perseverance of the Saints? He’d agree with it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back (CCC 1861).

The Catholic Church thus agrees with Arminians that it is possible for a person to lose salvation.

Fortunately, it also is possible to regain it, which ordinarily happens through the sacrament of confession. In any event, Catholics and Arminians are in agreement on the possibility of losing salvation, and so an Arminian would not need to change his view on this point.

In my TULIP article, we saw that it was possible for someone coming from a Calvinist background to embrace the Catholic faith with some modifications to his view, but here we have seen that an Arminian would be able to become Catholic without modifying his views on the points that we’ve covered.

* * *

If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing

If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video

You can also support the podcast by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

Thank you, and I’ll see you next time

God bless you always!

The question of why God would create someone he knows is going to go to hell is a common one, and many have tried to answer it online.

Most of the answers are unsatisfying. Frankly, they tend to do one of two things:

Sometimes the speaker will say a lot of stuff that doesn’t really address the issue and instead just talk “around” the subject instead of tackling it head-on.

Other time, the speaker will just say it’s a mystery.

Many of the answers you’ll find spend a lot of words on these two things (frankly, a painfully large number of words), but the first is irrelevant and the second is not very informative.

It’s true that, since God’s mind is infinite and ours are finite, we often can’t give definitive answers about his decisions, so an element of mystery remains.

However, we can often give partial answers—or at least make informed proposals. In other words, we often can do better than saying, “We just don’t know; it’s a mystery.”

And I think we can do better in this case.

 

Keeping the Issue Focused

To avoid going off on tangents, let’s make the issue as focused as possible. Suppose there is a person—we’ll call him Bob—and the following is true:

• • In his eternal perspective outside of time, God knows that—if he creates Bob—then Bob will freely choose to go to hell.

We’ll also assume that:

• • In his eternal perspective outside of time, God could freely choose not to create Bob (i.e., God has free will)
  • God is just
  • God is loving and thus does not want anyone to go to hell

Given these things: Why would God create Bob? Let’s look at some possibilities . . .

 

Possibility #1: There Is a Competing Good

Even if people don’t want something, they may tolerate it for the sake of a competing good.

I may not want the pain of having to get an injection, but I may tolerate it in order to avoid getting a disease.

In the same way, God may not want Bob to go to hell, but he may tolerate it for the sake of some other good or set of goods.

What might these be?

 

a) Free Will (and Love)

An answer that some propose is free will. In other words, God tolerates the decisions of some to go to hell because he wants to preserve their free will—which he does for the sake of genuine love.

Love is God’s most important priority (Matt. 22:37-40), and he wants people to be able to freely choose love. Programmed, robotic “love” would lack something—it wouldn’t be the kind of love God wants. This means he must tolerate the possibility that people will misuse their freedom and reject love.

All that’s true, but it doesn’t really address our issue.

If our starting assumption is true—that God knows what Bob will freely choose if he creates him—then God could simply decide not to create him.

In that case, he could stop Bob from going to hell without seeming to violate his free will. Bob would simply never have existed.

The free will defense thus doesn’t seem to work if our starting assumption is true, so what other possibilities are there for a competing good that would lead God to tolerate Bob going to hell?

 

b) God’s Glory

Perhaps the most commonly proposed answer is God’s own glory. The idea here is that it brings glory to God to have illustrations of his character that actually exist.

Bob’s going to hell provides a concrete example of God’s justice in that God did give Bob the offer of salvation—and Bob freely rejected it. He’s thus an object lesson that illustrates certain aspects of God’s character and brings glory to God.

Many will find this answer unsatisfying. If a human being were willing to let someone go to hell simply for the sake of his own glory, we would say that human was a raging egomaniac.

Of course, God is not a human being. We have only finite value, but God has infinite value, so his glorification would be worth more—even infinitely more—than the glorification of a human.

This would make it more understandable how God might tolerate the loss of Bob’s soul.

 

c) Something Else

It’s also possible that there might be a different good for the sake of which God tolerates Bob’s loss.

The history of the world involves a complex tangle of the billions of interrelated choices people make, and you could propose that—in order to set up the free will decisions of some to go to heaven—God must tolerate the misuse of free will by others.

Thus, God might tolerate Bob’s misuse of free will for the sake of making it possible for others to use theirs properly.

Or, since the universe is vast and we know only a tiny part of it, there might be some other good—perhaps one that we haven’t even conceived of—that justifies God tolerating Bob’s misuse of free will.

While both of these suggestions are possible, they are both very speculative, which means many will find them unsatisfying.

So perhaps we can look at the issue from a different angle.

 

Possibility #2: God Isn’t Being Unjust

One of our starting assumptions is that God is just. In the present context, that means it isn’t unjust for God to tolerate Bob’s free decision to reject salvation.

(You could challenge the justness of anybody going to hell, but that’s a different discussion. Here, we’re assuming that it is just for God to allow people to go to hell.)

In this case, God has genuinely given Bob the offer of salvation, and he has freely chosen to reject it, so God is not being unjust by respecting his choice.

Bob cannot—and, if he’s thinking rationally, would not—accuse God of injustice. God has been fair with him.

Is this enough to resolve our dilemma?

It certainly helps to realize that God isn’t being unjust, but it doesn’t seem to fully resolve the matter.

Our starting assumptions didn’t simply involve God being just. They also involved God not wanting people to go to hell.

So, if we’re not appealing to a competing good that would lead God to tolerate Bob’s loss, why wouldn’t he act on his desire to keep Bob out of hell and simply not create him?

There doesn’t seem to be a good answer to this question. So, while realizing God isn’t being unjust helps, it’s still an incomplete answer.

 

Possibility #3: God Is Actually Benefitting Bob

But perhaps God is being more than fair with Bob. Perhaps he is benefitting him by creating him, even though he will spend an infinite amount of time in hell.

Some have argued that it’s better to exist—even in hell—than not to exist at all.

If that’s the case, then God is actually being generous to Bob by creating him, despite his damnation.

And we would know what the competing good is that leads God to tolerate Bob’s misuse of free will: It’s Bob’s own existence.

If it’s better to exist in hell than not to exist at all then that’s why God chooses to create him. Bob will actually benefit!

Whether you find this solution plausible will depend on how bad you imagine hell to be and how great a good you suppose existence to be.

Based on some of the images in Scripture—like hell as a lake of fire that burns you without destroying you (Rev. 20:14-15)—many have thought that it would be better not to exist than to go there.

However, the images that Scripture uses to describe the afterlife are accommodated to our present understanding, which is limited by our experience of this life, and they should be read with some caution.

It could turn out that, from the greater perspective the next life will offer, even the damned will see that it is better for them to exist in their current condition than not to exist at all.

Some, even in this life, have made this argument.

 

Possibility #4: God Doesn’t Create Bob

But suppose that it’s better not to exist than to spend eternity in hell. In that case, if there is no competing good that would lead God to create Bob, he might simply not create him.

However, Bob is only a representative of an entire class of people—those who misuse their free will and reject God’s offer of salvation.

In that case, it would seem that God would not create anybody that would reject his offer, in which case hell would be empty.

This idea has been explored by various figures down through Church history, including the recent theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988), who discussed it in his book Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?

Von Balthasar frames his proposal carefully. Since the Church teaches that hell is a real possibility, he only proposes we may be able to hope (not assert) that hell is empty.

The difficulty for this view is found in various statements in the New Testament that at least appear to indicate some people will actually go to hell (Matt. 7:13-14, 21-23, Luke 13:23-28).

(For a careful analysis of part of this issue, see Cardinal Avery Dulles’s insightful article The Population of Hell.)

 

Possibility #5: Reject the Starting Assumption

If the above possibilities are not fully satisfying, perhaps we should revisit our initial assumption concerning Bob, which was:

• • In his eternal perspective outside of time, God knows that—if he creates Bob—then Bob will freely choose to go to hell.

This assumption holds that God knows what Bob would freely choose to do if he existed.

Does God have that kind of knowledge?

Historically, theologians have recognized that God has two types of knowledge:

1. 1. Knowledge of all possible things
   2. Knowledge of all actual things

In theology, the first is called God’s knowledge of simple intelligence. It allows God to see every possible combination of events by his intellect alone—the same way we can think through every possibility of what you might roll with a pair of dice, just by thinking about it.

The second is called God’s knowledge of vision. It allows him to be aware of everything in the actual world, analogous to the way we gain awareness of the world through the human sense of vision.

And since God is outside of time, both of these kinds of knowledge cover everything past, present, and future.

If God creates Bob and makes him an actual thing, then God also knows what Bob’s actual choice is, which is to reject salvation.

However, suppose that God doesn’t create Bob. What does God know in that case?

By his knowledge of all possible things, God knows from his eternal perspective that it is possible for Bob to accept his offer of salvation. He also knows that it is possible for Bob to reject salvation.

But that doesn’t reveal which Bob does choose because Bob doesn’t exist and never makes the choice.

 

Middle Knowledge?

For God to know what Bob would choose if he were created, God would need an additional kind of knowledge that lets him know what people would freely choose if they are placed in certain circumstances (such as being created).

In the last 500 years, theologians have begun to explore this idea and have named this third kind of knowledge “middle knowledge,” since it seems part way between God’s knowledge of the possible and the actual.

In his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott holds that the Church has definitively taught that God knows all possible things and all actual things, and they are matters “of the Faith” (de fide) (pp. 40-42).

However, he lists middle knowledge as only the “common opinion” (sent. communis.) of theologians (pp. 42-43).

There are a passages of Scripture that one can appeal to in support of God having middle knowledge (e.g., 1 Sam. 23:1-13, Wis. 4:11, Matt. 11:21).

However, there are only a few such passages, and they can be read in ways that don’t require middle knowledge.

There also is an argument to be made against middle knowledge.

 

Omnipotence and Omniscience

Because God is all-powerful and all-knowing, one always should be hesitant to say there are things he “can’t” do or know, but there are limits to omnipotence and omniscience.

Omnipotence means that God can do everything that can be done—in other words, anything that is logically possible. However, it does not mean that God could make something that involves a logical contradiction, where the terms themselves conflict.

For example, God could not make a square circle or a four-sided triangle, because these involve contradictions in terms. They are just nonsense—a kind of word salad that has no real meaning.

Similarly, omniscience means that God knows everything that can be known. However, it does not mean that he knows logically impossible things.

For example, God does not know the shape of a square circle or the shape of a four-sided triangle because they involve contradictions in terms.

What about Bob’s choice to go to hell?

 

To Be or Not To Be?

If Bob exists, then he freely makes the choice, and God knows it.

But if Bob is never created, then he would never make this free will decision, and God would have to know the outcome of a free will decision that is never made.

“The outcome of a free will decision that is never made” sounds a lot like “square circle” or “four-sided triangle.”

One of the things about free will decisions is that you can’t predict them with absolute certainty in advance.

You can’t deduce what a person’s free will is going to do—with certainty—by looking at any set of factors and then deducing it.

If you could do that, then the decision wouldn’t be a free one.

It would be logically entailed by the set of factors you deduce it from.

Instead, the essence of a free will decision is that it is really possible for a person to make one choice or another when the moment comes to choose. But if the moment never comes, then there simply is no outcome, because the choice is never made.

There is thus a case to be made that “the outcome of a free will choice that is never made” involves a contradiction in terms.

In that case, God would not know Bob’s decision—unless he creates Bob.

 

The Free Will Defense Returns

If middle knowledge involves a logical contradiction, then God wouldn’t have it.

And so he would not be able to foresee what Bob will freely choose to do if he crates Bob—and then refrain from creating him.

To know what Bob will actually choose, God would need to create him.

And in that case, the free will defense that we discussed in Possibility #1 would work!

God would create Bob, see his decision to reject salvation, and the counterbalancing good that explains why God tolerates this is his desire to let Bob have free will so that he can make an authentic choice between love and non-love.

 

Mystery Remains

Personally, I prefer the solution I’ve just described: God has knowledge of all possible things and all actual things, but knowing the outcome of a free will decision that is never made appears to involve a logical contradiction—so God wouldn’t have middle knowledge.

As a result, God must take a risk in creating Bob with free will—to give Bob the opportunity to freely choose love.

He then sees what Bob’s choice is, and he honors it.

However, there are other ways of resolving this issue.

While “It’s just a mystery” isn’t a satisfying answer, it is true that we can’t always propose a single, definite answer to matters involving God.

However, while his mind is infinite and ours are only finite, we often can at least sketch the outlines of possible reasons he makes the decisions he does.

In this case, I haven’t settled on a final answer to the question we began by posing, so mystery remains.

But we have fleshed out possible reasons that shed light on it.

Which solution you find most likely will depend on your views of various matters, but at least we can have the assurance that there are solutions.

And that God is just. And that he really does offer us salvation.

* * *

If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing

If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video

You can also support the podcast by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

Thank you, and I’ll see you next time

God bless you always!

 

Not long ago, I was invited to appear on Cross Examined—the podcast of Protestant apologist Dr. Frank Turek—to talk about issues that many Protestants misunderstand about Catholicism.

It was very kind of Frank to invite me on his show, and we had a really cordial discussion! Here’s a taste of what a gracious host he was!

Frank: Today we want to talk about what Protestants may misunderstand about Roman Catholicism.

Now, I’m not a Roman Catholic, although I came out of Roman Catholicism. Jimmy was a Protestant and became a Roman Catholic.

In fact, Jimmy, this is odd that we’re even doing this show. If anybody should be a Catholic apologist, it should be me, a guy from New Jersey who went to Catholic high school, and you should be the Protestant apologist because you grew up in Texas and yet you’re a Catholic apologist.

How did you become a Catholic? Let’s just start there.

I had a really great time speaking with Frank! He was a really great guy! And I want to compliment him on what a good host he was and what a great exchange it was!

 

Never Hearing About Grace?

I thought that today I’d follow up on one point that he raised, which is one that we sometimes hear from people who used to be Catholic and have become Evangelical. Here’s how Frank put it.

Frank: Now, as I said, brought up Catholic. I went to Catholic high school, and this is just anecdotal, it’s not data, right? It’s just my perspective. And I wonder if this is one reason why it seems that many Roman Catholics don’t know much about grace. I never heard the word grace from a homily.

I never in hundreds of sermons ever heard Jesus died for your sins. And by trusting in him you’re justified—until the last Mass I went to. And that was my father’s funeral, when the priest came.

Jimmy: I’m glad you heard it there.

Frank: Yeah. The priest came out and said, “I talked to Frank the other day and he’s accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior, so he’s in heaven now.” And I’m just wondering, just from, again, it’s just my perspective, why don’t we hear more about grace? Why don’t we hear more about what Christ has done in the homily?

I really appreciate how Frank said that this was just anecdotal information—just his perspective. But it is something that I’ve heard from other former Catholics, too.

And I appreciate how serious Frank and other former Catholics are about this. Hearing the message of Jesus, grace, and forgiveness is essential!

Of course, I responded at the time, and you can watch the full interview to see what I said. We’ll have a link in the show notes below.

This view isn’t anything unique to Frank. It’s something that many former Catholics who are now Evangelicals say, so it’s good to know how you can respond when you encounter it.

 

Poor Homilies

One of the first things I’d do is to acknowledge that the quality of homilies at Mass can vary. Just like Protestant preachers, some Catholic priests are better preachers than others, and some have favorite themes that they stress or that they avoid.

I’d actually say that—these days—one of the themes many avoid is the negative side of the good news. The fact that we are sinners who need God’s mercy, and that we can even be lost if we don’t.

I’d say that the problem is the reverse of what some think it is. If anything, I’d say that there’s too much emphasis on God’s mercy and grace in many Catholic churches, and not enough emphasis on God’s justice or Christ’s role as a judge.

 

The Church Steps In

It’s true that the quality of homilies can vary, but the Church knows that. That’s one reason why Catholic teaching isn’t limited to the homily. It’s actually going on throughout the Mass, because the Church wants to make sure that you get the message!

This is something that may not be as obvious to our friends in the Evangelical movement, because in Evangelical churches, the homily—or sermon—has a different role.

In fact, the sermon is frequently the largest single element in many Evangelical services. Some have even spoken jokingly of their services as a “hymn sandwich”—that is, a sermon sandwiched between a few hymns. So in Evangelical circles, the sermon or homily has to bear the full load of the teaching that happens in the service.

But in the liturgies of traditional Christians—whether they’re Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, or even if they’re from some of the more historical Protestant groups like Lutherans and Anglicans—the homily is just one part of the service, and it doesn’t dominate the service as a whole. So it doesn’t need to bear the full load of the teaching that happens.

In fact, the proclamation of the Christian message happens all the way through the liturgy, and—in part because the Church knows that the quality of preachers varies—the Church has written the key parts of the Christian message into the structure of the Mass itself.

And not just into what the priest says, but into what you yourself say as an ordinary Catholic at Mass.

 

Interpreting Our Past Experiences

One of the things I pointed out to Frank is that there’s often a difference in how Evangelicals and former-Catholic Evangelicals speak about their younger days.

In both the Catholic and the Protestant communities, there are people who are very serious about their faith as adults, but they look back on when they were younger and not as serious about it.

If the person is a Catholic who became serious about their faith as an adult, then they generally accept responsibility for their lack of seriousness as a young person. They will say, “I was a reckless young person who didn’t really pay attention to what I was being taught, but then I had a conversion and got serious.”

And you hear the same thing if the person was a Protestant who had a religious awakening as an adult. They also will say, “I was a reckless young person who didn’t really pay attention to what I was being taught, but then I had a conversion and got serious.”

However, the situation is different if the person was raised Catholic and then became serious as an Evangelical. In that case—because of lingering tensions from the time of the Reformation—they aren’t taught to accept responsibility for their younger days.

Instead, they are taught—consciously or unconsciously—to blame the Catholic Church for their former lack of seriousness. So they don’t say, “I was a reckless young person who wasn’t paying attention.” Instead they’re taught to say things like “The Catholic Church never taught me about grace,” or “The Catholic Church never taught me about sin and my need for forgiveness,” or “The Catholic Church never taught me about Jesus and the gospel.”

But are those things really true?

 

What You Hear and Say at Mass

Let’s take a look at what you hear—and say—at every standard Sunday Catholic Mass.

I think it will be an instructive exercise to remind former Catholics of what they themselves used to hear and say at every Sunday Mass they attended. I think that—in the time since they ceased going to Mass—they have likely forgotten some of this. Or at least that they haven’t thought about what they heard and said and what it means.

Because—as we’re going to hear—the Christian message is really and profoundly present, both in terms of what they hear the priest say and in terms of what they themselves said.

Now, there are certain parts of the Mass that you hear basically every Sunday. They’re sometimes called the “ordinary” of the Mass because they’re what you ordinarily hear and say when you go. In contrast—for example—to the “proper” of the Mass, which are those elements that are proper to particular days of the year, and you only hear them then.

So let’s go through the ordinary for a typical Sunday Mass and look at what you hear and say.

 

Mass Begins

The Mass typically begins when the priest makes the sign of the Cross and says:

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,

and the love of God,

and the communion of the Holy Spirit

be with you all.

So that gets the topic of grace on the table right out of the gate. Frank said he’d never heard the word grace in a homily—at least as far as he remembered—but the priest actually begins the Mass by talking about the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

But what about the idea of sin?

We now turn to the penitential act, where the priest says:

Brothers and sisters, let us acknowledge our sins,

and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.

So the priest is telling you that you need to acknowledge your sins to properly worship God, which is true. If you thought you were sin-free and didn’t need to recognize your own faults, you wouldn’t be properly worshipping God.

After the priest gives this instruction, everybody—including you—then says:

I confess to almighty God

and to you, my brothers and sisters,

that I have greatly sinned,

in my thoughts and in my words,

in what I have done

and in what I have failed to do,

And, striking their breast, they say:

through my fault, through my fault,

through my most grievous fault;

So—wow—we’re really serious about the fact that we’re sinners. You’re confessing that fact to almighty God and to all of your fellow Christians in church. You haven’t just sinned—you’ve greatly sinned. You’ve sinned in your thoughts and in your words. You’ve sinned in what you’ve done and in what you’ve failed to do—so both sins of commission and sins of omission.

Then you strike your breast—typically 3 times—and you take full ownership of what you’ve done, saying you did it through your fault, through your fault, through your most grievous fault. So you’re not just acknowledging your sins, you’re really most sincerely acknowledging them!

The priest then says:

May almighty God have mercy on us,

forgive us our sins,

and bring us to everlasting life.

The people reply:

Amen.

So the priest is asking God to have mercy on us, to forgive our sins, and to bring us to everlasting life—or save us. And—along with all the other people at Mass—you reply “Amen,” meaning that you acknowledge your need for God’s mercy, forgiveness, and salvation. This is a really clear presentation of the message of salvation!

And Jesus’ role in it isn’t neglected, because we then have the following dialogue with the priest:

V. Lord, have mercy. R. Lord, have mercy.

V. Christ, have mercy. R. Christ, have mercy.

V. Lord, have mercy. R. Lord, have mercy.

The Lord being referred to here is the Lord Jesus Christ, as is made clear by the middle reference to the Lord specifically as “Christ.”

We then typically say or sing a prayer known as the Gloria, where we give glory to God, and as part of that, we say:

Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,

Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,

you take away the sins of the world,

have mercy on us;

you take away the sins of the world,

receive our prayer;

you are seated at the right hand of the Father,

have mercy on us.

So here—because you’re saying this—you’re acknowledging that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord God—he’s God himself–that he’s the Lamb of God, that he’s the Son of the Father, and that he’s seated at the right hand of the Father.

You acknowledge—twice—that he takes away the sins of the world. You ask him to receive your prayer. And you ask him—twice—to have mercy on you.

So you’ve just been really clear about who Jesus is, what role he plays in God’s plan, and your need for his mercy!

 

The Creed

We then hear the Scripture readings for the day, and the priest gives his homily.

Then we all stand up and confess the Christian faith together. The typical way we do that at most Masses is by saying the Nicene Creed, so you say:

I believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,

the Only Begotten Son of God,

born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation

he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

he suffered death and was buried,

and rose again on the third day

in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory

to judge the living and the dead

and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That’s a really clear profession of the Christian faith itself, and you just said it with your own lips. You acknowledge all three persons of the Trinity and that they are all co-equal. You acknowledged Jesus as the divine Son of God.

And you acknowledged his role in our salvation, saying that “for us men and for our salvation” he became incarnate, that “for our sake” he was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again, and that he will “come again in glory,” when he will serve as the judge of both the living and the dead—including you!

You also confessed the role of baptism in the forgiveness of sins, which is acknowledged by the vast majority of Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and many other Protestants.

In any event—we’ve once again got the forgiveness of sins back on the table, and the idea that Jesus died for our sins is explicitly stated right here in the Nicene Creed, which you yourself say at every standard Sunday Mass you attend.

 

The Lord’s Prayer

We then begin the liturgy of the Eucharist, and the Eucharistic prayers themselves repeat the core elements of the Christian faith. Since there are several Eucharistic prayers, we won’t go through them in detail here.

However, once the Eucharistic prayer is finished, both we and the priest say the Lord’s Prayer, which means that you say:

Our Father, who art in heaven,

hallowed be thy name;

thy kingdom come,

thy will be done

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

and forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive those who trespass against us;

and lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.

So here you ask God to forgive your sins, and—even though this is translated a little differently in different communities—the meaning is the same. And you’re using the very words Jesus gave us to use to ask forgiveness!

You’re also asking God to protect us from temptation and deliver us from evil.

Shortly after the Lord’s Prayer, you and the rest of the congregation then say:

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,

have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,

have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world,

grant us peace.

So here we acknowledge 3 times that it’s Jesus who takes away the sins of the world and that he’s the Lamb of God. We twice ask him to have mercy on us, and we once ask him to grant us peace.

 

Before Communion

Finally, before going to receive Communion, you say this:

Lord, I am not worthy

that you should enter under my roof,

but only say the word

and my soul shall be healed.

So here you acknowledge that you’re not worthy to receive Jesus, but he is the one who heals our souls, and all he has to do is say the word.

Now, there’s a lot more we could use to document the Christian message in the prayers of the Mass. The Roman Missal is extensive, and you’ll find the Christian message suffused throughout its pages.

But for reasons of space, we’ve only looked at what you hear—and say—at a typical Sunday Mass, and we’ve seen that the documentation of the Christian message is extensive.

 

Language Differences

Now, this content isn’t always expressed in the same language that’s used in the Evangelical community.

Every group of Christians has its own language—its own way of expressing things. For example, in the Evangelical community, you sometimes hear about “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.”

Those formulas—“accepting Jesus” and “personal Lord and Savior”—are not found in the Bible. They were created in the nineteenth century by preachers as an evangelistic tool, so they’re not the language of the Bible. But they are one way of expressing the Christian message.

Evangelicals also have what they sometimes call the “Sinner’s prayer,” which is another recently created evangelistic tool.

Since Catholics are a different community of believers, they have a different history of language development, and so they have their own ways of expressing the gospel.

But we don’t need to quarrel about words. In 1 Timothy 6:4, St. Paul warns against people who have an unhealthy craving for controversy and quarreling about words, and in 2 Timothy 2:14, he commands Timothy to remind people not to quarrel about words, which he says does no good but only ruins the hearers.

So we can let each community of Christians have its own way of expressing things as long as the fundamental content is the same.

And here the content is the same: You are a sinner, you’ve sinned in bunches of ways, Jesus is God the Son, he died for your sins on the Cross so that you could be saved, you need his forgiveness and mercy, and you need to ask him for it.

 

The Church’s Concern for You

The Church is so concerned that you hear and accept the message of the gospel that it didn’t leave it up to the priest to mention it in the homily. They wrote it into the prayers of the Mass that the priest says, and they put it into the ordinary of the Mass that you hear at every standard Sunday Mass.

What’s more, they didn’t just leave it to the priest to say it, they wrote it into the prayers that you say with your own mouth at every standard Sunday Mass.

So—if you’re a Catholic—you yourself have said the Christian message over and over again:

Every Sunday, you confess that you are a sinner. Every Sunday, you confess that Jesus is God the Son. Every Sunday, you confess that he died on the Cross for your sins. And every Sunday, you yourself ask him for his mercy.

The only questions are whether you paid attention to what you were saying and whether you remember what you said.

Either way, the Church has done its part. Just like a Protestant preacher can’t force a Protestant young person to pay attention and remember, the Catholic Church can’t force a Catholic young person to pay attention and remember. But the Catholic Church has gone further than what happens in many Protestant churches, where the preacher does most of the talking during a service.

The Catholic Church has scripted your lines at Mass to ensure that you yourself articulated the Christian message over and over again. So if you didn’t “get” the message, you really don’t have an excuse, because you weren’t paying attention to or remembering what you yourself were saying.

So even though it’s common for formerly Catholic Evangelicals to say they never heard about sin and grace and Jesus at Mass, they actually did. They heard it, and they confessed it with their own mouths—every Sunday.

They may not have been paying attention, and the Church can’t compel people to pay attention, but it has done its part to ensure that they were exposed to the message and that they even said it with their own mouths.

* * *

If you’ve liked this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing

If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video

You can also support the podcast by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast

Thank you, and I’ll see you next time

God bless you always!

 

SHOW NOTES:

Original interview with Dr. Frank Turek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XkLXw_bCfs