Do we have free will or are we predestined?

[Debp]

Here is the quote you made in a box I can't quote you from , words attributed to Jesus from Maria Voltorta .

"All men without exception are predestined to grace, since I died for all.

Those who remain faithful—at least to the natural law of the Good—are predestined to glory. Thus at the end of the ages, each one who has lived as a just man, will have his reward."
***************************************************************************************************
Where in the bible did Jesus say "All men without exception are predestined to grace " ?

Where did Jesus talk about "those who remain faithful at least to the natural law of good are predestined to glory " ?

It looks doubtful on harmonize .

https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/europe/vatican-clarifies-that-writings-of-maria-valtorta-are-not-of-supernatural-origin

Thank you for clarifying the above which I tried to do.

@St. SteVen Are you a Universalist? I seem to recall seeing something about that on the forum.

 

[Mathētria]

Here is the quote you made in a box I can't quote you from , words attributed to Jesus from Maria Voltorta .

"All men without exception are predestined to grace, since I died for all.

Those who remain faithful—at least to the natural law of the Good—are predestined to glory. Thus at the end of the ages, each one who has lived as a just man, will have his reward."
***************************************************************************************************
Where in the bible did Jesus say "All men without exception are predestined to grace " ?

Where did Jesus talk about "those who remain faithful at least to the natural law of good are predestined to glory " ?

It looks doubtful on harmonize .

https://www.ewtnnews.com/world/europe/vatican-clarifies-that-writings-of-maria-valtorta-are-not-of-supernatural-origin

Thank you for clarifying the above which I tried to do.

For your knowledge, @Debp, the following was my response to talon's post above:

You quoted only the opening sentences and left out the rest of the passage, which explains the meaning.

The text does not claim Jesus said these words during His earthly ministry. It’s private revelation, which never adds to Scripture.

When you include the full context, it becomes clear that the passage affirms:

• universal salvific will (1 Timothy 2:4)
• free will is never overridden (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Revelation 3:20)
• predestination here refers to God’s foreknowledge (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2; Isaiah 46:10)
• the need for perseverance (Matthew 24:13; Revelation 2:10; Romans 2:6-7)
• the equality of grace offered to all (Romans 2:11; Titus 2:11; Acts 10:34-35)
• those who live according to the natural law of good and remain faithful will be glorified (Matthew 24:13; Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:14-16; Revelation 2:10)

The objection only works if the rest of the passage is omitted.



The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith's statement that Valtorta’s writings “cannot be regarded as having supernatural origin” is being misrepresented. That phrasing does not mean “the Church condemns them” or “the Church forbids Catholics from believing them.” It means exactly what it says: the Church has not made a declaration of supernatural origin — which is the case for the vast majority of private revelations, including many widely read and respected ones.

The DDF has repeatedly clarified that:

• Valtorta’s writings are permitted to be read
• Catholics are free to form their own judgment about them

If you want to avoid misinformation, the most recent clarifications from the DDF are worth reading. They directly address the myths that keep circulating: Maria Valtorta and the 2025 Vatican Statement: Clarifying Myths, Facts & Supernatural Status. And, if you're interested, a substantial body of evidence supporting a supernatural origin of her writings can be found here: A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work.

 

[talons]

Much ink has been spilled by many theologians down the ages over this conundrum of predestination. The perplexity of this mystery as it relates to salvation has, not surprisingly, given rise to the heresy of "predestinarianism", of which Calvinism is one of its chief advocates. This heretical understanding of Paul's teaching concerning "those whom [God] has predestined [...]" is based on two fundamental errors:

• the absolute will of God as the sole cause of the salvation or damnation of the individual, regardless of his merits or demerits;
• as to the elect, it denies the freedom of the will under the influence of efficacious grace and puts the reprobate under the necessity of committing sin because of the absence of grace.

The following will hopefully be a needed correction of the errors it has occasioned.

In this transcript dated October 23, 1948, Jesus—according to Maria Valtorta—explained free will, as well as predestination to grace and glory. I’ve quoted His words from The Little Notebooks:



Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

Private revelation, by definition, is not part of the canonical record. It isn’t supposed to be in the red‑letter text of the Gospels. That’s why I’ve been clear that it’s non‑binding and subordinate to Scripture.

Well , there is your first post in the thread in it's entirety above your last quote to me .

Did you make anything clear in your first post about "private revelation " , "not part of the canonical record " , "non binding " or "subordinate to Scripture " ? You should have .

 

[Mathētria]

Well , there is your first post in the thread in it's entirety above your last quote to me .

Did you make anything clear in your first post about "private revelation " , "not part of the canonical record " , "non binding " or "subordinate to Scripture " ? You should have .

I didn’t mention “private revelation,” “non‑binding,” or “subordinate to Scripture” in my first post because no one had raised that issue at that point.

I was responding to a question about predestination and free will, and the passage I quoted addressed that topic directly. There was no assumption in the thread yet that I was treating Valtorta as canonical or placing her writings above Scripture.

I only added those clarifications once certain members began making that assumption. And I’ve been consistent ever since: her writings are private revelation — not canonical, not binding, and always evaluated by Scripture.

So the timing wasn’t “leaving something out”; it was simply responding to the discussion as it unfolded.

 

[Mathētria]

I was seeking where did Jesus say those things that Maria attributed to him . He did not say those things in the Bible .
You know some bibles have Jesus's words in RED LETTERS .

How could something Jesus said privately to someone in the 1940s-1950s appear word‑for‑word in Scriptures written two thousand years earlier?

Private revelation, by definition, is not part of the canonical record. It isn’t supposed to be in the red‑letter text of the Gospels. That’s why I’ve been clear that it’s non‑binding and subordinate to Scripture.

 

[Armour of God]

Keep referring?

Yes keep referring. I saw him refer to that woman several times now

 

[talons]

How could something Jesus said privately to someone in the 1940s-1950s appear word‑for‑word in Scriptures written two thousand years earlier?

Easy for Him . Is the Jesus you serve all powerful and all knowing ?

 

[Mathētria]

Yes keep referring. I saw him refer to that woman several times now

For the sake of accuracy, your original statement to me was:

You keep referring to this Maria Valtorta expecting everyone else to accept her word as the the word of God.

I responded accordingly saying, in part:

I’m not asking anyone to accept Maria Valtorta as Scripture.
In fact, I explicitly said the opposite — this is private revelation, which is non‑binding and never adds to Scripture, but it remains divinely inspired.

[...]

So I’m not appealing to Valtorta as an authority above Scripture.

and then our conversation stalled after these exchanges:

To be honest, that's how it's appeared to be at times

How so? I’ve never said that Maria Valtorta’s writings are canonical. I’ve consistently said they’re private revelation — non‑binding, subordinate to Scripture, and divinely inspired in the sense that God can and has illuminated His own Gospel and spiritual truths without adding to Scripture. So I’m not sure what gave that impression.

I still haven’t received an answer to that question. If there is something specific that gave you that impression, I’m asking you to identify it so I can address it clearly.

Also, just for accuracy: I’m a her, not a “him.”

How could something Jesus said privately to someone in the 1940s-1950s appear word‑for‑word in Scriptures written two thousand years earlier?

Easy for Him . Is the Jesus you serve all powerful and all knowing ?

By that logic, all of our private prayers and everything God has ever said to any soul would also need to appear word‑for‑word in Scripture. But that’s not how revelation works. Scripture contains public revelation; private communication with God isn’t part of the canonical record.

 

[St. SteVen]

I was seeking where did Jesus say those things that Maria attributed to him . He did not say those things in the Bible .
You know some bibles have Jesus's words in RED LETTERS .

EVERYTHING that Jesus has done and said is NOT limited to His red letter quotes in the Bible.
The Bible confirms this fact.

John 21:25 NIV
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Furthermore...
Maria Valtorta was not quoting the Bible, she was quoting what Jesus was saying through her.
(prophetic utterance)

 

[Mathētria]

God is a living being—eternal, personal, and active. His knowledge, His speech, His illumination, and His works are not confined to a fixed number of books or a single historical moment. The canon is complete, but God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is not silent, nor limited in ability to enlighten souls in any age.

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes keep referring. I saw him refer to that woman several times now

That was in regards to repeating an earlier post. Not FURTHER references.
So that would be ONE reference. (not keep referring)

 

[Armour of God]

For the sake of accuracy, your original statement to me was:



I responded accordingly saying, in part:



and then our conversation stalled after these exchanges:



I still haven’t received an answer to that question. If there is something specific that gave you that impression, I’m asking you to identify it so I can address it clearly.

Also, just for accuracy: I’m a her, not a “him.”



By that logic, all of our private prayers and everything God has ever said to any soul would also need to appear word‑for‑word in Scripture. But that’s not how revelation works. Scripture contains public revelation; private communication with God isn’t part of the canonical record.

Like I said, it makes for a poor argument

 

[Armour of God]

That was in regards to repeating an earlier post. Not FURTHER references.
So that would be ONE reference. (not keep referring)

She has referenced her in several posts on this thread, not just one.

 

[Mathētria]

Like I said, it makes for a poor argument

You claimed that I “expect everyone to accept Maria Valtorta’s writings as the word of God.”
I asked you to show where I ever did that.

You haven’t provided an example, and simply repeating “poor argument” doesn’t answer the question.

If you’re going to make an assertion about my position, the burden is on you to substantiate it.
Otherwise, the claim itself is the poor argument.

 

[Armour of God]

Yes, I have quoted words that I believe are Jesus's in more than one thread

I just counted 12 of your posts were you used her name. 13 including this one

You claimed that I “expect everyone to accept Maria Valtorta’s writings as the word of God.” I asked you to show where I ever did that.

You haven’t provided an example, and simply calling my request a “poor argument” doesn’t answer the question.

The fact that you referred to her so many times already does that. It expects everyone to accept her writings as the word of God.
Also you keep firing back at us that don't accept her writings as gospel, instead of accepting our opinions.

If you’re going to make an assertion about my position, the burden is on you to substantiate it. Otherwise, the claim itself is the poor argument

I accept your opinion.
My opinion is that your argument is a poor one, trying to use the position of a random person from last century.
Perhaps try accepting other people's opinions

 

[Mathētria]

I just counted 12 of your posts were you used her name. 13 including this one

The fact that you referred to her so many times already does that. It expects everyone to accept her writings as the word of God.

Referring to the words I believe to be that of Jesus — frequently or infrequently — is not the same thing as expecting others to treat it as the word of God.

I quote Maria Valtorta where she records her in‑depth descriptions of visions of Gospel scenes that she received from Jesus, or the words she believed she received directly from Jesus, Mary, the Holy Spirit, or the Father, etc., because all of it is illuminating and bear good fruit — not because I consider those writings canonical or binding. I’ve said repeatedly that they are private revelation, which by definition does not require anyone to accept them.

So the question still stands:
Where have I ever said, implied, or suggested that others must accept her writings as the word of God?

If you can point to a specific statement of mine, I’ll address it.
If not, then your original claim remains unsubstantiated.

Also you keep firing back at us that don't accept her writings as gospel, instead of accepting our opinions.
I accept your opinion.
My opinion is that your argument is a poor one, trying to use the position of a random person from last century.
Perhaps try accepting other people's opinions

You and anyone else are free to hold the opinion that you don’t accept Valtorta’s writings. I’ve never argued otherwise.

But, for example, when someone makes factual claims about what the Church teaches or has said about Maria Valtorta, those are not “opinions” — they’re statements that can be checked.

Correcting inaccurate information about the Church is not the same thing as rejecting one's opinion. It’s simply keeping the discussion grounded in facts.

And, what I’m addressing with you is not your opinion, but the claim you made about my position — namely, that I “expect everyone to accept her writings as the word of God.”

That’s not an opinion; it’s an assertion about what I supposedly believe. And when I asked you to show where I ever said that, you didn’t provide an example.

Disagreeing with your argument is not the same thing as refusing to accept your opinion. I accept your opinion; I simply think your reasoning for it is weak.

If you want to stand by the claim you made about me, then please show the specific statement where I ever required anyone to treat her writings as Scripture. If you can’t, then it’s fair to say that the claim was unfounded.

 

[Armour of God]

Referring to the words I believe to be that of Jesus — frequently or infrequently — is not the same thing as expecting others to treat it as the word of God.

I quote Maria Valtorta where she records in‑depth descriptions of visions of Gospel scenes, or the words she believed she received from Jesus, Mary, the Holy Spirit, or the Father, etc., because all of it is illuminating and bear good fruit — not because I consider those writings canonical or binding. I’ve said repeatedly that they are private revelation, which by definition does not require anyone to accept them.

So the question still stands:
Where have I ever said, implied, or suggested that others must accept her writings as the word of God?

If you can point to a specific statement of mine, I’ll address it.
If not, then your original claim remains unsubstantiated.



You’re free to hold the opinion that you don’t accept Valtorta’s writings. I’ve never argued otherwise.

What I’m addressing is not your opinion, but the claim you made about my position — namely, that I “expect everyone to accept her writings as the word of God.”

That’s not an opinion; it’s an assertion about what I supposedly believe. And when I asked you to show where I ever said that, you didn’t provide an example.

Disagreeing with your argument is not the same thing as refusing to accept your opinion. I accept your opinion; I simply think your reasoning for it is weak.

If you want to stand by the claim you made about me, then please show the specific statement where I ever required anyone to treat her writings as Scripture. If you can’t, then it’s fair to say that the claim was unfounded.

Ive said what i had to say, i anwered your question.
In my opinion you have a poor argument

 

[Mathētria]

Ive said what i had to say, i anwered your question.
In my opinion you have a poor argument

You didn’t answer the question.

I asked you to show where I ever said, implied, or suggested that I expect others to accept Maria Valtorta’s writings as the word of God.

You still haven’t provided a single example.

Saying “in my opinion your argument is poor” is not a substitute for evidence. It’s simply restating your conclusion without supporting it.

 

[Armour of God]

You didn’t answer the question.

I asked you to show where I ever said, implied, or suggested that I expect others to accept Maria Valtorta’s writings as the word of God.

You still haven’t provided a single example.

Saying “in my opinion your argument is poor” is not a substitute for evidence. It’s simply restating your conclusion without supporting it.

You implied it by referring to her 15 times.

You clearly have a problem accepting the opinions of others

 

[Mathētria]

You implied it by referring to her 15 times.

You clearly have a problem accepting the opinions of others

That accusation doesn’t address anything I actually said.

Disagreeing with your reasoning is not the same as being unable to accept your opinion. I’ve acknowledged multiple times that you’re free to hold your view.

What I’m asking for is evidence for a specific claim you made about my position.

I asked you to show where I ever said, implied, or suggested that I expect anyone to accept Maria Valtorta’s writings as the word of God.

Saying “you referred to her 15 times” is not an example of me making that claim. It’s simply counting references.

Referencing a source repeatedly does not mean I expect others to treat it as Scripture. It means I referenced it. Nothing more.

If you want to stand by your accusation, then please quote the specific statement where I required anyone to accept her writings as the word of God.

If you cannot provide such a statement, then the claim was unfounded.