Whose Libertarianism? Which Terminus? What’s Transcendentally Determined?

It seems that some would want to hold that it necessarily remains metaphysically possible that a rational creature could, indefinitely, willfully disregard its knowledge of God and that one could, therefore, be fully responsible & sufficiently culpable for persisting in any sinful rejections of God. One could thereby indefinitely resist ever becoming practically impeccable.

While I’m not unsympathetic to the notion that finite creatures remain essentially peccable, that fact, alone, couldn’t entail perditionism. A rational creature could well remain fully responsible for disregarding its knowledge of God when acting and be sufficiently culpable for persisting in its vicious habits.

Without an exhaustive knowledge of God, however, no rational creature could ever be absolutely culpable.

At the same time, in order for rational creatures to finally attain a stability in the good (practical impeccability) & enjoy an essential beatitude, it’s not metaphysically necessary for them to (& so need not have been transcendentally determined that they’ll) have reduced every divine potency to act or come to possess an exhaustive knowledge of God.

Under this scenario, in my view, what will have been transcendentally determined is every rational creature’s stability in the good or practical impeccability.

That each rational creature will reach a stability in the good remains a divinely determined given. How each creature traverses that path would be accomplished in a graced self-determined way per each one’s own relatively autonomous soul-crafting deliberations.

So, we can stipulate, even if just for argument’s sake, that not every divine potency will have to have passed to act before a rational creature could enjoy an essential beatitude & stability in the good, perhaps even being sufficiently satisfied, psychologically. After all, that seems to be entailed by the dynamics of an everlasting epektasis?

At the same time, the reality of any psychological satisfaction, alone, could not overcome the disproportionality objection we’ve lobbed against any unjust foreclosure on a rational creature’s yet-to-have-been-reduced infinite divine potencies. Such an absolute foreclosure would entail consequences that are disproportional to any sin a finite rational creature could commit.

A question might beg, then, regarding any rational creatures who’ve deliberately remained intractably intransigent, as to how they might be brought to a stability in the good in a manner not repugnant to their essential autonomy & freedom. Given a proper understanding of a sufficiently rational freedom & divine gratuity of grace, such persons can be miraculously & efficaciously graced, infallibly & providentially, which is to say per a gratuitous & relatively exceptional divine terminus ad quem of all moral vice.

Per my own libertarian inclinations, it has not otherwise been transcendentally determined that every divine potency will of necessity pass to act by efficacious, if not sufficient, gracings. Some such reductions to act, e.g. supererogatory, shall remain everlastingly exclusively self-determined, unless otherwise exceptionally & divinely predestined. This is to suggest that no particular divine terminus ad quem of one’s moral vices necessarily will entail any terminus a quo of supererogation, for it’s not just how each will pursue divine intimacy that’s generally subject to our autonomous soul-crafting but, also, how much.

This is all fleshed out in more detail here:

A Neo-Chalcedonian, Franciscan Cosmotheandric Universal Apokatastenai