Aquinas Predestination

  • Thread starter Thread starter TomD123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On the Augustinian View of Original Sin, Grace, Freewill and Predestination: A call to recognize the sovereignty of our good God:
  1. Man is born fallen, sinful and sorrowful; a slave to his sinful will, justly condemned and guilty of Adam’s sin, and the wrath of God abides upon him. His destiny is hell. All unregenerate men are a part of this mass of perdition, or “Massa Damnatio” in the words of St. Augustine. We have deserved hell, and God does not owe us heaven.
  2. Fallen man’s will, while free enough for justice, is not free from the compulsion to sin; indeed, he cannot stop sinning, and all who serve sin are slaves to sin. Now serving is an act of the will, therefore man’s will is enslaved to sin. For how can it be said that choosing sin, which enslaves a man, is a fully free act? But he is free enough in this sense; that there are none who force him to act.
  3. Fallen man is incapable of doing any work that is supernaturally pleasing to God. Because of Original Sin, fallen man cannot will to change apart from God’s grace; he cannot dispose himself to God’s justice apart from God’s grace; and he cannot freely choose God apart from God’s grace.
  4. The grace of God, which is a free and undeserved gift, alone, empowers the will of man, so that if a man wills to make a beginning, it is God’s grace enabling the freedom of his will. Therefore, man’s free response to God is attributed to the working of the grace of God, and is unmerited and undeserved.
  5. The regenerate man has, in baptism, been freed by the grace of God from the bondage of sin, the flesh and the devil. There is no more eternal or temporal penalty for Original Sin or those Actual Sins committed until the day of baptism. Yet the temporal natural consequences of sin remain, whether in the case of Original sin it is concupiscence, which is not reckoned as sin, but the apostle sometimes refers to it as sin, because it inclines to sin; or in the case of Actual sin, the natural consequences and effects of our sins.
  6. Christ’s atonement for men on the cross brought forth an abundance of grace, sufficient for the salvation of the entire world. This is called sufficient grace.
  7. Nevertheless, he does not actually communicate this grace to all, but only to those for whom he wills it to be efficacious. This is called intrinsically efficacious grace, the effects of which are the conversion of the heart, and the turning of the mind toward God, and the desire to do penance.
  8. Not all who receive this intrinsically efficacious grace will persevere to the end, but only those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world to give the gift of Final Perseverance to. These are the elect; those whom God has chosen, in his manifold mercy and goodness for grace and glory.
  9. God freely chooses the elect from all eternity by his sovereign and mighty will, which is all-good, all-merciful, all-loving, and ever-just. He chooses without consideration of the future merits of the elect; for that final perseverance which he would foresee in them, and which would form the basis of his election, could only be the action of his grace in the heart of man; and that he would choose the elect on the basis of whom he would choose at some future time to give the grace of perseverance is both redundant, and untenable; God does not foresee his own actions, for all his actions occur from within a single ineffable moment outside of time. Therefore, God Chooses in accordance with his good pleasure and his sovereign will, not taking the works of man into consideration.
  10. That grace which is intrinsically efficacious, that is, works in the heart of man, is not irresistible; for some indeed are called, but after a time fall away, for they are not chosen. Again, some are indeed called, yet put of the calling of God until their final moments. These are indeed chosen and elect souls, predestined by God to share in his grace and glory.
  11. The reprobate, are those whom God abandons to the masses of perdition and does not will to communicate his grace of final perseverance. He does not positively will their damnation, he simply does not will to give them the final grace they would need to be saved. In this, he is not unjust, for man has justly merited hell of his own accord and by his sinfulness. Those who are of the “Masses of Damnation” do not will God, nor do they seek after him, for God has not given them light to see. As such, they blindly follow their sins and become hardened in their sinfulness, so it is truly man’s sinfulness that alienates him from God. The reprobate do NOT want God.
  12. The Reprobate who do initially receive this intrinsically efficacious grace from God, and are regenerate, and nevertheless are destined to abandon the faith, are, as long as they are faithful, truly justified, and full and real members of the church through their baptism. However, since they do not receive the grace of final perseverance, they do not belong to the elect. They will fall away.
  13. The Church is not composed of the elect only, but all the faithful, even though some be reprobate. Thus the Church is truly composed of wheat and tares.
Feel free to comment. Tell me if you see an error here.
 
Definition of Sufficient:
a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end

Well, if grace is intrinsically efficacious vs. sufficient, and sufficient grace cannot produce the desired effect of salvation, sufficient grace is not enough, and therefore not sufficient.
We must not forget that all good comes from God and all evil comes from man.

St. Thomas says, “Now this lacking of grace comes about as a result of two things: both because (the man) himself does not will to receive it, and because God does not infuse it to him, or does not will to infuse it into him. But the sequence of these two is such that the second does not happen except on condition that the first happend…It is clear, then, that the absolutely first cause of this lack [of grace] is on the part of the man who lacks the grace; but on part of God there is no cause of this lack, except on condition of that which is the cause on the part of man.”

Your understanding of sufficent grace and Fr. Most is one that attributes the defect to be God, not man. This is not how Thomas taought sufficent grace. Fr. Most uses the example of a cook and fire and that the food will not cook until move by the cook to the fire. Thomas would say the cook (God) can be prevented from applying the fire (grace) to the food (man) because of the food ring spoiled. This doesn’t mean the cook willed the food to spoil but that he only allowed it.

It’s a mystery that man needs efficacious grace to apply the will and that sufficient grace is sufficent for this purpose if he would only cooperate with it. We must resign ourselves that it’s a mystery. 🙂
 
I can at least take number 5.

Aquinas, much like Luther, taught ‘single predestination.’ This means that God chooses people to join Him in heaven (I’m really painting in broad strokes here).

Calvin meanwhile taught double predestination. IE: God is actively choosing people to be saved AND actively damning people to hell.

It’s that ‘actively damning’ people part where we hit the problems.
your presentation of calvinist double predestination is incorrect. GOD doesn’t ACTIVELY dam people to hell. God actively chooses his elect to be saved, and leaves the non-elect to choose for themselves. God didn’t make JUDAS evil, he simply left Judas to make his own choices. God actively saves his elect and PASSIVELY dams the unelect by not putting faith in their hearts.
 
We must not forget that all good comes from God and all evil comes from man.

St. Thomas says, “Now this lacking of grace comes about as a result of two things: both because (the man) himself does not will to receive it, and because God does not infuse it to him, or does not will to infuse it into him. But the sequence of these two is such that the second does not happen except on condition that the first happend…It is clear, then, that the absolutely first cause of this lack [of grace] is on the part of the man who lacks the grace; but on part of God there is no cause of this lack, except on condition of that which is the cause on the part of man.”

Your understanding of sufficent grace and Fr. Most is one that attributes the defect to be God, not man. This is not how Thomas taought sufficent grace. Fr. Most uses the example of a cook and fire and that the food will not cook until move by the cook to the fire. Thomas would say the cook (God) can be prevented from applying the fire (grace) to the food (man) because of the food ring spoiled. This doesn’t mean the cook willed the food to spoil but that he only allowed it.

It’s a mystery that man needs efficacious grace to apply the will and that sufficient grace is sufficent for this purpose if he would only cooperate with it. We must resign ourselves that it’s a mystery. 🙂
What is the difference between Aquinas and Most then?
 
I’ve been thinking a lot about predestination and I am having trouble understanding some concepts-so if anyone could help that would be great! 👍

Ok, basically, I’m not sure about some things with Aquinas and his views. Here are the main questions:
  1. According to St. Thomas, how does God chose to predestine? Why does God do it this way?
  2. what role does God’s foreknowledge play in predestination?
  3. what role does free will have in Thomist predestination?
  4. According to St. Thomas"s view, are all men given sufficient actual grace?
  5. What is the primary difference between this and calvanism?
Thanks for any responses!

Tom
I too have trouble with it. I once read part of a book entitled “Predestination” by Fr Garrigou-Lagrange. It was the hardest book I ever tried to read. I had no problem with the Summa but I did with this book. I think in the first chapter you had to learn something like 13 new terms. He contrasted the Thomistic View with the Molinist View. Basically what I learned in general was that God knows who will be saved because He is God but we cannot know absolutely. We may know at any given moment but not absolutely. Also, Fr Garrigou-Lagrange says that any doctrine on predestination had to be within certain parameters and I can only remember one of them. 1 Tim 2:4 says “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” God desires all men to be saved so you can’t say that God damns some souls to hell as Calvin said. I know I will try to pick that book up again some day when I have the time and energy to study it.
 
What is the difference between Aquinas and Most then?
I really suggest the book The Mystery of Predestination. by John Salza. He is the guy who gives us the great scripturecatholic web site. Anyway Most follows Molinism and often criticizes Thomas. So its good to see what Those who have to say about Fr. Most interpritation of Thomas. From what I have read Most miss represents quite alot. Get the book it really is a good read. Its a book that will make sense to you but is hard to convay to others. I am lacking in telling you how good the book is. Look it up on amizon and read the reviews!
 
I really suggest the book The Mystery of Predestination. by John Salza. He is the guy who gives us the great scripturecatholic web site. Anyway Most follows Molinism and often criticizes Thomas. So its good to see what Those who have to say about Fr. Most interpritation of Thomas. From what I have read Most miss represents quite alot. Get the book it really is a good read. Its a book that will make sense to you but is hard to convay to others. I am lacking in telling you how good the book is. Look it up on amizon and read the reviews!
That is what I will do then, thanks for the help 👍
 
Fr. Most’s view on predestination is in between Thomism and Molinism.

I like his view on the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top