Aquinas Predestination

[Gregory_I]

Thanks for the long explanation I think I almost get it now.

“Maybe if you expect God to behave other than what he has revealed, or if you conceive of love as doing what makes the other person feel good. But love is to will the Good of another. Now, God wills all men to be saved, but all men will not be saved.”

—Doing what makes the other person feels good seems like willing the good of another

“Because God forsees that some will reject his grace and chooses to create them anyway, this does not mean that he condemns them; they are condemned for their unbelief. He puts their Destiny in motion, but it is they who are free to make it that way. Our wills are free from external coercion, but God has created us knowing what our fates are; That is, knowing what we have freely chosen for ourselves. Does that make him unjust?”

—So, if I am correctly understanding, this would be the case:
God chooses to create Joe and Will. God decides to give Joe and Will the help that if they accept it, will lead them to heaven. However, God knows Joe is going to reject the grace and end up in Hell. Also, God knows that Will will accept the grace and go to heaven. God chooses to create both, willing that both be saved, but knowing Joe will not be. God creates Joe willing his salvation, yet allowing him to perish because this will manifest his justice; while Will is going to be saved and this will demonstrate His mercy. God is said to have predestined Will because God created him and gave him the grace that would lead him to salvation, while he reprobates Joe because He created him knowing that He would allow Joe to go to hell.
…

One last thing that I’m not fully getting yet is why God wants to show forth his goodness. Yes, God wants to be worshiped, but why create beings just to be worshiped, it seems a bit useless: God doesn’t need this.

Thanks again for the explanations

THe Church says that is an acceptable understanding of Pre-destination, but I notice two things:

1. It inclines toward Molinism which is NOT heresy, but to me does not seem as well thought out as Augustinian and Thomist predestination does.
2. The example you gave does not have to do with future merits exactly because Molinas says that God forsees the EFFECTS OF HIS GRACE on the soul AND its response, and THEREBY elects the man: Because he knows he will respond to the grace he will give him.

The Problem is, For God to make a choice of persons to be elect BEFORE creating them on the basis of Forseeing their response to the grace he WILL give is somewhat redundant: How can God make a choice of someones eternal fate based on how that person will respond to his grace in the future? It Divides God from his actions: How can God Forsee his own effects? It doesn’t make sense because GOd makes all decisions from a single point outside of Time. How can God say: “I chose you because you chose me,” When, on the Contrary: “For you did NOT choose me, I have chosen you.”

We Choose him because he chose us, not the other way around. So your example needs to be a bit flopped for the Augustinian and Thomistic view:

"God chooses to create Joe and Will. God desires for Joe and Will to both get to Heaven. However, God wills to withhold the actual grace necessary for Joe’s conversion; consequently, he is going to reject God and end up in Hell.

Also, God wills to give Will the actual grace necessary for conversion so he can accept the grace and go to heaven. Because of this intrinsically efficacious grace, Will will freely choose God; but grace goes before him, preparing him. Consequently he will go to heaven.

God chooses to create both, desiring that both be saved, but knowing Joe will not be. God creates Joe desiring his salvation, yet allowing him to perish because this will manifest his justice; while Will is going to be saved and this will demonstrate His mercy. God is said to have predestined Will because God created him and gave him the grace that would lead him to salvation, while he reprobates Joe because He created him without giving him the actual grace necessary for conversion, knowing that He would allow Joe to go to hell.

Remeber though, Joe is not damned for not receiving grace, he is damned for his SIN which he willfully commits.

Although grace is withheld from one and given to another, the will remains free from external coercion. But God’s grace causes an interior disposition toward him. So Romans 9 remains in force: “For it is neither him that WILLETH nor him that runneth, but GOD who gives mercy…”

God doesn’t need worship, but he desires it because he is love: Remember God is not divided into parts, and all his attributes while distinct are not separate. When we glorify God, we love him above all things. When he accepts our worship, he loves us and acknowledges us as important to him. God desires to show forth his glory in order to be worshipped so that all creation may come into a right relationship with its creator: For this is the highest good and ordering of all creation: That God be worshipped over all and acknowledged as he who is love and mercy and justice. God desires our worship because it establishes the right order with creation.

So the question becomes, why does he will to create? For his own good pleasure: God created this world for US, but MAN is the only creature God has created for himself, because he wills it.

We cannot retroactively apply morality to God: WE must say that since he is the source of all good, all things he does are good, and therefore not subject to moral scrutiny: If he wills some to be saved, but not others, it is good because he is good. It is not arbitrary, because arbitrariness has no part in God; it is good.

It is not unfair because man deserves hell; and God is good therefore all his choices are good. He is the qualifying agent as to the morality of any of his decisions; He can do no wrong.

 

[Victorious]

A. God definitely desire all to be saved. God offers all sufficient grace. But he does not actively WILL all to BE saved, because if he did, we would believe in universal salvation. He definitely chooses chooses his elect for his own reasons.

There is a need to step carefully here. God wants all men to be saved: this is clear from Scripture. But He will not force salvation upon us. In His permitting (as opposed to His ordaining) will, He allows those who die rejecting Him to go to hell. But He does not want anyone to go to hell: that is why He sent His Son to die for us. He does give every single human being sufficient grace for salvation, so that there is no one in hell who cannot be said to have been damned through his own fault.

The thing to keep in mind about the Catholic understanding of predestination is that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between God’s knowledge and a person’s eternal destiny. In other words, by knowing from all eternity that a particular person will go to hell, He does not thereby cause that person to go to hell.

To go much beyond that is to enter into the realm of mystery. Our tiny, earth-bound brains are just not big enough to wrap themselves around the mystery of how God can govern all things and respect our free will.

 

[TomD123]

THe Church says that is an acceptable understanding of Pre-destination, but I notice two things:

"God chooses to create Joe and Will. God desires for Joe and Will to both get to Heaven. However, God wills to withhold the actual grace necessary for Joe’s conversion; consequently, he is going to reject God and end up in Hell. So, how would God desire Joe to be saved if he does nothing to point Joe in this direction?

God chooses to create both, desiring that both be saved, but knowing Joe will not be. God creates Joe desiring his salvation, yet allowing him to perish because this will manifest his justice; while Will is going to be saved and this will demonstrate His mercy. God is said to have predestined Will because God created him and gave him the grace that would lead him to salvation, while he reprobates Joe because He created him without giving him the actual grace necessary for conversion, knowing that He would allow Joe to go to hell.

Remeber though, Joe is not damned for not receiving grace, he is damned for his SIN which he willfully commits.Here is my biggest problem. Because of original sin, we cannot chose the Supernaturally good and therefore not go to heaven. If this is the case, we have no other option than to chose hell without God. So not recieving grace is what damns him

It is not unfair because man deserves hell; and God is good therefore all his choices are good. He is the qualifying agent as to the morality of any of his decisions; He can do no wrong.

But how does God chose one over the other? IS there a reason or is it simply just because? And no, God can do no wrong.

Lastly, I think Thomism is strong on keeping God in control and this is what I like, but it is hard to accept God making somebody and not even giving them the chance to be saved. Now, we do not deserve to be saved, but if the alternate is eternal suffering, it would not make any sense.

 

[StTommyMore]

But how does God chose one over the other? IS there a reason or is it simply just because? And no, God can do no wrong.

Lastly, I think Thomism is strong on keeping God in control and this is what I like, but it is hard to accept God making somebody and not even giving them the chance to be saved. Now, we do not deserve to be saved, but if the alternate is eternal suffering, it would not make any sense.

Karl Rahner, himself a transcendental Thomist, argued that God has graced all of mankind and that the salvific act of God requires a response in faith. In this way, the act of salvation requires the acceptance by man. I am not so sure that I buy the argument that God actively selects only some people for salvation, but rather He elects all for salvation, but it is up to man to accept or reject His self-revealing love.

 

[Gregory_I]

But man can make no response to God unless God gives him the grace to make that act. Therefore God offers some grace to besaved, or “elects” some but not all. God chooses what he wills because it is good. We cannot know WHY he discerns the way he does, but we can rest assured that because he is good chis choices are good.

As Augustine says:

“If you do not wish to err, do not seek to understand that which is not revealed.”

Just because, but not arbitrary: We acknowledge the Author of goodness to make only good decisions.

Also, the Catholic church acknowledges that Nature and the things around us are sufficient for a man to know of the existence of God. It is not that the reprobate are clueless: THey are sinful, and do not seek God. Not because they have no choice, the will is free; But it is not so free as to equally desire supernatural good over evil; for man cannot desire supernatural good without supernatural grace.

“You did not choose me, I chose you.”

GOd’s grace goes before the elect and they will him on account of it.

 

[StTommyMore]

But man can make no response to God unless God gives him the grace to make that act. Therefore God offers some grace to besaved, or “elects” some but not all. God chooses what he wills because it is good. We cannot know WHY he discerns the way he does, but we can rest assured that because he is good chis choices are good.

As Augustine says:

“If you do not wish to err, do not seek to understand that which is not revealed.”

Just because, but not arbitrary: We acknowledge the Author of goodness to make only good decisions.

Also, the Catholic church acknowledges that Nature and the things around us are sufficient for a man to know of the existence of God. It is not that the reprobate are clueless: THey are sinful, and do not seek God. Not because they have no choice, the will is free; But it is not so free as to equally desire supernatural good over evil; for man cannot desire supernatural good without supernatural grace.

“You did not choose me, I chose you.”

GOd’s grace goes before the elect and they will him on account of it.

GOd does gove grace to be saved, to all, but then it is up to man to respond to said grace.

 

[Gregory_I]

Yes, but man cannot respond to God’s grace without grace to respond. That is the teaching of the church.

The will is not so free as to be able to respond to God’s invitation without the intervention of grace. All is prevenient grace. I am getting tired of saying “Pelagius taught thus”, but I will say it again: the Semi-Pelagians taught that man was totally free to repond to God’s grace without needing any grace to empower the will. That view was condemned at the Council of Orange.

 

[TomD123]

Yes, but man cannot respond to God’s grace without grace to respond. That is the teaching of the church.

The will is not so free as to be able to respond to God’s invitation without the intervention of grace. All is prevenient grace. I am getting tired of saying “Pelagius taught thus”, but I will say it again: the Semi-Pelagians taught that man was totally free to repond to God’s grace without needing any grace to empower the will. That view was condemned at the Council of Orange.

Man cannot respond to God’s grace without the grace to respond- that does not really change anything about predestination. I don’t think that is even a point of discussion here. The question I think is how active is God in choosing salvation for people. Also, why would God need to chose some to be saved to manifest his mercy and justice, why not give all men grace and the grace to respond (or give it to all who would accept it) and then bring them to heaven and the others would be damned- still shows forth God’s goodness. Seems as though God is not saving anybody out of love but because he is trying to prove a point

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes, but man cannot respond to God’s grace without grace to respond. That is the teaching of the church.

The will is not so free as to be able to respond to God’s invitation without the intervention of grace. All is prevenient grace. I am getting tired of saying “Pelagius taught thus”, but I will say it again: the Semi-Pelagians taught that man was totally free to repond to God’s grace without needing any grace to empower the will. That view was condemned at the Council of Orange.

Abd GOd gives this grace to all, and man has free will to accept or reject.

 

[Gregory_I]

No Tommy, you are missing the point:

GOd give sufficient Grace:

True.

God also Gives intrinsically efficacious grace to SOME> This grace is what empowers the will to respond to God AT ALL. The Grace precedes the act of willing. It is what empowers the ability to make a free response, But that free response CANNOT be made unless man receives the grace to make it: Not all men receive this actual grace of God. Why? Only God knows.

But it is clear that GOd does NOT give to all men intrinsically efficacious grace, otherwise all would be saved.

ANd how does God choose?

At his Good pleasure which is really and truly good, since he is the Author of all good, and only does the best things for us.

THose who are not chosen, are not condemned for not having been chosen, they are condemned for continuing in Sin. True, they may not receive the grace necessary for conversion, but neither do they desire it.

 

[StTommyMore]

No Tommy, you are missing the point:

GOd give sufficient Grace:

True.

God also Gives intrinsically efficacious grace to SOME> This grace is what empowers the will to respond to God AT ALL. The Grace precedes the act of willing. It is what empowers the ability to make a free response, But that free response CANNOT be made unless man receives the grace to make it: Not all men receive this actual grace of God. Why? Only God knows.

But it is clear that GOd does NOT give to all men intrinsically efficacious grace, otherwise all would be saved.

ANd how does God choose?

At his Good pleasure which is really and truly good, since he is the Author of all good, and only does the best things for us.

THose who are not chosen, are not condemned for not having been chosen, they are condemned for continuing in Sin. True, they may not receive the grace necessary for conversion, but neither do they desire it.

You are talking about “irresistible grace” which is Calvinism. If God wills all to be saved, then it must also be possible that all be saved. I am done arguing here. There is a reason that a Pope ended discussions on this kind of speculation.

 

[TomD123]

No Tommy, you are missing the point:

GOd give sufficient Grace:

True.

But it is clear that GOd does NOT give to all men intrinsically efficacious grace, otherwise all would be saved. This is the worst part of Thomism as I understand it, I would hate to be the one not given efficacious grace, but if it was given to me- it was only given to me to prove mercy not out of love.

ANd how does God choose?

At his Good pleasure which is really and truly good, since he is the Author of all good, and only does the best things for us. Yes, God can only do good. However, our definition of good comes from God, so what we consider good is not totally contrary to God’s definition of good, so if God chooses “at his good pleasure” or arbitrarily or randomly- whatever you call it, I do not see how this is merciful, just, or even wise.

THose who are not chosen, are not condemned for not having been chosen, they are condemned for continuing in Sin. True, they may not receive the grace necessary for conversion, but neither do they desire it. this is because they can’t without grace, and they do not deserve salvation, but God wills that all men be saved. Lets say I was super rich, enough to provide for the food for the entire starving world. I could not say “I desire that no man starves to death” if I would not give enough food (sufficient) to all. This food would sustain the starving (efficacious) if the people ate it. So God does not say he desires all to be saved if he withholds the only thing that can save them

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.

 

[TomD123]

If God wills all to be saved, then it must also be possible that all be saved. I am done arguing here.

Your statement is only logical

1. Can we resist the grace of God?

We can resist the grace of God, for our will is free, and God does not force us to accept His grace.

(1941 Baltimore Catechism)

 

[Gregory_I]

The POpe did not end discussion, he ended one side calling the other heretical, and intrinsically efficacious grace is not heretical, it is thomistic.

I think we should both do more research independently Tom before we fall into more widely divergent camps, lol.

I AM more Augustinian/THomistic, and it Seems you are more Molinist/Jesuit.

But You are not a Pelagian, and I am not a Calvinist. Let’s clear that much up. I will see if I can generate anymore cogent answers for you.

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, Based on Jimmy Akin’s Thomistic TULIP,

I will kinda start over:

Total inability of man to be pleasing to God: “Our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.”

“What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine, he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.”

Council of Orange II states that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20).

Unconditional Election: “The doctrine of unconditional election means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will (One will recall that most Molinists and the Jesuits in general say God bases his choices on what he forsees men doing -Gregory I-). God chooses whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.”

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. **All Thomists **and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

"Thomas Aquinas wrote, “God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others… Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, ‘Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.’”

Limited Intent for the atonements Efficacy- "Aquinas stated, “Christ’s passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.’”

“This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell.”

"The difference between the atonement’s sufficiency and its efficiency accounts for Paul’s statement that God is “the Savior of all men, especially those who believe.” God is the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect."

Intrinsically Efficacious Grace- The idea is that God’s enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation. ***This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. ***

Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God’s enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man’s free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious.

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, “God’s intention cannot fail… Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, ‘Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.’”

Perseverance of the Elect- "If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation, then the fact that a person will come to God does not of itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking about predestination to final salvation, then a predestined person will stay with God, but this does not mean the predestined are the only ones who experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely come to God (because they were predestined to initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because they were not predestined to final salvation). Either way, predestination to initial salvation does not entail predestination to final salvation. There is no reason why a person cannot be predestined to “believe for a while” but “in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13).

“The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. Aquinas (and even Molinas) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. Aquinas said, “Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect.” But not all who come to God receive this grace.”

Does that help?

 

[TomD123]

I AM more Augustinian/THomistic, and it Seems you are more Molinist/Jesuit.
.

Overall, yes, I would probably be Molinist, but I have an interest in Thomist predestination because I think it deals better with the undeserved aspect of grace and it is from St. Thomas

Well, Based on Jimmy Akin’s Thomistic TULIP,

I will kinda start over:

Total inability of man to be pleasing to God: “Our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love. We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of unselfish love.”

“What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he would not use the term “total depravity” to describe the doctrine, he would actually agree with it. The accepted Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam, man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless God gives him special grace to do so.”

Council of Orange II states that “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20). This is Catholic doctrine, pretty simple there

Unconditional Election: “The doctrine of unconditional election means God does not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on anything other than his own good will (One will recall that most Molinists and the Jesuits in general say God bases his choices on what he forsees men doing -Gregory I-). God chooses whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely because he has chosen them.”

What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. **All Thomists **and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election. Here, I like the idea of the undeserved quality in Thomism but still why some and not others is hard to handle

Limited Intent Yep this makes sense

Intrinsically Efficacious Grace- The idea is that God’s enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation. ***This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. ***

Here, I would lean towards Molinist because it gives us freedom, on the other hand, I would say sometimes God wants something to happen and he makes it happen (e.g. -The Blessed Mother did not sin and God not only knew this would occur but made it occur in some way

 

[TomD123]

“The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of final perseverance. Aquinas (and even Molinas) said this grace always ensures that a person will persevere. Aquinas said, “Predestination [to final salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect.” But not all who come to God receive this grace.”

Now, defiantly do believe in final perseverance, but I have questions on it.
(These may not all have a definite answer, but any thoughts are appreciated-- also if there is any official Church teaching on any that would be helpful too)

• Is final preserverence extrinsically or intrinsically efficacious?
• If extrinsically efficacious is it infallibly efficacious because God places man in a situation that He knows the man will accept it?
• Is preserverence from sin in general or more specifically grace to guard against final impenitence?
• Is this realted to what I have seen called “Confirmation in Grace”?
• How does this relate to the Sacraments?- do they contribute to this gift?
• How can we obtain the gift if we cannot merit it?
• Can we gain this gift for others?
• Do all who go to heaven have this gift or can some get into heaven without the actual grace of final persevereance?
• How does God distribute this Grace?
• Why is it not talked about more?
• Is this the kind of grace the First Friday devotion involves?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[Gregory_I]

Now, defiantly do believe in final perseverance, but I have questions on it.
(These may not all have a definite answer, but any thoughts are appreciated-- also if there is any official Church teaching on any that would be helpful too)

• Is final preserverence extrinsically or intrinsically efficacious?

Intrinsically Efficacious, because it is specifically about PERSEVERING, which is an act of our will, which must be moved by God’s will in order to will at all.

• If extrinsically efficacious is it infallibly efficacious because God places man in a situation that He knows the man will accept it?

That could be. But consider, man makes no move toward God apart from his grace, so God willed it.

• Is it preserverence from sin in general or more specifically grace to guard against final impenitence?

It is the grace to persevere in sanctifying grace, free from mortal sin.

• Is this realted to what I have seen called “Confirmation in Grace”?

I do not know, but maybe. The Sacrament of Confirmation is what confirms us in grace.

• How does this relate to the Sacraments?- do they contribute to this gift?

Of course, we are free, though moved by God, and we need to foster the sanctifying grace in our soul by confession and communion. It doesn’t mean we will not Sin, it just means we will not be caught with our pants down, so to speak.

• How can we obtain the gift if we cannot merit it?

God moves our will to respond to it: The grace is the constant good disposition of the soul toward God in its last hours.

• Can we gain this gift for others?

No, because we cannot merit it, and others are on God’'s timetable and guestlist. Like Jesus said to the Mother of James and John: “You do not know what you ask. To sit at my right or my left is not for me to give; but these places are for those whom they have been prepared from the foundation of the world.”

Remember the Mother of James and John wanted Jesus to seat her sons to his left and right. Interestingly, why did he not consider it as even possible? Is it because he PREDESTINED some?

• Do all who go to heaven have this gift or can some get into heaven without the actual grace of final persevereance?

None can go into heaven without the grace of final perseverance, because, by definition, they would not persever in the faith making them hellbound.

• How does God distribute this Grace?

According to his will and pleasure. But this is not a sardonic or sadistic pleasure or any kind of pleasure wherein there is any kind of passion, for God is passionless. He distributes it in the way which is BEST loving, most merciful, and most just, For he is all these things and his attributes cannot be separated from his actions.

• Why is it not talked about more?

Final perseverance is talked about sufficiently: What is not talked about is that it implies the Thomistic notion of predestination, where GOd absolutely chooses some and not others at his own will.

• Is this the kind of grace the First Friday devotion involves?

Final perseverance is about FINAL perseverance, not continuing perseverance, though all those who are the elect will continue in grace, or at least return to it in the hour of their death.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[Gregory_I]

This is my tak eon Augustine and Aquinas, feel free to comment.

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 sinful and sorrowful, justly condemned and guilty of Adam’s sin.
2. Man is incapable of doing any work that is supernaturally pleasing to God.
3. Man’s will, while free enough for justice, is not absolutely free, but inclined toward evil, and downward bent. That which is chosen against the higher will cannot be spoken of as truly free, sin is bondage; And sin holds our will captive.
4. God has infallibly chosen some men to be saved, who will be saved, and he has freely passed over the rest. These are the reprobate.
5. The reprobate can attain justification for a time, but are not among those to whom is given the gift of Final Perseverance. They fail to persevere, and will infallibly fall away. Therefore, the Church is not only the Elect, but all the faithful, even if some be reprobate ultimately.
6. 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,** for all the good actions of man, are prevenient grace at work, having gone before him.**
7. Christ’s atonement for men on the cross brought forth an abundance of grace, sufficient for the salvation of the entire world; nevertheless, he does not actually communicate this grace efficaciously to all, but only to those chosen before the foundation of the world. For: “Many are called, but few are chosen.”
8. This grace is intrinsically efficacious when communicated to the elect, but it is not irresistible, for man does retain a degree of freedom of the will: and he can will to put off the effects of grace for a time, but in the end, God’s will, will triumph in infallibly securing the elect. The will of God cannot be thwarted. Conversely, God wills to communicate this grace to the reprobate as well, but in them it is resisted because of sinfulness, and because God has abandoned them to the “massa damnata” due to their sinfulness.
9. The grace of God is immediately resistible, but only for a time, before it infallibly has its effect on the human heart of the elect, softening and preparing it to receive grace.
10. The Elect unfailingly and infallibly persevere to the end, even if they appear to fall away for a time, they will infallibly return to the grace of God, for God’s will cannot be thwarted.

 

[mosher]

Gregory I, I’m throughly impressed with your assimilation of Aquinas. It is, well, impressive.

I don’t have anything substantive yet to contribute to this conversation (I’m just lurking) but I will comment on something that was noted on the first page of the debate if it isn’t already clear by this point. I believe, with good reason, that the CCC does not address this issue because it would necessarily have to come down on one side of the Dominican/Jesuit divide on this issue. I don’t think that Holy Mother Church is willing to do this yet.