Catholic Theology: Thomas Aquinas and Predestination

[Saul.Tentmaker]

I fashion myself as a Thomist.

St. Thomas Aquinas (and I also) did (and do) accept that God’s providence requires a single predestination, whereby God predestines those whom He elects. God does not predestine people to hell, but does love different people by different degrees, and this is the reason there are different degrees of virtue; also, He reprobates some to hell, not by hating them, but by loving them to a degree such that the good He desires for them does not include the beatific vision.

As this predestination and reprobation occurs without violating contingency, as God wills that accepting Him or rejecting Him still be contingent, thus allowing for both free will, and Christ’s death for the sake of the whole world, and not just the elect.

He, before the contingency has occurred, deigned to give some the grace to persevere to salvation, and others He has deigned not to give said grace.

Are there others, on this board, who accept this? Why do you accept this? Those who reject this, and hold more of a Molinist/Suarez view (God gives people free will, and grants grace before these people choose Him because He knows they will follow Him when given this grace, and continues to cooperate with the people after they have freely chosen Him),
why? Why do you think St. Thomas is wrong?

This is not dogmatically defined. The risks of going too far either way are Jansenism/Calvinism, and Arminianism.

Nevertheless, this is an important topic to think about, especially considering its (over)importance in reformation history.

 

[Bishopite]

I fashion myself as a Thomist.

St. Thomas Aquinas (and I also) did (and do) accept that God’s providence requires a single predestination, whereby God predestines those whom He elects. God does not predestine people to hell, but does love different people by different degrees, and this is the reason there are different degrees of virtue; also, He reprobates some to hell, not by hating them, but by loving them to a degree such that the good He desires for them does not include the beatific vision.

As this predestination and reprobation occurs without violating contingency, as God wills that accepting Him or rejecting Him still be contingent, thus allowing for both free will, and Christ’s death for the sake of the whole world, and not just the elect.

He, before the contingency has occurred, deigned to give some the grace to persevere to salvation, and others He has deigned not to give said grace.

Are there others, on this board, who accept this? Why do you accept this? Those who reject this, and hold more of a Molinist/Suarez view (God gives people free will, and grants grace before these people choose Him because He knows they will follow Him when given this grace, and continues to cooperate with the people after they have freely chosen Him),
why? Why do you think St. Thomas is wrong?

This is not dogmatically defined. The risks of going too far either way are Jansenism/Calvinism, and Arminianism.

Nevertheless, this is an important topic to think about, especially considering its (over)importance in reformation history.

There is no formal defined teaching on reprobation.

“The reality of Reprobation is not formally defined, but is the general teaching of the Church.”
(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott, page 245)

“By Reprobation is understood the eternal resolve of God’s will to exclude certain rational creatures from eternal bliss. While God, by His grace, positively co-operates in the supernatural merits, which lead to beatification, **He merely permits sin, which leads to eternal damnation.” **(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pge 244)

“The conditional nature of Positive Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God’s desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim, 2,4 ; Ez 33,11 ; 2 Peter 3,9)” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, page 245)"

I know you are a Thomist as I. But we can’t deny the validity of the Molinist view that God’s grace isn’t always the type of grace that is efficacious so as to move the will without violating its free choice.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

There is no formal defined teaching on reprobation.

So this is a theological question. I’m asking what you think.

My purposes for asking it are three-fold: One, to get brain-juices pumping for those mind-numbed by the number of times they’ve been asked to defend the Immaculate Conception (for fun, in other words).

Two, to show those who are not Catholic (and even those who are) that Catholics do think about things not defined precisely by the Magesterium, can form their own views, and can argue and defend them.

Three, to show Calvinists that some of the ideas they hold are correct, but incomplete, and too two-dimensional, so as to be dangerous. In other words, the perfection of Calvinism is Thomism.

No question in my mind, Molinism is valid in the sense of Church doctrine. I simply think it is the less elegant of the two possibilities.

 

[Bishopite]

So this is a theological question. I’m asking what you think.

My purposes for asking it are three-fold: One, to get brain-juices pumping for those mind-numbed by the number of times they’ve been asked to defend the Immaculate Conception (for fun, in other words).

Two, to show those who are not Catholic (and even those who are) that Catholics do think about things not defined precisely by the Magesterium, can form their own views, and can argue and defend them.

Three, to show Calvinists that some of the ideas they hold are correct, but incomplete, and too two-dimensional, so as to be dangerous. In other words, the perfection of Calvinism is Thomism.

No question in my mind, Molinism is valid in the sense of Church doctrine. I simply think it is the less elegant of the two possibilities.

Gotchya! I agree.

Here is what I think, it’s my two cents.
God gives everyone sufficient grace in order for them to choose Him or reject Him; even those who have never heard of Him. God predestines some (the elect) to heaven but doesn’t predestine others to hell because everyone is born with some amount of sufficient grace (Romans 2;14-16) which also shows mans will was darkened by sin but not totally depraved.
God gives some efficacious grace (which is saving grace) without violating their free will to choose Him.
Thomas Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” (De Veritatis 22:9.)

 

[Timmy_Z]

He reprobates some to hell, not by hating them, but by loving them to a degree such that the good He desires for them does not include the beatific vision.

Please, define how that is a “good” or a form of “love”.

Three, to show Calvinists that some of the ideas they hold are correct

Don’t do that. The best thing RC’s had going for them is that they were not Calvinists

-Tim

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Please, define how that is a “good”

A good is that end toward which a thing tends (or in the case of things with a will, that which should tend, when there is contingency). For a ball that falls, it is the ground. For a cup, it is in the holding of water. For man, it is virtue.

or a form of “love”.

Love is the desire of good for something, or the desire of something for the sake of a good.

Don’t do that. The best thing RC’s had going for them is that they were not Calvinists

But not being Calvinists does not mean that we accept that every aspect of Calvinism is necessarily and totally wrong. Much of it is very fitting for God. But it is incomplete and imperfect, as all theologies and heresies are outside of the Catholic Church.

Beyond this, much of Calvin comes from St. Thomas, so we must honor that which flows from excellence, and the Angelic Doctor is the most excellent of sainted intellects.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Gotchya! I agree.

Here is what I think, it’s my two cents…

How do you reconcile this view with St. Thomas’s view of reprobation, that some souls God reprobates, and this reprobation occurs before their birth, and is a result of divine love given in insufficient measure for the good of the beatific vision?

 

[Pug]

He reprobates some to hell, not by hating them, but by loving them to a degree such that the good He desires for them does not include the beatific vision.

As this predestination and reprobation occurs without violating contingency, as God wills that accepting Him or rejecting Him still be contingent, thus allowing for both free will, and Christ’s death for the sake of the whole world, and not just the elect.

This brings to mind two passages of the CCC

55 …“After the fall, [God] buoyed them up with the hope of salvation, by promising redemption; and he has never ceased to show his solicitude for the human race. For he wishes to give eternal life to all those who seek salvation by patience in well-doing.”…

which seems compatible with some sort of non-universal wishing.

**52 **God, who “dwells in unapproachable light”, wants to communicate his own divine life to the men he freely created, in order to adopt them as his sons in his only-begotten Son. By revealing himself God wishes to make them capable of responding to him, and of knowing him and of loving him far beyond their own natural capacity.

this seems a bit more universal in its wishing, but also seems more to be talking about capacity, and not final perseverance.

Also, while I’m at it, here is St. Thomas on your topic:

Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined–namely, glory–and of what is received in this life–namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present–namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future–namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true–namely, “Destruction is thy own, O Israel.”

uh, first part, question 23, article 3, Summa. Also, Saul is referring to Objection 1 and its associated reply, I think.

 

[Timmy_Z]

What is the difference between “reprobating” and “predestining” to hell?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Pug,

Excellent response, with references from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Angelic Doctor as well.

I entirely agree that predestination is different from reprobation, and made a note of it in my first post, and this may be to what you are referring.

Reprobation is not the cause of sin, but of abandonment, and this because God loved the one reprobated, but not with a love that wished the good of salvation to that person. As you have quoted

As St. Thomas says in Q.23, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 1 (for those who may be curious) “God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good - namely, eternal life - He sis said to hate, or reprobate them.”

And for a further distinction, so that it is clear reprobation does not get in the way of free will or universal salvation (same question, Rep. Obj. 3) “Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility, but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Q 19, I think) that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet by a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, though anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.”

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

What is the difference between “reprobating” and “predestining” to hell?

Predesination necessarily causes two things, one in this life, and one in the next. In this life, grace, and in the next, glory.

Reprobation causes only one thing, and only in the next life. For in this life, reprobation does not cause sin, but does cause the privation of grace, and so the abandonment of God, and this is in the next life.

 

[Timmy_Z]

From your OP…

How does is it loving for God to will or “reprobate” John Doe to hell (eternal conscience torment)?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

How does is it loving for God to will or “reprobate” John Doe to hell (eternal conscience torment)?

It is not fitting for God to will the lack of something. Rather, God loves all men, but that may not include willing them the good of eternal life, but some other good.

It is not God’s lack of love but our sin that makes us deserving of hell. And it is a sign of God’s justice and His mercy that some are reprobated by Him, and condemned to everlasting torment, which all deserve.

 

[Bishopite]

How do you reconcile this view with St. Thomas’s view of reprobation, that some souls God reprobates, and this reprobation occurs before their birth, and is a result of divine love given in insufficient measure for the good of the beatific vision?

From what I’ve studied so far, I agree with the Thomistic view of reprobation, that it occurs before birth and is a result of divine love; and…that God’s efficacious grace always does what it intends. How to explain it would be like asking me to explain the Trinity. There are many mysteries about God indeed, and being a novice when it comes to Thomistic theology, I’ve not gone beyond knowing how God predestines some to heaven and yet the others only get sufficient grace so that they aren’t part of the elect and yet they freely choose to not follow Him. And that He foreknows who will and won’t receive efficacious grace, and does this all in and through His divine love. Why this occurs isn’t something I’ve pondered nor studied and I really can say, I don’t know why. Sorry.

Why He does it is a very deep question.

 

[Contarini]

It is not fitting for God to will the lack of something. Rather, God loves all men, but that may not include willing them the good of eternal life, but some other good.

It is not God’s lack of love but our sin that makes us deserving of hell. And it is a sign of God’s justice and His mercy that some are reprobated by Him, and condemned to everlasting torment, which all deserve.

I think the Thomistic view would work fine with an annihilationist view. I have no problem with the idea that God chooses to give eternal life to some and not to others. God is God, and eternal life is a free gift. To have been alive for one instant is a gift beyond imagining–it would be greedy to ask for more.

But combined with a doctrine of eternal punishment, the Thomist view is very troubling, and the Thomist efforts to distinguish their position from Calvinism and to explain why God does not will evil when He chooses not to predestine certain people to eternal life are, in my opinion, only half-convincing at best.

Still, I don’t know a satisfactory alternative. Fr. Most’s variant of Thomism is appealing, though I think it’s nowhere near as Thomistic as Fr. Most appeared to think. Perhaps that is the way to go, but it involves saying that some whom God initially chooses to elect (speaking of logical, not temporal order) are excluded from the elect based on God’s foreknowledge, and I think Aquinas would have some serious objections to this.

And I’m glad to see the Thomist position defended and articulated so clearly here. It’s a debate that many Catholics don’t even know exists.

Edwin

 

[JaneFrances]

And I’m glad to see the Thomist position defended and articulated so clearly here. It’s a debate that many Catholics don’t even know exists.

Edwin

I, too, am most pleased to be a witness to this marvelous thread! I’m reading in wonder. . .

On a personal note, I tend to shy away from debates of Thomists v. Molinists as they never seem to go anywhere–maybe that’s the point??? The debate is most worthy, though!

Also, I liked the quote “In other words, the perfection of Calvinism is Thomism.” Any Calvinist care to respond???

 

[Pug]

I entirely agree that predestination is different from reprobation, and made a note of it in my first post, and this may be to what you are referring.

I could tell you agreed. Something made me want to add the snip where he mentions causation, though. I’m not sure why, exactly. Here also is another quote that seems sort of about the principle of predilection. St. Augustine is talking about good angels and bad angels and what is different in their will. I tried to give a little context.

And thus we are driven to believe that the holy angels never existed without a good will or the love of God. But the angels who, though created good, are yet evil now, became so by their own will. And this will was not made evil by their good nature, unless by its voluntary defection from good; for good is not the cause of evil, but a defection from good is. These angels, therefore, either received less of the grace of the divine love than those who persevered in the same; or if both were created equally good, then, while the one fell by their evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted, and attained to that pitch of blessedness at which they became certain they should never fall from it,—as we have already shown in the preceding book.

City of God book 12 chapter 9.

For me personally, I am greatly comforted by the idea that God loves and God choses. I just lay it in his hands. This, to me, gives a little peace about things. Whereas, others, I think, are more comforted by the Molinist position. Perhaps someone from the Molinist position could explain if they find that position more comforting, and if so, why.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Why He does it is a very deep question.

The topic is rife with deep and dangerous questions. Which is why it is best to talk about aspects of it, so that people are prepared when talking to people who’ve honored human will too much (Pelegians), and people who don’t think God came to save the world, that we have no free will, and are just robots, i.e. Calvinists/Jansenists.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

But combined with a doctrine of eternal punishment, the Thomist view is very troubling…

So do lot’s of people. Probably because the idea of hell is a very troubling one. When someone thinks about punishment for good reason, one typically thinks of something temporary. But eternal suffering is quite another thing, especially when this is thought of as part of divine perfection.

Nonetheless, the thought of hell, and even of being predestined to hell (that I do not accept) has been seen as important by different denominations, like the Reformed Calvinists, and the Anglicans, the Anglicans in articles X (denying free will), XVI (setting up something very close to a double predestination).

Dealing with hell is something that is both difficult and important, especially in this modern world with a more modern concept of justice. The existence of a place for eternal suffering to which souls are banished puts into question God’s justice, mercy, and even providence.

Denial of hell, however, at any level, means denial that our actions have real and dire consequences. The wicked who prosper in this world really do prosper. Even if we accept that there is temporary punishment, we deny God’s justice, for it is justice that those outside His grace should be dealt with according to their merits achieved outside His love, which are none, for they would not exist without His love.

To destroy the soul creates even more problems, for God made the soul to be eternal in its essence, and in destroying souls, God would violate completely the nature of what He created.

It is important to remember, when wrestling with the real difficulties of reconsiling hell with God’s love and mercy, that we do have a free will (at least those of us who have reached an age of reason), and freely choose either God’s grace, or its lack, which can only be outside His perfect presence.

… and the Thomist efforts to distinguish their position from Calvinism and to explain why God does not will evil when He chooses not to predestine certain people to eternal life are, in my opinion, only half-convincing at best.

What evil would God be willing? What do you find unconvincing?

Still, I don’t know a satisfactory alternative. Fr. Most’s variant of Thomism is appealing, though I think it’s nowhere near as Thomistic as Fr. Most appeared to think.

I am unfamiliar with this view. What is it?

…but it involves saying that some whom God initially chooses to elect (speaking of logical, not temporal order) are excluded from the elect based on God’s foreknowledge, and I think Aquinas would have some serious objections to this.

Yes, he would, and did.

And I’m glad to see the Thomist position defended and articulated so clearly here. It’s a debate that many Catholics don’t even know exists.

Thank you for your kind words, and thoughtful post. I am interested in your views, and glad to see an internal struggle about them. I still struggle with the idea of hell, myself. It seems very un-Christian at times, in my mind. It is not, certainly, un-Christian, but supremely Christian, for Christ came to bring division.

Still, it’s psychologically troublesome.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

For me personally, I am greatly comforted by the idea that God loves and God choses. I just lay it in his hands. This, to me, gives a little peace about things. Whereas, others, I think, are more comforted by the Molinist position. Perhaps someone from the Molinist position could explain if they find that position more comforting, and if so, why.

Thank you for another wonderful and thoughtful post. It is good to keep these things in mind.

It would be grand to hear the views from a Molinist, as you have stated. Jesuits traditionally take this path.

Any Jesuits interested in commenting (whether Thomist, or no)?

I would also recommend to anyone for future reading, Garrigou-Lagrange’s work on the subject, titled “Predestination.”