Catholic Theology: Thomas Aquinas and Predestination

[cpayne]

Thanks, I was hoping for an answer like that. That explains very well the doctrine of the church, that there is no predestination to hell.

Yeah. I think the main Thomistic point to remember regarding predestination is a sentence from the ST: “Coercion is repugnant to freedom” (loose quotation, from memory). The point to remember is that predestination does not involve coercion—although in most people’s minds the two are linked, which is what causes the philosophical problems.

 

[drpmjhess]

Michael, all I’m saying is that from my purely human perspective, as a father, I would find it repugnant to believe that a God could either (1) reprobate (before time began) one of my little sons to eternal damnation, or (2) elect one of them to salvation and not elect the other. It may be that in the divine view this is somehow a “good,” but from a human perspective – which is the only one I have – it is not a “good” at all; rather, it is an evil. Perhaps if more theologians had children (I’m assuming Thomas Aquinas didn’t have any) they would take a less antiseptic view of this question, which so tugs at the heartstrings of parents who love their little ones.
Prayerfully,
Petrus

 

[mikeledes]

Michael, all I’m saying is that from my purely human perspective, as a father, I would find it repugnant to believe that a God could either (1) reprobate (before time began) one of my little sons to eternal damnation, or (2) elect one of them to salvation and not elect the other. It may be that in the divine view this is somehow a “good,” but from a human perspective – which is the only one I have – it is not a “good” at all; rather, it is an evil. Perhaps if more theologians had children (I’m assuming Thomas Aquinas didn’t have any) they would take a less antiseptic view of this question, which so tugs at the heartstrings of parents who love their little ones.
Prayerfully,
Petrus

I understand that this is difficult to understand and may seem repugnant. I will admit that when I first heard it I was troubled by it. But we must remember that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts and God’s ways are not our ways. Here is an interesting link on Catholic predestination if you are interested:

thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/predestination.htm

The following is a Thomist website:

thesumma.info/predestination/predestination4.php

And here is the Wikipedia article on Molinism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

God Bless,
Michael

 

[jimmy85]

Actually I think that there are some stuffs that maybe are really difficult or perhaps imposible to understand for us, just as what was said above. That is why im beginning to study some kantian philosophy.
Our human reasoning could rush to err saying that God is bad becuase he is almighty and he predestinate people to hell.

People must be concience of what they can understand and what they cannot understand with our poor human reasoing, in order to avoid mistakes.

 

[jimmy85]

Michael, all I’m saying is that from my purely human perspective, as a father, I would find it repugnant to believe that a God could either (1) reprobate (before time began) one of my little sons to eternal damnation, or (2) elect one of them to salvation and not elect the other. It may be that in the divine view this is somehow a “good,” but from a human perspective – which is the only one I have – it is not a “good” at all; rather, it is an evil. Perhaps if more theologians had children (I’m assuming Thomas Aquinas didn’t have any) they would take a less antiseptic view of this question, which so tugs at the heartstrings of parents who love their little ones.
Prayerfully,
Petrus

I think the problem is that you consider hell as something extremly common.
Only extremly awfull peopel is supposed to go there.

People normaly get influenciated about what other people say about hell. But the true is that we dont know how huge is the mercy of God.
Therefore we cannot know who will go to hell n who wont.

Furthermore, in the treaty of the purgatory st Catherine of Siena described her mistic visions, she said that God send his mercy even to hell and he give strenght to the souls there in order that they can endure the that situation.

So If we have free will, we must have responsabilities, and if we have responsabilities there must be a “consequense” if we make an extremly wrong use of our free will.

however, I believe hell is something extremly difficult to deserve.
It is an extreme.

 

[drpmjhess]

So If we have free will, we must have responsabilities, and if we have responsabilities there must be a “consequense” if we make an extremly wrong use of our free will.

Jimmy85, now you’re talking a language I understand: “responsibilities lead to consequences” (a lot of conservative Catholics I know are severe, unloving people – if the kid’s a reprobate, that’s just God’s will). I can accept that a person’s obdurate character separates her or him from God, but not that God’s will does.

However, my point about eternal damnation remains unanswered: as long as there is one person languishing forever in the metaphorical fires of hell, there is a mother and father in agony over that fact (probably even Hitler was loved as a baby), and there is not perfect beatitude for them. I tend to be an Origenist, believing in the eventual (whatever that means) “salvation” (whatever that means) of all.

Petrus

 

[cpayne]

So If we have free will, we must have responsabilities, and if we have responsabilities there must be a “consequense” if we make an extremly wrong use of our free will.

Jimmy85, now you’re talking a language I understand: “responsibilities lead to consequences” (a lot of conservative Catholics I know are severe, unloving people – if the kid’s a reprobate, that’s just God’s will). I can accept that a person’s obdurate character separates her or him from God, but not that God’s will does.

However, my point about eternal damnation remains unanswered: as long as there is one person languishing forever in the metaphorical fires of hell, there is a mother and father in agony over that fact (probably even Hitler was loved as a baby), and there is not perfect beatitude for them. I tend to be an Origenist, believing in the eventual (whatever that means) “salvation” (whatever that means) of all.

Petrus

I understand the problem, and I do see it is a problem. But the eternal state has to be beyond our current understanding. Think of it this way: The situation you’re describing would mean that no matter what a person does or does not do, God’s judgment of that person would be “held hostage” if anyone else had positive emotional attachments to that person. The attachments (on our part) would override the decision on God’s part?

I always think (and it took a while to think this) no matter how much I love my children, God loves them infinitely more. I have to be willing to leave them in His hands, just as I leave my own judgment in His hands. I hope that even if God sentences me to Hell, I would be content knowing that it was His just judgment and born of His love. “In His will—our peace.” (Dante)

P.S. This is not directed at the predestination part of your post, but the eternal damnation part.

 

[drpmjhess]

Thanks, CPayne – that’s an intriguing perspective. But if you were content, you wouldn’t really be in hell, would you?

 

[cpayne]

Thanks, CPayne – that’s an intriguing perspective. But if you were content, you wouldn’t really be in hell, would you?

I guess I’m being sneakier than I thought.

 

[Contarini]

I guess I’m being sneakier than I thought.

This is actually a traditional Calvinist response to the question: “what if you discovered that you were predestined to be damned?” In fact, some followers of Jonathan Edwards taught that you could not be saved unless you were willing to be damned for the glory of God, I believe. Luther also believed this early on–he suggested that Purgatory was the fear of hell, which would vanish as soon as you accepted that you deserved to be there.

Edwin

 

[Pug]

Pug, I recognize that predestination, reprobation, and election are concepts distinct from eternal dwelling in hell. I still find all three ideas theologically repugnant, in that they involve a God who arbitrarily wills destinies of created beings.

I think you intend to mean something specific by saying “arbitrarily wills”, but I’m not immediately sure what. I believe he wills us into existence. Perhaps this, too, is arbitrary? I suspect you mean something else, like a kind of failure to reference something. I’ll try and nudge you to tell me what that is.

Do you suppose God is under the same obligations as we are concerning gifts to his children? I agree with you that your average father here on earth will try not to give more to one than the other. But, is there something you feel in the act of creating us that obliges God to give to us equally?

I have never seen that men are equally endowed with gifts. Mary, for instance, seems to be endowed with more gifts/grace than me. Perhaps, though, you only seek for a minimum that God is obliged to do for us, maybe based upon the common nature or needs or purpose (or telos, maybe) he has given men. Perhaps you are saying that God cannot fulfill the telos for one person and leave the other person sort of hanging, and the reason he can’t is that he has no basis that is inherent in the people themselves to distinguish the two? Thus any distinction between them in treatment by God would be arbitrary.

I can’t get this post to say what I want. Grrr. Sorry. Okay, what do you mean by arbitrary? Do you feel that once God established the nature and telos of man that he obligated himself by that very act to fulfill that end or meet the basic needs of that nature?

BTW, I think there might be a fundamental difference in how a man is obligated to respond to the created good that he is surrounded with than how God is obligated to respond to the good that he made, since he is the one that made it good to respond to, or something. I’ve never been able to get very far thinking about that topic.

 

[jimmy85]

So If we have free will, we must have responsabilities, and if we have responsabilities there must be a “consequense” if we make an extremly wrong use of our free will.

Jimmy85, now you’re talking a language I understand: “responsibilities lead to consequences” (a lot of conservative Catholics I know are severe, unloving people – if the kid’s a reprobate, that’s just God’s will). I can accept that a person’s obdurate character separates her or him from God, but not that God’s will does.

However, my point about eternal damnation remains unanswered: as long as there is one person languishing forever in the metaphorical fires of hell, there is a mother and father in agony over that fact (probably even Hitler was loved as a baby), and there is not perfect beatitude for them. I tend to be an Origenist, believing in the eventual (whatever that means) “salvation” (whatever that means) of all.

Petrus

Well even Hell can be endure just as the mystical experiences of st Catherine of Siena affirm.

Something that you could be having wrong could be the real meaning of what hell is and how bad is it.

The bible is clear, that hell is awfull, however in my own opinion I think that the interpretations of hell that are in the bible have only one purpose, that is to make us be better and not to be mediocre.
Hypoteticaly if we knew that hell isnt so bad, we would avoid virtude, and we wouldnt chose to be better people at all. The same if we knew that we are already saved, we would avoid the good and we would be mediocre, and God dosent want that.

So we dont really know how exactly hell is.
Perhaps it is only a place in which the soul cant have total peace, or it could be different, but we are sure that the punishment there can be endure with the mercy of God that St Catherine mentioned in the treaty of the purgatory.

 

[drpmjhess]

Do you suppose God is under the same obligations as we are concerning gifts to his children? I agree with you that your average father here on earth will try not to give more to one than the other. But, is there something you feel in the act of creating us that obliges God to give to us equally?

I suppose God is obligated by nothing. But I would hope He/She would operate by more than merely caprice, and that seems to be what predestination involves, if it is unconnected to any foreknown human merit.
Petrus

 

[jimmy85]

I suppose God is obligated by nothing. But I would hope He/She would operate by more than merely caprice, and that seems to be what predestination involves, if it is unconnected to any foreknown human merit.
Petrus

Basicaly we are the ones that decide whether or not to go to the condenation, and not God.
God dosent refuse a soul that repents even if it had commited a mortal sin.

 

[mgrfin]

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.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is de fide definita. Compared to Predestination, it is easy.

Since St. Thomas preceded Calvin, people always get this wrong. It was Calvin who messed up St. Thomas, not vice versa.

peace

 

[cpayne]

I suppose God is obligated by nothing. But I would hope He/She would operate by more than merely caprice, and that seems to be what predestination involves, if it is unconnected to any foreknown human merit.
Petrus

In the N.T., predestination is ALWAYS after foreknowledge, even if only logically.

 

[cpayne]

This is actually a traditional Calvinist response to the question: “what if you discovered that you were predestined to be damned?” In fact, some followers of Jonathan Edwards taught that you could not be saved unless you were willing to be damned for the glory of God, I believe. Luther also believed this early on–he suggested that Purgatory was the fear of hell, which would vanish as soon as you accepted that you deserved to be there.

Edwin

I came up with a traditional Calvinist response? :bigyikes: All right—I’m okay now. I was shaken for a moment, but Calvin is also one of God’s creatures and my brother in Christ.

 

[Axion]

I think you intend to mean something specific by saying “arbitrarily wills”, but I’m not immediately sure what. I believe he wills us into existence. Perhaps this, too, is arbitrary? I suspect you mean something else, like a kind of failure to reference something. I’ll try and nudge you to tell me what that is.

Creation of a sentient being necessitates some responsibility for its welfare. Humans understand that. I don’t see God acting on a lesser standard. The Golden Rule applies here: To do to others as you would wish them to do to you. Arbitrary consignment to eternal torment would seem to break this rule.

Do you suppose God is under the same obligations as we are concerning gifts to his children? I agree with you that your average father here on earth will try not to give more to one than the other. But, is there something you feel in the act of creating us that obliges God to give to us equally?

No obligation to provide EQUAL gifts. But the deference between reprobation and election is massively different to a mere “not giving equally”

I have never seen that men are equally endowed with gifts. Mary, for instance, seems to be endowed with more gifts/grace than me. Perhaps, though, you only seek for a minimum that God is obliged to do for us,

Again, Mary, Paul, and others may indeed have different gifts to us. It is undoubtedly true that SOME are predestined to salvation. But my belief is that this is a small group… For most, grace is given to all, and some freely choose to reject that grace. This is the whole tenor of Jesus’s preaching, and I would follow that.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

And someone else brought up the idea that predestination and reprobation are different; I’m not sure I see the difference between the two. Could you or someone else give me an example of the difference?

The difference is this:

God predestines some to heaven, in that His will causes grace now, and heaven later.

If God predestined some to hell, then His will would cause their sin now, and hell later.

Rather, we cause our own sin now, because of our free will. And our sin deserves hell, an end caused by God’s not willing a certain good for us, namely the good of Heaven.

I hope this makes more sense.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

However, my point about eternal damnation remains unanswered: as long as there is one person languishing forever in the metaphorical fires of hell, there is a mother and father in agony over that fact (probably even Hitler was loved as a baby), and there is not perfect beatitude for them…

Only assuming that perfect beatitude is fulfilled by loving many things. As Kierkegaard says (I don’t agree with everything he says, but with this) purity of the heart is to will one thing. To will to be with God.

Since God’s love is infinitely greater than any other love, and love is necessarily complete only if reciprocated, then my love for God, if it is perfect, is infintely greater than any other love. Though this means I do love other things, it also means that their suffering would not lessen my happiness, since my happiness is not rooted in them.

Else God, who is infinitely happy, would no longer be, since He loves us, and we are now suffering. Rather, God loves us, but loves Himself (in terms of the relationships of the persons of God within one being) infinitely more. And so, though He is “saddened” in an analogical sense, by our suffering, He is still infinitely happy, for His happiness is not rooted in us.