Disturbed by predestination according to Aquinas

[Valentinus]

So, apparently, as Aquinas says in his Summa contra gentiles, God chooses not to help the most of sinners and leaves them as they are. As I understand it, unless someone is free of sin altogether (nobody is because of the original sin), one is unable to accept the grace of God by means of their own free will, unless God gives them further grace. And God chooses to give this further grace to His elect to show His mercy, and on the other hand He chooses not to give this further grace to the others, so as to show His justice. And of course it is their fault, since they chose to sin using their free will. And nobody deserves this grace, as everyone has sinned, but some will receive it anyway and some won’t, according to God’s will. He is ready to give grace to everyone, but if somebody has freely made themselves unable to receive it, He will not force it.

And we cannot comprehend the decrees of the Divine Providence, so we should not ponder too much about it.

Now this whole theology, especially Divine Mercy, makes no sense to me. I should probably be grateful for the grace I have received, however.

 

[JerryZ]

Aquinas describes the tension between GOD omniscience and the human freewill.
You correctly point out that grace is an unmerited gift. We cannot earn grace, our default destiny is spiritual death as the direct result of our forefathers Adam and Eve sin.

That we have been restored to life and sonship of GOD only through his unending mercy is an unmerited favour.

So do not be disturbed by this, trying to understand an omniscient and omnipotent GOD is not something that we can comprehend fully, we can merely catch glimpses of His Glory.

…

 

[fred_conty]

What St. Thomas is saying is that you can’t make a horse drink even if you give him lots of water. But those horses willing to drink have the water. But there is no force exerted.

It makes sense because I’m sure many of us have offered someone help and they have turned it down. So we don’t insist and force it on them. But to those who do take our help, may need more help, which we would probably give them.

 

[Richca]

So, apparently, as Aquinas says in his Summa contra gentiles, God chooses not to help the most of sinners and leaves them as they are. As I understand it, unless someone is free of sin altogether (nobody is because of the original sin), one is unable to accept the grace of God by means of their own free will, unless God gives them further grace. And God chooses to give this further grace to His elect to show His mercy, and on the other hand He chooses not to give this further grace to the others, so as to show His justice. And of course it is their fault, since they chose to sin using their free will. And nobody deserves this grace, as everyone has sinned, but some will receive it anyway and some won’t, according to God’s will. He is ready to give grace to everyone, but if somebody has freely made themselves unable to receive it, He will not force it.

And we cannot comprehend the decrees of the Divine Providence, so we should not ponder too much about it.

Now this whole theology, especially Divine Mercy, makes no sense to me. I should probably be grateful for the grace I have received, however.

St Paul writes about predestination so it is a revealed truth. However, the theology of predestination and its relation to grace, free will, the salvific will of God, has a long history in the Church. An excellent book on the subject is “Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God” by Fr. William G. Most, 1997. Fr. Most traces the history of the theology of predestination from the fathers of the Church, through the middle ages, down to our present day including official Church teachings. He writes extensively on St Thomas Aquinas’ thought and writings. Fr. Most concludes that our salvation and eternal destiny is in our own hands and free will, not excluding God’s grace and help of course for God’s grace always precedes our good works and thoughts. God is ever ready and constantly offering us His grace. It is up to us to accept or refuse His offer. This is what the CCC teaches below. I highly recommend the book.

The CCC#600 says “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace” The key point here is “he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace.” We need to cooperate with God’s grace, He does not force us, to get to heaven and do His will. God will continue to offer His grace to us to our dying breath for He wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[JD1789]

What St. Thomas is saying is that you can’t make a horse drink even if you give him lots of water. But those horses willing to drink have the water. But there is no force exerted.

It makes sense because I’m sure many of us have offered someone help and they have turned it down. So we don’t insist and force it on them. But to those who do take our help, may need more help, which we would probably give them.

Great analogy!

 

[fred_conty]

Great analogy!

Well thank you and it also shows that those who don’t pray are in big trouble for they do not ask for help when they are over their head.

To me it isn’t the sin that is the greatest problem but the disposition or attitude a person takes toward God and others…hateful, mean, and hardhearted…sawing themselves off. And I believe that is implied in what St. Thomas is saying.

 

[Valentinus]

Thank you all for your responses, especially Richca, I am reading Fr. Most’s texts right now. Now it makes much more sense. Furthermore, I haven’t really taken into account that Aquinas is not infallible entirely.

I am not worried about it anymore, I think I have received some extra grace for this problem.

Ahh, St. Thomas, you kind of scared me! Be sure to remember me in your prayers! St. Thomas, pray for us!

http://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aquinas-Birdhouse-Meme.jpg

 

[eazyduzit]

According to Jn6:44, how many would accept salvation through Christ on their own free will?

The answer is exactly…

 

[thistle]

Thank you all for your responses, especially Richca, I am reading Fr. Most’s texts right now. Now it makes much more sense.** Furthermore, I haven’t really taken into account that Aquinas is not infallible entirely.**

I am not worried about it anymore, I think I have received some extra grace for this problem.

Ahh, St. Thomas, you kind of scared me! Be sure to remember me in your prayers! St. Thomas, pray for us!

http://www.stpeterslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aquinas-Birdhouse-Meme.jpg

He was not infallible at all. He was not Pope.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The predestination which St Paul wrote about and the Church teaches is not individual salvation for some and not for others.

Instead it is that God predestined that salvation would come to all humankind through Jesus Christ, but many will reject it out of their own free will.

As Pope Benedict XVI wrote, salvation was never individualistic, but socialistic.

Jim

 

[Valentinus]

He was not infallible at all. He was not Pope.

Yes, certainly, what I meant was that some of his teachings were later approved by popes or councils, but not this one.

Thank you all, I have read Fr. Most’s texts about predestination and he concludes that Aquinas was actually kind of misled by St. Augustine on this matter.

God bless, V.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes, certainly,** what I meant was that some of his teachings were later approved by popes or councils, but not this one**.

Thank you all, I have read Fr. Most’s texts about predestination and he concludes that Aquinas was actually kind of misled by St. Augustine on this matter.

God bless, V.

Actually, this teaching was approved by the Encyclical Studiorum Ducem:

1. The other branch of Theology, which is concerned with the interpretation of dogmas, also found in St. Thomas by far the richest of all commentators; for nobody ever more profoundly penetrated or expounded with greater subtlety all the august mysteries, as, for example, the intimate life of God, the obscurity of eternal predestination, the supernatural government of the world, the faculty granted to rational creatures of attaining their end, the redemption of the human race achieved by Jesus Christ and continued by the Church and the sacraments, both of which the Angelic Doctor describes as “relics, so to speak, of the divine Incarnation.”

While it doesn’t make Aquinas’ view of predestination binding in its entirety, he personally penetrated the mystery more than anyone else. The thrust of his and Augustine’s view was reaffirmed by the Church at Trent–God’s grace alone is responsible for our salvation, with our wills cooperating with the grace, and we (not God) are responsible for our damnation.

Of course, rationally trying to penetrate Divine mysteries still leaves us with a mystery (not to say it isn’t worthwhile though! ). Congruism and Banezianism both tried to build off Aquinas and Augustine in different ways.