The mystery in Predestination may be in the subtlies between 'efficient grace" and “sufficient grace”. Maybe different terms would help.
Maybe. Maybe I don’t understand the terms, but your previous post didn’t address my questions. I will repeat them as succinctly as possible.
- Isn’t it true that no one is saved by sufficient grace along (in the Thomist system) without the additional gift of efficient grace?
- Isn’t it true that only the elect receive efficient grace, and that God has chosen to elect these particular people without regard for their foreseen merits?
- If these things are true, does it not follow that the rejection of sufficient grace by the reprobate was the inevitable consequence of their not having been chosen (ante praevisa merita) by God? Yes, I understand that God’s passing over these people did not cause them to reject grace. They rejected grace of their own free will. And you have helped me understand that (in contrast to Calvinism) the reason the reprobate reject grace is not because they are so sinful they can’t do otherwise, since sufficient grace has overcome the effects of sin enough to enable them to respond to grace (did I understand correctly?). But it remains true that no one whom God has not chosen (ante praevisa merita) and who therefore has not received efficient grace will respond to sufficient grace in such a way as to attain final salvation. I don’t see how you can get around that unless you are going to deny that predestination to life is ante praevisa merita.
I see you saying, “Right”, “Right”, “Right”, “Right”, “but…,” “but…,” “but…”
“but…”.
Yes, because the buts arise logically! I like Thomism, but it seems like an attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too. (Actually, that’s why I like it–I think this is probably the right approach, but then we should admit that we are being paradoxical and can’t really explain how our position is consistent, which frankly is what I do on this issue.)
You prefer to call yourself a Wesleyan Thomist (whatever that is), than admit to the Catholic position?
No, I have no problem admitting to “the” Catholic position, but as you know quite well there is no one Catholic position on this subject. I think my view is well within the bounds of Catholic opinion. It is not the same as traditional Thomism, but it is deeply informed by my study of Aquinas and by my own roots in the Wesleyan tradition.
The Wesleyan position, essentially, is that God gives prevenient grace to everyone (at some point in their life–God is sovereign with regard to how and when He gives this gift, but being gracious He will not withhold it from anyone). Prevenient grace is in many ways analogous to sufficient grace, I think–it overcomes the effects of sin enough to enable a free response to the Gospel. However, unlike Thomism, Wesleyanism holds that many people do respond to this initial gift of grace, and that further grace is given on the basis of that free response. This actually may be the position you are defending as Thomist–it is not how I understand the classical Thomist position (and that may be why we are miscommunicating).
I claim the term "Thomist’ mainly because I believe that
a) predestination to life is not based on foreknowledge, while reprobation is (however, I’m frank about the paradoxical nature of this belief, and because
b) I believe that God’s knowledge is causative, and am therefore uncomfortable both with traditional Arminianism and with the Molinist theory of “middle knowledge” (though I need to study the latter more thoroughly).
Edwin
Are you saying that predestination to glory is primarily based on foreknowledge of man’s choices?