Predestination/Calvinism

[benedictus2]

What you really need to ask yourself, though, is what you make of it when the boundaries set by the CC change over time. For example, there was a certain set of boundaries that Aquinas was working within, and they were different from the boundaries that you are working within…surely you can appreciate the fact that he couldn’t reach the same conclusions as you because they fell outside the bounds of Catholic teaching at the time? But then again, he was personally responsible for marking those boundaries more clearly for the Latin church of the West. He largely reaffirmed what Augustine did, and Banez, in turn, largely affirmed what Aquinas did.

I am not sure that Aquinas was working within a set of boundaries that the Catholic Church has set.

The premises that I found most constricting in both Thomas and Augustine were not set by the Church.

Besides the Church cannot make declarations that will conflict with previous teachings. It can only proclaim developments that line up with previously declared doctrine.

And then Molina affirmed the necessity of protecting free will in a way that wasn’t done before, and he succeeded (!!!) in changing the boundaries of Catholic teaching on this matter.
He didn’t change the boundaries of Catholic Teaching. He just addressed it from the opposing angle. His doing this actually gave a good counterbalance to Thomism so we can hope for greater clarity.

Bringing it into the present day, you not only affirm the act of changing those boundaries, but you also believe he was right while his predecessors (and those who follow them) were wrong.

Well no. Molina did not change the boundaries. He just highlighted what he saw as a flaw in the the Thomist system and tried to come up with a solution. It is not about boundaries.

Since the end of the 16th century, Molinism has been one of the views that falls within the bounds of Catholic teaching…but so do a half-dozen other ones. I think I understand what you’re doing, though- you acknowledge that they all fall within the boundaries, but you’re looking for the ideal one that’s closer to perfection than any of the others.

Well since they both have short comings, as we come to greater clarity through the guidance of the Holy Spirit then we hope to see a dogmatic pronouncement by the Church regarding this.

At the moment all we see are what you call defining the boundaries as she rejects those that are irreconcilable with what we know about God through His revelation.

That reminds me, though- why look at just Thomism and Molinism? Have you discounted other candidates like Augustinianism without seriously considering them?

I have discounted the Augustinian system because of its closeness to Calvinism. Pete Holter tried to explain the nuances of this system but to me it still sounds like a God who creates people just to damn them.

Maybe I am reading it wrong but no one has been able to elucidate it enough for me to be able not to come up with this conclusion. But then again it’s probably that I am just really stupid so I it’s evading my grasp. And that is something I do not discount in any of my assessment of these system, that my brain is just not up to it.

Although when I come to think of it my brain is really not up to it. It’s only through God’s little flashes of insight that I comprehend any of this at all.

I think I’ll tell you my experience with regards Predestination but I’ll put that in a separate post.

 

[benedictus2]

What you really need to ask yourself, though, is what you make of it when the boundaries set by the CC change over time.

Okay, I think this text is as good enough as any to dovetail my story regarding predestination.

I did not know such a doctrine existed until I joined CAF. Then, in one of the first threads I got involved in, another member by the name of Sandusky started talking along these liines and I was horrified. I thought wow, this guy must be sick to even believe in a such a god. But then it turned out that he had not connected the dots so did not realize that this is where his belief led him.

Anyway, he countered that the Catholic Church actually believed in Predestination and provided Ott’s book as a source even highlighting the words DE FIDE dogma.

My heart sank. I had no idea the Church could believe this.

So I did some research and it was true she did. But I read on and I learned that she teaches single not double predestination. That calmed me and I was actually able to mount (to my estimation) a good rebuttal.

Then another thread came up and Craig Kennedy asked me to write a compare and contrast of the Thomist and Molinist view. As I read the Thomist position my heart sank deeper and deeper. I kept thinking how can the Church teach this? I was in real spiritual turmoil.

And then I remembered that I have always maintained in the forums that I know the Church is Christ’s Church and as such will teach only the truth.

Thinking about this belief that I firmly hold to be true, then I said to myself I will believe this (predestination) even though I do not understand, even though it seems to go against what I believe to be true about God and about salvation.

So I said to God: “Who am I to claim to be better than the Church and all those holy men and women who have gone before? I believe what your Church teaches and I do not have to understand.”

So I gave my assent to this belief that I can’t get my head around.

But I think that is what God was waiting for from me because after I said that, a kind of clarity came to me as my head hit the pillow and the next day I was able to write my attempt at reconciling these two which turned out to be my post 258.

So to your question, as to how I will fare if the Church comes up with more pronouncements. I will trust her. She is Christ’s Church. She cannot err.

 

[benedictus2]

If memory serves, I think Aquinas and Augustine both affirm that some kind of grace actually is given to all, but it’s not the kind of grace you’re talking about. That is, there’s another kind of grace that does not potentially lead to eternal life- it has to do with something else.

And that is what I have a problem with. Grace has to be about eternal life. That’s what we were created for. If not, then what’s the point if we are going to end up in hell anyway.

But you’re saying everyone must recieve grace that has the potential for eternal life because Christ died for all.

Yes. Because Christ died for all.

Not only that, because according to St Augustine : God created us for Himself and St Thomas said that to Love is to Will the Good of the other.

If God created us for Himself, why would He will us to perdition. If to love is to will the good of the other, then why would God who IS love, will our damnation when damnation can hardly be called a good.

While the Church affirms that Christ died for all and allows for you to make that connection, it does not require you to make that connection. Therefore, I’m pretty sure you can’t require it of other Catholics.

Since it is a dogma then yes it is required of Catholics.

Ok. What about pre-Enlightenment theologians? Were they working with different teachings from their Magisterium? Or were they refusing to exercise the gray matter to its full extent and coming up with things that made less sense?

Which theologians are you referring to other than those already mentioned?

 

[benedictus2]

They did use the term “election”. However, they never used the term “the elect”, neither does the Catholic Church. That’s a very Protestant term.

So how are those elected referred to?

Unless the student takes a holistic approach, he will not resolve the conflict. If he tries to resolve the Thomist conflict using Thomism, he ends up going in circles.

That is true. That is why I tried to resolve it in my post 258 outside of Thomism.

I think the confusion in our discussion is that you think I am after a Catholic resolution of the conflict i.e. the Catholic view of predestination, but I am not.

I have already written about that so that was not what my issue was with your post.

It was my perception that you were saying that the Thomist view is the Catholic view but it not necessarily so.

Actually, this is quite true. God cannot save us without our cooperation. This does not contradict God’s omnipotence. Nothing is impossible for God. This is true. However, it is against God’s nature to impose salvation on man. Therefore, he cannot save the man who does not want to be saved, because he cannot override man’s freedom.
So this is really more a case of won’t save us against our will. God can do as He pleases but what pleases Him is to respect our will.

 

[benidict]

This is PRECISELY the danger - and the tragedy - of individual personal interpretation.

you know it dear brother in Christ. what is the difference with this line of thought, and what the JWs do, or the Adventist? instead of reading the bible in light of the True authority Christ and his apostles set up. they have another pope. a false pope. it doesnt matter if it is John Calvin, or E.G. White. same spirit. and they read the bible in light of these fallible teachers, who according to the apostles and the Church Fathers, would have no authority given them by Christ. very dangerous indeed. and tragic. Peace the only thing we can do is pray.

 

[JustaServant]

Unless the student takes a holistic approach, he will not resolve the conflict. If he tries to resolve the Thomist conflict using Thomism, he ends up going in circles. That’s why we don’t do it that way in advanced theology. We take a conflict and look at it through another lens. In this case, you look at what Thomas says and then you look at what others have said about what Thomas said. That’s where you find the resolution to the conflict. One has to remember that Thomas and Augustine were theologians and mystics. A lot of their theology is interwoven with their experience and will use the language of their experience. It often takes a third party to explain what they said.

You may want to read Pope Benedict’s commentaries on them. A good book is Church Fathers and Teachers. He shows how one cannot work with one Father or Doctor of the Church in isolation from the others. They explain each other.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is what led me back to the Church. When I ceased taking in isolation the writings of Scripture and Church fathers. In this case, the writings of St Thomas and St Augustine do not stand alone, they were well-read men who were not creating their own personal theology, but rather writing in harmony with Church teaching. Like many doctrines this teaching evolved over time.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but since St Thomas position is a whole system in itself, then we need to address it in terms of his and his presentation alone although we can reference back to St Augustine because he based his thesis on St Augustine’s.

No we cannot do it that way, because it is not an isolated system. It’s part of a greater system. The Church herself does not accept that Thomas’ system was an enclosed system.

What I was hoping is that someone would be able to explain St Thomas from St Thomas view alone because that is what is being discussed here.

That is why I referred you to the Mystical Theologians, because they explain Thomas’ system using his own system, but in the light of the experience between the soul and God. They explain Thomistic concept so that they actually prove, through a deeper understanding of grace and freedom, that Thomas is correct and that his work stands on its own two feet.

I do get that. But I was hoping that the conflict within St Thomas’s system is able to be resolved within St Thomas’s system or at least by those who tried to re-work his system.

Again, go to the Mystical Theologians and you will find Thomas’ system resolved within Thomism, but from a more objective perspective. I would strongly suggest: Meister Eckert, Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, and Francis de Sales. They are all Thomists and they all take on the challenge to explain Thomas. They do it very well. Pope Benedict does it using Bonaventure.

But in order to make it line up with Magisterial pronouncement it is necessary to let one or two of his premises go. Which essentially leads to a system collapse.

If you read enough of the corpus of theology, you will find that you don’t have to let anything drop. That it all fits in very nicely.

I also wanted to say that once you bring in the mystics and other saints, it ceases to be the Thomist system.

Perhaps you’re confusing the mystics with the Mystical Theologians. They are not the same thing, though many of the Mystical Theologians are mystics, but not all of the mystics are theologians.

As I have pointed out before as well, St Thomas seems to be contradicting himself based on the other things that he has written.

He does not contradict himself. What he does, unkown to his reader is shift gears on you. One moment he’s writing as the Systematic Theologian, the next as a Moral Theologian, the next as a philosopher, and the next as a Mystical Theologian. The language is confusing and appears to contradict itself, because the same words do not have the same meanings in the different branches of theology. Systematic Theology relies much more on reason than on scripture. Moral Theology relies much more on natural law and scripture. Mystical Theology relies on Moral Theology, Sysematic Theology, Scripture and Psycholgoy. Scripture is not really theology, but exegesis. Each has its own language. Thomas, who is absolutely brilliant, crosses over and back and forth.

So how are those elected referred to?

We don’t. Not in Catholicism. We just refer to those whom God has raised up at certain times in history. Catholicism considers all of us to be chosen.

So this is really more a case of won’t save us against our will. God can do as He pleases but what pleases Him is to respect our will.

Actually not. He cannot do what is in conflict with his nature. For example, it is impossible for God to sin. It’s not that he chooses not to sin. It’s that he cannot do so. It’s contrary to his nature.

This is what led me back to the Church. When I ceased taking in isolation the writings of Scripture and Church fathers. In this case, the writings of St Thomas and St Augustine do not stand alone, they were well-read men who were not creating their own personal theology, but rather writing in harmony with Church teaching. Like many doctrines this teaching evolved over time.

They are part of a tapestry.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JustaServant]

benedictus2
I think what our gentle friar is trying to across is that we cannot isolate the church mystics and fathers like Protestants do with Scripture (sola scriptura), it must be looked at in harmony with what the Church teaches.
As a revert who spent 20 years across the Tiber it was difficult for me to stop ‘thinking like a Protestant’. For a Catholic, some of these matters must be looked at as a whole with Church teaching.

 

[fbl9]

Okay, I think this text is as good enough as any to dovetail my story regarding predestination.

I did not know such a doctrine existed until I joined CAF. Then, in one of the first threads I got involved in, another member by the name of Sandusky started talking along these liines and I was horrified. I thought wow, this guy must be sick to even believe in a such a god. But then it turned out that he had not connected the dots so did not realize that this is where his belief led him.

Anyway, he countered that the Catholic Church actually believed in Predestination and provided Ott’s book as a source even highlighting the words DE FIDE dogma.

My heart sank. I had no idea the Church could believe this.

So I did some research and it was true she did. But I read on and I learned that she teaches single not double predestination. That calmed me and I was actually able to mount (to my estimation) a good rebuttal.

]I think i posted on that thread too. Sandusky did provide a link to some of St.Thomas’s writings and i did not see Calivinist predestination in this link.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I am assuming what is meant is if some have no choice of heaven or hell.

My personal take is this would be the ultimate cruel joke. The carrot of salvation hung before you yet it can not be obtained due to the fact you were made to go to hell. I think paragraph 600 of the CCC should be referred to.

That is also my understanding. We have no choice in the matter; we are predestined before we are born. According to the Calvinist council of Dordt, there is double predestination. Not only are some predestined to be saved, but the others are predestined to be damned. And, it is also possible, in this life, to find out which group you belong to! Presumably, most will find out they are damned. What a mind game to play upon people! This god is indeed a fiend. No wonder my atheist friend said that if God existed, he would hate that bastard with all his might.

 

[benedictus2]

No we cannot do it that way, because it is not an isolated system. It’s part of a greater system. The Church herself does not accept that Thomas’ system was an enclosed system.

I totally understand that the Church does not accept St Thomas’s system.

As I keep saying, I know the Church’s position. I even wrote post 393 to that effect.

My issue was where you tried to say that St Thomas’s system is right and that the Mystical Theologians prove it to be so.

If you read the link I gave, you will understand more what I am trying to say here.

People (Molina in particular) realized that there are flaws in the system and the flaws cannot be reasoned away by appealing to the Mystical Theologians although you seem to think that you can do so by appealing to them.

That is all I am getting at.

The article I linked to even tried to synchronize the two systems but in the end comes up with the conclusion that even this attempt at resolution still does not resolve the problem.

That is why I referred you to the Mystical Theologians, because they explain Thomas’ system using his own system, but in the light of the experience between the soul and God. They explain Thomistic concept so that they actually prove, through a deeper understanding of grace and freedom, that Thomas is correct and that his work stands on its own two feet.

Okay, let us simplify this discussion otherwise we will be going round in circles.

You seem to be saying that the Mystical Theologians affirm St Thomas’s system in its entirety.

There are three things that I find particularly problematic with regards St Thomas’s system.

**1) Grace is always efficacious

1.  Grace is given only to the elect.*

2.  God reprobrates and he does this by withholding grace from those he foreknew would reject the grace. It must be noted here though, that even before he created these people, he already foreknew that they would reject the grace which would cause him to withhold it, which would make them end up in hell. So why did he create them at all.***

Since you have obviously done a lot of reading from these Mystical Theologians, then please write how they explain these problems away while maintaining a totally Catholic view of salvation.

If you read enough of the corpus of theology, you will find that you don’t have to let anything drop. That it all fits in very nicely.

As I have written above, since you have read enough of the corpus of theology then you can perhaps explain how to reconcile the above tenets with Catholic teaching.

Also, please explain using whatever you have read this contradiction:

**According to St Thomas to Love is to will the good of the other. He also said that like an artist God loves what He has created.

God is Love. We are all His creatures. Therefore God in eternity must be willing only our good.*

Then how come, he creates people who he knows will reject him even if he gives them the grace so therefore decides not to give them the grace, wherefore they end up in hell.***

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2
I think what our gentle friar is trying to across is that we cannot isolate the church mystics and fathers like Protestants do with Scripture (sola scriptura), it must be looked at in harmony with what the Church teaches.
As a revert who spent 20 years across the Tiber it was difficult for me to stop ‘thinking like a Protestant’. For a Catholic, some of these matters must be looked at as a whole with Church teaching.

Look, I am not isolating the doctors, from the fathers, from the mystics.
Theologians can only propose. In the end it is the Magisterium who approves whether such a view is consistent with Church understanding.

It is precisely because I see that, that I cannot affirm that St Thomas’s system in it’s entirety is correct. It precisely because I see that it is the Magisterium that we must follow that I see that I cannot accept St Thomas’s system in its entirety because it contains flaws.

That is all I am getting at.

This is something that some people forget. St Thomas, as Angelic a Doctor as he was is not the Magisterium. St Augustine as brilliant a doctor as he was is not the Magisterium.

Instead of trying to say he is right by appealing to Mystics and Mystical Theologians to prove him right, I think we should admit that he is not always right. That is why, the Magisterium did not make his system dogma.

Towards the end of his life after a vision, St Thomas said that all he has written is straw compared to what he has seen. Perhaps in that vision, God revealed to Him everything, even the missing links in his theology. But He did not write those so we will just have to accept that at this stage, it is a mystery.

To this date we still do not have a dogmatic pronouncement regarding the mechanism of predestination, only guidelines.

These are the things that we know.

God is LOVE.

God created us all.

God created us for Himself.

God created us with Free Will

We are sinners by virtue of original sin.

Christ died for all, so grace is made available to all.

Grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient.

 

[benedictus2]

I think i posted on that thread too. Sandusky did provide a link to some of St.Thomas’s writings and i did not see Calivinist predestination in this link.

The link that Sandusky gave was to Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

The similarity to Calvinism was a conclusion I arrived at when I started reading St Thomas’s explanation of the doctrine of predestination.

A few days ago I read the article “Controversies of Grace” from New Advent and they see the same problem I saw so I don’t think I see this flaw in isolation.

 

[fbl9]

In the New Advent link I gave it said : And does not the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. v, can. iv) describe efficacious grace as a grace which man “can reject”, and from which he “can dissent”?** Consequently, the very same grace,** **which de facto is efficacious, might under other circumstances be inefficacious. **

Is that not a contradiction? Efficacious grace can be inefficacious?

Would it not be more correct not to call grace efficacious but that grace is sometimes efficatious and sometimes it is not. If this is the proposition, then I can agree with it. But the problem with St Thomas’s system is that Grace is said to be **always **efficacious.

]

One has grace, one commits mortal sin do they have grace? No they do not.
What draws one to repent. Grace? if one is not in "possesion’ of grace it can not be that which draws you to repent.
Could it be the will of the spirit that was once alive with God but now is dead in trespass?
What draws man to repent in the first place?

 

[fred_conty]

I totally understand that the Church does not accept St Thomas’s system.

As I keep saying, I know the Church’s position. I even wrote post 393 to that effect.

My issue was where you tried to say that St Thomas’s system is right and that the Mystical Theologians prove it to be so.

If you read the link I gave, you will understand more what I am trying to say here.

People (Molina in particular) realized that there are flaws in the system and the flaws cannot be reasoned away by appealing to the Mystical Theologians although you seem to think that you can do so by appealing to them.

That is all I am getting at.

The article I linked to even tried to synchronize the two systems but in the end comes up with the conclusion that even this attempt at resolution still does not resolve the problem.

Okay, let us simplify this discussion otherwise we will be going round in circles.

You seem to be saying that the Mystical Theologians affirm St Thomas’s system in its entirety.

There are three things that I find particularly problematic with regards St Thomas’s system.

1) Grace is always efficacious

1.  Grace is given only to the elect.*

2.  God reprobrates and he does this by withholding grace from those he foreknew would reject the grace. It must be noted here though, that even before he created these people, he already foreknew that they would reject the grace which would cause him to withhold it, which would make them end up in hell. So why did he create them at all.*

Since you have obviously done a lot of reading from these Mystical Theologians, then please write how they explain these problems away while maintaining a totally Catholic view of salvation.

As I have written above, since you have read enough of the corpus of theology then you can perhaps explain how to reconcile the above tenets with Catholic teaching.

Also, please explain using whatever you have read this contradiction:

According to St Thomas to Love is to will the good of the other. He also said that like an artist God loves what He has created.

God is Love. We are all His creatures. Therefore God in eternity must be willing only our good.*

Then how come, he creates people who he knows will reject him even if he gives them the grace so therefore decides not to give them the grace, wherefore they end up in hell.*

How about justice for all. Some ask the question "why is a man given existence when he will go to hell?’ frequent question asked by everyone of every faith. Why? God besides being “Love” is allso “Just”. Would it be just to deny others his love because some will waste his love? Then none would be created. Does a parent ground all the kids because of what one of them might do? IOr have no children because it might not work out for one of them? with regard to overpowering movement from God, are we owed this? Or isn’t this something like an extra? From our point of view many of us would like to say we need it like Paul and the thorn in his side. But does He really required to give us this extra? Isn’t He really free to give it or not?

 

[benedictus2]

One has grace, one commits mortal sin do they have grace? No they do not.

Yes, that is true. But that is exactly the problem with saying that grace is always efficacious. If grace is irresistible then the soul cannot refuse it therefore cannot say yes to sin.

What draws one to repent. Grace? if one is not in "possesion’ of grace it can not be that which draws you to repent.
Could it be the will of the spirit that was once alive with God but now is dead in trespass?
What draws man to repent in the first place?

I am not quite sure what you are saying here in terms of predestination and whether grace is always efficaious or not.

Grace is given for repentance but one can still reject this grace and not repent. I don’t think that in every instance the grace of repentance is offered that the will always accedes.

The grace of repentance I believe come from the grace of recognition of one’s sinful state. Some fight this recognition even when divine light is already being shown.

 

[benedictus2]

[1] How about justice for all. Some ask the question "why is a man given existence when he will go to hell?’ frequent question asked by everyone of every faith. **

[2] **Why? God besides being “Love” is allso “Just”. Would it be just to deny others his love because some will waste his love? Then none would be created.

**[3] **with regard to overpowering movement from God, are we owed this? Or isn’t this something like an extra? From our point of view many of us would like to say we need it like Paul and the thorn in his side. But does He really required to give us this extra? Isn’t He really free to give it or not?

I am not quite sure what the main thrust of your post is but I’ll give it a shot

I’ve numbered your paragraphs so I can address the matters you raised point by point.

Point No 1. This question I think goes to the heart of the problem with predestination. This makes God unjust. But, this is precisely why the Church does not teach double predestination. God predestines some to heaven but he does not predestine others to hell.

Protestants misinterpret the predestination of "some’ to salvation to mean that the opposite is true - that some are predestined to damnation. But that is not quite what it means.

Point No 2. I don’t think there is anyone here who has even hinted that God denied some his love because some will waste his love. I am not sure where you got that idea.

If you are referring to the way St Thomas explains reprobation, what St Thomas says is that the way reprobation works is this: God already knows who will reject His grace even if He gives them the grace so instead of allowing them to reject the grace, He withholds this grace which eventually leads to their damnation. Or at least this is how I understand his explanation of reprobation.

Also, there is no conflict between His Love and His Justice. His Love is Just and his justice is loving.

I think to bring to understand this better is to have a better understanding of hell. This link will help.

youtube.com/watch?v=x8zhnooySk4

**Point No 3 . **No we are not owed anything by God. God does sometimes overwhelm people with grace (Like St Paul and other miraculous conversions) but as we can see from St Paul, this is done because He has a mission for them and that is to bring souls to His Church.

I have noticed this too in the many converts to Catholicism who have in turn been instrumental in the conversion of others.

 

[fbl9]

Yes, that is true. But that is exactly the problem with saying that grace is always efficacious. If grace is irresistible then the soul cannot refuse it therefore cannot say yes to sin.

All human kind is destined to be with God because of our being made in His image.
The gospel is what draws a man to repent in the first place. Just as it does to draw the man back.

 

[benedictus2]

All human kind is destined to be with God because of our being made in His image.
The gospel is what draws a man to repent in the first place. Just as it does to draw the man back.

And the grace is of repentance is offered to all. Not just to some. That is what I was getting at.

 

[cooterhein]

Protestants misinterpret the predestination of "some’ to salvation to mean that the opposite is true - that some are predestined to damnation. But that is not quite what it means.

What would you say if someone told you that is what it means, and the fact that you don’t see it means you aren’t exercising the gray matter and following this to its logical conclusion?