Predestination/Calvinism

[JReducation]

Benedictus, I read your previous posts and I can see the problem. You may be having the same problem with Augustine and Aquinas that Calvin had.

Augustine comes from the approach that man is a fallen creature and without God’s help he can do nothing for himself. This is not a falsehood, albeit a rather pessimistic view of humanity. One has to understand Augustine’s personal journey to understand his viewpoint. He looks at his own life and realizes that his conversion is a the work of grace.

Here is where Calvinism gets into problems . . . the meaning of the term, grace. Aquinas, explains it to us as a share in God’s life. Augustine had not thought it through this far. He understood grace to be a gift from God. But he does not unwrap the full meaning. It is Aquinas who realizes that grace is Divine life within the soul. This is later confirmed by the writings of the great mystics such as Bernard, Teresa, Therese, John of the Cross, Catherine and others. God shares his life with the soul. That is grace.

Efficacious is much easier to understand. Efficacious comes from the root word, efficient. Without getting into etymology, let’s just work with English. That which is efficient does what it sets out to do. Sanctifying grace is a share in God’s life. It’s God’s way of saving us. If it is accepted by the recipient, it does exactly what it is supposed to do; therefore, it is efficacious.

God does give us the means to salvation. Whether we accept them or not is totally dependent on us. In other words, what Aquinas and Augustine are saying is that God’s grace does save and it is enough to save. Therefore, in our language, it’s perfect efficiency. However, neither Augustine nor Aquinas ever say that grace cannot be rejected.

God gives the necessary grace for salvation to all. This does not mean that all choose to accept it and preserve it. God does not interfere in human freedom. If God did interfere in human freedom, then grace would not be efficacious. For man to be saved, man must choose it. God cannot impose it. God can and does provide the means. If man were not free to choose to accept God’s gift, then there is no merit on man’s part.

Here is where Calvin gets caught up, poor guy. He believes that man cannot do anything toward his salvation. Man is a passive beneficiary of God’s grace, which is not true. There are many stories in scripture that show us that the Church has never believed this, but let’s take two, for the sake of brevity.

In the story of the Prodigal Son, the father gives the sons everything necessary for happiness. The one son takes his inheritance and leaves, contrary to the father’s will. But he returns. What is important in this story is that the father does not force him to return, yet he celebrates his return. The father gives the gifts, but the son must choose to return of his own free will.

The other story that sends the same message is the story of David. David is murderer, as we all know. Yet he dies a saint. God provides the grace for him to return, but it is David who must take the initiative to do penance for his sins and to ask for forgiveness. The graces that David receives as a result of his contrition and his penance are made possible by the triumph of Christ on the cross. Once David asks for forgiveness and makes reparation, grace saves his soul.

What we have is a beautiful dynamic tension between God’s life, which can save us and our free will to accept the life that he offers. God is so generous that he makes it very simple for us. He gives us a sacramental system. We don’t have to be perfectly contrite to receive sanctifying grace. Even imperfect contrition is enough. Again, the example of the Prodigal Son. His contrition was imperfect. He came back because he was miserable. David’s contrition is perfect. He also returns to God, but out of perfect love. In both cases, God provides a share in his Divine Life (grace), that makes it possible to attain salvation. Grace is efficacious. Grace is offered to all. But not all accept the gift. The best example are the two men who are crucified with Jesus. The one verbally abuses Jesus and makes demands. The other makes the perfect prayer, “Remember me.” Jesus gives him enough (efficacious) grace to redeem him from all his sins. The same grace was available to the other thief, but he did not choose it, because what made him happy was to be bitter to the end.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Someone mentioned that the idea that Christ died for the salvation of all can be a form of Pelagianism, which raises some eyebrows, because the Church says that Christ died for all.

What has to be understood is what Pelagius was saying and what the Church is saying. Try to remember elementary school grammar. You have a subject, a predicate and an extended predicate. The Pelagius and the Church disagree on the extended predicate.

Pelagius would say “Jesus died for all to set an example of what man should be.” The Church is saying, “Jesus died for all to redeem man from the effects of the sin of Adam.” The extended predicates are very different.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benidict]

But the place is limbo and not heaven they do not receive the full love of God because it’s a lesser place. Scripture leaves only two places as a final destination. Scripture does not answer the question. I would like to see all conceived people go to heaven. Because God is just all people will be judged for sin.

hey! we agree! i would like to see all conceived people go to heaven too! so would God. he desires that all men, would come to know him. nicely done jericho. i for one do not believe in limbo. i believe that those who die in infancy, or in the womb, are in Heaven. i think that Jesus made this pretty clear, at least to my understanding. again, i have this option. limbo is not dogma. Peace

 

[benidict]

My goal is to take the bible as a whole. I have not studied calvinism but know what I have read in scripture aligns with its tenents. I don’t like the label but it’s the one everyone is familiar with. I have not studied specific denominatins only the bible.

how if you have not studied calvinism, do you know if the scripture aligns with it? if so, then how come the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, did not see this? how come we had to wait apx 1400 years for these teachings to be made manifest? how come these doctrines were not endorsed at the nicean council of bishops? i dont see how calvinism aligns at all my friend. if it did, we would see prior to calvins “reforms”. peace to you.

 

[JustaServant]

Here is where Calvin gets caught up, poor guy. He believes that man cannot do anything toward his salvation. Man is a passive beneficiary of God’s grace, which is not true. Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This part of your post caught my eye Brother Jay. Because this is what bothered me the most about Calvinism. If man is TOTALLY depraved, grace becomes a kind of ‘invader’ which must force man to accept salvation. It acually turns grace into a negative. Man becomes a passive robot with no control over his actions, he has no will, no responsibility and cannot make free decision. To me, back then, it described a lazy Christianity that has no effect upon the world because no effort is required. At least the “once saved always saved” of the fundamentalists retains free will and responsibility, though OSAS is still derived from the same TULIP tree.
Ultimately Calvinism beleives in an unjust God and man as an irresponsible robot.

 

[elvisman]

I believe yes because of Abrahams conversation previously with God reveald. God was going to judge them for their sins. Then Abraham bargains with the Lord that the righteous would be destroyed along with the wicked. God delivered Lot and his daughters then destroying in judgement Sodom and Gomorrah. Gen 19

First of all - it is not up to you to determine who is in hell. That is something that even the Church does not declare.

Secondly, what do you do with Jesus’ own words to the Twelve when he tells them about those who reject the Gospel?
Matt. 10:15
"Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

 

[elvisman]

how if you have not studied calvinism, do you know if the scripture aligns with it? if so, then how come the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers, did not see this? how come we had to wait apx 1400 years for these teachings to be made manifest? how come these doctrines were not endorsed at the nicean council of bishops? i dont see how calvinism aligns at all my friend. if it did, we would see prior to calvins “reforms”. peace to you.

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

 

[philokalia7]

Well, let’s talk about predestination/Calvinism.

While it is known that God has predestined some events, I’m talking about pure predestination (people chosen to go to heaven or hell). What’s your opinion? Maybe a discussion on this can flourish.

According to St. Augustine, some people, namely the elect, or those chosen by God from before the foundation of the world. These individuals will at the time God has chosen, convert to Christianity, avail themselves of all of the means of conversion such as baptism, if they were not baptized as infants, and confirmation and prayer, and all the other means by which a person practices Catholicism. To St. Augustine, the elect would be converts to none other than the Catholic Church, because in his understanding salvation would not be found anywhere but in the Catholic Church. And even though God had chosen to elect this person to salvation from eternity past, their free will would have in no way been violated by them choosing to seek God and have a salvific relationship with Him through the Church, Those who have been chosen by God unto salvation will without fail always persevere in the Faith unto their dying day and actually be numbered among those for whom Christ has died.

 

[JReducation]

This part of your post caught my eye Brother Jay. Because this is what bothered me the most about Calvinism. If man is TOTALLY depraved, grace becomes a kind of ‘invader’ which must force man to accept salvation. It acually turns grace into a negative. Man becomes a passive robot with no control over his actions, he has no will, no responsibility and cannot make free decision. To me, back then, it described a lazy Christianity that has no effect upon the world because no effort is required. At least the “once saved always saved” of the fundamentalists retains free will and responsibility, though OSAS is still derived from the same TULIP tree.
Ultimately Calvinism beleives in an unjust God and man as an irresponsible robot.

The problem with this paradigm is that it’s inconsistent with the early Fathers. Augustine puts it perfectly when he says crede ut intelligas et intellige ut credas. “I believe in order to understand and I understand the better I believe.”

Augustine is very clear that man must participate in the redemptive act. Without faith, there is no salvation. However, faith, even though it’s a gift of the Holy Spirit, triggers human understanding of truth. The greater the effort to understand truth, the stronger our faith becomes. It is a cooperative process between God and man. God gives the gift. Man must work with it.

The Calvinist paradigm, “once saved always saved” does not allow for any dynamic cooperation between humanity and divinity. This is theologically problematic. In essence, it places in question the value of the Incarnation. If humanity is totally depraved or has nothing to contribute to the redemptive act, then it begs the question. “Why does the second person of the Trinity become incarnate?” However, the story did not play itself out this way. God saved through the God-Man. In John’s Gospel we are told that the pre-existent Logos becomes flesh and dwells among us. The Father vests the Son with his greatest creation, humanity.

From all eternity, God has planned that humanity and divinity cooperate in the redemption of man, while each retains its distinctive essence without blending. This is clearly presented in the Prologue of John, which parallels the first chapter of Genesis. They both begin with Beroshit. In the beginning God made humanity in his image. Man has sinned. But even sin cannot put a dent on the sacredness of humanity. That is why the Logos can become man without contamination. It is man who is sinful, not humanity that is depraved. Humanity retains its beauty. Man has sinned against his humanity and his Creator. Man must be saved from his sin, not from his humanity.

To get back to our friends Augustine and Calvin, Augustine realizes that he must believe in order to understand. In other words, it is a choice that only he can make. God gives the gift of faith, but only man can choose to believe. He also realizes that the better he understands, the stronger his belief. In other words, there is a cooperation between the grace of faith and the freedom to believe. This is what poor Calvin failed to understand.

He understood that faith was a gift of grace. However, he failed to realize that belief and faith are two different things. Faith is the grace to believe. Belief is the choice to accept the grace of faith. The one is from God and the other is man’s response. Man is not on automatic pilot. He must work with God along life’s journey. This comes through in many of Augustine’s later sermons and again in the writings of Aquinas and the great mystics.

Analogies are always weak, but the best one that I can think of to explain the relationship between faith and belief is literacy and reading. A teacher can teach you to read. He has given you a gift. However, he cannot force you to read. You must choose to make use of your literacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictus2]

Hi JR,

Thanks for your response. I will ignore parts of your post which I concur with or at least is not an issue for me and will just attend to the ones I have a problem with.

Efficacious is much easier to understand. Efficacious comes from the root word, efficient. Without getting into etymology, let’s just work with English. That which is efficient does what it sets out to do. Sanctifying grace is a share in God’s life. It’s God’s way of saving us. If it is accepted by the recipient, it does exactly what it is supposed to do; therefore, it is efficacious.

I think “efficacious” as used by Thomists and Calvinists does not mean just efficient but also irresistible.

If the grace given by God is irresistible then the soul cannot resist it hence free will is overpowered and the soul can only ever chose good.

If this is so, then how does one account for sin? Such a system leaves no other way to account for sin save to say that God withheld this grace thereby letting man be overtaken by his sinful nature without hope of redemption.

But we know that this is not the case because Christ died for all.

God does give us the means to salvation. Whether we accept them or not is totally dependent on us.

But this is precisely the weakness of the Thomist position because if Grace is always efficicacious/irresistible then the will has no choice but to accept it.

As NewAdvent puts it, there is “danger that in the Thomistic system the freedom of the will cannot be maintained as against efficacious grace, a difficulty which by the way is not unperceived by the Thomists** themselves .”

This New Advent article gives a good summary of the issues :
newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

In other words, what Aquinas and Augustine are saying is that God’s grace does save and it is enough to save. Therefore, in our language, it’s perfect efficiency. However, neither Augustine nor Aquinas ever say that grace cannot be rejected.

I think what is unfortunate is that St Aquinas and St Agustin in trying to provide a system of salvation said more than that.

I think the weakness of the Thomist view lies in his conception of the Primacy of God’s Will. For St Thomas, to stress the freedom of human will is to say that human will trumps God’s will

But as I said in my post 258, this is avoided if we accept the fact that God Himself WILLED this to be so. It is like someone going to the boxing ring with one hand tied behind his back but this condition being one’s choice i.e. said person chose to have his hand tied.

And I think if we accept that God chose to create us with a free will that He does not override, the economy of salvation then becomes even more magnificent and awesome in the same way that the one hand boxer TKOS the opponent whose both hands are free.

This is why I said in my post that I believe that Grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient; that there is always enough grace to give a yes to counter the pull of concupiscence to utter a no.

To expand on my point further.

If one thinks of a see-saw where concupiscence (due to a constant stream of Nos) is heavily weighted toward sin, God gives an equal counterbalance of grace such that one is always free to will either.

Souls who contstantly say yes to God weaken the pull of concupiscence such that grace which is at beginning is just sufficient then become efficacious.

I am not saying that it is always like this because we do have amazing conversion stories where God flooded the soul which just so much grace that the conclusion could not be anything but a yes to Him. I think here of stories such as Fr Donald Calloway and Alphonse Ratisbone.

I think people such as these can be called the “elect” and they are “elect” not for themselves, but precisely that the workings of grace may come to fruition in other souls. The “elect” are “elected” for others, for the building up of the Body of Christ.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for your response. I will ignore parts of your post which I concur with or at least is not an issue for me and will just attend to the ones I have a problem with.

Let’s take this holistically.

I think “efficacious” as used by Thomists and Calvinists does not mean just efficient but also irresistible.

You cannot take Thomas and Augustine in isolation, because they are both systematicians. Systematic theology only makes sense when it is cross-referenced with Mystical and Ascetical Theology and vis a vis. The use of the term “irresistible” does not mean that God’s grace enslaves us or takes away our freedom. The great mystical theologians, such as Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila, have explained for us that God’s grace is like the lure of a seductive lover, which makes him irresistible to the soul who is yearning to love and be loved. Notice, that the soul retains its freedom to accept love and return love, no matter how irresistible God’s love may be. Augustine and Aquinas are using language of mystical theology to describe grace. We have seen this language repeated over and over again by other mystical theologians. We can believe that God’s grace is irresistible, but does not render the soul impotent. Mystical theology helps us understand this. If you take Systematic Theology alone, it won’t make sense or it will lead to a different interpretation, which is what happens to Calvin.

I think the weakness of the Thomist view lies in his conception of the Primacy of God’s Will. For St Thomas, to stress the freedom of human will is to say that human will trumps God’s will

There is an old saying and I can’t recall who said it, “The God who created you without your will cannot save you without your will.”

Is God’s will primary? Yes. As Jesus teaches us, “Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” We should desire to fulfill God’s will in our lives. It should have the primacy in our spiritual life. Is God’s will imposed on us? No. If it were, Jesus would not have taught us to pray this way. There would be no need for such a prayer. Why pray for the grace to do God’s will, if it’s imposed on us?

And I think if we accept that God chose to create us with a free will that He does not override, the economy of salvation then becomes even more magnificent and awesome

The Church does teach that God made us with a free will that he does not override. Genesis tells us that God created man in His image and likeness. One of God’s attributes is freedom. God guides us, like a parent guides a child. In the end, it is we who choose. When I pray that my brother will make the right choice, God will guide him, but he will not force him. God will provide actual grace that makes it possible for man to choose to do his Will. That does not mean that man WILL choose.

I am not saying that it is always like this because we do have amazing conversion stories where God flooded the soul which just so much grace that the conclusion could not be anything but a yes to Him. I think here of stories such as Fr Donald Calloway and Alphonse Ratisbone.

I think people such as these can be called the “elect” and they are “elect” not for themselves, but precisely that the workings of grace may come to fruition in other souls. The “elect” are “elected” for others, for the building up of the Body of Christ.

Now you’re getting into a whole other phenomenon. You’re moving from systematic theology to mystical theology and ecclesiology. The proper term is not “the elect”. The Church says it best when she says that God raises men and women, at different points in history, for a specific need in the Church. Even these men and women have free will. God already knows what that they will cooperate with grace. He floods them with extraordinary graces. That’s how you get great men like Francis of Assisi, Augustine, Benedict, and Aquinas. You get great women like Mary, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Therese, Teresa of Calcutta, just to name a few people whose influence reaches to the ends of Christendom and sometimes past Christianity and reaches even non-Christians, such as a Francis of Assisi and a Mother Teresa. I always say that God has an advantage over us, because he knows ahead of time and we don’t.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictus2]

You cannot take Thomas and Augustine in isolation, because they are both systematicians.

Yes we can because what is being discussed here is the Thomist, Augustinian and Calvinistic systems nothing more We are talking about Predestination not Mysticism.

We cannot bring the other mystical saints into the discussion either since their works were not cited by St Thomas (at least I don’t think they were).

I know the position of the Catholic Church as I have outlined that already in my previous post. The only thing we are discussing here is Thomas, Augustine, Calvin and a little bit of Molina. This is strictly about predestination.

And the specific question we are addressing is how to differentiate Calvin’s system from those of Thomas and Augustine since they look very much alike.

Systematic theology only makes sense when it is cross-referenced with Mystical and Ascetical Theology and vis a vis. The use of the term “irresistible” does not mean that God’s grace enslaves us or takes away our freedom.

But if irresistible does not mean irresistible then it is not irresistible. That means we should use some other term. But the term used was irresistible.

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.

There is an old saying and I can’t recall who said it, “The God who created you without your will cannot save you without your will.”

I don’t think that is quite true. Of course He can if we say that nothing is impossible to God.

Now you’re getting into a whole other phenomenon. You’re moving from systematic theology to mystical theology and ecclesiology. The proper term is not “the elect”. The Church says it best when she says that God raises men and women, at different points in history, for a specific need in the Church.

I am using this term to explain why I think the term was used. Both Augustine and Aquinas support election and reprobation. If there is election then therefore those elected are the “elect”

Even these men and women have free will. God already knows what that they will cooperate with grace. He floods them with extraordinary graces. That’s how you get great men like Francis of Assisi, Augustine, Benedict, and Aquinas. You get great women like Mary, Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Therese, Teresa of Calcutta, just to name a few people whose influence reaches to the ends of Christendom and sometimes past Christianity and reaches even non-Christians, such as a Francis of Assisi and a Mother Teresa. I always say that God has an advantage over us, because he knows ahead of time and we don’t.

But I agree with that. I believe that every one has free will but that some are given more extraordinary graces.

As for going from systematic theology to ecclessiology, they all overlap because all Christian theology in the end is an explanation of the whys and hows of salvation.

I think what you are attempting to do is reconciling Predestination accordingt to Aquinas with the over all view of salvation of the Catholic Church. But as the link I gave stated, there are quite a few objections to them which have not been resolved within St Thomas’s system itself.

 

[fbl9]

snip…
The Calvinist paradigm, “once saved always saved” does not allow for any dynamic cooperation between humanity and divinity. This is theologically problematic. In essence, it places in question the value of the Incarnation. If humanity is totally depraved or has nothing to contribute to the redemptive act, then it begs the question. “Why does the second person of the Trinity become incarnate?” However, the story did not play itself out this way. God saved through the God-Man. In John’s Gospel we are told that the pre-existent Logos becomes flesh and dwells among us. The Father vests the Son with his greatest creation, humanity.

Br. JR, OSF

This was where i was headed with in my discussion with jericho.
i was trying to figure out how if one was not guilty as was written (jericho’s reference in scripture), why did he feel the need to repent.
To which was replied as Christ saying those who needed to repent also needed to have unrightousness removed.
If one had no guilt there would be no unrightousness in them?
If one needed to repent after sinning, yet they had no guilt, what guilt needs to be repented of?

 

[cooterhein]

I think “efficacious” as used by Thomists and Calvinists does not mean just efficient but also irresistible.

So far, I think this is reasonably accurate.

If the grace given by God is irresistible then the soul cannot resist it hence free will is overpowered and the soul can only ever chose good.

The part about overpowering free will is something that you would say because you’re not a Thomist or a Calvinist. It’s not something that a Thomist or a Calvinist would say.

Exhibit A, the Thomist: JR. Exhibit B, the Calvinist: me.

As NewAdvent puts it, there is “danger that in the Thomistic system the freedom of the will cannot be maintained as against efficacious grace, a difficulty which by the way is not unperceived by the Thomists* themselves* .”

New Advent (along with the Catholic Encyclopedia) each contain a good number of articles that have a fairly heavy pro-Molinist bias. In certain articles, the Molinist will always have a response to a problem and the Thomist will not, or the Thomistic answer will be given and the author will interject with “Ah, but the Thomist has forgotten…” That doesn’t mean Molinism has an overwhelming case against Thomism. It just means you’re able to find articles that are written by people who agree with you, even though they come from sources that you’d expect a little more neutrality from.

I think the weakness of the Thomist view lies in his conception of the Primacy of God’s Will. For St Thomas, to stress the freedom of human will is to say that human will trumps God’s will.

I think the primacy of God’s will and a lack of strenuous protection of the human will is something that characterized all (or nearly all) theologians and philosophers until the Enlightenment. That’s when free will became more of an issue in both philosophy and theology.

This kind of makes me wonder why you’ve chosen to align yourself with more of a recency approach rather than giving the more ancient way higher priority. Not that either course of action is necessarily better, of course- I’m just curious about why you’d choose the newer, shinier, more developed way in this case. Is that what you consistently do when given the option?

 

[JReducation]

Yes we can because what is being discussed here is the Thomist, Augustinian and Calvinistic systems nothing more We are talking about Predestination not Mysticism.

I understand that we’re talking about predestination. What I’m saying is that to understand it correctly one must cross-reference Thomism and Augustine with Mystical Theology. Because the answer to the enigma in Thomas and Augustine is found in the writings of the Mystical Theologians.

We cannot bring the other mystical saints into the discussion either since their works were not cited by St Thomas (at least I don’t think they were).

Again, a Catholic discussion on predestination cannot exclude the other branches of theology and philosophy. Otherwise, you (the universal you) run the risk of not understanding the systems set by Thomas, Augustine and Calvin. In fact, this was Calvin’s fall. He does not make use of the fullness of theology. He was a reductionist.

And the specific question we are addressing is how to differentiate Calvin’s system from those of Thomas and Augustine since they look very much alike.
But if irresistible does not mean irresistible then it is not irresistible. That means we should use some other term. But the term used was irresistible.

That’s why you need the Mystical Theologians. Because it is the proper domain of Mystical Theology to explain how grace works. Systematic Theology explains what it is. Mystical Theology explains how it works in relation to the human experience. The Mystical Theologians have already explained why God’s grace is irresistible without compromising human freedom. Catherine of Siena explains it very well. Unless you read her, you won’t understand Thomas or Augustine or why Thomas uses the term irresistible and why the Church continues to use it today.

In the New Advent link I gave it said :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. **

This is what Bonaventure explained as the efficiency of grace. Grace can save only those who want to be saved. Man, by his rejection of God’s efficacious grace, renders God impotent. Since that term did not exist in the Middle Ages, Aquinas uses the term inefficacious. It is not that the grace cannot so what it is meant to do, but that it is not allowed to do it. It is man who does not allow grace to operate. Grace remains efficacious, but it is an unused gift, as Bonaventure explains when he comments on Aquinas’ efficacious grace.

I don’t think that is quite true. Of course He can if we say that nothing is impossible to God.

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.

I am using this term to explain why I think the term was used. Both Augustine and Aquinas support election and reprobation. If there is election then therefore those elected are the “elect”

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.

As for going from systematic theology to ecclessiology, they all overlap because all Christian theology in the end is an explanation of the whys and hows of salvation.

Sort of. Catholic theology is really faith seeking understanding in order to inform reason. Check out Benedict XVI’s definition and purpose of theology in Light of the World.

I think what you are attempting to do is reconciling Predestination accordingt to Aquinas with the over all view of salvation of the Catholic Church. But as the link I gave stated, there are quite a few objections to them which have not been resolved within St Thomas’s system itself.

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

 

[JReducation]

This was where i was headed with in my discussion with jericho.
i was trying to figure out how if one was not guilty as was written (jericho’s reference in scripture), why did he feel the need to repent.
To which was replied as Christ saying those who needed to repent also needed to have unrightousness removed.
If one had no guilt there would be no unrightousness in them?
If one needed to repent after sinning, yet they had no guilt, what guilt needs to be repented of?

If one is not culpable, there is nothing to atone for. Christ does not atone for himself. He is not culpable. He atones for us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictus2]

New Advent (along with the Catholic Encyclopedia) each contain a good number of articles that have a fairly heavy pro-Molinist bias. In certain articles, the Molinist will always have a response to a problem and the Thomist will not, or the Thomistic answer will be given and the author will interject with “Ah, but the Thomist has forgotten…” That doesn’t mean Molinism has an overwhelming case against Thomism. It just means you’re able to find articles that are written by people who agree with you, even though they come from sources that you’d expect a little more neutrality from.

You’re coming up with assumptions. Just deal with the text as it is written. If you have another text that refutes this then come up with it. Otherwise it just muddies the discussion.

I think the primacy of God’s will and a lack of strenuous protection of the human will is something that characterized all (or nearly all) theologians and philosophers until the Enlightenment. That’s when free will became more of an issue in both philosophy and theology.

I would agree with that but that just derails the thread. The question here is predestination and how to resolve this tension (or rather answer the question of is there really a tension?) between God’s will and human free-will resolved within the Thomist or Calvinist view while remaining grounded on Scripture and the fact that God is Love.

This kind of makes me wonder why you’ve chosen to align yourself with more of a recency approach rather than giving the more ancient way higher priority.

Recency has nothing to do with it. It has to make sense. It has to be what the Church teaches.

From what I can glean, the Molinist view is closer to the teaching of the church because it rejects the tenet that Grace is always efficacious.

The Church also affirms that Christ died for all hence grace must be given to all, but St Thomas I think says that grace is given only to the elect.

Not that either course of action is necessarily better, of course- I’m just curious about why you’d choose the newer, shinier, more developed way in this case. Is that what you consistently do when given the option?

Nothing to do with newer or shinier. Just one that makes more sense and is more in line with what the Magisterium teaches.

That is why I came up with my own attemp at a resolution in post 258. I think this is inline with Magisterial teaching on the subject.

 

[benedictus2]

I understand that we’re talking about predestination. What I’m saying is that to understand it correctly one must cross-reference Thomism and Augustine with Mystical Theology. Because the answer to the enigma in Thomas and Augustine is found in the writings of the Mystical Theologians.

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.

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.

Because when someone cites St Thomas, his system should be able to stand on its own.

Sort of. Catholic theology is really faith seeking understanding in order to inform reason. Check out Benedict XVI’s definition and purpose of theology in Light of the World.

Love this book.!

I love Pope Benedict!:heaven:

Unless the student takes a holistic approach, he will not resolve the conflict.

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.

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.

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

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

 

[cooterhein]

You’re coming up with assumptions. Just deal with the text as it is written. If you have another text that refutes this then come up with it. Otherwise it just muddies the discussion.

I don’t think I am coming up with assumptions. I am saying things about the text rather than dealing directly with its content, but I think it’s worth doing when something from an encyclopedia is less neutral than what you would normally expect from an encyclopedia.

I would agree with that but that just derails the thread. The question here is predestination and how to resolve this tension (or rather answer the question of is there really a tension?) between God’s will and human free-will resolved within the Thomist or Calvinist view while remaining grounded on Scripture and the fact that God is Love.

We’re looking at two basic groupings- Thomism/Calvinism and Molinism/Arminianism. One group is more consistent with the way the Church resolved this issue for the first millennium-plus of its existence. The other group is not consistent with that, presumably because something was wrong with the way theologians and philosophers handled free will prior to the Enlightenment. Surely this is worth mentioning?

Recency has nothing to do with it. It has to make sense. It has to be what the Church teaches.

Being a Protestant, I can agree with the statement “recency has nothing to do with it.” I might even make a link for myself that can take me back to this post. I agree that it has to make sense, and while I’m not held to what the Catholic Church teaches, you are…but you do have quite a bit of room to work with.

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.

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. 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.

I think that’s worth talking about. A little bit, anyway.

From what I can glean, the Molinist view is closer to the teaching of the church because it rejects the tenet that Grace is always efficacious.

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.

That reminds me, though- why look at just Thomism and Molinism? Have you discounted other candidates like Augustinianism without seriously considering them? I’m not asking you to get into all of that on this thread; that would be unreasonable and I know you wouldn’t do it. I’m just asking if you’ve done anything with them.

The Church also affirms that Christ died for all hence grace must be given to all, but St Thomas I think says that grace is given only to the elect.

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

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.

Nothing to do with newer or shinier. Just one that makes more sense and is more in line with what the Magisterium teaches.

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?

I can’t think of a third possibility. If you can, let us know.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think I am coming up with assumptions.

My reference to assumptions are your comments about New Advent having a heavy pro-Moliinist bias.

I am saying things about the text rather than dealing directly with its content, but I think it’s worth doing when something from an encyclopedia is less neutral than what you would normally expect from an encyclopedia.

But that is exactly what I mean. It is an assumption. I give a link to the text earlier so tell me why you think it has a pro-Molinist bias and why you think it is a bias.

We’re looking at two basic groupings- Thomism/Calvinism and Molinism/Arminianism. One group is more consistent with the way the Church resolved this issue for the first millennium-plus of its existence. The other group is not consistent with that, presumably because something was wrong with the way theologians and philosophers handled free will prior to the Enlightenment. Surely this is worth mentioning?

In some sense yes. But my main concern with my comment to JR is strictly with regard the Thomist system and so with the Thomist understanding of Free Will. I think both Molinist and Thomists understand Free Will in the same manner.

Being a Protestant, I can agree with the statement “recency has nothing to do with it.” I might even make a link for myself that can take me back to this post. I agree that it has to make sense, and while I’m not held to what the Catholic Church teaches, you are…but you do have quite a bit of room to work with.

Yes, because the Catholic Church has not made a definitive ruling either way. There are some basics that she has affirmed and what she has affirmed are all consistent with scripture. I would recommend you read the link I gave because that has quite a good preamble.

There is actually something that I have been twirling in my mind whilst I was on the train home.

We have been viewing Grace and Free Will as somehow two opposing sides which we are trying to harmonize.

But what if, the action of grace is towards making the will more free? We always speak of being bound by sin. If this is the case, then grace comes as God’s agent that frees the will, allowing it to respond in freedom towards what it was originally made for : God.

We are called to freedom from the enslavement of sin so therefore a truly free man chooses only God even though he can equally choose to reject God.

But that is not completely organized in my head yet.