Predestination

[MarcoPG]

The position you have just described is held by many Catholics (and many Protestants) but is not the Catholic position or even the dominant position in the Western Church historically. In fact, if one were to interpret the Western Catholic tradition in a rigorous, traditionalist way, one could conclude that your position is unorthodox. (I do not take that approach, of course. My point is simply that your position isn’t at the center of the Western Catholic tradition and that its place within the tradition has sometimes been questioned. So it’s misleading to present it as if it were the Catholic position.)

The problem with your view, in traditional Catholic theology, is that it seems to make human actions the cause of something in God (God’s knowledge). That is why St. Thomas Aquinas held that God’s knowledge causes that which God knows instead of the other way round. St. Thomas does not think that this makes God the cause of evil, because he believes (following Augustine and the Church Fathers generally, who in turn were following Plato) that evil isn’t a thing in itself. It’s a defect–moral evil is a defect in the will. God creates beings which may fall short, and they do fall short. But since God’s knowledge causes the good things they do, it seems to follow from St. Thomas’ position that God chooses not to cause the kind or level of good that would prevent them from falling short.

This is extremely tricky and is, in my opinion, one of the least satisfactory aspects of St. Thomas’ theology. But it’s hard to come up with a better solution within the parameters of mainstream, traditional theology. One person who tried, very influentially, was the Jesuit theologian Molina in the late 16th century. Another, much less known except on these forums but quite popular here, was the recently deceased Fr. William Most, who tried to avoid the problems with Molina’s account.

The basic parameters of the Catholic position are:

1. Everything that is good is caused by God, so whatever we do that is good must be traced back to God as a cause and not attributed ultimately to ourselves
2. God does not cause evil
3. Therefore, God does not directly and unconditionally choose to reject certain people from all eternity, causing them to sin and eventually go to hell. However, the “Thomist” position comes much closer to this than many people think, so it’s hardly a simple point.
4. Human beings have free will. How this is to be reconciled with principle 1 is a difficult question, and is one of the classic debates in Catholic theology (the aforesaid Molina is one of the most influential post-Thomist theologians who has tackled it, and his conclusions continue to be debated by both Catholic and Protestant philosophers).
5. God knows everything eternally.

Edwin

True, He doesn’t cause them to sin, but He is rejected by them because of sin, and then letting them go to Hell is vo evil but Justice. They do not want God.

 

[Vouthon]

I am not completely agreeing with you (because i think resistence to grace gives demerits, and is the biggest demerit), ?

I agree. When did I intimate otherwise?

But my point now is this : even if it was so, what do you fear? Did they teach error? Are they the Pope? Opinions can be held in the Church, on what the Church didn’t define. What are your fears

My fears are what Fr. Most states:

"…The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.

God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.

He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God’s love. For to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake. If I will good to another not for that other’s sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.

So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that “God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance…It is tragically obvious that Augustine completely denied the clear sense of Scripture here. Further, since to love is to will good to another for the other’s sake, then when God says He wills all to be saved, it means He loves all. Augustine was denying the love of God, without realizing it of course…”

These are Fr. Most’s words. He was spot on.

The Thomists made a very similar mistake later on as well and it concerned me because it is rather close to Calvinism and presents a very disturbing picture of God.

 

[Contarini]

True, He doesn’t cause them to sin, but He is rejected by them because of sin, and then letting them go to Hell is vo evil but Justice. They do not want God.

But God could have chosen to cause them to act otherwise. The fact that they sin and do not repent is caused by God in a negative sense–God chose to permit it and not to so act within them as to prevent this. I see no room in Aquinas whatever for the “free will defense”–the idea that God couldn’t prevent evil without violating free will. That doesn’t seem to be how Aquinas thinks about the interaction between God’s knowledge/will and our created wills.

Even in the original version of Molinism, it appears that God uses “middle knowledge” not to ensure that as many people as possible are saved (as in most modern interpretations of Molinism) but to ensure that the elect are saved while allowing the rest to die in a state of mortal sin (when, for instance, God could have caused them to be saved by arranging for them to die under other circumstances).

The issues are just much more difficult than the standard “free will” response indicates.

Edwin

 

[MarcoPG]

I agree. When did I intimate otherwise?

My fears are what Fr. Most states:

These are Fr. Most’s words. He was spot on.

The Thomists made a very similar mistake later on as well and it concerned me because it is rather close to Calvinism and presents a very disturbing picture of God.

I just say if God can’t see the merits, he sure sees the demerits.

A mistake doesn’t lead to teach error. So it’s fine. And in fact, since the Church position is a bit like Calvinism, still condemning it, you should be relieved: it is not proper Calvinism with the double predestination. Our Church is a wise and prudent one .

 

[MarcoPG]

But God could have chosen to cause them to act otherwise. The fact that they sin and do not repent is caused by God in a negative sense–God chose to permit it and not to so act within them as to prevent this. I see no room in Aquinas whatever for the “free will defense”–the idea that God couldn’t prevent evil without violating free will. That doesn’t seem to be how Aquinas thinks about the interaction between God’s knowledge/will and our created wills.

Even in the original version of Molinism, it appears that God uses “middle knowledge” not to ensure that as many people as possible are saved (as in most modern interpretations of Molinism) but to ensure that the elect are saved while allowing the rest to die in a state of mortal sin (when, for instance, God could have caused them to be saved by arranging for them to die under other circumstances).

The issues are just much more difficult than the standard “free will” response indicates.

Edwin

God doesn’t force, he gives graces to be able to act in the best way. The moment he chose to give us free will is the problem And in fact yes, God’s will comprehend our free will and because of our free will causing sin, he permits evil.

 

[Contarini]

God doesn’t force, he gives graces to be able to act in the best way. The moment he chose to give us free will is the problem And in fact yes, God’s will comprehend our free will and because of our free will causing sin, he permits evil.

You just keep repeating the same cliches. I agree with you. But in terms of traditional Catholic theology, especially Aquinas, it’s not that simple.

Aquinas never says “the moment he chose to give us free will is the problem.” Never says anything like it that I can see.

Edwin

 

[Vouthon]

The position you have just described is held by many Catholics (and many Protestants) but is not the Catholic position or even the dominant position in the Western Church historically.

But it is in Eastern and pre-Augustinian Latin theology, is it not? I find the Aquinas position disturbing, to be honest, namely that God predestines without foreseeing merits (unless Most’s hypothesis is endorsed). If we go outside the seminaries and universities, the lived life of most clergymen, evangelists and laymen in Catholicism has historically appeared to have taken it for granted that God will judge them depending on “how faithful” a Christian they are (ie avoiding mortal sins being the most basic). Most ordinary lay Catholics historically would have been largely ignorant of the whole predestination/freewill debacle, which seemed to occupy intellectuals. Equally, in Protestantism “Calvinism” was most popular among intellectuals, to my knowledge. Lay Protestant piety seems to assume Arminianism, I mean just consider all those, “Repent and have faith in Jesus to be saved” ads that you find even from Fundamentalists.

This “predestinarian intellectualism” tells me something, especially given that it is largely absent from the early church fathers, Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Since you are obviously very well informed regarding this area of theology, which really is very mind-numbingly philosophical to me (and I am a lawyer/historian, not a philosopher), can you tell me what your view is of the Eastern Orthodox “Confession of Dositheus” promulgated by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672):

cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

Decree 3

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril’s’ Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.

But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

While I know that the wording of thid document might appear to be suggesting that human acts are the “cause” of predestination in God from a Latin perspective, that doesn’t seem to matter in Eastern theology (which isn’t scholastic). I cannot help but admire the Orthodox for unilaterally rejecting Calvinism, even the lighter Thomist theology that denies double predestination but which seems to entail the same outcome for the unfortunate “reprobates” who are denied efficacious grace (namely, Hell).

Sometimes I wonder whether this rationalistic, intellectual approach to predestination and freewill is really in accordance with the roots of the faith. I mean, would we expect to find the Apostles, many of them Fishermen, speaking like John Calvin?

 

[Vouthon]

Even in the original version of Molinism, it appears that God uses “middle knowledge” not to ensure that as many people as possible are saved (as in most modern interpretations of Molinism) but to ensure that the elect are saved while allowing the rest to die in a state of mortal sin (when, for instance, God could have caused them to be saved by arranging for them to die under other circumstances).

Really? I had though that Molina left unexplained - as a mystery - why God chose to create a certain “world” out of the infinite possibilities (ie that it was inscrutable). In other words, Molina argued that God simply created the world he wanted too and no rationale could be deduced for this other than the inscrutability of the divine will.

Later theories advanced the idea, in keeping with the universal salvific will, that God chose to create the world in which most people would be saved. In my reading this is not denied or implied by Molina and so is a valid interpretation of his theory. Molina seemed to infer that he simply didn’t know why God created x world in which an individual might resist grace less than he would of had z world been created.

 

[MarcoPG]

You just keep repeating the same cliches. I agree with you. But in terms of traditional Catholic theology, especially Aquinas, it’s not that simple.

Aquinas never says “the moment he chose to give us free will is the problem.” Never says anything like it that I can see.

Edwin

Why are my thoughts clichés? Because you already know what I am saying?

Traditional theology doesn’t rely on Aquinas alone. Not because S. Thomas Aquinas was the angelic doctor that he speaks for the Church or is right or wrong per se.

Aquinas doesn’t say this, I say this, and it was meant to be funny (as the emoticone should suggest).

He says: I answer that, Since predestination includes will, as was said above (Article 4), the reason of predestination must be sought for in the same way as was the reason of the will of God. Now it was shown above (Question 19, Article 5), that we cannot assign any cause of the divine will on the part of the act of willing.
And Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err

You know also that the dogma or doctrines about which he isn’t sure we not so developped as today (see the Immaculate conception, where he is very cautious).

I don’t intend to demonstate that Augustine and Aquinas thought as others, but I mean their understanding and ours about theirs can be developped.

 

[Vouthon]

Why are my thoughts clichés? Because you already know what I am saying?

Traditional theology doesn’t rely on Aquinas alone. Not because S. Thomas Aquinas was the angelic doctor that he speaks for the Church or is right or wrong per se.

True, Thomism never actually became the “official” philosophy of the church until the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII in the late 19th century and then, after Vatican II, it has fluctuated in importance - there are prominent non and even anti-Thomists in post-Vatican II Catholicism.

Read:

In 1277 a number of propositions representing his views were officially
condemned by the Church. Even after his canonisation, St Thomas did
not enjoy the status he was later to be accorded. The virtually exclusive
place occupied by Thomist doctrines in Catholic philosophical education
during most of the twentieth century is due to the encyclical Aeterni patris
(4 August 1879) of Pope Leo XIII, which recommended scholastic philosophy,
and especially the work of St Thomas, as an antidote to the threat
of liberal thought in the Church. ‘Let carefully chosen teachers strive to
implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and
set forth clearly his soundness and excellence over others. Let the universities
. . . illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation
of prevailing errors.’

books.google.co.uk/books?id=W6pLHfm_IKQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=political+writing+aquinas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DN26U4fQL87WPf2LgIgK&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=political%20writing%20aquinas&f=false

So Thomism - or rather the “Neo-Thomism” of the Scholastic Revival - only really was “normative” in the Catholic Church for around 80 years. His reception has hardly been unanimous historically and certainly wasn’t in the thirteenth century. The 1277 condemnation badly damaged Aquinas’s reputation for many years afterwards. Even at the Council of Trent, by which time Aquinas was a saint but not yet a Doctor, Duns Scotus was more used than him as an authority.

Personally I am not predisposed to it at all and while respecting St. Thomas highly for his contributions (and for reviving Aristotle after centuries of Platonism), I have the liberty to do so.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hello Vouthon,

I don’t know if you are familiar with the Called to Communion website. Several of the contributors are converts from the Reformed/Calvinistic camp.

They can provide you with a much better view of the Thomistic side of things than I can.

Here’s a couple of articles I think might be of interest to you:

St. Thomas Aquinas on Assurance of Salvation

Aquinas and Trent: Part 1

While the titles don’t seem to be directly related to your question, I believe they are relevant and have more references in the matter.

Peace,

 

[Vouthon]

I should also like to add this:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=mlRxW19VhWAC&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=thomism+leo+xiii+1277&source=bl&ots=QiRunc74wK&sig=eZRTikHXSjIlRjVGb7qiuF3fjf4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3uC6U7rMM6fB0gW9y4DQDg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=thomism%20leo%20xiii%201277&f=false

“…By the early years of the 20th century, however, Thomas Aquinas as a theologian, treated as the source of controversial ideas about grace and predestination, was overshadowed by Thomas Aquinas the philosopher, called in to equip the Catholic Church with the intellectual weaponry with which to resist the advance of modern thought…”

St. Thomas wasn’t “elevated” by Pope Leo XIII because of his controversial views on grace and predestination, nor does the context of the “elevation” make those views normative for Catholicism.

So while his theology is indisputably post-Leo XIII a central point of reference for Catholics, he hardly has a monopoly.

 

[Contarini]

Really? I had though that Molina left unexplained - as a mystery - why God chose to create a certain “world” out of the infinite possibilities (ie that it was inscrutable). In other words, Molina argued that God simply created the world he wanted too and no rationale could be deduced for this other than the inscrutability of the divine will.

Later theories advanced the idea, in keeping with the universal salvific will, that God chose to create the world in which most people would be saved. In my reading this is not denied or implied by Molina and so is a valid interpretation of his theory. Molina seemed to infer that he simply didn’t know why God created x world in which an individual might resist grace less than he would of had z world been created.

Right, but isn’t that, with regard to predestination, essentially the same as the Calvinist position? Aquinas is actually pretty clear on why God would create the precise world He did–in order to have a fitting balance of different kinds of goodness, making for a harmonious whole. But for Aquinas, God can always make a better world, so the mystery remains why God would create a world of just the degree of goodness the present one is.

In other words, I think you’re confirming what I said. For Molina, God chooses a world in which X person is damned and Y person is saved , when He could quite easily have chosen a world in which it was the other way round, or in which both were saved, or in which both were damned.

Perhaps I’m wrong–I’m no expert on Molina.

I don’t think you are quite fair to the Thomist perspective, which certainly does not make our actions meaningless. For Aquinas, predestination and free will don’t cancel each other out. Whether he is a straightforward “compatibilist” in the modern sense seems to be a rather difficult question.

Edwin

 

[JohnJFarren]

“The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.” 1 John 3:16.
Hello Vouthon and others reading – 7 July 2014

Many years ago I was engrossed for a number of years in this subject of predestination. I am now an old man … waiting. I was able, for myself, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, to piece together a good understanding – for myself – of predestination. My intention in this posting is to share with you some essential basic basics. Over the years I have done this, even more extensively than I’m doing here, to quite a number of sharers. Numerous quotations will be absent here. It is a matter of understanding. Perhaps in your kindness you will read what I’ll offer. Only the Holy Spirit can give us understanding.

Quite a list of key words get drawn into these considerations > predestination/ reprobation/ grace/ sufficient grace/ efficacious grace/ infallibly efficacious grace/ foreknowledge/ scientia media/ truly free choice/ Thomism/ Molinism/ Augustinianism/ Bañez/ First Cause/ Congregatio de Auxiliis/ and there are many more.

1 – Grace is an absolutely free gift. No human person could ever merit grace. Grace is a gift that offers us a real share through Jesus Christ in Divine Trinity Life.

2 – “The belief in predestination without foreseeing merits is something that Ambrose clearly did not believe, nor any father pre-Augustine.” I agree completely.

3 – Vouthon, as you understand the Thomistic explanation, I certainly cannot accept it either. But you have misunderstood St Thomas’ explanation. Today there are those who call themselves “Thomists” who do not understand St Thomas. I offer you two true Thomists who accurately understand St Thomas … and I encourage you to read the two books of theirs. Jacques Maritain and his book God and the Permission of Evil … especially pages 9-11. And Charles Journet and his book The Meaning of Grace. Both of these books are thin … and should be read with the Holy Spirit’s assistance. It is probable that both these works are out of print.

4 – I do have considerable respect for Fr William G Most and his considerable library of theological tracts.

5 – And this matter of God’s foreknowledge: We must not understand God’s knowing beforehand as His somehow viewing some kind of movie that shows all our decisions before we actually make them in time. We can do much better than that. Consider (conceive of) a free choice that I will make next month. I do not know what that concerns or what my choice will be. God does know … not because God sees something future … but God sees the actuality of my making that choice. God sees what is actually happening … and that’s how He knows. What to me is future in time … is to God present “now” in its actual happening.

6 – Does this manner of God’s knowing in any way make God dependent on my free choice? All people I know will say yes. And so what’s false about that? I ask you THIS > When the Second Person of the Trinity became a real human being … did God in any way make Himself dependent upon creatures? He most certainly did … and that’s part of the WONDER of the Incarnation.

7 – The word “predestine” should never be used except regarding God’s decision to send someone to Heaven, to the Beatific Vision. The phrase “predestine to hell” makes no sense. God never, before or after knowing our choices, predestines anyone to hell. There is only predestination to Heaven.

8 – Sufficient actual grace is truly sufficient – no tricks! God is present in every sufficient grace and in that grace … efficacious grace waits. God will work in us to actualize that sufficient grace into efficacious grace – IF we do not “go limp,” omit to say yes. God urges us to say yes and works us capable of yes … but will not force us. Without God we cannot say yes … but WITHOUT God we CAN omit, “go limp,” fail. What was meant by God to become efficacious grace has remained sufficient grace only because of our omission, our “going limp.”

9 – By the way … The CCC, Catechism of the Catholic Church, treats, directly or indirectly, of predestination in the following sections 257/ 600/1007/ 2012/ 2782/and 2823. Nowhere in the CCC does the word “Thomism” or “Molinism” appear. The Church does not favor Molinism. The Church permits its teaching.
//////////////////////////////////////////

I do apologize to you all that I do not give quotations to back up the things I’ve said. Many quotations I’ve used over the years. I would like in this posting to share with you understandings I have … in the hope some of them will be meaningful to you. The hunger and yearning for these understandings has been satisfied over many years. I have peace in the matter of predestination. In recent years my now gentle yearnings have centered more and more on the Holy Spirit. And especially are these words of Jesus most meaningful to me > “Father, I pray that they all may be One as We are One.” John 17.

Thank you for reading. Please Bless me. I Bless you. JohnJFarren

 

[Contarini]

Why are my thoughts clichés? Because you already know what I am saying?

Because this is a simple explanation which doesn’t address the problems brought up by theologians and philosophers from Augustine on.

Like Vouthon, I tend to think that maybe the Eastern Church took the right approach here.
But at the same time, I sometimes get the impression that they have just never addressed the issue (the same impression I get from your posts). That’s why I spoke dismissively of what you said but also said that I basically agreed with you.

Traditional theology doesn’t rely on Aquinas alone.

I know. But this is the mainstream position from Augustine through Molina at least, and maybe until the 20th century. Thomas has given the single most influential systematic presentation of it.

I didn’t say that everyone had to follow Aquinas. But he and Augustine are the two most important post-Biblical theologians in the Western Church, without a doubt.

I don’t intend to demonstate that Augustine and Aquinas thought as others, but I mean their understanding and ours about theirs can be developped.

Right, but I don’t see development. I see a refusal to acknowledge the complexities and a return to the pre-Augustinian simplicity. That’s what frustrates me. There’s a whole legacy of complex, difficult thought here which is just being swept under the rug when modern Catholics say “it’s all free will–case closed.”

Development has to deal with the trajectory up to this point. What I see is more like amnesia.
Edwin

 

[Vouthon]

Right, but I don’t see development. I see a refusal to acknowledge the complexities and a return to the pre-Augustinian simplicity. That’s what frustrates me. There’s a whole legacy of complex, difficult thought here which is just being swept under the rug when modern Catholics say “it’s all free will–case closed.”

Development has to deal with the trajectory up to this point. What I see is more like amnesia.
Edwin

On my part I think it is less amnesia (since I have considered the post-Augustine trajectory and given myself a headache in the process), so much as a preference for the simpler position of the Early Church that the Orthodox have seemed to preserve in this respect.

I think that the West sometimes over-thinks and that sometimes the emphasis on theoria in the East is just more pleasant.

As the Bible itself attests:

“…My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh…”

***- Ecclesiastes 12:12 ***

The predestination debate is evidence for me that this is divinely revealed truth

 

[MarcoPG]

“…My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh…”

• Ecclesiastes 12:12

Yes with this in mind, that every generation needs to be taught in accordance to their understanding(; it doesn’t mean changing the teaching).

That’s why updated editions of the same book are ok