predestination

[awfulthings9]

I’m trying to wrap my mind around some of the different schools of thought on predestination. What I’m NOT asking for in response to this post is your own personal opinion as to which you agree with or not, but rather a review of my summaries. Am I accurate or not? Where is clarification or correction needed. I’m also not looking for essay-length expositions (I have plenty of those, but am trying to comprehend a thesis for each) but would invite links to reputable essays online. Okay, here’s what I got:

Calvinist view: A Protestant view (among mostly Prebyterians, Reformed, and some Baptists) that holds that God, before time and for his own reasons, chose to predetermine to send some to Heaven and predetermine to send some to Hell. His divine providence will activily steer the elect to Heaven and ACTIVELY steer the non-elect to Hell.

Arminianist view: A Protestant view (among Methodists, Pentacostals, and most Baptists) that holds that God, before time, forsaw which people would chose to follow him. He predestined those that would to Heaven and those that would not to Hell. His divine providence will actively steer those that he forsaw accepting him (the elect) to Heaven and will ACTIVELY steer those that he forsaw rejecting him (the non-elect) to Hell.

Thomist view: An acceptable Catholic view, similar to Calvinism, that holds that God, before time, and for his own reasons, chose to predetermine to send some to Heaven and that the grace he administers for this is irresistable. However, unlike the Calvinist view, he ACTIVELY predestines NOBODY to Hell, but simply, for his own reasons, withholds that efficacious grace to some (which is necessary to reach Heaven) and they chose Hell out of their own free will.

Molinist view: Also an acceptable Catholic view, similar to the Arminianist view, God forsaw who would chose him and who would not. Like the Thomist view, he gives sufficient graces to those who he knows would chose him (the elect) and simply NON-ACTIVELY withholds them from those who wouldn’t (the non-elect) and allows them to reject him of their own free will.

Augustinian view: Haven’t found much on this one. Help please.

Okay, did I do well with those, or am I completely off??? Also, am I understanding the Thomist view correctly that, while Christ’s sacrifice on the cross earned us sufficient grace for all to enter Heaven, the non-elect (who are chosen for reasons beyond our comprehension) are left to their own free-will AND that, without the aid of God’s grace in rejecting sin, some of the non-elect may initially chose God but, without his sustaining grace, will ultimately reject him?

 

[Melchior]

awfulthings9:

I’m trying to wrap my mind around some of the different schools of thought on predestination. What I’m NOT asking for in response to this post is your own personal opinion as to which you agree with or not, but rather a review of my summaries. Am I accurate or not? Where is clarification or correction needed. I’m also not looking for essay-length expositions (I have plenty of those, but am trying to comprehend a thesis for each) but would invite links to reputable essays online. Okay, here’s what I got:

Calvinist view: A Protestant view (among mostly Prebyterians, Reformed, and some Baptists) that holds that God, before time and for his own reasons, chose to predetermine to send some to Heaven and predetermine to send some to Hell. His divine providence will activily steer the elect to Heaven and ACTIVELY steer the non-elect to Hell.

You are right until you say he actively elects some to Hell. That is a minority view in Calvinism (but a popular Catholic misrepresentation unfortunately). The the view you mention is called Supralapsarianism. Calvin and most Calvinist were and are Infralapsarians - the belief that God actively predestines the elect to glory and passively sends the damned to Hell. It is not far of from Augustine or Aquinas.

Arminianist view: A Protestant view (among Methodists, Pentacostals, and most Baptists) that holds that God, before time, forsaw which people would chose to follow him. He predestined those that would to Heaven and those that would not to Hell. His divine providence will actively steer those that he forsaw accepting him (the elect) to Heaven and will ACTIVELY steer those that he forsaw rejecting him (the non-elect) to Hell.

Aslo right but again, it is not predestination to Hell it is merely passively allowing them to remain in their sins.

Thomist view: An acceptable Catholic view, similar to Calvinism, that holds that God, before time, and for his own reasons, chose to predetermine to send some to Heaven and that the grace he administers for this is irresistable. However, unlike the Calvinist view, he ACTIVELY predestines NOBODY to Hell, but simply, for his own reasons, withholds that efficacious grace to some (which is necessary to reach Heaven) and they chose Hell out of their own free will.

True and actually identical to what most Calvinists believe on Predestination. The only real difference being that Calvinists believe in particular atonement - Christs died only for the elect. Thomists believe a more Biblical version of this, though I would not have said that five years ago. Christ’s atonemewnt was suffcient for all but efficient only for the elect.

Molinist view: Also an acceptable Catholic view, similar to the Arminianist view, God forsaw who would chose him and who would not. Like the Thomist view, he gives sufficient graces to those who he knows would chose him (the elect) and simply NON-ACTIVELY withholds them from those who wouldn’t (the non-elect) and allows them to reject him of their own free will.

Augustinian view: Haven’t found much on this one. Help please.

Thomist view with less detail.

Okay, did I do well with those, or am I completely off??? Also, am I understanding the Thomist view correctly that, while Christ’s sacrifice on the cross earned us sufficient grace for all to enter Heaven, the non-elect (who are chosen for reasons beyond our comprehension) are left to their own free-will AND that, without the aid of God’s grace in rejecting sin, some of the non-elect may initially chose God but, without his sustaining grace, will ultimately reject him?

You have nailed the Thomist view.

Mel

 

[awfulthings9]

Thanks Mel,

Kind of makes the head swim a little, doesn’t it?
So, the Thomist view is what Protestants would refer to as 4-point Calvinism (as opposed to TULIP)?

 

[Melchior]

awfulthings9:

Thanks Mel,

Kind of makes the head swim a little, doesn’t it?
So, the Thomist view is what Protestants would refer to as 4-point Calvinism (as opposed to TULIP)?

Pretty close, but better. As a former Calvinist who still has strong Calvinist sympathies for biblical reasons, I love the Thomist view even better than the 4-point (or Amyraldian) view, because of the consistent view of the atonement - His atonement was* sufficient * for all but efficient only for the elect to final salvation. This does justice to scripture and the success of Christ’s atonement.

The Calvinist argues that if Christ died for all them all would be saved or He failed in His mission and His death was in vain. There is a certain logic to it. But it fails in that Christ’s atonement has a universal aspect in that it effects all of creation. So their view is not “big” enough. Aquinas on the other hand sees it in a similar way. That Christ’s atonement was for all but not in the same way. All benefit from it in some way. But not all are saved by it. It is a mystery but it is also quite porfound.

I am sure some 4-pointers have adopted the sufficient/efficient understanding.

It definately makes the head swim!

Btw, I saw your profile. I dated a girl from Jeff CIty back in College (Springfield, MO) She would be your age or a year older. Small world.

Mel

 

[awfulthings9]

Melchior:

Pretty close, but better. As a former Calvinist who still has strong Calvinist sympathies for biblical reasons, I love the Thomist view even better than the 4-point (or Amyraldian) view, because of the consistent view of the atonement - His atonement was* sufficient *for all but efficient only for the elect to final salvation. This does justice to scripture and the success of Christ’s atonement.

The Calvinist argues that if Christ died for all them all would be saved or He failed in His mission and His death was in vain. There is a certain logic to it. But it fails in that Christ’s atonement has a universal aspect in that it effects all of creation. So their view is not “big” enough. Aquinas on the other hand sees it in a similar way. That Christ’s atonement was for all but not in the same way. All benefit from it in some way. But not all are saved by it. It is a mystery but it is also quite porfound.

I am sure some 4-pointers have adopted the sufficient/efficient understanding.

It definately makes the head swim!

Btw, I saw your profile. I dated a girl from Jeff CIty back in College (Springfield, MO) She would be your age or a year older. Small world.

Mel

It is a small world. Now, were you predestined to have dated a girl from the same city I am from, which means that perhaps I know her since we might have been predestined to meet on this message board … hmmm …

Seriously, though, I think I am seeing the difference. Just read Akin’s Salvation Controversy. Combined with your posts, I got a clearer picture of the difference.

 

[awfulthings9]

Hey Mel,

I was thinking about the Thomist view some more while showering a bit ago and had a question. Another poster started a thread that poses a similar question, but I’ll word it my way here. I’ll be curious to see both responses.

If a Thomist or Calvinist believes that God chose, for his own reasons, a number of us to be the elect and awards only that number with sufficient grace to reach Heaven, then the non-elect could never (being without such divine assistance) reach Heaven, right? How does this fit with a) free will (since they don’t have the grace necessary to freely chose God? and b) a loving God?

I assume the answer to b) could be that since God is a loving God, he desires for all to reach Heaven, but, for reasons beyond our understanding, only intends for some to. We cannot understand those reasons on Earth, but must trust that his reasons are consistent with his perfect expression of love and justice. Yet our minds are too limited to understand them now. Is that close?

I’m a little stuck on a) because to me the analogy would be to put someone in a room with two doors (salvation and damanation) and telling that person he may freely chose one or the other. However the door to salvation is locked and, while we would provide the “elect” with a key (sufficient grace), is it really a free choice to provide the non-elect with two doors, one of which is locked and cannot be opened by his own merits? Maybe my analogy is flawed.

Head’s still swimming.

 

[AquinasXVI]

IMHO the whole thing is about the appropriate understanding of SALVATION, REDEMPTION and God’s OMNISCIENCE.

All men down to Adam was redeemed by Christ’s passion…Our active and positive participation in this brings us to Salvation (via the grace and mercy of God). Just because God knows who will end up where doesn’t take away the human dynamic and drama that each person will experience and freely choose.

It would be a problem to start this from God’s omniscience and deduce that he created human equivalent of Angels and Devils that have to do time down here and then all will come to pass without any merit or demerit on the person’s response. That theology is not only illogical, but is not consistent with the other major aspect of God which is BENEVOLENCE.

in XT.

 

[awfulthings9]

AquinasXVI:

IMHO the whole thing is about the appropriate understanding of SALVATION, REDEMPTION and God’s OMNISCIENCE.

All men down to Adam was redeemed by Christ’s passion…Our active and positive participation in this brings us to Salvation (via the grace and mercy of God). Just because God knows who will end up where doesn’t take away the human dynamic and drama that each person will experience and freely choose.

It would be a problem to start this from God’s omniscience and deduce that he created human equivalent of Angels and Devils that have to do time down here and then all will come to pass without any merit or demerit on the person’s response. That theology is not only illogical, but is not consistent with the other major aspect of God which is BENEVOLENCE.

in XT.

I agree, Aquinas, which is why I personally prefer the Molinist interpretation, which emphasizes free will. However, as Akin mentioned in Salvation Controversy, the Thomist view is an acceptable one within the Church. I don’t personally have a problem with two seemingly contradictory views both being “acceptable” becaue that is just an admission that there are some things we aren’t meant for figure out just yet, so the Church is leaving room for healthy speculation. Yet, should I find myself in a conversation with a Calvinist, especially one who is contemplating entry into the Church, I want to be able to show him the compatibility of the Thomist view with his own theology (as that might provide a comfortable entry for him). Yet, I want to make sure that I understand it first so that I can talk intelligently on the subject. Also, as an apologist, I want to make sure I understand the Thomist view, even though I might not side with it, so that I can help someone who is currently struggling with understanding it.

Actually, after I woke up from my nap, it made more sense to me, but I’ll wait to get more feedback before I post on my more clear-headed understanding.

 

[awfulthings9]

Anyway, I also sent my summaries to some Protestant friends. Here’s what my Church-of-Christ (non-instrumental) preacher friend wrote - see what you think and where he might be in error:

Spencer,

I certainly find the views you listed interesting but not true. It is true, the Bible does teach “predestination”, but not of individuals.

We know God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35). We also know that God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). God so loved the world, not just part of it (John 3:16).

Before looking at the passages which deal with predestination, it is important to know that God calls us by the gospel (2 Thess 2:14). The same gospel which Paul describes by inspiration of King Jesus as the “power of God unto salvation to EVERY ONE that believeth” (Rom 1:16).

So God is calling through the gospel, for every one to obey His word. (1 Peter 1:22; Matt 7:21-23). Those who are baptized into Christ, put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27; Rom 6:3-5). God has predestined those who are in Christ to be saved. This he predetermined before the foundation of the world (Eph 3:9-11). Before God created man He determined to save those who put on Christ and live accordingly. He predetermined that those outside of Christ would not be saved. However, He did not predetermine each individual soul to Heaven or Hell. We have a choice to answer the call of the gospel or reject it. Jesus said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

With that said, I leave you with the two passages that talk about predestination. Notice, especially in Ephesians, it is clear that God predestined those “IN” Christ.

Rom 8:28-30
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
KJV

Eph 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
KJV

 

[DreadVandal]

Just a couple of points of clarification regarding the Thomistic view. These points you can also read in Akin’s “The Salvation Controversy.”

Aquinas distinguishes between sufficient and efficacious grace. All human beings receive sufficient grace to keep the commandments but only those who receive efficacious grace actually do keep the commandments and merit eternal life. While efficacious grace is intrinsically efficacious, it is not irresistable. Those receiving efficacious grace do have the power to resist grace, but in fact, they do not resist grace.

Also, Aquinas holds that grace enables the will to cooperate with God. This is different from the standard Lutheran and Calvinist view, namely, that the will is purely passive and God does all the work (monergism).

Finally, Aquinas holds to both the reality of unconditional election and free will and basically says that our reason cannot fully reconcile them in this life. Molinists and Arminians deny unconditional election for the sake of free will and most Calvinists deny free will for the sake of unconditional election. Both the Arminian and the Calvinist would likely claim that the Thomistic view is full of contradictions. However, there is no view of predestination and free will that is unproblemmatic.

For one thing, the Arminian/Molinist view makes God’s foreknowledge passive. It is a contradiction to introduce passivity into the Being of God. Also, Scripture is clear that salvation is from God and not from ourselves; yet, if grace is granted on the basis of how we will respond to it, then it makes grace something merited and no longer a gift. There are ways around this; of course, which is why Molinists and Arminians generally talk much about prevenient grace that enables the will.

The Calvinist view (at least the extreme version of it), of course, has the problem of making God responsible for sin and evil and making God unjust.

 

[awfulthings9]

Thanks Dread,
You wrote just what I needed to see to clarify. I read from Akin’s book your comments on Grace - the part I was needing verification of was that a Thomist would stand firm in his conviction of predestined intrisically efficacious grace, while admiting free will, but that the mystery of this is beyond our ability to understand at present.
All best,
Spencer

 

[DreadVandal]

awfulthings9:

Thanks Dread,
You wrote just what I needed to see to clarify. I read from Akin’s book your comments on Grace - the part I was needing verification of was that a Thomist would stand firm in his conviction of predestined intrisically efficacious grace, while admiting free will, but that the mystery of this is beyond our ability to understand at present.
All best,
Spencer

Yep, that’s right. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange has commented that even though there are theoretical differences between the Thomistic and Calvinist views; practically speaking, the effect is the same. I think that what is called the infralapsarian Calvinist view (that God reprobates in light of the fall and personal demerits) is essentially identical to the Thomistic view, just with different terminology. I am sympathetic with the Thomistic view myself; while realizing that it is not clear how it can be reconciled with God’s universal salvific will. I think the Church has shown its wisdom in not formally pronouncing on this issue.

 

[awfulthings9]

Okay, one more question (with two follow-ups), and then I think I’ve satisfied my inquiry into this subject:

1. We’ve been discussing the two views of Predestination, Thomist and Molinist, that are allowed within Catholic theology - are there others AND are we allowed to hold to any view of Predestination that does not otherwise contradict our Catholic understanding of the nature of God and what we have received through divine revelation?

1a) That asked, is it compatible with Catholic theology to hold a “group” or “general” understanding of Predestination - that, rather than predestining individuals, the verses in Scripture refer to a predestination of, say, the Jews and then to the Gentiles (especially since one of the most compelling verses is found in the book of Romans, which follows this theme)?

1b) OR, is it possible to hold a “generic” understanding of Predestination, that God “predestined” anyone who accepted Christ. I know this sounds like the Molinist position, but rather than giving special graces to those he “foresaw”, he simply means, by predestination, that the spaces in Heaven would be reserved “generically” for anyone who accepted Christ through the sufficient graces that he **evenly **distributes to all (which seems to be the view of my Church of Christ friend, though I don’t personally hold it). This would mean, of course, that some would reject those sufficient graces, which seems to run contrary to the Molinist and Thomist views.

Thanks.

 

[DreadVandal]

awfulthings9:

Okay, one more question (with two follow-ups), and then I think I’ve satisfied my inquiry into this subject:

1. We’ve been discussing the two views of Predestination, Thomist and Molinist, that are allowed within Catholic theology - are there others AND are we allowed to hold to any view of Predestination that does not otherwise contradict our Catholic understanding of the nature of God and what we have received through divine revelation?

1a) That asked, is it compatible with Catholic theology to hold a “group” or “general” understanding of Predestination - that, rather than predestining individuals, the verses in Scripture refer to a predestination of, say, the Jews and then to the Gentiles (especially since one of the most compelling verses is found in the book of Romans, which follows this theme)?

1b) OR, is it possible to hold a “generic” understanding of Predestination, that God “predestined” anyone who accepted Christ. I know this sounds like the Molinist position, but rather than giving special graces to those he “foresaw”, he simply means, by predestination, that the spaces in Heaven would be reserved “generically” for anyone who accepted Christ through the sufficient graces that he **evenly **distributes to all (which seems to be the view of my Church of Christ friend, though I don’t personally hold it). This would mean, of course, that some would reject those sufficient graces, which seems to run contrary to the Molinist and Thomist views.

Thanks.

The short answer to (1) is yes, you may hold any position on predestination that upholds 2 points: A) the primacy and necessity of grace B) God wills to save all mankind (at least in some sense).

There are other positions. The ones I know of all seem to be a variation of Molinism. The view you articulate in 1b seems to be similar to the view of Fr. William Most. He has a book on Predestination. I 'm reading it now. I must confess that, so far, I’m unpersuaded.

With regard to (1a): Many exegetes hold to class election. I’m not persuaded myself. I do hold to class election in specific, temporal matters, but I still hold the traditional Augustinian/Thomistic view of the unconditional predestination of individuals to glory.

As I said earlier, there is no view of predestination that is unproblemmatic. I am sure there is still much room for theological exploration. Hope this helps.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Melchior:

Pretty close, but better. As a former Calvinist who still has strong Calvinist sympathies for biblical reasons, I love the Thomist view even better than the 4-point (or Amyraldian) view, because of the consistent view of the atonement - His atonement was* sufficient *for all but efficient only for the elect to final salvation. This does justice to scripture and the success of Christ’s atonement.

The Calvinist argues that if Christ died for all them all would be saved or He failed in His mission and His death was in vain. There is a certain logic to it. But it fails in that Christ’s atonement has a universal aspect in that it effects all of creation. So their view is not “big” enough. Aquinas on the other hand sees it in a similar way. That Christ’s atonement was for all but not in the same way. All benefit from it in some way. But not all are saved by it. It is a mystery but it is also quite porfound.

I am sure some 4-pointers have adopted the sufficient/efficient understanding.

It definately makes the head swim!

Btw, I saw your profile. I dated a girl from Jeff CIty back in College (Springfield, MO) She would be your age or a year older. Small world.

Mel

If less than the whole human race is saved, would this not leave open the possibilty of Limited Atonement ?​

ISTM that LA is being seen from different ends by RCs & Calvinists: one denies it can be a cause of redemption, the other affirms it is an effect of the decree to redeem.

Why can’t one have Calvinist LA, Catholic free will, and Calvinist Monergism as the cause of Catholic free will ? Much of Calvin’s polemic was against semi-Pelagian Catholics: not against Thomists, who are not semi-Pelagians. The view one takes of one’s opponent’s religion is very likely to be coloured by how he represents it - which may not be well. To treat Calvin in 1550 writing against a semi-Pelagian of 1540 as though Calvin were writing against a Thomist in 1600 when one is writing in the year 2000, makes no sense: one can’t assume that Calvin would have written identically against different opponents ##