Predestination

[Ahimsa]

From Bartleby:

The Roman Catholic view, as stated by St. Thomas Aquinas, maintains that God wills the salvation of all souls but that certain souls are granted special grace that in effect foreordains their salvation. The damned may be said to be reprobated to hell only in the sense that God foresees their resistance to the grace given them. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that predestination is consistent with free will since God moves the soul according to its nature.

CCC 2012 similarly states that God predestined some to be saved (justified and glorified).

Do Catholics sense something “unfair” with all of this? Sure, you can say that we all have free-will, but God has granted some of us with a ‘special grace’ not given to others, which effectively means that some will be saved, only because of the grace God chose to give them and not others.

Then again, if you start from the assumption that damnation is possible, then obviously God knew and has known since eternity, who would end up there and who not.

 

[Matt16_18]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1037** God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

The man that is damned to Hell exercised his free will to commit mortal sin, and persisted in mortal sin at the end of his life.

There is nothing unjust about God punishing an unrepentant sinner.

 

[Lazerlike42]

It is important to understand a few things here. Firstly, the view presented by Aquinas is one view that is permitted by the Church, but which is not taught explcitly. Official Catholic teaching concerning predestination goes something like this:

Predestination is a truth of the faith. That is for certain. What exactly predestination is and how it functions, however, is not certain. The Church is very humble in this regard insofar as that she does not claim to know what she does not. As concerns predestination, little is known, so little is taught authoritatively. What is known allows the Church to declare that there are two extremes, each of which are acceptable to believe along with the spectrum of views lying in between. On the one side is Thomism, the belief which the original post explained, and on the other is Molinism. The Church affirms that either of these views might be correct, as may any number of views which fall in between, but that the Church does not possess the revelation to declare with certainty what the proper understanding is. What is taught with certainty is that all have the possibility of salvation, and that no beliefs outside of this spectrum are correct.

My understanding (which is relatively close to Molinism) is based upon a reading of Romans chapter 8.

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

To begin, note that the text indicates that God predestined those whom He foreknew. In other words, first her foreknew them, then He predestined them. This indicates that God in His omniscience knew who would accept his call, and therefore predestined these individuals to Heaven. I point to the text in the Gospels wherein Christ says that he is preparing a room for each in Heaven. Is He literally preparing a room? This is doubtful, for even if it were true He could accomplish this in an instant. It makes sense then to compare Christ’s statement that He is preparing rooms to St. Paul’s indication regarding predestination. It seems appropriate to roughly equate this preparation with predestination. In other words, God, knowing whom would accept His call, predestined them in the sense that He “prepared this room” for them while not “wasting His time” preparing rooms for those who would not come.

Continuing in the passage we see that those whom God predestined he “also called.” This indicates to me that God, knowing whom would accept and whom would reject Him, called those whom would accept Him. It may mean that He called only those, but this is not certain and somewhat problematic when we consider those whom accept God’s call only to reject it later in life. What makes more sense is the idea this passage teaches that God at least calls those whom will accept Him. In other words, for those God foreknew would accept Him, there is a special guarantee of a call. In this sense, Aquinas’ belief that God bestows upon some a special predestination to Heaven (as well as the Catechism’s similar statement) is resoundingly true. What seems to be the key, however, is that St. Paul indicates that foreknowledge precedes predestination. In other words, it is our own free will by which we choose to accept or reject God, and predestination is dependant on this. It is the clear teaching of the Church that God does not interfere with our free will, and that each and all are free to reject or to accept God’s offer of salvation. What the Church does not claim to know is exactly how this happens.

 

[Matt16_18]

Ahimsa:

CCC 2012 similarly states that God predestined some to be saved (justified and glorified).

CCC 2012 is simply a quote of Rom 8:28-30.**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2012** “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.” [64]

[64] Rom 8:28-30.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lazerlike42:

On the one side is Thomism, the belief which the original post explained, and on the other is Molinism. The Church affirms that either of these views might be correct.

What the Church affirms is that neither of these schools of thought is, at present, the authoritative teaching of the Church.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Matt16_18:

What the Church affirms is that neither of these schools of thought is, at present, the authoritative teaching of the Church.

This is true, however it is important to make clear that this lack of and authoritative teaching of the truthfullness of either system is not an authoritative teaching of the falseness of either.