predestination

[amgid]

flameburns623:

God is good by definition . . .

Agreed!

. . . and we are wicked.

I am not too sure what you mean by that. If you mean that man is inherently wicked, constitutionally wicked, designed to be wicked, created by God from the beginning with the intent to be wicked, then I disagree. Mankind has become wicked as a consequence of the Fall, and their own transgressions; but was not designed by God from the beginning to be wicked. When God created the world, He pronounced all the things that He had created “good!” After He had created man, He declared it all “very good!” (Genesis 1:31.) The original questioner had inquired: “If God really created people to go to hell wouldn’t that make God evil?” I entirely agree with him on that. God did not created people to go to hell. He created them to be happy, and have eternal life. But He has given them an agency, and made them free. If they go to hell, that is because they choose to do so, not because He has made them to do so.

He is just in condeming all of us to hell. . . .

If I am understanding you correctly, then I cannot agree. We did not ask to be created. Where is the justice of creating us with the intent of sending us all (or even some of us) to hell?

We have no claim on Him whatsoever. . . .

We certainly do have claim on Him. He is our creator and maker, and He has commanded us to address Him as our Father. Do not children have claim on their fathers? Of course they do. They have claim on him for support and maintenance; they have claim on him for love and affection and protection; they have claim on him for training and instruction and reproof. The same (and more) can be expected from God.

It is by His mercy that any are saved at all, . . .

Agreed.

. . . and that only because of His own purposes, . . .

I don’t know what you mean by that.

. . . having nothing whatsoever to do with any merit or goodness on our part.

Again, it depends a lot on what you mean by that. If you mean that we cannot save ourselves by working hard and scoring a certain number of merit-points, that is correct. But I think that you mean something more by that. I think what you are trying to say is that we are inherently worthless, have no value in the sight of God. I would totally disagree with that. Of course we have value in the sight of God. If we didn’t, why would He create us in the first place? Why would He tell us that He loves us, and command us to love Him? Why would He send His Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for our sins? To His early disciples Jesus said: “Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.” (Matthew 10:31.) This tells us two things: firstly, even the sparrows are not without some value in the sight of God. Secondly, that we have greater value to Him than many of his other creations.

In the vast majority of cases, if one checks the entire context of the verse and recognizes what is being addressed, the word ‘all’ does NOT mean all.

This is a rhetorical issue. As far as my understanding of the scriptures go, I would say that in most cases “all” does mean “all”. The examples you have cited are the exception rather than the rule.

Calvinists have exegeted this verse for the benefit of Arminians at length and yet every new generation seeks to raise the same tired questions. See the following books for responses:

I don’t intend to read the books; but I have looked at your links; and all the reasonings behind them are flawed. And in either case, the context determines the sense in which a word is to be understood. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:3-4, there is no question that “all” means “all”. This can be determined not only in the context of the passage in which the text occurs; but in the context of the whole of the Bible. How else can you understand these verses:

Ezekiel 18:

23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

---

31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God (i.e. die spiritually, meaning be damned): wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
amgid

 

[Pjs2ejs]

A reply to a few of the posts here:

The Calvinists I know certainly think that Paul meant ALL when they quote ALL HAVE SINNED. TJmiller, nice call on that one. Apparently they want there cake and to consume it also.

Someone mentioned Thomas Aquinas agreed with the Calvinists on “this”. I’m not sure what “this” is exactly.

OTM, my Calvinist friend (now I’m not saying that all Calvinists believe this way) says that there is free will but that it has no effect on our salvation. That is already a done deal. He says it will affect the level of heaven we go to. Not exactly sure how he came up with that. As far as how he knows he is saved, because he believes. So I asked him what would happen if one of the “damned” mistakenly believed. He said it wouldn’t happen. And so I continue my round and round discussions on predestination.

 

[Contarini]

What I meant is that Aquinas interprets the “all” of 1 Timothy 2 in a way that corresponds with Calvinist interpretations (though Aquinas actually offers several interpretations of the passage, if I remember correctly).

Edwin

 

[tjmiller]

In New Testament Greek, “all” does not by any means mean the Englsih “all”. Entire books have been written on this subject.

Arguments for and against predestination are best found elsewhere.

 

[flameburns623]

tjmiller:

Just remember that it also applies to Mary, where we read that “all” have sinned.

The actual citation is rather more clear:

Romans 3: 9-23

9. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:* 11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.** 13. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15. Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:17. And the way of peace have they not known:18There is no fear of God before their eyes. 19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.*
Amgd:

I am not too sure what you mean by that. If you mean that man is inherently wicked, constitutionally wicked, designed to be wicked, created by God from the beginning with the intent to be wicked, then I disagree. Mankind has become wicked as a consequence of the Fall, and their own transgressions; but was not designed by God from the beginning to be wicked . . . . The original questioner had inquired: “If God really created people to go to hell wouldn’t that make God evil?”

Adam was created by God as good, indeed as very good, and, as the Latin puts it, Adam was so good that he was ‘posse peccare, posse non peccare’, able to sin or not to sin. Because Adam sinned, his offspring have become wholly worthless and rotten in the eyes of God: they are 'non posse non peccare, unable NOT to sin. Only the regenerate receive from God ‘posse non peccare’ the ability NOT to sin. Only in Heaven will anyone become ‘non posse peccare’, unable to sin. God creates human beings for His own good purposes. He defines what is good or what is evil: we do not get to second-guess Him. He is at liberty to display only His justice by creating only human beings who will damn themselves; instead He has also chosen to display His mercy by regenerating some and enabling them to know Him, love Him, and serve Him.
Amgd:

. . . . We did not ask to be created. Where is the justice of creating us with the intent of sending us all (or even some of us) to hell?

Existence is a priori infinitely better than never existing at all. In any case God is absolutely sovereign. He can do with His creation as He pleases. We don’t get to dictate to Him at all.

otm:

If humans have no free will, then there is little or no meaning to the word “sin”, as to "sin is to make a choice for oneself and against God . . . . The concept of no free will flies in the face of everday experience.

The concept that my keyboard is not actually a solid object, but a mass of particles in motion, flies into the face of everyday experience, but physicists tell me it is NOT. The concept that the sun is stationary and does not actually move across the sky every day is contrary to everday experience, but astronomers tell me that the sun is indeed stationary in relation to earth and that the illusion of solar motion is accounted for by the rotation of the earth on it’s axis.

Human beings are free only within the limits of their nature–which, as the scripture citation above indicates, is wholly rotten, fallen, and at enmity with God from our conception until God Himself moves to regenerate a soul.

Sin is the failure to live up to a sovereign God’s standard of righteousness. This sovereign, good, and all-knowing God has decreed that humans are culpable for sin but He has NOT revealed in His Scriptures that we have free will. How those two concepts correlate has been decreed as off-limits by the selfsame sovereign God. See Job, chapters 38-41; Isaiah 29: 16 and 45: 9-10; Romans 9: 19-22.
amgd:

I don’t intend to read the books . . .

Which pretty much kills any sort of opportunity for a truly thoughtful and informed discussion.

 

[flameburns623]

Contarini:

What I meant is that Aquinas interprets the “all” of 1 Timothy 2 in a way that corresponds with Calvinist interpretations (though Aquinas actually offers several interpretations of the passage, if I remember correctly).

Edwin

Dominicans are heavily influenced by Augustine and come down more on the side of a weak predestinarian position. Aquinas and a certain fellow named Ratzinger are/were Dominicans. I hear the latter guy has been moving up in the world lately . . . . . . .

In all seriousness: there really are two streams of thought even within Roman Catholicism on the issue, one very much supportive of free-will theism and the other more friendly to Calvinism. Most Catholics, like a lot of Protestants, hear mainly from the proponents of freewillism and often err on the side of semi-Pelagianism as a result.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

cavemanV,

I recommend the article by James Akin, Resisting and Cooperating with God***, ***and A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP (This Rock: September 1993)

From Dave Armstrong’s webpage: Catholic Predestination

 

[shockerfan]

flameburns623:

God is good by definition and we are wicked. He is just in condeming all of us to hell. We have no claim on Him whatsoever. It is by His mercy that any are saved at all, and that only because of His own purposes, having nothing whatsoever to do with any merit or goodness on our part.

Does it not seem a little sadistic or cruel that God would create people for the express purpose of going to hell?

flameburns623:

Calvinists have exegeted this verse for the benefit of Arminians at length and yet every new generation seeks to raise the same tired questions. See the following books for responses:

The Cause of God and Truth, by Dr. John Gill.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by Dr. John Owen.

Display of Arminianism, by Dr. John Owen.

The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented, by David Steele and Curtis Thomas.

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Loraine Boettner.

No Place for Sovereignty: What’s Wrong With Freewill Theism, by RK McGregor Wright.

Studies in the Atonement, by Dr. Robert A. Morey.

As respects I Timothy 2: 3-5, see the following:

thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99756.qna/category/nt/page/questions/site/iiim

I cite the following:

gospeloutreach.net/tulip_defense.html

One thing I have noticed in debates with Protestants is many subjects are interlinked, meaning its difficult to argue one topic in a vacuum. My point is that your support for predestination comes from the people you cite above. I would question their authority to make such pronouncements. There are approximately 33,000 different Christian denominations because at least 33,000 different people or groups claim their version of the “truth”. So who do we believe, and why should I subscribe any credance to your authors?
[Conversely, I know you could ask me the same question, and the thread would head in a different direction. But since you are the one making the case for predestination, please tell me why I should believe you, as opposed to someone with a different viewpoint on the subject. I’m just trying to completely understand your viewpoint.]

Thanks.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

the idea that humans have freewill is a notion superimposed upon the Bible and borrowed from Greek philosophy.

Hmmmmm… freewill apears to be explicit in Scripture…

Gen 2:16-17 - you are free to eat from any of the trees
Gen 4:7 - urge to sin can be mastered
Dt 12:6, 17; 16:10 - freewill offerings
Dt 23:23 - vow freely to the Lord
1 Chron 29:9 - given freely to the Lord
1 Chron 31:14 - freewill offerings
Ezra 1:4, 6; 2:68; 3:5, 7:16; 8:28 - freewill offerings
Ezra 7:15 - freely given to God
Dt 30:19 - I have set before you life and death…choose life
Ex 35:29 - freewill offerings given to the Lord
Ex 36:3 - freewill offerings morning after morning
Lev 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23; 23:28 - freewill offering
Num 15:3; 29:39 - freewill offerings
Jos 24:15 - choose for yourselves whom you will serve … as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord
Sir 15:14 - God made man subject to his own free choice
Prv 1:24 - I called, and you refused
Prv 1:29 - chose not to fear the Lord
Prv 8:10 - choose my instruction
Prv 16:16 - choose understanding
Is 41:24 - he who chooses false gods is detestable
Is 56:4 - choose what pleased Me
Hos 8:3-4 - rejected what is good, chose princes without God’s approval
1 Kgs 18:21 - how long will you hesitate before choosing
Ez 18:23, 31f, 33:11 - I rejoice when you turn from evil; make for yourself a new heart & spirit;
Jn 7:17 - If anyone chooses to do God’s will …
Mt 23:37 - I yearned to gather you but you were unwilling
Lk 13:34 - I yearned to gather you but you were unwilling
Acts 7:51- you always oppose the Holy Spirit
Jam 4:4 - who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God
1 Pet 4:3 - doing what pagans choose to do
Psalm 54:6 - freewill offerings
1 Cor 8:9 - exercise of your freedom should not become stumbling block to the weak
Gal 5:13 - called to be free; do not use your freedom to indulge in sin
Eph 3:12 - approach God with freedom
1 Pet 2:16 - live as free men; do not use freedom as a coverup for evil

 

[itsjustdave1988]

See the Hebrew word, n@dabah {ned-aw-baw’}, which means:

1) voluntariness, free-will offeringa) voluntariness b) freewill, voluntary, offeringGod said, “I will love them freely (Heb n@dabah ).” (RSV Hosea 14:4). Is this not free will?

Don’t human also act freely (Heb n@dabah ) throughout Scripture?

 

[exoflare]

flameburns623:

Existence is a priori infinitely better than never existing at all.

Based on WHAT?!

(Mark 14:21)
"For the Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born."

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Thomas Aquinas takes the “Calvinist” position on this.

Whaaaaa??? This sounds awefully familiar…

Calvinist scholar R.L. Dabney on Calvin, Thomas, and Augustine…

Calvin also found the same doctrines handed down by the best, most learned, most godly, uninspired church fathers, as Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas…" (R.L. Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism)

Let’s test it…

St. Thomas Aquinas…

It is written (Sircah 15:14) “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”… I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain… forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will. (*Summa Theologica, *I, 83, 1)

Contary to Calvinist doctrine, St. Augustine clearly taught that some of those regenerated and justified in Christ are among the elect, but some are not.

St. Augustine…

We, then, call men elected, and Christ’s disciples, and God’s children, because they are to be so called whom, being regenerated, we see to live piously… But if they have not perseverance,–that is, if they continue not in that which they have begun to be… they are not this in the sight of Him to whom it is known what they are going to be,–that is to say, from good men, bad men. (Augustine, “On Rebuke and Grace” (De Correptione et Gratis), Ch 22)

… But those who do not belong to this number of the predestinated … [some] receive the grace of God, but they are only for a season, and do not persevere; they forsake and are forsaken. For by their free will, as they have not received the gift of perseverance, they are sent away by the righteous and hidden judgment of God (ibid, Ch. 42)

If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, “I have not received,” because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received. (ibid, ch 9)

St. Augustine, contrary to Calvinist theology, asserted that the gift of faith/regeneration/justification is distinct from the gift of final perseverance…

CHAP. I --OF THE NATURE OF THE PERSEVERANCE HERE DISCOURSED OF…

I HAVE now to consider the subject of perseverance … I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end * is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive.* For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. … For if any one … have righteousness … if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was … righteous, or he was … believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. … And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years’ standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the stedfastness of his faith. (*A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, *Ch. 1)

 

[Contarini]

flameburns623:

Dominicans are heavily influenced by Augustine and come down more on the side of a weak predestinarian position. Aquinas and a certain fellow named Ratzinger are/were Dominicans. I hear the latter guy has been moving up in the world lately . . . . . . .

In all seriousness: there really are two streams of thought even within Roman Catholicism on the issue, one very much supportive of free-will theism and the other more friendly to Calvinism. Most Catholics, like a lot of Protestants, hear mainly from the proponents of freewillism and often err on the side of semi-Pelagianism as a result.

True, though for Aquinas there’s no contradiction between free will and predestination. Just how that works is not always clear. But for Aquinas God moves human wills toward the ends He has decreed (i.e., eternal life for the elect, and more limited, temporal goods for everyone else–of course God does not actively move anyone toward damnation in Aquinas’s view), without violating human free will in any way.

Hence, itsjustdave misunderstands me (in spite of the fact that I have twice explained exactly what I meant). I was referring specifically to St. Thomas’s interpretation of the Biblical texts saying that God desires the salvation of all. Aquinas is forced to nuance it in much the same way that moderate Calvinists do, because Aquinas believes that God sovereignly chooses to direct some human beings (and not others) toward the “end” of eternal life. I was emphatically *not *claiming that Aquinas’s position is identical with Calvinism. Itsjustdave rightly highlights the issue of perseverance–this is the most glaring and obvious difference between all forms of Catholic Augustinianism and Calvinism. Aquinas’s affirmation of free will is not so clear a difference, since Calvin himself admits that human beings have free will in a certain sense (what modern philosophers would call “compatibilism”–humans have free will because their actions are the authentic result of intellectual deliberation and the subsequent choice of the will, without being compelled by any external force), and many later Calvinists give free will a far more generous and carefully defined role than Calvin does.

You cannot simply show the difference between Aquinas and Calvinism by citing Aquinas’s belief in free will. That shows a careless and superficial reading of Aquinas. Aquinas does not think that free will is incompatible with God directing human choice in such a way that no other choice is possible than the one made. (But this “determination” results only from God’s inward direction of the human will–after all every created thing exists and acts only because God is moving in it. It does not result from second causes–human beings have “libertarian” freedom with regard to such causes. This is what a friend of mine who teaches philosophy at a Catholic university told me Aquinas teaches, and my own reading of Aquinas confirms his interpretation.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

P.S.

flameburns, you said that Ratzinger is a Dominican. I never heard that he belonged to any religious order.

Edwin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini:

I was referring specifically to St. Thomas’s interpretation of the Biblical texts saying that God desires the salvation of all. Aquinas is forced to nuance it in much the same way that moderate Calvinists do, because Aquinas believes that God sovereignly chooses to direct some human beings (and not others) toward the “end” of eternal life.

Yes, that’s what I get for responding before reading the rest of the thread. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

However, let’s disuss …

St. Thomas on “all” of 1 Tim …

“Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which God calls all men, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: “Who will have all men to be saved.” Wherefore Baptism is offered to all nations.” (*Summat Theologica, *)

"God intends one and the same thing for all men; since according to 1 Tim. 2:4: ‘He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ " (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 91, 5)

Elsewhere St. Thomas affirms,

It is written (1 Tim 4:10): “Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful,” and (1 John 2:2): “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Now to save men and to be a propitiation for their sins belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is*** the Head of all men***. … Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.

… Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things–first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will. (*Summa Theologica, *III, 8, 3)

Thus, it appears that Thomas insists that Christ as Saviour of ALL men includes the sense that even those united to Christ in “potentiality” but are “not predestined.”

St. Augustine also admits that this verse may be understood in many ways…
From “On Rebuke and Grace” (De Correptione et Gratis) …

CHAP. 44.–IN WHAT WAY GOD WILLS ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.

And what is written, that “He wills all men’ to be saved,” while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: “He wills all men to be saved,” is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them. …

CHAP. 47.–ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PASSAGE, “WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.”

That, therefore, in our ignorance of who shall be saved, God commands us to will that all to whom we preach this peace may be saved, and Himself works this in us by diffusing that love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us,–may also thus be understood, that God wills all men to be saved, because He makes us to will this; just as “He sent the Spirit of His Son, crying, Abba, Father;” ’ that is, making us to cry, Abba, Father. (ibid, 15:47)

Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas seem to “nuance” this verse in the same manner as Calvin did, do they?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Contarini:

Aquinas does not think that free will is incompatible with God directing human choice in such a way that no other choice is possible than the one made.

Thomists assert efficient grace is that which cannot fail to bring about what it intends. However, I can’t find where St. Thomas taught this. Can you point out an example where he disusses this?

Thomists are not Thomas, just as Calvinists are not Calvin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Keep in mind too, what Thomists teach:

The Fall wrought great harm: man lost those supernatural and preternatural gifts, but not free will. **Without grace man can still know God and other speculative and moral truths, and can do naturally *good ***acts. But he cannot keep the whole natural law, without grace, for a long time. (Fr. John Hardon, Course on Grace)

“For the performance of a morally good action, Sanctifying Grace is not required (de fide)” [Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

, pg 234]

"The grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action (sent. certa)" [ibid.]

"Actual grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa)" [ibid., 235]

St. Thomas likewise asserted:

“because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good … yet it cannot do all the good natural to it, so as to fall short in nothing” (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 109, 2).

So I disagree that free will is understaood as Calvin understands it, either by St. Thomas or Thomist.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

God according to St. Paul (1 Tim 2:4) “wills that all men be saved.”

This is understood as that which is antecedently willed. By this antecedent will, God desires that each and every human be saved. However, God, consequently wills that impenitent wicked men and those never born again from above are damned eternally.

To be clear, the is only one Divine act of will. Antecedent means, “precedes the free act of God’s will,” referred to as God’s Will of desire, in other words. Consequent means “coincides with the free act of God’s will,” referred to as God’s Will of Decree.

St. Thomas explains how this relates to God’s will that all men are saved, here:

The words of the Apostle “God will have all men to be saved,” etc. can be understood in three ways.

First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), “God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will.”

Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. my note: Calvinist view]

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circumstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circumstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place. (Summa Theologica, I, 19, 6)

I understand from the above that St. Thomas favors the 3rd interpretation by St. John Damascene. As further evidence, elsewhere St. Thomas describes that each and every person is given a guardian angel by God:

"an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as he is a wayfarer. When, however, he arrives at the end of life he no longer has a guardian angel; but in the kingdom he will have an angel to reign with him, in hell a demon to punish him. " (*Summa Theologica, *I, 113, 4)

Why would this occur under Calvin’s interpretation of “all men?” Although I gather that John Calvin also believed in guardian angels for “each individual.” But I’m not sure he meant to include the rebrobate as well, as St. Thomas clearly meant.

 

[amgid]

flameburns623:

He defines what is good or what is evil: . . .

I am not sure I can agree with that. I agree that God often determines for us what is good and evil—in other words, He lays down laws commanding us to do certain good things (e.g. love thy neighbor); or avoid doing certain evil things (e.g. thou salt not kill)—with a penalty being attached to doing the wrong thing. But I don’t agree that loving your neighbor is a good thing because God has determined that it must be a good thing; and defrauding your neighbor is a bad thing because God has said that it is a bad thing. My reading of the scriptures seems to suggest that these are independent principles which God chooses to adhere to, rather than being what they are because God has determined them so to be.

. . . we do not get to second-guess Him.

I am sure we don’t! Who said we do?

He is at liberty to display only His justice by creating only human beings who will damn themselves; . . .

Let us assume that you are right. Then I am also at liberty to declare that such a God would be unjust. Abraham seemed to display considerable independence of mind when he remonstrated with God about the destruction of wicked and the righteous in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Genesis 18:

24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
It appears form this that Abraham determines that God would be unjust to destroy the righteous with the wicked; and God agrees! God doesn’t say to Abraham: “You are overstepping your bounds. I am God; I determine what is right and what is wrong; you don’t!”

. . . instead He has also chosen to display His mercy by regenerating some and enabling them to know Him, love Him, and serve Him.

That is very kind of Him, I am sure!

Existence is a priori infinitely better than never existing at all.

As exoflare has rightly said, “Based on WHAT?!” You take for granted a lot of assertions whose validity is far from certain. I think that non-existence is far superior to being created out of nothing for the express purpose of suffering eternal damnation.

In any case God is absolutely sovereign. He can do with His creation as He pleases. We don’t get to dictate to Him at all.

My reading of the scriptures tells a different story of God’s sovereignty. The scriptures tell us that there are certain things that God cannot do. One of the things that He cannot do is to lie:

Titus 1:

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
The scriptures also tell us that God cannot, or will not be unjust (Isaiah 45:21). The Book of Mormon tells us more of what God cannot do. He cannot allow “mercy to rob justice” (Alma 42:25). So it looks like God’s sovereignty is somewhat limited. He cannot “do with His creation as He pleases,” as you have understood it. He cannot tell it lies. He cannot be unjust towards it. So your definition of God’s sovereignty appears to be somewhat flawed.

Which pretty much kills any sort of opportunity for a truly thoughtful and informed discussion.

Why? I don’t demand of you to read X number of books in order to debate with me. Why should you expect that of me? I take you as you are, and debate with you on the basis of what you already know, and educate you about what you don’t. My reading time is limited, and valuable. The kinds of books you are suggesting come way down in the list of my reading priorities. I don’t see why I should have to reprioritize my reading list just so I can debate with you. I reckon I can point out the flaws in your argument without having to do that!

amgid

 

[Contarini]

itsjustdave1988:

St. Thomas on “all” of 1 Tim …

                          "Baptism contains in itself the perfection of salvation, to which ***God calls all men***, according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "Who will have all men to be saved." Wherefore Baptism is offered to ***all nations***." (*Summat Theologica, *)

Calvinists wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this. Of course God calls everyone to salvation. That’s basic. Only the most extreme, simplistic Calvinists would say otherwise.

"God intends one and the same thing for all men; since according to 1 Tim. 2:4: ‘He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.’ " (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 91, 5)

This is actually from Objection 2. The objection is arguing that there must be only one law for the whole human race because God intends the same thing for everyone. (Hence there can’t be two laws–the Old and New.) Aquinas responds that the law bringing salvation to all came through Christ, and the Old Law was given to prepare people for the fullness of the truth. Obviously an objection is not, in principle, the place to go to get Aquinas’s own opinion! In this case it’s true that Aquinas doesn’t reject the objection’s use of 1 Tim. 2:4. But more to the point, the entire argument only makes sense if “all men” here refers to “the human race as a whole.” Aquinas’s response makes no sense if he is talking about God’s intentions for each individual human being, since he explicitly says that “the law that brings all to salvation” came into the world only with Christ (which automatically means that it applies only to some people!). He’s clearly talking about “all” as in “all peoples everywhere” as opposed to Jews vs. Gentiles. This is a good Calvinist interpretation and completely supports my argument.

Elsewhere St. Thomas affirms,
Quote:
It is written (1 Tim 4:10): “Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful,” and (1 John 2:2): “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Now to save men and to be a propitiation for their sins belongs to Christ as Head. Therefore Christ is*** the Head of all men***. … Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ, as being no longer in potentiality to be united to Christ.

… Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things–first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will. (*Summa Theologica, *III, 8, 3)

Thus, it appears that Thomas insists that Christ as Saviour of ALL men includes the sense that even those united to Christ in “potentiality” but are “not predestined.”

Again, this does not differ from moderate Calvinism. I’m not sure how you think this supports your argument. Quite to the contrary–Aquinas here breaks the back of the argument we “Arminians” would make, that if Christ is the savior of all then God cannot have predestined some unconditionally to salvation while passing over the others. Calvinists would cheer Aquinas on here. (Furthermore, it isn’t even addressing the question of 1 Tim. 2:4.)