J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Whats the difference between the predestination taught by the Church, Augustine and Aquinas and that of Calvin?
- Status
F
fear_n0_evil
Guest
I may have an over-enthusiatic interest in this area of theology, but as a converted Catholic and a repentant Calvinist, my guess would be the doctrine of “Double Predestination.” Some say Calvin interpreted Saint Paul, in Romans 9to mean that God predestines not only some to Glory, but also that God is active (or more than “passive”) in predestining some to a less noble use to the extent of condemning souls to everlasting perdition form birth. (You know the whole Issac I loved and Essu I hated thing) Am I correct?
A
awalt
Guest
That is my understanding as well, and to complete the story the Catholic Church teaches that all are predestined to the kingdom of God, and it is only our choice to turn away from God and reject this precious gift.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I don’t think it is quite correct to say that “the Catholic Church teaches” this since the Church actually allows quite a bit of flexibility in this area, as long as our theories incorporate both God’s sovereign nature and human free will. In fact, the Thomistic understanding is very similar to that of the Calvinists, putting more emphasis on God’s sovereign nature, but acknowledging human free will. On the other hand, the Molinist Catholic understanding is similar to the Arminian, putting more emphasis on human free will, but acknowledging God’s sovereign nature. Here is an article from Jimmy Akin showing a reconciliation with Calvinist predestination with its close cousin in the Thomistic tradition:
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
A
awalt
Guest
Well, I said that because the CCC says this:
**600 **To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
That seems to incorporate the key points I made, namely:
- We are all predestinated for salvation
- Our free will to choose God (or not)
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
So back to the op question. Then the difference is that Calvin presuposes that God actually predestines some for hell extraneous of our will?
B
Bishopite
Guest
Calvinists teach that God predestines some to heaven and some to hell as they put emphasis on God’s sovereignty and say that God’s essential nature is being sovereign. The idea of predestining some to heaven is agreed by all Christians the idea that God predestines some to hell is known by Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Armenian Protestants as double predestination and is in error.
Calvin taught a more extreme view of predestination than do most Calvinist today as he believed God creates some people with the manifest intention on sending them to hell. This idea violates the essential nature of God which all non-Calvinist Christians say is one of love. Calvinists accept God being a God of love but don’t accept His essential nature as being that of love. Most Calvinist’s don’t believe the extreme view of Calvin but some still do. Calvinist’s believe that Gods grace always completes its intention which is to save the sinner who doesn’t actually freely chooses God (because he/she is totally depraved which is another false belief because mans image and likeness were corrupted at the fall but not totaly depraved of grace). They believe that God chooses the elect and when He does choose the person He does so as to affect their will of the person and because He is sovereign His will always does what it intends, yet this seems to violate mans free choice of following God. It is as though man really has no choice to follow or not for God ordains whether they are to be of the elect and be saved or not.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the essential nature of God is love and that everything that flows from His nature like justice, holiness and soveregnty are aspects of His love.
Aquinas taught that God does predestine some to heaven but not to hell; all those who go to hell freely choose NOT to love God and choose hell themselves as God is a just God and wants all to be saved but doesn’t save all because not all people will to be with God; He simply gives them what they want.
St. Thomas taught that God gives everyone sufficient grace which is very (simular to the Calvinist view of common grace) and that sufficient grace is NOT saving grace but it is the type of grace that ALL people get in order to respond to God’s call and be saved. This is what Luke 12:48 says…much is given, much is required. If you haven’t been given much grace then God doesn’t require as much from you.
Anyway, those who are saved receive efficacious grace which is saving or sancifying type of grace because they responded to God’s call and united their will with God’s will. I’m strictly speaking of the person of the age of reason. Infants receive sanctifying grace (as do all) at baptism.
In the Thomistic view the elect receive efficacious grace from God and that this efficacious grace is the type of grace that always does what it intends which is save the person, however it does so without God violating the human free will, because God operates within the human will. And because it IS the type of grace from God that won’t be refused.
Molinists don’t separate types of grace but I can’t finish right now.
I will try to say more about St. Augustines view soon but I’m all out of time, sorry.
A
awalt
Guest
Sorry, I thought I answered the original post by showing the Church teaches that God ONLY predestines us for salvation, completing the answer that fear_n0_evil stated on the Calvinist position of predestination to heaven and hell.
The Calvinists teach that God presupposes some for heaven and some for hell, so you are correct in the difference you cite.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I guess the problem I had with your post was the line that the “Catholic Church teaches that all are predestined to the kingdom of God, and it is only our choice to turn away from God and reject this precious gift.” This simplifies it a bit too much because it undercuts the understanding that God offers us the “precious gift” of sufficient grace, but not the effective grace by which we can do the supernatural good necessary for entrance into Heaven. In that sense, we are not “all” predestined to the kingdom.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Of course He gives you the effective grace. Its equally available to everyone. He doesn’t require us to do “supernatural” good. Each have his own gifts. We have only to cooperate with the abundant grace that is available. Even an atheist has an inherent sense of what is right and wrong. Its then left up to choice to choose Gods will. If you can learn of it great. If you can’t then less is required of you.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
First off, I apologize for my poor choice of words. It’s been a while since I’ve wrestled with all of this. Let me retract part of what I’ve written earlier and say that God gives all of us “sufficient grace”, but Thomists believe that he only gives some of us “efficacious grace”.
Perhaps the semantics is causing the problem here, but your post does not adequately reflect the scope of Catholic teaching on this and indicates a misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on predestination. By “supernatural good”, I am referring to good done of that of “supernatural love” of which we (including atheists) are not capable without “sufficient grace”. While one could argue that effective grace is equally available to everyone (and I never said otherwise), you would be incorrect to imply that sufficient grace is. Each does have his own gifts, but this is completely irrelevant to whether or not we use those gifts out of supernatural love or do not.
From the Second Council of Orange: “as often as we do good God operates in us and with us, so that we may operate” (canon 9) and that “man does no good except that which God brings about” (canon 20).
So, it has little to do with our knowledge of good and bad, but with God’s assistance in acting on that knowledge in a way that reflects supernatural love.
This is a nice theory, but not complete.
It is an oversimplification of the complexity that comes when one contemplates the mystery of predestination. After all, to sum it up this way implies that our free will supercedes God’s sovereign nature. The Thomistic view holds that some of us are given enabling (efficacious) grace, which *always *produces the effect it intends. A Thomist would hold that we absolutely cannot not cooperate with enabling grace. Others, those who are not predestined, are not given this enabling grace.
Following from that logic, if one is not able to reject these graces, but not everyone goes go Heaven, then some of us must be receiving these efficacious graces, and others not. This seems to reject free will, but only because Thomist’s have a different understanding of free will than you. In his writings, Aquinas expressed it this way: Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.].
Your view is Molinist, which is fine, but the Church has specifically forbid Molinists and Thomists from condemning the respective school of thought, and on this thread, it is only fair that we present the full scope. The Thomist thought, may not be a theory that one likes, but it is allowed within the Catholic teaching on the matter.
Is it so hard here to recognize that others have the liberty within Catholic teachings to believe differently than most, that predestination amounts to little more than God reacting to his own foreknowledge?
B
Bishopite
Guest
Right. He incorrectly starts with the idea that Gods nature is primarily one of being a sovereign God. God IS sovereign but His nature is essentially love and does all things through love.
Calvinists would say that our wills are involved but God moves them to be saved because He is a sovereign God. But that problem with this idea is it disrupts mans free choice in responding to God’s grace. God isn’t a puppet master but a gentleman (figuratively of course) and although God does move the will, man also freely chooses God and God allows man to freely respond without violating his will.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
I believe we certainly can reject grace. I have done it. I see pride and concupiscence as the obsticles.
One scripture kept coming to mind reading your post, “seek and you shall find” and also be persistent.
I do not see how your understanding of Thomas correctly incorperates Gods gift of free will to us but perhaps I have misunderstood you as I do agree with Aquinas’ quote that God works within our will to change it though He usually never denies us having that free will, though I have asked.
Nor do I see in Aquinas teaching anything that would suggest the same grace isn’t available to any who seeks it. Perhaps the ones not recieving efficatious grace don’t seek it diligently enough. To me that would seem to entail a sort of cooperation.
You know what they say, ignorance is bliss, though I rarely see a blissfull ignorance at any more peace than someone informed.
Now I seem to recall that after St. Thomas completed his work saying it was all as straw and worthless or something along those lines.
Peace.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Thank you. Thats basically what I thought but the way you put it makes it more clear to me.
Peace.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Yes … sigh … and I never said one couldn’t reject grace. But I did write that there are certain* levels* of grace which one cannot reject, unless you are proposing we have the ability to override God if he wills that we end in Heaven. The term for this certain level of grace, as I’ve explained, is efficacious grace.
And, apparently, Thomas. Or else how would one explain this quote: “God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others. . . . Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others** has no reason except the divine will**. Hence Augustine says, ‘Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.’”[ST I:23:5, citing Augustine, *Homilies on the Gospel of John 26:2.].
Nor have I denied it. And, if everyone takes the time to look back, I have also not denied your views that take a different slant on free will than the Thomist. You are the ones insisting that this view cannot be valid - against Church teaching, by the way, since the Church has specifically said that those from the Thomist camp and those from the Molinist camp cannot condemn the views of one another. I, however, have gone to great efforts to recognize the validity of your views. I simply ask that, though you may disagree, you acknowledge that others have the liberty to disagree within the realms of Catholic orthodoxy. Interestingly, I’ve also never claimed that the Thomist view is my own. I happen to lean more your direction, but out of intellectual honesty, I wish those who disagree would cite some official source, above and beyond your personal reaction to it.
I would agree. So would any Thomist. The question, however, is whether one will be moved to seek it. And this has, as I quoted earlier, “no reason except the divine will.”
And also:
“[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect.” Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6.].
I think this was very nearly the exact wording I’ve used after my earlier clarifications, right?
And from Jimmy Akin: The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.[ST I:23:3].
But he might be wrong, too.
If he did it was because he realized that he couldn’t have it all figured out. He did write, after all, “'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.”
If you read through my posts, you will see I’ve been careful not to judge God’s decision, placing the full scope of options there. Others, however, have been very quick to tell me I’ve been wrong. Again, please read the link I provided earlier:
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp
Friends, I’m not trying to engage an argument. I just have to defend the scope of options, and many of you are denying that these options are available. I’ve never said anyone here had to subscribe to the Thomist view, but only recognize it is acceptable and valid, as the Church does.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Please explain how starting with God as sovereign is “incorrect”. It may be against your preference, but it is not incorrect - nor is it an invalid premise from which to start. If it is, please cite your source, as I’ve been doing.
Thomists would say something very similar to the Calvinists here. From Jimmy Akin’s essay (and notice the quote from Thomas: "One should note Thomists do believe in free will, although not the sort Molinists believe in. They claim God’s grace establishes what will be freely chosen, but in a way that does not disturb the will’s freedom. Aquinas said, “God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9.].
I’ll take it you are responding to me without reading the link I provided earlier?
Again, as I stated in my last post. I see your view as valid. I just wish that someone who disagrees with the orthodox Thomist view would cite something other than personal reaction to deny theologians in that school their interpretation.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
From Ludwig Van Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the *ordo executionis *coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory). Both attempts at explanation are ecclesiastically permissible.
(ad gloriam tantum), therefore ante praevisa merita. According to them, God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man’s grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis). In time God first gives to the predestined effective graces and then eternal bliss as a reward for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with grace (ordo executionis). The ordo intentionis and the *ordo executionis *are in inverse relation to each other (glory-grace; grace-glory).
Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, postand propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media, sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionis and the *ordo executionis *coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory). Both attempts at explanation are ecclesiastically permissible.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Predestination is either to grace (which we could lose) or to glory (which we cannot lose). Some non-Catholics confuse the definition of “predestination” (which means God knows what we will do before we do it) and “predetermination” (the erroneous belief that God determines what we will do). But God does not author evil. We choose evil by our own freewill.
Peace,
Ryan
Peace,
Ryan
B
Bishopite
Guest
Sure, by the way if you want to know the difference between the Molinist, Augustine and Thomistic view, I can post the differences from how Ludwig Ott (a Catholic theologian) explains them.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Can you give a source for these definitions? Last I looked, the definition that “God knows what we will do before we do it” was for “prescience”. Look at the parts of the word - “pre” means before and “destination” refers to a place to which we are headed. I don’t see how the word implies God’s “prescience”.Predestination is either to grace (which we could lose) or to glory (which we cannot lose). Some non-Catholics confuse the definition of “predestination” (which means God knows what we will do before we do it) and “predetermination” (the erroneous belief that God determines what we will do). But God does not author evil. We choose evil by our own freewill.
Peace,
Ryan
- Status