St. Thomas Aquinas on the salvation of non-Christians

[Lazerlike42]

Upon much study, I must come to the conclusion that St. Thomas’ answer regarding the necessity of explicit belief is one that is grounded in his understanding of predestination. His view of Predestination, influenced greatly by Augustine, and based upon the notion of intrinsically efficacious grace, leads to the logical necessity for explicit belief. He carries this premise quite far, stating, that for instance, person’s to whom the gospel has nver been preached may be saved but only by a special revelation to that individual. This makes sense insofar as that such a person would ultimately be saved directly due to a rather determinisitc predestination, in which case it is appropriate that God would, having predestined this person, reveal Christ to him.

However, I feel that this understanding imay mplicitly requires the notion that some sins are not forgivable. Aquinas draws the conclusion from this line of thought that invincible ignorance is a punishment for some sin, perhaps even original sin. He must be mistaken on the latter point, as we know that there is no punishment due original sin. The former point however, would seem to indicate that punishment for a sin could be the denial of that grace necessary to come to salvation, that is, the grace of faith. This position is very problematic. Whether one is to say that the punishment is temporal or eternal, it necessitates a situation in which God forces a person to perservere in faithlessness until death, similar to the grace of perserverence but in reverse. In short, I find the position completely untenable.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

In digging through all of this, I am have also realized that the beliefs asserted by Aquinas here are a result of his particular attitude on predestination, which was influenced greatly by Augustine, and which is not bound to be held by the faithful.

In any case, I am extremely certain that the view that invincible ignorance is a “punishment for sin” must fall into the category of heresy, for it denies the notion that all sins may be forgiven.

Why is man ignorant?

The first man and women were created with infused knowledge. This infused knowledge was lost, along with original justice and sanctifying grace, as a result of original sin. Therefore ignorance is a punishment for sin.

By saying that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin does not mean that some sins are not forgivable. That is not what St. Thomas, nor St. Augustine taught. All sins can be forgiven, but in order for a person to have their sins forgiven, they must have faith, which is the foundation of the supernatural life.

In order to receive faith, an adult must use their free will to correspond with actual grace. Only by corresponding with actual grace can an adult obtain supernatural faith.

Lazerlike42:

St. Thomas (and Augustine) here seems very much so to teach a heretical (Protestant, actually) view of original sin. In fact, upon thinking about it further, he seems here to teach implicitly some very troubling things regarding the nature of sin. The implication of this statement is that a lack of faith, and hence damnation, can constitute the temporal punishment for a sin.

In other words, if a person has faith withheld from him, it is a just punishment for some previous sin. Therefore the previous sin merited the lack of faith, without which salvation is impossible. This leads to the conclusion that the previous sin is unforgivable, because the punishment for that sin is the denial of the very virtue necessary for forgiveness.

I think you are drawing some false conclusions. In order to obtain supernatural faith and supernatural charity (sanctifying grace), a person MUST use their free will to correspond with the actual grace that God sends them. If they fail to correspond properly, they will not obtain faith as a direct result of what they themselves failed to do (i.e. correspond with actual grace). Faith and grace are both gifts, but they are given to those who are properly disposed and correspond to the actual grace that God sends.

If a person fails to correspond to actual grace, he is not “meriting the lack of faith”, as you stated; rather, he is hindering his reception of faith by a bad use of his will.

I find it interesting that you are so quick to declare St. Augustine and St. Thomas - probably the two greatest thrologians in the history of the Church - as heretics.

 

[Ghosty]

I think you are drawing some false conclusions. In order to obtain supernatural faith and supernatural charity (sanctifying grace), a person MUST use their free will to correspond with the actual grace that God sends them. If they fail to correspond properly, they will not obtain faith as a direct result of what they themselves failed to do (i.e. correspond with actual grace). Faith and grace are both gifts, but they are given to those who are properly disposed and correspond to the actual grace that God sends.

This presumes that the Revelation of Christ is available to all people, an assumption that St. Augustine and St. Thomas held based on their understanding of the world. Whilre their conclusions are correct, they are founded on faulty assumptions, and their understanding has to be adjusted to compensate.

In the case of those who have been exposed to the Revelation of Christ, their statements stand. That case can not be extended to all humans, however, as we’ve discovered over the course of history. Therefore their error is one of temporal knowledge and facts, not of theological truths. The concept of invincible ignorance still holds, it just wasn’t known that any cases of invincible ignorance existed in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, and so he spoke in absolute terms that no longer apply with any certainty.

I find it interesting that you are so quick to declare St. Augustine and St. Thomas - probably the two greatest thrologians in the history of the Church - as heretics.

Heretic is an incorrect term, I think, but they were indeed wrong materially through no fault of their own. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, denied the Immaculate Conception based on a material misunderstanding, namely a misunderstanding about the medical facts of the womb. His conclusion about the Immaculate Conception is false, but based on the faulty material knowledge he was working with, not because of an error in reasoning or inclination on his part. The issue of invincible ignorance is same kind of problem.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

Why is man ignorant?

The first man and women were created with infused knowledge. This infused knowledge was lost, along with original justice and sanctifying grace, as a result of original sin. Therefore ignorance is a punishment for sin.

By saying that invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin does not mean that some sins are not forgivable. That is not what St. Thomas, nor St. Augustine taught. All sins can be forgiven, but in order for a person to have their sins forgiven, they must have faith, which is the foundation of the supernatural life.

In order to receive faith, an adult must use their free will to correspond with actual grace. Only by corresponding with actual grace can an adult obtain supernatural faith.

I think you are drawing some false conclusions. In order to obtain supernatural faith and supernatural charity (sanctifying grace), a person MUST use their free will to correspond with the actual grace that God sends them. If they fail to correspond properly, they will not obtain faith as a direct result of what they themselves failed to do (i.e. correspond with actual grace). Faith and grace are both gifts, but they are given to those who are properly disposed and correspond to the actual grace that God sends.

If a person fails to correspond to actual grace, he is not “meriting the lack of faith”, as you stated; rather, he is hindering his reception of faith by a bad use of his will.

I find it interesting that you are so quick to declare St. Augustine and St. Thomas - probably the two greatest thrologians in the history of the Church - as heretics.

But St. Thomas here is not speaking about a case in which a person does not comply with an actual grace given. In order to have faith, it is necessary that God first bestow upon a person the actual grace of faith. St. Thomas is referring to a case in which this grace is withheld by God. In fact, this is the entire point that he is trying to make in his reply. His response to objection one is more or less, ‘that would be true if faith were a thing that man could have on his own, but since man can’t have faith without God’s grace, objection one doesn’t hold.’

What Aquinas says is that faith itself is withheld by God as the punishment for a sin. Without God granting faith to a person (and that person accepting it), his sins cannot be forgiven. Therefore, if God withholds faith from a person, that person’s sins cannot be forgiven, because God is not giving the person that actual grace to cooperate with. If the punishment of withheld faith that God is giving for a sin is temporal, than that means the person’s temporal punishment is actually something which will lead to eternal damnation.

What’s more, I am not declaring Aquinas or Augustine heretical, but I am saying that they did hold some heretical positions. In fact I don’t think that anybody would argue this. Augustine declared that unbaptized babies would go to Hell because original sin alone incurred eternal punishment; this is heretical. Aquinas held that the cross was to be given latria, a position which was condemned by the 2nd Council of Nicea 400 years earlier, and confirmed several times (including Trent).

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ghosty:

Heretic is an incorrect term, I think, but they were indeed wrong materially through no fault of their own. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, denied the Immaculate Conception based on a material misunderstanding, namely a misunderstanding about the medical facts of the womb. His conclusion about the Immaculate Conception is false, but based on the faulty material knowledge he was working with, not because of an error in reasoning or inclination on his part. The issue of invincible ignorance is same kind of problem.

Peace and God bless!

Actually, this is an interesting point. I have been reading Aquinas all day, and according to his own answers, he himself would be in a lot of trouble because he did not explicitly believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

What Aquinas says is that faith itself is withheld by God as the punishment for a sin. Without God granting faith to a person (and that person accepting it), his sins cannot be forgiven. Therefore, if God withholds faith from a person, that person’s sins cannot be forgiven, because God is not giving the person that actual grace to cooperate with. If the punishment of withheld faith that God is giving for a sin is temporal, than that means the person’s temporal punishment is actually something which will lead to eternal damnation.

You are reasoning as though it would be unjust for God to withhold grace from man; as though man has a “right” to grace. That is not correct. It is actually one of the errors of the modernists to claim that man has a right to grace.

Man has no right to grace. If God gives grace to man, it is a gift. Grace is not merited, nor does man have a right to it.

 

[USMC]

Ghosty:

Heretic is an incorrect term, I think, but they were indeed wrong materially through no fault of their own. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, denied the Immaculate Conception based on a material misunderstanding, namely a misunderstanding about the medical facts of the womb.

Based on the medical facts of the womb? That is not what he based his belief on. He taught in the Summa that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and then instantaneously sanctified in her mother’s womb. However, itsjustday1988 located a quote wherein St. Thomas appears to have changed his mind on the matter.

Ghosty:

His conclusion about the Immaculate Conception is false, but based on the faulty material knowledge he was working with, not because of an error in reasoning or inclination on his part. The issue of invincible ignorance is same kind of problem.

Peace and God bless!

No, St. Thomas did not err on the immaculate conception based on his medical knowledge. The doctrine had not been defined at that time, and thus no one knew for certain if Mary was conceived in sin and then immediately sanctified in the womb (which is what St. Thomas taught in the Summa), or if she was conceived without sin (which is what he taught in another place).

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

You are reasoning as though it would be unjust for God to withhold grace from man; as though man has a “right” to grace. That is not correct. It is actually one of the errors of the modernists to claim that man has a right to grace.

Man has no right to grace. If God gives grace to man, it is a gift. Grace is not merited, nor does man have a right to it.

That is the precise teaching of John Calvin. No man has a right to Grace, but God gives sufficient grace to all men. There is always sufficient grace for a man to come to repentance. If God punished anything by withholding the grace of faith, then He is not giving sufficient grace to that person.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

Based on the medical facts of the womb? That is not what he based his belief on. He taught in the Summa that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, and then instantaneously sanctified in her mother’s womb. However, itsjustday1988 located a quote wherein St. Thomas appears to have changed his mind on the matter.

No, St. Thomas did not err on the immaculate conception based on his medical knowledge. The doctrine had not been defined at that time, and thus no one knew for certain if Mary was conceived in sin and then immediately sanctified in the womb (which is what St. Thomas taught in the Summa), or if she was conceived without sin (which is what he taught in another place).

St. Thomas denied the Immaculate conception because of the medieval understanding of the quickening. He believed that the instant Mary had a soul, She was without sin, but that people did not have souls at the time of conception.

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

St. Thomas denied the Immaculate conception because of the medieval understanding of the quickening. He believed that the instant Mary had a soul, She was without sin, but that people did not have souls at the time of conception.

St. Thomas and others believed that the soul was infused 40 days after conception. What current medical knowledge contradicts that?

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

That is the precise teaching of John Calvin. No man has a right to Grace, but God gives sufficient grace to all men. There is always sufficient grace for a man to come to repentance. If God punished anything by withholding the grace of faith, then He is not giving sufficient grace to that person.

St. Thomas is not teaching double predestination.

There are several levels of grace that fall into the category of actual grace. If you read what St. Thomas wrote about antecedent actual grace, and consequent actual grace, it will answer your question as to how God can give sufficient grace to all men, yet, at the same time, not all men actually receive the grace of faith.

Antecedent grace is given to all men, but not consequent grace. Antecedend grace is the initial grace that enlightens man and inclines his will, whereas consequent grace is that which is given after man correspond to the initial movements of antecedent grace, and which brings the initial movement of the will to completion.

If you are unable to locate where St. Thomas teaches this, let me know and I will try to find the section of the Summa for you.

 

[urban-hermit]

USMC:

You are reasoning as though it would be unjust for God to withhold grace from man; as though man has a “right” to grace. That is not correct. It is actually one of the errors of the modernists to claim that man has a right to grace.

Man has no right to grace. If God gives grace to man, it is a gift. Grace is not merited, nor does man have a right to it.

Yes. And the whole idea of being born in original sin - as we all are - is that our “default” destination is hell unless we obtain sanctifying grace from God. For me, learning this gave greater meaning to Jesus’ title as “Our Savior”.

The sin of Adam and Eve separated us ALL from God. We are a fallen race, whether we feel it is fair or not, we’re born into it. The good news is that we’ve been apprised of the only way out - connecting with Jesus Christ. I say the more explicitly the better!

 

[urban-hermit]

USMC:

St. Thomas and others believed that the soul was infused 40 days after conception. What current medical knowledge contradicts that?

If we understand the soul as the animating life force within us (rather than just a metaphysical white board where black marks of sin can be drawn), I can see where St Thomas could have had difficulty reconciling the Immaculate Conception. Of course he always submitted to Church authority, so I do not think he ever would have “denied” it outright. But he could not be sure about it because I think in his day we were not considered “alive” until movement was felt in the womb. Since he knew that all living things have souls, modern medical knowledge that we are in fact alive from the first moment of conception might have helped St Thomas out.

 

[Lazerlike42]

urban-hermit:

Yes. And the whole idea of being born in original sin - as we all are - is that our “default” destination is hell unless we obtain sanctifying grace from God. For me, learning this gave greater meaning to Jesus’ title as “Our Savior”.

The sin of Adam and Eve separated us ALL from God. We are a fallen race, whether we feel it is fair or not, we’re born into it. The good news is that we’ve been apprised of the only way out - connecting with Jesus Christ. I say the more explicitly the better!

Our default destination is not hell. Original sin does not in and of itself make anybody go to hell.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

St. Thomas and others believed that the soul was infused 40 days after conception. What current medical knowledge contradicts that?

None. Theological teaching does.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

St. Thomas is not teaching double predestination.

There are several levels of grace that fall into the category of actual grace. If you read what St. Thomas wrote about antecedent actual grace, and consequent actual grace, it will answer your question as to how God can give sufficient grace to all men, yet, at the same time, not all men actually receive the grace of faith.

Antecedent grace is given to all men, but not consequent grace. Antecedend grace is the initial grace that enlightens man and inclines his will, whereas consequent grace is that which is given after man correspond to the initial movements of antecedent grace, and which brings the initial movement of the will to completion.

If you are unable to locate where St. Thomas teaches this, let me know and I will try to find the section of the Summa for you.

I’m not saying St. Thomas was teaching double predestination. I am saying that St. Thomas’ teaching as you explained it was the teaching of Calvin.

You quite have what St. Thomas said correct. The way you put it, there would be a big problem. Grace would not really be sufficient because without that consequent grace, man could not be saved, and you are saying that God does not give it to all. The way St. Thomas actually describes it is more… interior to man and does work.

The problem with St. Thomas is that he says that God not only has to give graces, but He also has to move the free-will to accept these graces. The way he describes it, only those whose wills are [actively] moved by God will accept His grace. He says that this doesn’t interfere with human free will but he can’t explain how this can be, and Thomists have been trying to for 800 years.

Look, its an acceptable position the way it is framed, but only because of that idea that in some unknown way free will is not compromised. So to me, I don’t buy it. I’m a Molonist. I’m supposed to get all aggravated over St. Thomas

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

Our default destination is not hell. Original sin does not in and of itself make anybody go to hell.

If a person dies in original sin only, and has never committed an actual sin themselves, they will immediately descend into hell. Do you believe that?

 

[USMC]

Lazerlike42:

The problem with St. Thomas is that he says that God not only has to give graces, but He also has to move the free-will to accept these graces. The way he describes it, only those whose wills are [actively] moved by God will accept His grace. He says that this doesn’t interfere with human free will but he can’t explain how this can be, and Thomists have been trying to for 800 years.

Look, its an acceptable position the way it is framed, but only because of that idea that in some unknown way free will is not compromised. So to me, I don’t buy it. I’m a Molonist. I’m supposed to get all aggravated over St. Thomas

The teaching of St. Thomas makes perfect sense to me. God first sends an antecedent actual grace, which enlightens a person’s mind and inclines their will. At this point, since man’s will is free, he can either correspond with the inclination, or he can resist it. For example: Let’s say that a person was tempted to impurity. God would send him an actual grace to turn away from the temptation. The person could then either correspond to that grace, or resist it and follow the movements of his lower nature.

The free will resides, in a sense, between the inordinant movements (inclinations) of our lower nature, and the inclanations of grace. It can either chose to follow either of them since it is free.

If the person choses to follow the inclination of grace, by using their free will to correspond with the initial movement of grace, then God will send another consequent grace to strenghten them and to bring the initial movement to fruition. This action of grace, does not hinder the use of free will, but rather works together with it.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

If a person dies in original sin only, and has never committed an actual sin themselves, they will immediately descend into hell. Do you believe that?

No, and neither does the Catholic Church. This is the key distinction between Catholic theology and all Protestant theologies from which virtually every other disagreement stems. If Protestants had the Catholic understanding of original sin, they would be much closer to Catholic theology in virtually every area.

 

[Lazerlike42]

USMC:

The teaching of St. Thomas makes perfect sense to me. God first sends an antecedent actual grace, which enlightens a person’s mind and inclines their will. At this point, since man’s will is free, he can either correspond with the inclination, or he can resist it. For example: Let’s say that a person was tempted to impurity. God would send him an actual grace to turn away from the temptation. The person could then either correspond to that grace, or resist it and follow the movements of his lower nature.

The free will resides, in a sense, between the inordinant movements (inclinations) of our lower nature, and the inclanations of grace. It can either chose to follow either of them since it is free.

If the person choses to follow the inclination of grace, by using their free will to correspond with the initial movement of grace, then God will send another consequent grace to strenghten them and to bring the initial movement to fruition. This action of grace, does not hinder the use of free will, but rather works together with it.

That would make sense. But that’s not what St. Thomas says. he says that every choice of the free will must be moved by God in addition to the initial grace.