Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin on grace

[Anthony86]

If I’m not mistaken, Thomas Aquinas teaches that grace is intrinsically efficacious. How does that differ from the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace?

 

[paul_c]

If I’m not mistaken, Thomas Aquinas teaches that grace is intrinsically efficacious. How does that differ from the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace?

This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is well worth the investment. It answers your question very thoroughly:

newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

A simple summary: Calvinism teaches that God’s graceis pre-eminent and that man has no real free will in terms of salvation.

Catholic teaching is that God is so great that he can accomplish his plans while still allowing men to have free will. The mechanism by which this is achieved is unknown but there are basically two competing theories, one from Aquinas and the other by Molina. Molina’s theory is that God knows everything simultaneously so he foresees what each man will chose and his plans take this into account. This allows man to have true free will while still allowing that God’s plans will always be executed perfectly…

 

[MarcoPolo]

Search for jimmy akin’s article “a tiptoe through tulip”

 

[Anthony86]

This article from the Catholic Encyclopedia is well worth the investment. It answers your question very thoroughly:

newadvent.org/cathen/06710a.htm

A simple summary: Calvinism teaches that God’s graceis pre-eminent and that man has no real free will in terms of salvation.

Catholic teaching is that God is so great that he can accomplish his plans while still allowing men to have free will. The mechanism by which this is achieved is unknown but there are basically two competing theories, one from Aquinas and the other by Molina. Molina’s theory is that God knows everything simultaneously so he foresees what each man will chose and his plans take this into account. This allows man to have true free will while still allowing that God’s plans will always be executed perfectly…

Thank you. I had heard before of a dispute between Thomists and Molinists, but what I do not fully understand is how Aquinas’ position on this particular issue is different from Calvin’s. While Aquinas places more emphasises on the freedom of the will, is it not true that a grace which is intrinsically efficacious is also by its very nature irresistable? From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In this premotion or predetermination is also found the medium of the Divine knowledge by which God’s omniscience foresees infallibly all the future acts, whether absolute or conditional, of intelligent creatures, …] For just as certainly as God in His predetermined decrees knows His own will, so certainly does He know all the necessarily included determinations of the free will of creatures, be they of absolute or conditional futurity. …] then efficacious grace (gratia efficax) must be regarded as a physical premotion of the supernaturally equipped will to the performance of a good act, for revelation undeniably refers back to grace not only the possibility, but also the willing and the actual performance of a good act. But the will predetermined to this free good act must with a metaphysical certainty correspond with grace, for it would be a contradiction to assert that the consensus, brought about by efficacious grace, can at the same time be an actual dissensus. This historical necessity (necessitas consequentiae), involved in every act of freedom and distinguishable from the compelling necessity (necessitas consequentis), does not destroy the freedom of the act. …] So it remains true that grace is not efficacious because free will consents, but conversely the free will consents because grace efficaciously premoves it to the willing and performance of a good act.

The distinction with Calvinism is perhaps in the second to last sentence?

MarcoPolo:

Search for jimmy akin’s article “a tiptoe through tulip”

Thank you for the recommendation; I’ll look it up.

 

[Anthony86]

Search for jimmy akin’s article “a tiptoe through tulip”

The article on irresistible grace and efficacious grace:
James Akin:

Irresistible Grace

Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the grace that enables him to come to salvation, the person always responds and never rejects this grace. For this reason many have called this the doctrine of irresistible grace.

This designation has the drawback of making it sound as though God forces people against their will to come to him (like a policeman shouting, “Resistance is useless! Throw down your weapons and surrender!”) The designation also sounds unbiblical, since Scripture indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen tells the Sanhedrin, “You always resist the Holy Spirit!” [27]

For this reason many Calvinists are displeased with the phrase “irresistible grace.” Some have proposed alternatives. Loraine Boettner, perhaps best known to readers of This Rock as the author of the wildly inaccurate Roman Catholicism, prefers “efficacious grace.” [28] The idea is that God’s enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious, so it always produces salvation.

This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. [29] Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God’s enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by man’s free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself. For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious. [30]

A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas taught, “God’s intention cannot fail… Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, ‘Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.’” [31] Catholics must say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient for all. Vatican II stated, “ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” [32]

He doesn’t seem to indicate a real difference between Aquinas’ efficacious grace and Calvin’s irresistible grace, but rather states that Catholics have to distinguish two types of grace; intrinsically efficacious grace, which is only offered to some, and sufficient grace, which requires human consent and is offered to all. As for the last bit about atonement: Calvinists do not deny the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of all men, but rather claim that fallen nature rebels against God in such a way that it is intrinsically unwilling to convert, thus leaving irresistible grace as the only road to redemption - and this grace is not bestowed upon all men, hence the atonement, while sufficient for all, is only effective for the elect few. Would a Catholic be allowed to hold such a view of ‘merely’ sufficient grace?

 

[paul_c]

The article on irresistible grace and efficacious grace:

He doesn’t seem to indicate a real difference between Aquinas’ efficacious grace and Calvin’s irresistible grace, but rather states that Catholics have to distinguish two types of grace; intrinsically efficacious grace, which is only offered to some, and sufficient grace, which requires human consent and is offered to all. As for the last bit about atonement: Calvinists do not deny the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for the redemption of all men, but rather claim that fallen nature rebels against God in such a way that it is intrinsically unwilling to convert, thus leaving irresistible grace as the only road to redemption - and this grace is not bestowed upon all men, hence the atonement, while sufficient for all, is only effective for the elect few. Would a Catholic be allowed to hold such a view of ‘merely’ sufficient grace?

No, it would be considered heretical. Catholics believe that some are predestined to Heaven but that no one is predestined to Hell.

That’s the fundamental difference in these thoughts