Thomist/free will?

[zaida]

I am back to looking into this! Please see copied and pasted a note I wrote to a Catholic friend who studies theology. Thought you all might want to feed in!

cut and pasted:

"I am trying desperately to understand Thomism, grace, free will, etc. Ive done a lot of reading on Molinism as well. “If” I understand it correctly - Thomists believe that God grants efficacious grace to those He chooses, and these are the people who are saved. All of us get “sufficient grace” but nobody can be saved with sufficient grace alone - which makes me think its in no way sufficient!!! So, where is the free will in this? No matter how I look at it - Ive tried every which way - I cannot find the free will in the Thomist system.

Molinism makes more sense to me…although the whole middle knowledge, free knowledge, etc distinction is hard to understand…but it makes sense to me as a system that accounts for both free will (“real” free will) and predestination.

But how is it that much of the catholic world has always accepted the Thomist position and understood it, and I cant even make a dent in it?

I have read something by Most (Im blanking on first name!) and he has a version of free will and determinism that makes sense - that God grants everyone sufficient grace to be saved and that those who don’t resist then get efficacious grace. That makes more sense to me then God willy-nilly choosing people. Also, I think Saint Alphonsus said every person gets the sufficient grace to ask for Gods help and those who do, then get granted efficacious grace to be saved. That makes sense to me too. So, would Most, and/or Saint Alphonsis NOT be Thomists then, or just some alternative version?

As you can see - this whole thing has flumoxed me!"

So, any thoughts folks?

Blessings!

 

[dmar198]

“If” I understand it correctly - Thomists believe that God grants efficacious grace to those He chooses, and these are the people who are saved. All of us get “sufficient grace” but nobody can be saved with sufficient grace alone - which makes me think its in no way sufficient!!! So, where is the free will in this?

It is my understanding that there are several differences between sufficient grace and efficacious grace in the Thomist system. One is that sufficient grace is given without our consent, whereas efficacious grace is only given with our consent.

Sufficient grace is called sufficient in the same way that you might say a cup of water contains a sufficient amount to quench your thirst. With the cup of water, even though it is a sufficient quantity, you still need to drink it. And with sufficient grace, even though it is sufficient to save you, you still need to accept it. In this analogy, the cup of water and the grace of God are sufficient in the sense of being enough to give you what you need, but neither are sufficient in the sense that you don’t need to do anything.

With that in mind, free will in the Thomist system comes in with efficacious grace. It is my understanding that Catholic tradition identifies the act of free will as a grace whenever it acts rightly. If you make a right choice, that is a grace. To do good is to act with God’s hand helping you. There is no dichotomy in Catholic theology between man’s good works and God’s assistance. Every good and perfect gift comes from above, descending from the Father of lights, and that includes our right choices.

As a result, for God to give man efficacious grace and for man to accept God’s offer of salvation are the same thing. The one act is the other. The upshot is that man’s free will is designed into the Thomist understanding of efficacious grace. It is not Thomist to think that God chooses willy-nilly whom to save, rather efficacious grace is the divine-and-human act of accepting God’s offer of salvation by our own free will. At least, that is my understanding.

I hope that helps.

Molinism makes more sense to me.

Molinism is an acceptable system. In fact, some have interpreted Thomism in a Molinist sense, and it is my understanding that Molina himself introduced his theory through a commentary on the Summa Theologiae, in which he tried to show that his idea was based on St. Thomas.

But how is it that much of the catholic world has always accepted the Thomist position and understood it, and I cant even make a dent in it?

You have made a dent in it, you described several parts of the theory very well. The only part that seems to have eluded you is the connection between these two things: St. Thomas views every good human choice as a grace, and the difference between sufficient grace and efficacious grace is that the former is given without our consent while the latter is given With our consent.

I have read something by Most (Im blanking on first name!)

Fr. William

he has a version of free will and determinism that makes sense - that God grants everyone sufficient grace to be saved and that those who don’t resist then get efficacious grace.

I think that theory is compatible with St. Thomas’ theory.

That makes more sense to me then God willy-nilly choosing people. Also, I think Saint Alphonsus said every person gets the sufficient grace to ask for Gods help and those who do, then get granted efficacious grace to be saved.

I think that is Also compatible with the Thomist theory. Because efficacious grace is identical with the choice to accept God’s offer of salvation. A pagan in the wilderness could freely make the choice to accept God’s grace, and the act of making that choice is both a free human act and also an act of God’s grace.

That makes sense to me too. So, would Most, and/or Saint Alphonsis NOT be Thomists then, or just some alternative version?

I think you could count them as Thomists. It appears to me St. Thomas says that efficacious grace Is our free acceptance of salvation, St. Alphonsus says that efficacious grace is Given when we freely accept salvation, and Fr. Most says that efficacious grace is given when we Don’t Resist God’s offer of salvation. All three of those seem to be trying to say the same thing, in my opinion.

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[zaida]

That is EXTREMELY helpful!!! thank you so much!!!

The part that really confuses me though - under the Thomist system - is every person born offered the grace to be saved…Ive read that some people understand the Thomist system as saying that there are those who are never offered the “type” of grace needed to actually say “yes”…so, using your glass of water example - the cup of water is there, but the person STILL needs efficacious grace - from God - to make the choice to reach out and take it. And some people are not given this by God.

Your understanding is somewhat different - you seem to understand it that the free acceptance and the efficacious grace are, in a sense, simultaneous? And that combination is offered to all (though some reject it?)

Thank you again, you write so clearly on a topic thats so difficult for me - there are some works Ive had to bypass because I have no idea whats being said, lol!!! Do I have your permission to share your answer on another forum where this topic is being discussed?

 

[fhansen]

If God’s purpose was merely to elect some for salvation He would’ve given Adam efficacious grace to remain in obedience to Him to begin with, and avoided the whole drama that ensued as a result of the Fall. As it is, instead, God wants*** our*** wills involved. God desires that none perish, is infinitely fair and just, and IMO gives sufficient grace to all to be saved, in accordance with their knowledge and circumstances.

As we respond to whatever grace we’re given, as we “invest” it as per the Parable of the Talents, we’re then given* more*. This doesn’t mean we’re absolutely saved at that point, as Fr. Most might be saying?, or that perseverance is suddenly guaranteed; it means we’re growing towards that end, of salvation, as we cooperate with God’s doing a work in us. We can always turn away-and only He knows with certainty whose names are written in the Book of Life anyway. God’s in the business of drawing His creation into alignment with His will, without forcing it. Just some thoughts, FWIW.

 

[dmar198]

That is EXTREMELY helpful!!! thank you so much!!!

The part that really confuses me though - under the Thomist system - is every person born offered the grace to be saved

Yes. I am not aware of any place in the Summa Theologiae where St. Thomas deals with the question of whether God offers salvation to all men, but he does bring that up in his book De Veritate. Here is what he said in that book: “[E]ven if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts…[God will] furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on [man’s] part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone [who was] brought up [in the wild] followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” (De Veritate Question 14 Article 11 Answer to Objection 1)

Ive read that some people understand the Thomist system as saying that there are those who are never offered the “type” of grace needed to actually say “yes”

First, let me state that I am a poor explainer, and so I may not explain this properly.

Second, yes, that does sound similar to something St. Thomas said in his Summa Theologiae: there is a sense in which those who do not accept salvation were not offered the grace to do so. But that does not mean God willy-nilly rejected those people: the reason they didn’t get the grace was bound up with their own rejection of it.

Look at it this way: if a person does not accept the offer of salvation, it automatically follows that they did not receive the grace to accept it, because the grace is bound up with the act. Put more simply, the grace is inside the act of faith. If they did the act, then they had the grace to do it. And if they did Not do the act of faith, then it automatically follows that they did not get the Grace that is Inside the act. But St. Thomas is clear that this is their own fault. “The first cause of the defect of grace is on our part; but the first cause of the bestowal of grace is on God’s according to Hosea 13:9: Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.” (Summa Theologiae 1-2 Question 112 Article 3)

Somehow, all three of these facts are true: first, we have the freedom to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation, which is offered to everyone. Second, not everyone gets the grace of accepting that offer. Third, if we do not get the grace, that is due to us. I know there is an apparent tension involved in those facts that is hard to comprehend, but I think it becomes easier when we understand that every good thing is a grace, including right choices. So, if we accept salvation, we automatically know that is a grace, because it is good. And if we don’t accept salvation, that’s not a grace, because it’s a bad thing. Since rejection of salvation is not a grace, God is not behind it, and therefore we are responsible for it, not Him. I hope that makes sense.

…so, using your glass of water example - the cup of water is there, but the person STILL needs efficacious grace - from God - to make the choice to reach out and take it. And some people are not given this by God.

When people don’t get grace, St. Thomas says that is their fault, not God’s: “The first cause of the defect of grace is on our part; but the first cause of the bestowal of grace is on God’s according to Hosea 13:9: Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.” (Summa Theologiae 1-2 Question 112 Article 3). That right there is where the mystery is. We humans want to say, Oh, well if God is the one who gives grace, then if we don’t get it it’s His fault. But St. Thomas says that’s not true: when we don’t get grace, we are the first cause of that problem, not God.

Your understanding is somewhat different - you seem to understand it that the free acceptance and the efficacious grace are, in a sense, simultaneous?

Yes. Our free acceptance is our act of free will, and it is simultaneous with the grace God gives to assist our act of faith. Here is how St. Thomas puts it: “there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is not distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause.” I understand that to mean, our free act of faith is bound up with the grace God gives to save us, the grace that is predestination. The grace is somehow inside our free act of the will.

And that combination is offered to all (though some reject it?)

Not quite. Salvation is offered to all, as is clear from the De Veritate, in the passage I already quoted. But efficacious grace is only given inside the divine-and-human act of accepting God’s offer. If we don’t get that grace, it’s our fault, and if we do get it, God’s responsible.

Thank you again, you write so clearly on a topic thats so difficult for me - there are some works Ive had to bypass because I have no idea whats being said, lol!!! Do I have your permission to share your answer on another forum where this topic is being discussed?

Yes, feel free to quote any words from me that you think are helpful. I’m glad it was of some use, though in my opinion I am not a clear explainer.

 

[fhansen]

Since rejection of salvation is not a grace, God is not behind it, and therefore we are responsible for it, not Him. I hope that makes sense. When people don’t get grace, St. Thomas says that is their fault, not God’s: “The first cause of the defect of grace is on our part; but the first cause of the bestowal of grace is on God’s according to Hosea 13:9: Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in Me.” (Summa Theologiae 1-2 Question 112 Article 3). That right there is where the mystery is. We humans want to say, Oh, well if God is the one who gives grace, then if we don’t get it it’s His fault. But St. Thomas says that’s not true: when we don’t get grace, we are the first cause of that problem, not God.

But isn’t the “defect” in Hosea 13:9 speaking of man’s* resistance *to grace given, rather than to grace not given to begin with? Is it too simple to say that sufficient grace is given-and said grace is resistible?

 

[dmar198]

But isn’t the “defect” in Hosea 13:9 speaking of man’s* resistance *to grace given, rather than to grace not given to begin with?

Probably, yeah. I think the root of that may be a disagreement about definition rather than substance. Is it the same thing to offer someone grace and to give them grace? I suppose that in one meaning, offer and give are the same, but in another meaning, give implies receipt while offer does not.

If a man is offered grace but resists, and gets a defect of grace, then grace has not been given, right?

Efficacious grace, in my understanding, is sanctifying grace that has not been resisted and so has saved a person, while sufficient grace would be efficacious if the person did not resist it. Is that your understanding as well?

Is it too simple to say that sufficient grace is given-and said grace is resistible?

If by “too simple” you mean false, then no, I don’t think that’s false, but if you mean there’s more that’s happening than that, then yes, there is more happening than that.

Oh, and btw there was something I had wanted to say to Zaida but forgot to: you sound like you already know this, but if St. Thomas’ explanation is too hard for you to, um, decipher? I’m not quite sure what the right word is. Anyway, if it just involves too many thoughts that seem to require further research, you are under no obligation to believe it or even pay attention to it. You are free to focus on less lengthy explanations, like the one in the Catechism. (BTW, as far as I’m aware the Catechism has only one sentence specifically on the relationship between predestination and free will: it’s in CCC 600)

 

[littlestsouls2]

Hi zaida,

You may have read part II of ‘Prayer: The Great Means of Salvation’ by St. Alphonsus (which treats of the universal salvific will, grace, predestination etc.); if not, you might consider doing so:

catholictreasury.info/books/prayer/contents2.php

On the topic of predestination, I prefer the writings of St. Alphonsus and Fr. William Most to Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange. Although the latter is an excellent theologian and a renowned Thomist, his treatment of predestination is somewhat unclear. He writes, for example:

“All of us receive both kinds of graces. Even those in mortal sin receive from time to time efficacious graces, to make, say, an act of faith, or of hope. But often too they resist the sufficient grace which inclines them to conversion, whereas good servants of God often receive sufficient graces which they do not resist and which are followed by efficacious graces.” (Ch 59, ‘Reality — A Synthesis Of Thomistic Thought’)

This is problematic. To not resist a sufficient grace, an efficacious grace is required. “If He sends a sufficient grace, and I do not resist it, I get the efficacious grace. BUT: To non-resist a sufficient grace takes an efficacious grace of nonresistance. So no solution.” (Fr. William Most)

Source:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/2THOMIST.TXT

Another good resource from Fr. William Most: ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT

If we accept the aforementioned words of Garrigou-Lagrange, we are left with a scenario in which sinners fall into sin simply because they lack efficacious grace. I will admit that there is no simple solution to this problem. However, like St. Alphonsus, we can, by means of a diligent study of Church teaching, establish with certainty that God desires the salvation of all, and if they are not saved, if is through their own fault. What we are left with, then, is a philosophical problem/mystery - not a theological one.

St. Alphonsus writes: "… The same error was finally condemned in the 12th and 13th Propositions of Quesnel. In the former it was said: “When God wills to save a soul, the will of God is undoubtedly effectual;” in the latter: “All whom God wills to save through Christ are infallibly saved.”** These propositions were justly condemned, precisely because they meant that God does not will all men to be saved; since from the proposition that those whom God wills to be saved are infallibly saved, it logically follows that God does not will even all the faithful to be saved, let alone all men."**

Pax Domine!

 

[zaida]

this link has helped me tremendously -

ewtn.com/library/Theology/MOSTSOLV.HTM

thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut - Ive read the above and am going to read it again - I think Most is starting to make things clear to me -

 

[Shea96]

Posting only so that I can be subscribed to this thread, and come back to it when I can attempt to wrap my brain around some of this. I find it all so very fascinating!

 

[dmar198]

Posting only so that I can be subscribed to this thread, and come back to it when I can attempt to wrap my brain around some of this. I find it all so very fascinating!

 

[e_c]

Garrigou-Lagrange follows in the tradition of Banez. And that more fundamental problem of “how free is the will, anyway” seems to be the key to breaking open this problem which has been the occasion of more than one heresy… And, if the “de auxiliis” debate is ever ruled on by the Holy See (as it promised 5 or so centuries ago), we will have another - Banez or Molina. I’m not holding my breath!

RGL’s Summa commentary on grace is helpful. Not sure of the context of the quote from his “Synthesis of Thomistic Thought,” but he deals with the issue at length here as well, and it was useful for my own comprehension of this very delicate conversation:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/gracegarrlagr.HTM