Thomist Unconditional Election vs. Calvinism

[wk11]

I’m a cradle Catholic who is relatively new to examining the finer points of free will and how the Catholic understanding relates to Calvinism. I feel that I have a decent grasp on how Molinist (Conditional) election is compatible with the Catholic conception of free will. However, I am having trouble understanding how to reconcile the Thomist (Unconditional) view. I find myself asking what separates this position from some of the more liberal forms of Calvinism? The Catholic Encyclopedia page “Controversies on Grace” addresses the issue, but it’s a bit dense for me to fully grasp. Could anyone with a more thorough understanding provide an intelligible but not dumbed-down explanation of the Thomist view of Unconditional Election, how it is distinct from Calvinism, and how it can be reconciled with the doctrine of free will?

 

[fhansen]

I’m a cradle Catholic who is relatively new to examining the finer points of free will and how the Catholic understanding relates to Calvinism. I feel that I have a decent grasp on how Molinist (Conditional) election is compatible with the Catholic conception of free will. However, I am having trouble understanding how to reconcile the Thomist (Unconditional) view. I find myself asking what separates this position from some of the more liberal forms of Calvinism? The Catholic Encyclopedia page “Controversies on Grace” addresses the issue, but it’s a bit dense for me to fully grasp. Could anyone with a more thorough understanding provide an intelligible but not dumbed-down explanation of the Thomist view of Unconditional Election, how it is distinct from Calvinism, and how it can be reconciled with the doctrine of free will?

I can’t speak to this except to say that it’s always seemed to me that the Church leans more towards the views of Molina, while not embracing Aquinas’s apparently strong deterministic view.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Here is a good read: socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/molinism-middle-knowledge.html

“… while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 5)

 

[multitude]

I can’t speak to this except to say that it’s always seemed to me that the Church leans more towards the views of Molina, while not embracing Aquinas’s apparently strong deterministic view.

I’ve always thought this myself. There is a reason no one ever defined this.

 

[fhansen]

Here is a good read: socrates58.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/molinism-middle-knowledge.html

“… while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.” (Council of Trent, Session 6, Ch. 5)

And that excerpt from Trent is quoted by the Catechism, in para 1993. Also from the Catechism:
**
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.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.**

In agreement with the Church and opposed to Calvinism, I believe that St Thomas did not teach “double predestination”, that the reprobate are predestined to hell.

 

[fhansen]

Actually, as it turns out, Aquinas did seem to teach that God predestines some to reprobation, and therefore to hell. Either way the Church rejects this teaching; she maintains that God desries all to be saved.

 

[balto]

Actually, as it turns out, Aquinas did seem to teach that God predestines some to reprobation, and therefore to hell. Either way the Church rejects this teaching; she maintains that God desries all to be saved.

Do you have a quote for this? Admittedly all I know about the Thomistic view of predestination is from Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s explanation of it in his book Predestination: The Meaning of Predestination in Scripture and the Church. My understanding is that the Thomistic account commits you to the view that people are predestined to Heaven, since one only reaches Heaven by God’s grace alone, yet people are not predestined to hell since grace is freely offered to all yet some choose to reject it.

Molinism seems to be an attractive option for reconciling free will with predestination, but my issue with it is that the Molinist theory of God’s middle knowledge seems to eliminate meaningful free will. The theory that God knows what an individual in a certain set of circumstances will freely choose seems to presuppose that the circumstances are more fundamental than the free act. An act is free precisely because particular circumstances do not necessitate its choosing. It also seems to make God responsible for evil since He actualized a possible world in which people are in circumstances that lead to their freely choosing to do evil.

 

[fhansen]

Do you have a quote for this?

From the Summa, Part One, Question 23, Predestination, Does the reprobation of some men belong to God? :

"I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."

It may not quite be full-on Calvinism, as Aquinas uses the concept of permitting, but it seems to place the will to reprobate squarely on God either way.

 

[balto]

From the Summa, Part One, Question 23, Predestination, Does the reprobation of some men belong to God? :

Ah, thank you. I like analyzing St. Thomas’ Summa!

It may not quite be full-on Calvinism, as Aquinas uses the concept of permitting

But that is a crucial point for this discussion. Permitting loss of Heaven is not the same as actively preventing someone from attaining it. He clearly says that predestination and reprobation are in accord with providence when he writes “Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end.” Reprobation is subject to providence, not predestination, as in Calvinism/double predestination.

He even considers the Calvinist objection:

Objection 2. Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false. For it is said (Hosea 13:9): “Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy help is only in Me.” God does not, then, reprobate any man.

And his response is:

Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined–namely, glory–and of what is received in this life–namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present–namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future–namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true–namely, “Destruction is thy own, O Israel.”

This supports your original thesis that “I believe that St Thomas did not teach “double predestination”, that the reprobate are predestined to hell.” He speaks of reprobation and predestination having different causality. God’s predestination is properly-speaking the cause of the Beatific Vision, since we cannot merit salvation by our own efforts, nor can we create our own Beatific Vision. However, loss of the Beatific Vision is due to sin, but he says that reprobation is not the cause of sin, only the cause of the punishment due to sin. So sin is still freely chosen by the individual, not God, and hence guilt is properly imputed to the individual.

 

[balto]

but it seems to place the will to reprobate squarely on God either way.

St. Thomas considers this objection:

Objection 3. Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is said (Ecclesiastes 7:14): “Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised.” Therefore it could not be imputed to any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not reprobate anyone.

His reply:
St. Thomas Aquinas ST I.Q23.A3.RtO3:

Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.

I think we need to know how Aquinas understands the term “reprobate.” It seems that to say that “God wills to reprobate a person” means that “God wills that said person can freely rejects the offer of grace and said person does indeed freely reject grace”, which implies conditional necessity. It does not mean that “God wills that said person rejects grace” (implying absolute necessity), which is how many people are probably reading the statement.

His reply seems to support the above reasoning since he argues that “reprobation does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated.” People are free agents, so our actions do not result from absolute necessity, only conditional necessity (since it is always true that we could have done otherwise; that we do X is only necessary on the supposition that we freely will to do X). So if the reprobate lose the Beatific Vision, it is conditionally necessary that they lose it supposing they freely reject the offer of grace, but is not absolutely necessary that they reject grace since they could have freely accepted it.

 

[fhansen]

St. Thomas considers this objection:

His reply:

I think we need to know how Aquinas understands the term “reprobate.” It seems that to say that “God wills to reprobate a person” means that “God wills that said person can freely rejects the offer of grace and said person does indeed freely reject grace”, which implies conditional necessity. It does not mean that “God wills that said person rejects grace” (implying absolute necessity), which is how many people are probably reading the statement.

His reply seems to support the above reasoning since he argues that “reprobation does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated.” People are free agents, so our actions do not result from absolute necessity, only conditional necessity (since it is always true that we could have done otherwise; that we do X is only necessary on the supposition that we freely will to do X). So if the reprobate lose the Beatific Vision, it is conditionally necessary that they lose it supposing they freely reject the offer of grace, but is not absolutely necessary that they reject grace since they could have freely accepted it.

Thank you-it’s always good to be reassured of ST’s Catholicism! Yes, he does not appear to ever remove man’s will from the equation-in opposition to Calvinism. It will never be any easy subject to understand either way.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The way the Thomist view was taught to me is that Aquinas sees all of mankind in this pit that is destined for hell because of original sin and actual sin. God in his providence reaches down into the pit and predestines some of them to be saved, pulling them out of the pit. However, those still in the pit do not get saved and go to hell. In this view, God doesn’t preordain anyone to hell. He just doesn’t select everyone for heaven. Since everyone was destined for hell anyways he wasn’t preordaining anyone to go there. Instead he was saving some from it.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to it. I like to think God gives everyone sufficient grace,but not everone accepts it.

 

[fhansen]

The way the Thomist view was taught to me is that Aquinas sees all of mankind in this pit that is destined for hell because of original sin and actual sin. God in his providence reaches down into the pit and predestines some of them to be saved, pulling them out of the pit. However, those still in the pit do not get saved and go to hell. In this view, God doesn’t preordain anyone to hell. He just doesn’t select everyone for heaven. Since everyone was destined for hell anyways he wasn’t preordaining anyone to go there. Instead he was saving some from it.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to it. I like to think God gives everyone sufficient grace,but not everone accepts it.

I wouldn’t subscribe to that either. It sounds much like Calvinism except that, in Calvinism, God actually willed that Adam would sin, causing the reprobation of man who had no choice in the matter, then deemed that some would be saved and others not. In Catholcism man’s will can and does oppose Gods will.

 

[catholictiger]

What distinguishes Thomas from Calvin is free will.

Calvin says God predestins infallible and man has no freedom to resist it. Basically irresistible grace
Thomas says God predestins infallible and man has freedom to resist it. He asserts God’s infallible choice of man’s salvation and man’s freedom to choose salvation. Personally I don’t how Thomas tries to reconcil the following objection: how can man’s freedom be maintained if God’s choice of Salvation is infallible, if person a is predestined for salvation but resists God’s grace how can God’s choice be infallible?

 

[John_Martin]

The word for Trespass in Greek means “false step”, and could be thought of as “false positioning of oneself”. The word for sin in Greek means “missing the mark”, not being in the proper position.

When you see cars speeding on the highway, over the speed limit, they could be said to be “trespassing against the speed limit”, or “trespassing against the state” or “trespassing against society” - why? Because they are currently in a position on the highway that they would not be at if they were driving at the posted speed - falsely positioned a mile ahead of the position expected by God who does things in a fully ordered manner.

If God were to arrange for an angel of mercy to appear for you on the highway (60 miles from here, although he doesn’t tell you how far), and the speed limit is 60, he is not going to send the angel early, but only an instant before an hour is up. But you are speeding to try and beat everyone to finding the angel. You are expecting to see it but you were never told how far you had to drive. So you race along at 75 mph. At about 50 minutes or so you race past the 60 mile mark, and keep on going, still trying to be the first to see the angel. You “missed the mark” by your “false positioning” because you did not drive virtuously (as the traffic signs tried to educate you to do). 75 miles down the road, you get stopped by the Highway Patrol and get a ticket, but no angel. While back at 60 miles, the slow and even slower drivers are meeting up with the angel, hitting the mark, receiving God’s well ordered gift. They drove virtuously, ordered by faith in God, ordered by hope that the angel would be there, and ordered by charity toward the others on the road.

God predestined your salvation to meet you in an ordered position, but you must order yourself virtuously to be in the position where he is setting the salvation for you to claim.

So, drive virtuously to work tomorrow, and be in an ordered position on the highway; interact with your spouse virtuously tonight and all week; treat your co-workers virtuously; eat your meals virtuously rather than anxiously; etc. Hit the mark, and you will find the predestined goodness from God, who orders all things well. Doing all your doings virtuously, you yourself will be ordering all things well like your Father.

By the way, Thomas did not just divide mankind into two camps, the predestined and the reprobate, but there is a third camp for him - dependent on Grace.
The first two camps were done to ensure the advent of Christ, his life, death, resurrection and sending of his Spirit. Certain people were ordained to ensure this happened. Mary and Judas exemplify these two camps. Study the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa to find that third camp, and you will see why you have hope; and do not neglect to do your doings virtuously to order yourself well in the third camp, rather than being falsely positioned.

 

[catholictiger]

The word for Trespass in Greek means “false step”, and could be thought of as “false positioning of oneself”. The word for sin in Greek means “missing the mark”, not being in the proper position.

When you see cars speeding on the highway, over the speed limit, they could be said to be “trespassing against the speed limit”, or “trespassing against the state” or “trespassing against society” - why? Because they are currently in a position on the highway that they would not be at if they were driving at the posted speed - falsely positioned a mile ahead of the position expected by God who does things in a fully ordered manner.

If God were to arrange for an angel of mercy to appear for you on the highway (60 miles from here, although he doesn’t tell you how far), and the speed limit is 60, he is not going to send the angel early, but only an instant before an hour is up. But you are speeding to try and beat everyone to finding the angel. You are expecting to see it but you were never told how far you had to drive. So you race along at 75 mph. At about 50 minutes or so you race past the 60 mile mark, and keep on going, still trying to be the first to see the angel. You “missed the mark” by your “false positioning” because you did not drive virtuously (as the traffic signs tried to educate you to do). 75 miles down the road, you get stopped by the Highway Patrol and get a ticket, but no angel. While back at 60 miles, the slow and even slower drivers are meeting up with the angel, hitting the mark, receiving God’s well ordered gift. They drove virtuously, ordered by faith in God, ordered by hope that the angel would be there, and ordered by charity toward the others on the road.

God predestined your salvation to meet you in an ordered position, but you must order yourself virtuously to be in the position where he is setting the salvation for you to claim.

So, drive virtuously to work tomorrow, and be in an ordered position on the highway; interact with your spouse virtuously tonight and all week; treat your co-workers virtuously; eat your meals virtuously rather than anxiously; etc. Hit the mark, and you will find the predestined goodness from God, who orders all things well. Doing all your doings virtuously, you yourself will be ordering all things well like your Father.

By the way, Thomas did not just divide mankind into two camps, the predestined and the reprobate, but there is a third camp for him - dependent on Grace.
The first two camps were done to ensure the advent of Christ, his life, death, resurrection and sending of his Spirit. Certain people were ordained to ensure this happened. Mary and Judas exemplify these two camps. Study the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa to find that third camp, and you will see why you have hope; and do not neglect to do your doings virtuously to order yourself well in the third camp, rather than being falsely positioned.

Good analogy on sin, but Thomas says that God’s predestination is infallible, so here is logical inconsistency that I see in his argument that I’m trying to make sense of. I’ll use your analogy

God predestines that I will meet an angle in 60 miles in 1 hour and he will only be there at that moment. Thomas must posit freedom, so I can drive faster than 60 MPH and get there early, no angel, or I can drive slower get there later. Thomas though says that God predestines infallibly, so I will go 60 MPH and get there at the exact time God wants me to be there. Thomas tries to say that I’m free in that action.

To put it even simpler

God predestines person A for salvation, God’s predestines infalliblely, man is free, so person a can resist God’s grace for salvation, but he will still be saved because God predestines infallibly even though man can’t obtain salvation by resisting God’s grace.

Do you see the problem here? Now the Church has not condemned this view, not even suggested it’s off the mark. Thomas Aquinas is a doctor of the Church and you will see many Catholics hold tight to Thomas view on predestination. Not so sure it works out in my mind.

Note: I’m taking a class on this with a Thomist, so I know how he responds, but I won’t give the answer I want to see how you respond.

 

[oldcelt]

In a purely logical sense, free will and predestination cannot coexist. If any being is predestined to a final destination, their choices are irrelevant, regardless of time.

John

 

[John_Martin]

Good analogy on sin, but Thomas says that God’s predestination is infallible, so here is logical inconsistency that I see in his argument that I’m trying to make sense of. I’ll use your analogy

God predestines that I will meet an angle in 60 miles in 1 hour and he will only be there at that moment. Thomas must posit freedom, so I can drive faster than 60 MPH and get there early, no angel, or I can drive slower get there later. Thomas though says that God predestines infallibly, so I will go 60 MPH and get there at the exact time God wants me to be there. Thomas tries to say that I’m free in that action.

To put it even simpler

God predestines person A for salvation, God’s predestines infalliblely, man is free, so person a can resist God’s grace for salvation, but he will still be saved because God predestines infallibly even though man can’t obtain salvation by resisting God’s grace.

Do you see the problem here? Now the Church has not condemned this view, not even suggested it’s off the mark. Thomas Aquinas is a doctor of the Church and you will see many Catholics hold tight to Thomas view on predestination. Not so sure it works out in my mind.

Note: I’m taking a class on this with a Thomist, so I know how he responds, but I won’t give the answer I want to see how you respond.

It is not an analogy; it is fact. If you are studying Thomas, you already know that I gave you the wrong reference for Predestination and the Book of Life - it is in the First Part of the Summa where no one pays any attention to. Now I will quote for you Thomas denying your understanding of Thomas, because you do not know the “good order” of how God does all that God does.

For the book of life is the inscription of those ordained to eternal life, to which one is directed from two sources; namely, from predestination, which direction never fails, and from grace; for whoever has grace, by this very fact becomes fitted for eternal life. This direction fails sometimes; because some are directed by possessing grace, to obtain eternal life, yet they fail to obtain it through mortal sin. Therefore those who are ordained to possess eternal life through divine predestination are written down in the book of life simply, because they are written therein to have eternal life in reality; such are never blotted out from the book of life. Those, however, who are ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but relatively, for they are written therein not to have eternal life in itself, but in its cause only. Yet though these latter can be said to be blotted out of the book of life, this blotting out must not be referred to God, as if God foreknew a thing, and afterwards knew it not; but to the thing known, namely, because God knows one is first ordained to eternal life, and afterwards not ordained when he falls from grace.
ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q24_A3.html

Look deeply at the word “ordained” - only good order is worked with that word.
In grace God give you a message that you will find an angel 60 miles away
In good order God gave you a society with good (relatively) roads and traffic statutes (like Max Speed 60 MPH). And he gave you Sanctifying Grace habitually, which you can use whenever you will, resolving, “I am going to drive virtuously to find that angel which God tells me I will see, for I do not want to be found by the angel doing vicious driving, but I want to be found in God’s Grace”

Think about a sliced pie. If all my talk is about slice A and slice B for 10 pages, someone might think that A and B comprise the whole pie. Then I slip in a sentence about slice C at the end, unnoticed by the vast majority because they take such vehement reaction to the idea they think of the pie being only A and B.
Slice C the material of the majority of the Summa, but Thomas must also be firm and exacting about predestination and reprobation of slices A and B, so that we are confident of the Predestination and Victory of Christ’s being for us, with us, in us - that it was not conditional or relative, but ordained in all aspects.

 

[littlestsouls2]

In a purely logical sense, free will and predestination cannot coexist. If any being is predestined to a final destination, their choices are irrelevant, regardless of time.

John

Surely, free will and predestination are a mystery, but I see no problem with accepting them, given that a number of paradoxes arise when I consider the nature of reality. For example: can it be demonstrated that God is free? How can something come from nothing? How “long” was it before God created? etc.

I have read many, many prophecies from different Saints, and what amazes me is that so many of them - many of which are startlingly accurate - have come true. This indicates that God, Who is not subject to time, knows the future; everything is present to Him. Does this mean that our will is not free? I would answer in the negative. Firstly, because the truth of these prophecies suggest that Jesus’ words about free will are true. Secondly, because God’s infinite knowledge also extends to His own acts, but it cannot be deduced from this that God is not free. His knowledge is simultaneous with everything that ever has been or will be; but it does not follow that God’s knowledge causes these things, any more than His knowledge caused Himself.

That might sound a bit abstract, and it is, but it is almost impossible to unpack such lofty thoughts without writing a book!

 

[catholictiger]

It is not an analogy; it is fact. If you are studying Thomas, you already know that I gave you the wrong reference for Predestination and the Book of Life - it is in the First Part of the Summa where no one pays any attention to. Now I will quote for you Thomas denying your understanding of Thomas, because you do not know the “good order” of how God does all that God does.

Look deeply at the word “ordained” - only good order is worked with that word.
In grace God give you a message that you will find an angel 60 miles away
In good order God gave you a society with good (relatively) roads and traffic statutes (like Max Speed 60 MPH). And he gave you Sanctifying Grace habitually, which you can use whenever you will, resolving, “I am going to drive virtuously to find that angel which God tells me I will see, for I do not want to be found by the angel doing vicious driving, but I want to be found in God’s Grace”

Think about a sliced pie. If all my talk is about slice A and slice B for 10 pages, someone might think that A and B comprise the whole pie. Then I slip in a sentence about slice C at the end, unnoticed by the vast majority because they take such vehement reaction to the idea they think of the pie being only A and B.
Slice C the material of the majority of the Summa, but Thomas must also be firm and exacting about predestination and reprobation of slices A and B, so that we are confident of the Predestination and Victory of Christ’s being for us, with us, in us - that it was not conditional or relative, but ordained in all aspects.

Thomas explains predestination also in Question 23

I answer that, Predestination most certainly and infallibly takes effect; yet it does not impose any necessity, so that, namely, its effect should take place from necessity. For it was said above (A. 1), that predestination is a part of providence. But not all things subject to providence are necessary; some things happening from contingency, according to the nature of the proximate causes, which divine providence has ordained for such effects. Yet the order of providence is infallible, as was shown above (Q. XXII., A. 4). So also the order of predestination is certain; yet free-will is not destroyed; whence the effect of predestination has its contingency. Moreover all that has been said about the divine knowledge and will (QQ. XIV., A. 13, and XIX., A. 4) must also be taken into consideration; since they do not destroy contingency in things, although they themselves are most certain and infallible.

The above clearly shows the point I was trying to make

Aquinas posits free will and necessity but I’m not convinced he does a good job actually combining the two. At-least in the above article he just says free will is not destroyed even though he doesn’t attempt to try and explain why. What I’ve heard Thomist explain is that God makes the act free.

It’s kinda like this, God ordained that I would respond to you, this will happen and I can’t not respond to you, but because God made the act free it’s free. To me that doesn’t really answer the question, simply just saying because God made the act free it is free. By its definition for me to be free I must have the freedom to accept or reject, which logically would make it impossible for God to ordain something infallibly without respect to a person’s merits, which is what Thomas explains.

I’m new to this whole thing but I don’t see how the Thomistic position makes sense. They seem inconsistent, they merely posit things without trying to explain them. Thomas actually says that God predestines some to be reprobated apart from their merits.

Thomas sounds very Calvin, the only difference is that Thomas tries to defend free will but I’m not convinced he did a good job of it.

This is what I believe which is closer to the Molinist position or something like it. God has foreknowledge meaning he experiences every actuality in one instance. This simply means that God is present to all times and all places meaning that God knows EVERYTHING simultaneously. At the moment of creation, God knew everyone’s disposition to his grace and how they would respond to the working of his grace in freedom. With this in mind, he predestined those whom he called and will save, he also predestines those who will be lead to destruction and hell.

The view above keeps in mind 1 Tim 2:4 “who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” But also keeps in mind that it is only through God’s grace that we are saved. Nothing we do necessitates that God will save us it is only through the gracious gift of God that he saves us, just because he takes into account our merits doesn’t necessitate him saving us. He save whom ever he chooses and he does, but scripture makes it clear God wants to save everyone, and come to knowledge of the truth.