Thomistic predestination

[awatkins69]

Hello. Can somebody please explain to me the view of St. Thomas Aquinas on predestination? I have heard that it is very similar to Calvinism in fact. I hope I am mistaken about this! Is St. Augustine’s idea of predestination similar to Calvinism as well? How is the Thomism different from Calvinism? How is the Thomistic idea of predestination different from that of the Molinist understanding? And how about Grace? Do Thomists make distinctions between the types of Grace? How does St. Thomas harmonize “Saved by Grace through Faith” and “Faith without works is dead”? Thank you very much!

 

[Michael_Vernon]

John Calvin seems to have started the development of his dogmatic formulations regarding predestination from the teachings and writings of the Saints, like Augustine of Hippo, and the Doctors of the Church, like Saint Thomas Aquinas; but he seems to have carried them to a conclusion that was beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Please don’t think that any or all teaching of Predestination is wrong simply because some protestant reformers have characatured it. Predestination is Biblical.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Without the time and energy to look it up, this is my understanding from memory.

All of God’s creation, angels and humans, were pre-ordered to love God eternally.

Due to the fall, this order is ruptured.

Due to the blood of Jesus Christ, all are offered salvation.

According to the parable of the Good Samaritan–we are saved by Love.

If the is incorrect, I really apologize.

 

[Image_of_God]

I am not sure if this will help, but I was thinking about this passage:

Matthew 25:34,41
34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

The differences in each verse are noteworthy. Notice, that when the Lord speaks of heaven, he says that it has been “prepared for you”. However, when he speaks of hell, he says it has been “prepared for the devil and his angels”. The difference is obviously intended.

It is not God’s intent that anyone should end up in hell. Hell, as these two comparisons show, has not been prepared for us like heaven is. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

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.

St. Thomas would say that we are placed into hell by God’s consequent will or rather as a consequence to our own actions, which are eternally present to him. However, according to his antecedent will, or considering only the person, God wills all into his heavenly kingdom.

The problem with Calvin’s idea of predestination (or double predestination), is that it claims that God both antecedently and consequently damns people to hell. As the scriptural passage I presented shows, this is not the case. One is placed in hell as a consequence to his own actions.

 

[Katholish]

The differences are quite simple in some regards, quite complicated in others. Here is the simple version:

Calvinism: God predetermines a person for glory or damnation without considering the person’s merits or sins.

Thomism: God only predestines a person for Hell in light of a pre-vision of their sins. However, those whom he pre-destines for glory are not chosen by pre-vision of merit.

Molinism: God predestines a person for either glory or damnation in consideration of a pre-vision of their sins or merits.

Thus, Thomas is different from Calvinism because St. Thomas insists that no one is sent to hell who has not chosen it. Thomism can seem similar to Calvinism in regards heaven because Thomas does not seem to think anything a person has done or will contributes to his election.

Molinism differs from St. Thomas in regard to whether pre-vision of merits (i.e. cooperation of the will) is a contributing factor in whether God predestines someone. I prefer to call this position of pre-vision of merits the Salesian theory because it is strongly present in St. Francis de Sales and “Molinism” properly speaking extends further into more controversial grounds.

 

[awatkins69]

The differences are quite simple in some regards, quite complicated in others. Here is the simple version:

Calvinism: God predetermines a person for glory or damnation without considering the person’s merits or sins.

Thomism: God only predestines a person for Hell in light of a pre-vision of their sins. However, those whom he pre-destines for glory are not chosen by pre-vision of merit.

Molinism: God predestines a person for either glory or damnation in consideration of a pre-vision of their sins or merits.

Thus, Thomas is different from Calvinism because St. Thomas insists that no one is sent to hell who has not chosen it. Thomism can seem similar to Calvinism in regards heaven because Thomas does not seem to think anything a person has done or will contributes to his election.

Molinism differs from St. Thomas in regard to whether pre-vision of merits (i.e. cooperation of the will) is a contributing factor in whether God predestines someone. I prefer to call this position of pre-vision of merits the Salesian theory because it is strongly present in St. Francis de Sales and “Molinism” properly speaking extends further into more controversial grounds.

Thanks. So either way, whether we accept Thomism or Molinism, we must act the same way? We must avoid sin either way, I think. But doesn’t Thomism seem to be more correct in light of the fact that our “good works are like filthy rags in the sight of God” and that we “are saved by Grace through Faith”?

 

[ChadS]

The differences are quite simple in some regards, quite complicated in others. Here is the simple version:

Calvinism: God predetermines a person for glory or damnation without considering the person’s merits or sins.

Thomism: God only predestines a person for Hell in light of a pre-vision of their sins. However, those whom he pre-destines for glory are not chosen by pre-vision of merit.

Molinism: God predestines a person for either glory or damnation in consideration of a pre-vision of their sins or merits.

Thus, Thomas is different from Calvinism because St. Thomas insists that no one is sent to hell who has not chosen it. Thomism can seem similar to Calvinism in regards heaven because Thomas does not seem to think anything a person has done or will contributes to his election.

Molinism differs from St. Thomas in regard to whether pre-vision of merits (i.e. cooperation of the will) is a contributing factor in whether God predestines someone. I prefer to call this position of pre-vision of merits the Salesian theory because it is strongly present in St. Francis de Sales and “Molinism” properly speaking extends further into more controversial grounds.

I’m not entirely sure you are correct on this whole account. God does not predestine us to either salvation or damnation. That’s called double-predestination, meaning God chooses who will go to hell. God’s choice is in who will be saved, our rejection of God and his offer of salvation is what sends us to hell, not God’s choice.

ChadS

 

[Katholish]

I’m not entirely sure you are correct on this whole account. God does not predestine us to either salvation or damnation. That’s called double-predestination, meaning God chooses who will go to hell. God’s choice is in who will be saved, our rejection of God and his offer of salvation is what sends us to hell, not God’s choice.

The term predestination can be taken in a broad sense to apply to both a divine decree which terminates in Heaven or Hell, or in a more narrow sense in which it applies only to Heaven and the term reprobation is used for the termination in Hell.

God does will certain people to be in Hell though. If that is what you are objecting, I can provide proof from the Church’s constant teaching. He does not will people to hell antecedently (as Image of God mentioned above), but rather consequently in light of their persistent resistance to his grace. It is the Calvinist view that God antecedently reprobates men which earns the title double predestination. Calvin defines predestination in an non-contingent manner, whereas Molinism insists on the requirement of man’s will, and Thomas insists on the operation of man’s will only for reprobation.

 

[ChadS]

The term predestination can be taken in a broad sense to apply to both a divine decree which terminates in Heaven or Hell, or in a more narrow sense in which it applies only to Heaven and the term reprobation is used for the termination in Hell.

God does will certain people to be in Hell though. If that is what you are objecting, I can provide proof from the Church’s constant teaching. He does not will people to hell antecedently (as Image of God mentioned above), but rather consequently in light of their persistent resistance to his grace. It is the Calvinist view that God antecedently reprobates men which earns the title double predestination. Calvin defines predestination in an non-contingent manner, whereas Molinism insists on the requirement of man’s will, and Thomas insists on the operation of man’s will only for reprobation.

I was objecting to the idea of reprobation to hell being antecedentally willed by God. I don’t think I was in opposition to Catholic teaching, it’s Calvinism I have a problem with.

ChadS

 

[Katholish]

Thanks. So either way, whether we accept Thomism or Molinism, we must act the same way? We must avoid sin either way, I think. But doesn’t Thomism seem to be more correct in light of the fact that our “good works are like filthy rags in the sight of God” and that we “are saved by Grace through Faith”?

Certainly we must act the same. Both schools accept all of the Church’s other teachings on the Moral Law and the requirements for Salvation.

If you are asking my personal opinion, no I do not think Thomas seems correct on this issue (I am a rabid Thomist in most everything, but this is one area I have to disagree on).

The Thomistic theory claims that you are not predestined because you had faith. Absolutely nothing you have done or willed or thought has in anyway influenced God’s decision to predestine you. While Thomas would also say that no one can be admitted to Heaven without Faith and Charity, this seems to beg the question. It isn’t simply that God fore-knew what I would do, but he decided that I was going to Heaven irregardless of any choice on my part. This seems to contradict other doctrines regarding free will. For this reason, I consider the St. Francis de Sales theory more consistent with the Church’s teaching, that predestination is influenced by God’s fore-knowledge of our free will.

 

[Katholish]

I was objecting to the idea of reprobation to hell being antecedentally willed by God. I don’t think I was in opposition to Catholic teaching, it’s Calvinism I have a problem with.

Ok, we are on the same page then. Neither the Thomistic position nor the Molinist position hold antecedent reprobation. That is a purely Calvinistic notion. I didn’t mean to imply that either Catholic school held such a view.

 

[awatkins69]

The Thomistic theory claims that you are not predestined because you had faith. Absolutely nothing you have done or willed or thought has in anyway influenced God’s decision to predestine you. While Thomas would also say that no one can be admitted to Heaven without Faith and Charity, this seems to beg the question. It isn’t simply that God fore-knew what I would do, but he decided that I was going to Heaven irregardless of any choice on my part. This seems to contradict other doctrines regarding free will. For this reason, I consider the St. Francis de Sales theory more consistent with the Church’s teaching, that predestination is influenced by God’s fore-knowledge of our free will.

Now I’m not saying that either position is unacceptable. But isn’t Grace simply a free gift from God, regardless of what we do? Doesn’t St. Paul teach that God’s Grace is given irregardless of any of our own choices? Can’t we do nothing good without God’s Grace? It seems the opposite is semi-Pelagianism. “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory.” Please correct me if I am on the verge of formal heresy and Protestantism.

 

[Katholish]

The grace of Salvation is indeed a free gift of God and something we cannot earn ourselves. Pure Pelagianism suggests that we do not need grace at all, and Semi-Pelagianism suggestst aht while we need Grace, we are somehow partly responsible for obtaining it (i.e. we earn the Grace, but we don’t earn salvation per se). Of course both are wrong and condemned as heresy.

However, the Church has always taught that God does not force Himself upon us, but that our wills remain free to reject Him. Thus, in order to attain Heaven, we must cooperate with God’s grace and not resist it. This cooperation is the source of the Catholic doctrine of merit and is a summary of the good work required for salvation.

In a more practical sense, we just need to look at the Church in the world. God has given us the sacrament of Baptism as a means of obtaining Sanctifying Grace. The Church freely offers this sacrament, but as adults, we have to choose to receive it. Even if we were baptised as children, we have to choose to avoid mortal sin and avail ourselves of confession if it occurs. Even these acts of receiving the sacraments involve God’s grace as an impetus to receive them, nevertheless, our free will must cooperate or else we can easily frustrate the action.

This is what is meant in the Salesian theory as a pre-vision of merit. Will we resist the grace that God is freely giving us, or will we allow it to transform us and sanctify us? God offers this grace to all (so the mere offering cannot be considered predestination). St. Thomas’s theory seems to imply that our free will decision is not an important component, and ultimately seems inconsistent to me.

While Thomas explicitly denies antecedent reprobation, it would almost seem logically necessary from his position on predestination. If God chooses who is predestined without conisderation of the cooperation of their will such that those who are predestined are not predestined in anyway because they choose to be, and if there is no other alternative to Heaven but hell, then it would seem that all who are not predestined are among the reprobate, yet God only wills people to be reprobate in light of their free-will decision. It is an apparent inconsistency (one which I am sure Thomists who agree would have some kind of counter argument for, but I have never heard one that convinced me).

 

[awatkins69]

I will admit that I do not know too much about this. But I do thank you for giving me some more clear understanding.

 

[Michael_Vernon]

Katholish, I think you have just given an excellent exposition of the entire matter except for one point. And that is to remember that Predestination is not only the idea of even a Saint or a Doctor of the Church. It is also absolutely Scriptural. It is part of the Faith by Scripture as well as Tradition. No one can say “I don’t believe in ‘predestination’” without implicitly saying that he doesn’t believe in The Holy Bible. And I would add one more point for those who are earnestly interested: search through the entire cannon of Scripture for even one person who found God by his own searching rather than being called by God “out of the blue”.

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

Hello. Can somebody please explain to me the view of St. Thomas Aquinas on predestination? I have heard that it is very similar to Calvinism in fact. I hope I am mistaken about this! Is St. Augustine’s idea of predestination similar to Calvinism as well? How is the Thomism different from Calvinism? How is the Thomistic idea of predestination different from that of the Molinist understanding? And how about Grace? Do Thomists make distinctions between the types of Grace? How does St. Thomas harmonize “Saved by Grace through Faith” and “Faith without works is dead”? Thank you very much!

The concept of non efficacious sufficient grace given to the non-elect does not appear in Calvinism. Calvinism holds to double predestination which says that those who are not elect were elected to damnation. There are 2 camps, one which says that God passively hardens the reprobate by not actively converting them, and another which says that God actively hardens the reprobates hearts to the gospel (more accurately described as hyper-Calvinism). Thomism holds to single predestination which says that those who are not elected to salvation and given efficacious grace may be saved because God has given sufficient grace to all and all who have been regenerated by baptism are, due to this sufficient grace, able to come to God with his help. Calvinism also holds to perseverance of all saints which would, if double predestination was true, be true because only the elect would receive initial salvation in the first place. Of course we know that this is not the case, and that because of sufficient grace some who are not elect receive initial salvation as well. Those are the two major differences, other differences are petty in comparison, as with regards to beliefs on grace (TULIP) they are relatively similar.

 

[october_baby]

The differences are quite simple in some regards, quite complicated in others. Here is the simple version:

Calvinism: God predetermines a person for glory or damnation without considering the person’s merits or sins.

Thomism: God only predestines a person for Hell in light of a pre-vision of their sins. However, those whom he pre-destines for glory are not chosen by pre-vision of merit.

Molinism: God predestines a person for either glory or damnation in consideration of a pre-vision of their sins or merits.

Thus, Thomas is different from Calvinism because St. Thomas insists that no one is sent to hell who has not chosen it. Thomism can seem similar to Calvinism in regards heaven because Thomas does not seem to think anything a person has done or will contributes to his election.

Molinism differs from St. Thomas in regard to whether pre-vision of merits (i.e. cooperation of the will) is a contributing factor in whether God predestines someone. I prefer to call this position of pre-vision of merits the Salesian theory because it is strongly present in St. Francis de Sales and “Molinism” properly speaking extends further into more controversial grounds.

What is Molinism, and how does purgatory stand in all this?