Thomistic Predestination

[TomD123]

This is a simple question. In what meaningful sense can we say that God wills all men to be saved and that God truly loves everyone if thomistic predestination is true?

It seems to me that if God predestines the free acts of men (even assuming they remain free under God’s predestination) then He wills that only some men be saved and that He is not a God of love.

 

[lmelahn]

This is a simple question. In what meaningful sense can we say that God wills all men to be saved and that God truly loves everyone if thomistic predestination is true?

It seems to me that if God predestines the free acts of men (even assuming they remain free under God’s predestination) then He wills that only some men be saved and that He is not a God of love.

I think that “Thomistic” predestination is a frequently misunderstood concept, so we need to go over that first:

For St. Thomas (as opposed to many of his interpreters!), predestination is a kind of foreknowledge on God’s part. All that it means is that God (of course) desires that all men be saved and knows what will happen to them (because He sees all things in His eternal present).

It absolutely does not mean that God sends special graces to certain people and not to others.

So, when Thomas says “so-and-so is predestined to Heaven,” he means, “God knows that so-and-so will be saved.” He does not mean “God gives so-and-so so much actual grace that he is guaranteed to be saved” (which is how many people seem to have erroneously interpreted Thomas).

In this regard, the English translation of the Summa is rather misleading. (I could show you the original Latin and its correct translation if you are interested.)

So, in essence, you are correct; however, St. Thomas himself never taught “Thomistic” predestination.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Here are two excellent writings, both of which clarify St. Thomas’ teaching on predestination:

‘Actual Grace’ (by Fr William Most):
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/2THOMIST.TXT
Excerpt:“An objection on infallibly efficacious grace: Some will object that Thomas says in I - II 112.3: “If it is the intention of God who moves that man, whose heart He is moving, should receive grace, he infallibly receives it.” This means merely that when God so wills He can so move that the effect is infallibly received. It does not say that God lacks the ability to permit a man to impede grace. As we saw above, Thomas said: “…this is in the power of free will, to impede or not to impede the reception of grace.” And the text of 2 Cor 6:1 makes clear also that we can cause grace to come in vain.”

‘Prayer, the Great Means to Salvation - Part II: Which proves that the Grace of Prayer is given to all and which treats of the Ordinary Mode in which this Grace operates’ (by St. Alphonsus Liguori):
catholictreasury.info/books/prayer/pr19.php
Excerpt: “St. Thomas teaches… that God gives every one the grace necessary for salvation, that he may correspond to it if he will: 'God by His most liberal will gives grace to every one that prepares himself: Behold I stand at the door and knock. And therefore the grace of God is wanting to no one, but communicates itself to all men, as far as it is concerned.”

 

[Bahman]

This is a simple question. In what meaningful sense can we say that God wills all men to be saved and that God truly loves everyone if thomistic predestination is true?

It seems to me that if God predestines the free acts of men (even assuming they remain free under God’s predestination) then He wills that only some men be saved and that He is not a God of love.

God’s will has to be align with man’s free will. It is then up to individual to decide properly since God cannot intervene since otherwise he is not God of justice.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God’s will has to be align with man’s free will. It is then up to individual to decide properly since God cannot intervene since otherwise he is not God of justice.

God wills that all be saved and gives sufficient grace to all for salvation. But it is up to us to cooperate with that grace. That is why all must work out their salvation with fear and trembling, we must work so as to win the race, we must be steadfast in rectitude and sincere in love at all times. We must flee sin and its occassions and seek love, obedience, good works, truth and honesty all the days of our lives - at each moment of our lives.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think that “Thomistic” predestination is a frequently misunderstood concept, so we need to go over that first:

For St. Thomas (as opposed to many of his interpreters!), predestination is a kind of foreknowledge on God’s part. All that it means is that God (of course) desires that all men be saved and knows what will happen to them (because He sees all things in His eternal present).

It absolutely does not mean that God sends special graces to certain people and not to others.

So, when Thomas says “so-and-so is predestined to Heaven,” he means, “God knows that so-and-so will be saved.” He does not mean “God gives so-and-so so much actual grace that he is guaranteed to be saved” (which is how many people seem to have erroneously interpreted Thomas).

In this regard, the English translation of the Summa is rather misleading. (I could show you the original Latin and its correct translation if you are interested.)

So, in essence, you are correct; however, St. Thomas himself never taught “Thomistic” predestination.

According to Ludwig Ott ( Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ) Predestination is a Dogma of the Church, but there does not seem to be any agreement as to what it means, except that the Calvanistic interpretation is condemened. I could not find this doctrine mentioned anywhere in the Catechism. I wonder why?

Pax
Linus2nd.

 

[Bahman]

**God wills that all be saved and gives sufficient grace to all for salvation. But it is up to us to cooperate with that grace. **That is why all must work out their salvation with fear and trembling, we must work so as to win the race, we must be steadfast in rectitude and sincere in love at all times. We must flee sin and its occassions and seek love, obedience, good works, truth and honesty all the days of our lives - at each moment of our lives.

Linus2nd

What you said is contrary because everything is up to us.

 

[oldcelt]

According to Ludwig Ott ( Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma ) Predestination is a Dogma of the Church, but there does not seem to be any agreement as to what it means, except that the Calvanistic interpretation is condemened. I could not find this doctrine mentioned anywhere in the Catechism. I wonder why?

Pax
Linus2nd.

Because predestination eliminates the need for religion.

 

[thinkandmull]

I think that “Thomistic” predestination is a frequently misunderstood concept, so we need to go over that first:

For St. Thomas (as opposed to many of his interpreters!), predestination is a kind of foreknowledge on God’s part. All that it means is that God (of course) desires that all men be saved and knows what will happen to them (because He sees all things in His eternal present).

It absolutely does not mean that God sends special graces to certain people and not to others.

So, when Thomas says “so-and-so is predestined to Heaven,” he means, “God knows that so-and-so will be saved.” He does not mean “God gives so-and-so so much actual grace that he is guaranteed to be saved” (which is how many people seem to have erroneously interpreted Thomas).

In this regard, the English translation of the Summa is rather misleading. (I could show you the original Latin and its correct translation if you are interested.)

So, in essence, you are correct; however, St. Thomas himself never taught “Thomistic” predestination.

Aquinas specifically says that things cannot fall to turn out how God wanted them to. Are you saying that whole article is mistranslated? I had a thread earlier this month in which I quoted Aquinas again and again saying that eternal punishment is an essential part in God’s plan

 

[thinkandmull]

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article5

Read especially reply three

 

[littlestsouls2]

Aquinas specifically says that things cannot fall to turn out how God wanted them to.

My interpretation of St. Thomas is very different to yours’.

St. Thomas says that God has a consequent will to reprobate sinners; He does not antecedently wish for any soul to be lost. “The effect of the antecedent will, by which God wills the salvation of all men, is that order of nature the purpose of which is our salvation, and likewise those things which conduce to that end, and which are offered to all in common, whether by nature or by grace.” [St. Thomas, In 1 Sent. d. 46, q. 1, a. 1]

As to why God distributes His graces unevenly, thereby making some souls vessels of mercy, and others vessels of justice, we do not know.

“What is there that I ought to do more to My vineyard that I have not done to it? Was it that I expected that it should bring forth grapes, and it hath brought forth wild grapes?” [Is. 5: 4] Bellarmine says on these words, “If He had not given the power to bring forth grapes, how could God say, “expected?” and if God had not given to all men the grace necessary for salvation, He could not have said to the Jews, 'What is there that I ought to have done more?” For they could have answered, that if they had not yielded fruit, it was for lack of necessary assistance." (St. Alphonsus)

There is an interesting and consoling story found in the revelations of Ven. Mary of Agreda. It is said that one day, St. John the Apostle was trying to console Our Lady, who was lamenting the loss of souls. This is what Our Lady said to St. John the Apostle: “O John, if God Himself wished the perdition of some souls, I should be able to restrain my sorrow; but, though He permits the damnation of the reprobate since they themselves seek it, this is not the absolute will of the divine goodness; He wishes all to attain salvation, if only they would not of their own free will resist.”

 

[thinkandmull]

Well then Mary contradicted Aquinas:

Objection 3. Further, “There is no injustice in God” (Romans 9:14). Now it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and demerits.

Reply to Objection 3. The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others… Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place.

See my previous thread on how to reconcile molinism with Romans 9

 

[lmelahn]

Aquinas specifically says that things cannot fall to turn out how God wanted them to. Are you saying that whole article is mistranslated? I had a thread earlier this month in which I quoted Aquinas again and again saying that eternal punishment is an essential part in God’s plan

Not that the whole article is mistranslated: I do think however, that the Fathers of the English Dominican Province heavily favored the interpretation of Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) and Domingo Bañez. (This is natural enough, since both were Dominicans.)

The first thing to keep in mind is that Thomas defines praedestinatio as a ratio:

Unde manifestum est quod praedestinatio est quaedam ratio ordinis aliquorum in salutem aeternam, in mente divina existens (Summa theologiae, I, q.23, a. 2).

Therefore, it is evident that predestination is a type of knowledge, existing in the Divine Mind, of the ordering of some persons to eternal salvation (my translation).

That means that predestination, for Thomas, is an act of the Divine Intellect, not of the Divine Will. (It is knowledge on His part, not a decision.)

Of course, I concede the point that, when God does something, it produces its effect infallibly. I don’t think there can be any argument here.

Where I differ with some interpreters of St. Thomas regards what it is, precisely, that God does when He gives us actual grace.

Both Bañez and Luis de Molina, the great adversaries of the De auxiliis controversy, assumed that actual graces produce acts of the will in us. (Without getting into detail, this has a lot to do with their metaphysical presuppositions, which they borrowed from Cajetan: they thought that substances could not produce their own actions, but could only be pre-disposed so that God could produce those actions in them.) Hence, according to them (especially Bañez), when God gives an efficacious grace, he practically constrains our wills to perform a certain action (e.g., to repent of a mortal sin, to seek Baptism, or what have you).

In reality, what actual graces produce is the capacity to act in a certain way. This is possible, because our actions really do spring forth from our act of being, or existence. Putting that capacity to good use is, however, entirely up to the person who has received it.

When God gives us an actual grace, does the grace produce its effect infallibly? Yes, absolutely. But its infallible effect is to increase our capacity to act, not to restrict it. We remain completely free to make good use of that capacity or not.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Well then Mary contradicted Aquinas:

Objection 3. Further, “There is no injustice in God” (Romans 9:14). Now it would seem unjust that unequal things be given to equals. But all men are equal as regards both nature and original sin; and inequality in them arises from the merits or demerits of their actions. Therefore God does not prepare unequal things for men by predestinating and reprobating, unless through the foreknowledge of their merits and demerits.

Reply to Objection 3. The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others… Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place.

See my previous thread on how to reconcile molinism with Romans 9

I don’t believe that she did. I have read the article that you posted from St. Thomas. Nowhere does he contradict what he has said earlier about the universal salvific will: “A judge antecedently wishes every man to live, but he consequently wishes a murderer to be hanged; so God antecedently wills every man to be saved, but He consequently wills some to be damned; in consequence, that is, of the exigencies of His justice.”

St. Alphonsus writes: “We answer, with St. John of Damascus, St. Thomas of Aquin, and the great body of Catholic Doctors, that with regard to the reprobation of sinners, it is necessary to distinguish between the priority of time and the priority of order, or, if we may say, of reason. In priority of time, the Divine Decree is anterior to man’s sin; but in priority of order, sin is anterior to the Divine Decree; for God has decreed many sinners to hell, inasmuch as he has foreseen their sins. Hence we may see that God, with that antecedent will which regards his goodness, truly wills that all should be saved, but by that consequent will which regards the sins of the reprobate, he wishes their damnation.”

 

[jbp]

This is a simple question. In what meaningful sense can we say that God wills all men to be saved and that God truly loves everyone if thomistic predestination is true?

It seems to me that if God predestines the free acts of men (even assuming they remain free under God’s predestination) then He wills that only some men be saved and that He is not a God of love.

For free will to exist, the future must be unknown/indeterminate.

God Himself does not know the future. That however, does not prevent Him from planning for the future. If God is a reasonable God, it would follow He is logical. The universe expresses His majesty and mathematics and logic gives us a glimpse of His fathomless and infinite mind. It may be fathomless and infinite, but even infinity is still reasonable and comprehensible, discoverable. Difficult, but we are able to understand how to use them. The beauty of it is that logic, even gives us an analogy of a way out, courtesy of Godel’s theorems and Church and Turing.

If you believe that mathematics and logic are the product of the mind of God, and you know it to be good, obviously it would make sense that the Being who has this mind is also reasonable. Reason does not reduce Him into a machine.

To illustrate:

1. God didn’t know the rebellion of Lucifer, but He obviously found a solution to this problem. Incidentally, this is a perfect analogy to the problem of giving unrestricted ability to Artificial Intelligence and the problem it might cause man. And since we are not God, the outcome can be pretty devastating, for the universe even - no joke.
2. I believe that He didn’t know creation would look so good otherwise Genesis would have said, “and He KNEW that the light was good, OF COURSE!..”
3. He didn’t know that creating man in His image with the corresponding free will, will also result in man’s downfall and expulsion from Paradise. But after man’s downfall, He laid out a plan to save His creation. Obviously, man was dearer to God than the angels; otherwise, we shouldn’t expect Armageddon in the end when He defeats Satan. In God’s own words, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” To elucidate on this, refer to Genesis chapter 5; and to make it easier for you, watch: youtube.com/watch?v=HUs8f-lphec to summarize what this means.

Could God have created a deterministic universe/creation? Sure. But it would be boring and it’s like cheating Himself. You might say to yourself, “What for? It doesn’t make sense!”

To dig deeper into logic, mathematics and science is to understand more fully the mind of God. We do not live in a Looney Tunes universe where anything can happen and the rules of logic are meaningless.

 

[thinkandmull]

Not that the whole article is mistranslated: I do think however, that the Fathers of the English Dominican Province heavily favored the interpretation of Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) and Domingo Bañez. (This is natural enough, since both were Dominicans.)

The first thing to keep in mind is that Thomas defines praedestinatio as a ratio:

That means that predestination, for Thomas, is an act of the Divine Intellect, not of the Divine Will. (It is knowledge on His part, not a decision.)

Of course, I concede the point that, when God does something, it produces its effect infallibly. I don’t think there can be any argument here.

Where I differ with some interpreters of St. Thomas regards what it is, precisely, that God does when He gives us actual grace.

Both Bañez and Luis de Molina, the great adversaries of the De auxiliis controversy, assumed that actual graces produce acts of the will in us. (Without getting into detail, this has a lot to do with their metaphysical presuppositions, which they borrowed from Cajetan: they thought that substances could not produce their own actions, but could only be pre-disposed so that God could produce those actions in them.) Hence, according to them (especially Bañez), when God gives an efficacious grace, he practically constrains our wills to perform a certain action (e.g., to repent of a mortal sin, to seek Baptism, or what have you).

In reality, what actual graces produce is the capacity to act in a certain way. This is possible, because our actions really do spring forth from our act of being, or existence. Putting that capacity to good use is, however, entirely up to the person who has received it.

When God gives us an actual grace, does the grace produce its effect infallibly? Yes, absolutely. But its infallible effect is to increase our capacity to act, not to restrict it. We remain completely free to make good use of that capacity or not.

We’ve already had this discussion before. Where did you get the idea that Banez did not believe in free will? Augustine, from whom Aquinas got his doctrines on this, said in his conversion that God had to push his will towards repentance. Also, the fundamental question is: if God can produce salvation infallibly, why doesn’t He save everyone. I’ve already quoted Aquinas on His answer

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t believe that she did. I have read the article that you posted from St. Thomas. Nowhere does he contradict what he has said earlier about the universal salvific will: “A judge antecedently wishes every man to live, but he consequently wishes a murderer to be hanged; so God antecedently wills every man to be saved, but He consequently wills some to be damned; in consequence, that is, of the exigencies of His justice.”

St. Alphonsus writes: “We answer, with St. John of Damascus, St. Thomas of Aquin, and the great body of Catholic Doctors, that with regard to the reprobation of sinners, it is necessary to distinguish between the priority of time and the priority of order, or, if we may say, of reason. In priority of time, the Divine Decree is anterior to man’s sin; but in priority of order, sin is anterior to the Divine Decree; for God has decreed many sinners to hell, inasmuch as he has foreseen their sins. Hence we may see that God, with that antecedent will which regards his goodness, truly wills that all should be saved, but by that consequent will which regards the sins of the reprobate, he wishes their damnation.”

You didn’t concentrate hard enough on how the specific objection was answered by Aquinas. God desires all men to be saved, but He desires to have elect and reprobates MORE than that. Aquinas in the Summa approves of Augustine’s explanations of the “God desires all men to be saved” Bible quote. He NEVER says that God loves people personally. Instead, he says that God desires to give each person some good. Some He gives salvation to through efficacious grace, others he gives life on earth only (and then hell). All through free will of course, but we are like puppets to Aquinas, with God able to go one way or another

 

[thinkandmull]

For free will to exist, the future must be unknown/indeterminate.

God Himself does not know the future. That however, does not prevent Him from planning for the future. If God is a reasonable God, it would follow He is logical. The universe expresses His majesty and mathematics and logic gives us a glimpse of His fathomless and infinite mind. It may be fathomless and infinite, but even infinity is still reasonable and comprehensible, discoverable. Difficult, but we are able to understand how to use them. The beauty of it is that logic, even gives us an analogy of a way out, courtesy of Godel’s theorems and Church and Turing.

If you believe that mathematics and logic are the product of the mind of God, and you know it to be good, obviously it would make sense that the Being who has this mind is also reasonable. Reason does not reduce Him into a machine.

To illustrate:

1. God didn’t know the rebellion of Lucifer, but He obviously found a solution to this problem. Incidentally, this is a perfect analogy to the problem of giving unrestricted ability to Artificial Intelligence and the problem it might cause man. And since we are not God, the outcome can be pretty devastating, for the universe even - no joke.
2. I believe that He didn’t know creation would look so good otherwise Genesis would have said, “and He KNEW that the light was good, OF COURSE!..”
3. He didn’t know that creating man in His image with the corresponding free will, will also result in man’s downfall and expulsion from Paradise. But after man’s downfall, He laid out a plan to save His creation. Obviously, man was dearer to God than the angels; otherwise, we shouldn’t expect Armageddon in the end when He defeats Satan. In God’s own words, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” To elucidate on this, refer to Genesis chapter 5; and to make it easier for you, watch: youtube.com/watch?v=HUs8f-lphec to summarize what this means.

Could God have created a deterministic universe/creation? Sure. But it would be boring and it’s like cheating Himself. You might say to yourself, “What for? It doesn’t make sense!”

To dig deeper into logic, mathematics and science is to understand more fully the mind of God. We do not live in a Looney Tunes universe where anything can happen and the rules of logic are meaningless.

So you don’t believe God is all knowing? Isn’t that dogma?

 

[rinnie]

This is a simple question. In what meaningful sense can we say that God wills all men to be saved and that God truly loves everyone if thomistic predestination is true?

It seems to me that if God predestines the free acts of men (even assuming they remain free under God’s predestination) then He wills that only some men be saved and that He is not a God of love.

Simple God does not put his will above mans. He wants us to all go to heaven and accept him, but being God and knowing the true heart of a person, knows who will and will not accept him.

Kind of like reading a book, if you choose to read the last page last, by no means changes the outcome of the book. If you know how the book will end, by reading the last page did not make it so. Understand?

 

[rinnie]

You didn’t concentrate hard enough on how the specific objection was answered by Aquinas. God desires all men to be saved, but He desires to have elect and reprobates MORE than that. Aquinas in the Summa approves of Augustine’s explanations of the “God desires all men to be saved” Bible quote. He NEVER says that God loves people personally. Instead, he says that God desires to give each person some good. Some He gives salvation to through efficacious grace, others he gives life on earth only (and then hell). All through free will of course, but we are like puppets to Aquinas, with God able to go one way or another

God does love all people personally. And does desire them to all love him back and enter into eternal life with him in heaven. And God does not go one way or another. God gives us that choice. To choose him or reject him.