The Church Courtyard > The Sacred Sciences

Election APM and the Universal Salvific Will

(1/10) > >>

Justin Martyr:
Hello, before I begin I should clarify I am a Thomist, and hold to election prior to foreseen merits or demerits. However, I have recently delved more deeply into this topic in order try and reconcile it with the doctrine of God's universal salvific will. This has lead to me finding what seems to be a clear contradiction I have been unable to resolve. I'm hoping more learned Catholics than I will help me find the flaw in my logic so I can continue to maintain election apm. I will state the difficulty as follows:

Premise 1: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, wills all men to be saved.
Premise 2: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, predestines some, but not all, men to be saved.
Premise 3: God's act of predestination is an act of his will.
Therefore, in accordance with premise 2 and 3, God, antecedent to any merits or demerits, wills some, but not all, men to be saved.
However, this contradicts premise 1.
Therefore, either premise 2 is false or premise 1 is false.
However, premise 1 is known to be absolutely certain, as it is a de fide teaching of the Church.
Conclusion: Premise 2 (Election APM) must be false.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Upon further contemplation, it seems that premise 3 is wrong; God's will would be to give all men grace which makes salvation possible, and predestination would be rather God's providence as applied to Man's salvation. However, input is still much appreciated.

Xavier:
Hi Justin. I'm a Thomist too. I believe in APM Predestination but PPD (post previsa demerita /after foreseen demerits) Reprobation. Predestination is logically prior to merits because it causes them. But reprobation is  posterior to demerits because imo it is on account of them. So predestination is gratuitous, in advance of any foreseen merit, but reprobation is deserved, strictly on account of foreseen demerits.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your conclusion, for it says: "Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of [antecedent] negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will". Thoughts on that?

God Bless.

Justin Martyr:

--- Quote from: Xavier on July 16, 2021, 01:56:51 AM ---Hi Justin. I'm a Thomist too. I believe in APM Predestination but PPD (post previsa demerita /after foreseen demerits) Reprobation. Predestination is logically prior to merits because it causes them. But reprobation is  posterior to demerits because imo it is on account of them. So predestination is gratuitous, in advance of any foreseen merit, but reprobation is deserved, strictly on account of foreseen demerits.

For what it's worth, the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with your conclusion, for it says: "Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of [antecedent] negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God's salvific will". Thoughts on that?

God Bless.

--- End quote ---

While it is de fide that retrobation to the fires of hell is ppd, it is also true in that those whom God has not chosen to elect, are not elect. Ergo, by logical nessecity, God has chosen to order his providence in such a way that prior to any merits or demerits, some are saved in the end through his efficacious grace, while others are to be permitted to perish so as to manifest his justice.

The only way I can think to reconcile this with God's universal salvific will, is that God gives all sufficent grace to be saved in the end and gives all (who make it past the womb atleast) the particular efficacious graces for whatever particular good acts each man performs. Also, by drawing a distinction between God's will and God's providence; as predestination is the result of his providence and not his will.

Arvinger:

--- Quote from: Xavier on July 16, 2021, 01:56:51 AM ---Hi Justin. I'm a Thomist too. I believe in APM Predestination but PPD (post previsa demerita /after foreseen demerits) Reprobation. Predestination is logically prior to merits because it causes them. But reprobation is  posterior to demerits because imo it is on account of them. So predestination is gratuitous, in advance of any foreseen merit, but reprobation is deserved, strictly on account of foreseen demerits.

--- End quote ---

This is impossible - APM predestination and PPD reprobation are contradictory. This is because APM predestination leaves out some people assuring they will be damned and it is certain APD (if they are not elected, they are necessarily reprobated, for there is no third option). Their lack of election APM makes their salvation metaphysically impossible, before God can reprobate them PPD. In other words, lack of election necessarily results in damnation - therefore, if election is APM, damnation is necessarily APD. Which is why the Thomist predestination is in its essence same as the Calvinist one.

Michael Wilson:
Fr. Most would explain it this way: APM, God conditionally wills all men to be saved ( Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth."1 Timothy 2:4); and gives all men the means to indeed be saved; however, P.P.M. As not all men will co-operate with this grace and will turn away from God. He then rewards or punishes men according to their co-operation or lack of with His Grace.
The key component is the "Infallible efficacy of diving grace" if men cannot refuse God's grace, then APM is both un-conditional for salvation and damnation; because God only gives His grace to those He wills to save. This evidently is in contradiction with the doctrine of God's universal salvific will. However is man has the ability to refuse God's grace as per the Council of Trent, then the failure to attain salvation is man's fault and not God's.
If you break the Thomistic system down ultimately it holds that God does not will all men to be saved, because God does not give to all men "efficacious grace" that would enable them to actually co-operate with God's call and therefore will inevitably will be lost.
Here is your Syllogism:
Premise 1: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, wills all men to be saved.True, but it's God's "conditional will"
Premise 2: God, antecedent to any merit or demerit, predestines some, but not all, men to be saved.contradicts God's universal will; therefore, False.
Premise 3: God's act of predestination is an act of his will.True, if "conditional will" False if "absolute will"
Therefore, in accordance with premise 2 and 3, God, antecedent to any merits or demerits, wills some, but not all, men to be saved.False, contradicts Church teaching, on God's universal salvific will.
However, this contradicts premise 1.True, so must discard #2&3
Therefore, either premise 2 is false or premise 1 is false.Premise #1 is Church teaching therefore True.
However, premise 1 is known to be absolutely certain, as it is a de fide teaching of the Church.
Conclusion: Premise 2 (Election APM) must be false. [Correct. There is no way around it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version