Thomist theory of grace and predestination

[LouisIX]

The Thomist equivalent of the atheist complaint of the "Courtier's Reply".  For my response, I'll use the unforgettable words of Judge Judy: Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

... I suggest that each poster who disputes the system study the explanations of the famous Thomists who explicate this appararent conflict beginning with the very foundational principles of Aristotelian potency and act all the way to the mysterious solution to this dilemma.

We already know what they say - Banez, Garrigou-Lagrange, et al., get quoted all the time on these types of threads - and their "solution" is to take refuge in "mystery".

For serious students who truly want to understand, not to disagree; who will study as though they don't already know, not as one who already knows it all; who don't have biases for or against Thomism, and so will embrace it if they find themselves to have misunderstood it; who don't care about their admitting they were wrong, but only want the truth--to them I suggest Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's "God: His Existence and His Nature." I recommend both volumes, but he brings the foundationsl principles of Thomism to their pinnacle resolution of this dilemma in Volume II.

Ah yes; everyone who disagrees with Thomism suffers from a moral defect.  But there is no possibility Thomists might be wrong, dogmatic, misunderstanding things, and/or motivated by other factors than pure desire for the truth, now is there?  There is no possibility Thomists can be, at bottom, not humble searchers for truth, but ideologues?

The blind spot of Thomism is that ontology (which Thomism does a fine job with) does not suffice for a complete description of reality.  Hence it is unable to really deal with this issue.

In a word, Non Nobis is completely right regarding the mechanical terminology: God determines the will to determine itself to good. Exactly what this means, however, requires a lot of unpacking, and after reading this entire thread, no one has even brought up or mentioned the topics necessary for this unpacking.

The burden is on you and Non Nobis to do such unpacking, since you are the ones making the claim.  And I will put it to you that you can't even get past the starting gate.  So let's start with exactly what it is for God to "determine" something, ontologically speaking.  Is this an accident of God?  No, because God is pure act and therefore has no accidents. OK, so it is God's essence?  Well that would make God's determining something necessary, which would make that something necessary.  A "Cambridge property" of God?  But that would be something outside of God.

The very idea that it is possible is rejected out of hand as a contradiction.

Because it clearly is.  If God determines the will to something, then the will is already determined to that something (meaning it "must" will that something), and therefore cannot be determined again either by itself or by any other thing - that is a contradiction in terms.

How God determines the will to determine itself is extremely complex and involves a synthesis of a variety of Aristotelian principles. No one can reject the theory without at least addressing the mechanics, which has yet to be done here. And if it's not done here, I would venture to guess it's because they aren't known.

If you were serious, you'd show how this is done, instead of excoriating everyone else for their supposed lack of knowledge.  Instead, you use the m.o. of an ideologue.

Again, that is why I urge the sincere student, who doesn't care about what he thought but only cares about what he will think, to avail himself of the numerous sources that explicate this mysterious causal subordination. Then bring that knowledge here. Until then, we can't really get anywhere.

Ah, but "mysterious causal subordination" is different than "determination".

There's more than one sense of "determination" according to the Thomist. It does no good to speaking of the term univocally when that is not how it is employed.

But, the real question here is whether you actually wish to engage in a discussion on these issues or whether your intention is solely to win an argument.

[Quaremerepulisti]

There's more than one sense of "determination" according to the Thomist. It does no good to speaking of the term univocally when that is not how it is employed.

I wasn't speaking of the term univocally.  And as you well know, I have said many times I accept that attributes of humans are only analogically and not univocally related to attributes of God.

But you don't bother to show how this is even relevant to the topic at hand (nor can you, since it isn't). 

But, the real question here is whether you actually wish to engage in a discussion on these issues or whether your intention is solely to win an argument.

There must be something (intellectually, morally, or both) wrong with anyone who opposes baroque Thomism on any point.  And that's why it degenerated into an ideology. 

Actually, adherence to Thomism seems all too often to be an excuse for intellectual laziness.

[LouisIX]

Are you open to the idea that Thomism could have something meaningful to say or to add, nuance, or perhaps even slightly adjust your views? If not, you're proselytizing here rather than engaging in real and sincere discussion.

I honestly enjoy discussing this topic with you when we're actually doing so sincerely because you have interesting and sometimes penetrating objections. Though I disagree with those objections, I find that kind of intellectual dialogue to be fecund. But, to be completely honest with you, it seems as though you feel personally slighted by Thomism itself, and that makes it nearly impossible to engage with you on a consistent basis.

[Gardener]

What makes you think he hasn't already looked at those nuances and found them lacking?

Because he objects? Perhaps he objects after already having known the reply to the objection, finding it insufficient?

I think this is what he means by the problem of the Thomists' objection to being objected to. It's like an Indie Rock band fan. "You don't like Jimmy Broom and the Dust Pans?! You must not have heard enough of their stuff." Or, "you obviously have no taste in music." Etc.

[Non Nobis]

Whenever people speak of "the Thomists" I tend to  think "St. Thomas", since he does seem to say similar things 

I don't know when I'll know enough to say St. Thomas' nuances are lacking.

[Gardener]

Fr. William Most's book makes the argument that St. Thomas never actually came to a coherent conclusion on the issue of Predestination and Grace. The idea of "Thomism" = Thomas is not correct. There are Thomists who disagree on Thomistic principles' conclusions.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Are you open to the idea that Thomism could have something meaningful to say or to add, nuance, or perhaps even slightly adjust your views? If not, you're proselytizing here rather than engaging in real and sincere discussion.

Yes, I am open.  But I will put that back on you.  Are you open to the idea that I (or others) could have meaningful things to say or add or nuance that would cause you to perhaps slightly adjust your views?  In my experience, Thomists are never open to the idea they might be wrong on anything, and ascribe their opponents' objections to ignorance or bad will, and too often make the most specious and intellectually unsound arguments in support.  This is proselytization and in fact the m.o. of an ideologue - exactly the same as leftist politicians and materialist evolutionist scientists.  And, in my opinion, it's why things ground to a halt, for a certain willingness to "think outside the box" is necessary for progress.

But, to be completely honest with you, it seems as though you feel personally slighted by Thomism itself, and that makes it nearly impossible to engage with you on a consistent basis.

And just why shouldn't I feel that way, I would like to know?  It delayed my conversion to the Church for quite some time.  And I am sorry but this is not some nonsense like Protestant claims that Catholics "worship statues" and "forbid to marry", etc.  It was at least reasonable for me to think as I did.  Maybe my experience is somewhat unique, but I am sure I am not the only one.  Just think about how this looks to a prospective convert.

(Glossy brochure, front page) Come into the Church!  God so loved the world He sent His only-begotten Son into it to die for my sins and yours and everyone else's!  Repent and be saved, for the kingdom of God is at hand!  And He gives Himself at every Mass both as Victim and in Holy Communion. (Certain conditions apply.)

(The fine print, at the bottom of the third page) *Salvation is something chosen by God prior to any actions of man, and "negatively reprobates" the majority of mankind, that is, does not choose them for Heaven prior to any action of theirs, which means (for those who reach the use of reason) an eternity in Hell.  This He does in order to better manifest His justice, and to better manifest His mercy and love towards the small minority who are saved.  But God is still Love, for He still wills some good to everyone.

The response: False advertising.  Your "God Who is Love" is a fraud.  He does not will the good of men for their sake, but only for His, even at the cost of the vast majority of men spending eternity in torment.  And that is not love, that is using others for one's own good; love means willing another's good for his sake, not for yours.  Granted human love is only analogically equivalent to God's, but this is using the term in an equivocal sense.

The salesman's indignant retort: How dare you find fault with God???  Can He not do as He wishes or pleases???  And don't you realize we are all "children of wrath" with no opportunity whatsoever for salvation except for the Atoning Death of Christ???

The response: Sorry, I will not worship a tyrant.  Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it other than a pig, and merely rendering obeisance to a tyrant doesn't make it a relationship of love.  If God expects my love and service it must be because He has loved me first, in the true sense of the word, and not in name only.

[LouisIX]

What makes you think he hasn't already looked at those nuances and found them lacking?

Because he objects? Perhaps he objects after already having known the reply to the objection, finding it insufficient?

I think this is what he means by the problem of the Thomists' objection to being objected to. It's like an Indie Rock band fan. "You don't like Jimmy Broom and the Dust Pans?! You must not have heard enough of their stuff." Or, "you obviously have no taste in music." Etc.

It's not that he objects at all. It's that he objects by stating that Thomists are "lazy" or half-witted. He usually doesn't actually get into the speculative territory of his disagreement. He places obstacles to that kind of discussion before it begins.

[LouisIX]

Fr. William Most's book makes the argument that St. Thomas never actually came to a coherent conclusion on the issue of Predestination and Grace. The idea of "Thomism" = Thomas is not correct. There are Thomists who disagree on Thomistic principles' conclusions.

Fr. Most has some interesting objections but it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that ST I, q. 23 involves no coherent conclusions.

The vast majority of the theological tradition disagrees with that, even if they think St. Thomas is wrong. In fact, I can't think of another theologian who posits that St. Thomas doesn't really have a theology of predestination. Moreover, he treats it throughout his corpus. It pops up explicitly in De veritate and numerous Scriptural commentaries, and it pops up implicitly at least in ScG and De malo.

There's even a fairly ubiquitous idea (to which I subscribe) that St. Thomas' views of grace and premotion develop and change fairly significantly from his earlier writing in the Scriptum to the last third of his corpus.

[Quaremerepulisti]

What makes you think he hasn't already looked at those nuances and found them lacking?

Because he objects? Perhaps he objects after already having known the reply to the objection, finding it insufficient?

I think this is what he means by the problem of the Thomists' objection to being objected to. It's like an Indie Rock band fan. "You don't like Jimmy Broom and the Dust Pans?! You must not have heard enough of their stuff." Or, "you obviously have no taste in music." Etc.

It's not that he objects at all. It's that he objects by stating that Thomists are "lazy" or half-witted. He usually doesn't actually get into the speculative territory of his disagreement. He places obstacles to that kind of discussion before it begins.

Oh bullshit.

[Gardener]

Fr. William Most's book makes the argument that St. Thomas never actually came to a coherent conclusion on the issue of Predestination and Grace. The idea of "Thomism" = Thomas is not correct. There are Thomists who disagree on Thomistic principles' conclusions.

Fr. Most has some interesting objections but it seems a bit of a stretch to claim that ST I, q. 23 involves no coherent conclusions.

The vast majority of the theological tradition disagrees with that, even if they think St. Thomas is wrong. In fact, I can't think of another theologian who posits that St. Thomas doesn't really have a theology of predestination. Moreover, he treats it throughout his corpus. It pops up explicitly in De veritate and numerous Scriptural commentaries, and it pops up implicitly at least in ScG and De malo.

There's even a fairly ubiquitous idea (to which I subscribe) that St. Thomas' views of grace and premotion develop and change fairly significantly from his earlier writing in the Scriptum to the last third of his corpus.

Fr. Most's claim isn't that he never addresses things, but that he seems to have two different approaches (for example the ST for approaching it from one perspective and SCG, Etc. for the other perspective). Fr. Most contends St. Thomas never offers a plainly stated thesis which circles the Salvific Will (one of the Timothy's, cannot recall right now) with the ideas of how he approaches Romans (borrowing from the Augustinian exegesis).

I was under the impression you'd read the book, since you've poopooed his metaphysics before.

Fr. Most uses the same Thomistic texts to reach conclusions disparate from Banezian adherents. If Thomas was so clear, how is this possible?

[John Lamb]

And just why shouldn't I feel that way, I would like to know?  It delayed my conversion to the Church for quite some time.  And I am sorry but this is not some nonsense like Protestant claims that Catholics "worship statues" and "forbid to marry", etc.  It was at least reasonable for me to think as I did.  Maybe my experience is somewhat unique, but I am sure I am not the only one.  Just think about how this looks to a prospective convert.

(Glossy brochure, front page) Come into the Church!  God so loved the world He sent His only-begotten Son into it to die for my sins and yours and everyone else's!  Repent and be saved, for the kingdom of God is at hand!  And He gives Himself at every Mass both as Victim and in Holy Communion. (Certain conditions apply.)

(The fine print, at the bottom of the third page) *Salvation is something chosen by God prior to any actions of man, and "negatively reprobates" the majority of mankind, that is, does not choose them for Heaven prior to any action of theirs, which means (for those who reach the use of reason) an eternity in Hell.  This He does in order to better manifest His justice, and to better manifest His mercy and love towards the small minority who are saved.  But God is still Love, for He still wills some good to everyone.

The response: False advertising.  Your "God Who is Love" is a fraud.  He does not will the good of men for their sake, but only for His, even at the cost of the vast majority of men spending eternity in torment.  And that is not love, that is using others for one's own good; love means willing another's good for his sake, not for yours.  Granted human love is only analogically equivalent to God's, but this is using the term in an equivocal sense.

The salesman's indignant retort: How dare you find fault with God???  Can He not do as He wishes or pleases???  And don't you realize we are all "children of wrath" with no opportunity whatsoever for salvation except for the Atoning Death of Christ???

The response: Sorry, I will not worship a tyrant.  Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it other than a pig, and merely rendering obeisance to a tyrant doesn't make it a relationship of love.  If God expects my love and service it must be because He has loved me first, in the true sense of the word, and not in name only.

I think I understand your concerns here. I admit that it is very difficult to explain the doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas on predestination while avoiding making God seem like a capricious monster who chooses favourites and damns the rest, but I think that's more due to the complexity of their teaching (mirroring the complexity of the problem itself, which must be one of the most complex in all theology), than to its falsity or inadequacy. Molinist and Semi-Pelagian explanations of predestination (I am not accusing Molinism of being Semi-Pelagian) avoid making God seem malevolent for picking favourites or allowing millions to suffer in hell forever, but they seem to give man, through his free-will, a certain power over God which seems not to agree with God's being.

Quote from a Thomist blog:

The Catholic Church teaches that there is positive predestination (to salvation) and that man does have free will (i.e., free will was not lost as a consequence of original sin). Predestination, then, means that God chose from all eternity that certain men will USE THEIR FREE WILL to cooperate with His grace and thus merit (in a certain sense) their salvation. But the Church condemns double predestination (which includes predestination to eternal damnation) and teaches that those who are damned are damned because they simply chose to reject God, not because He has predestined them to be damned. In short, the Catholic Church has: single predestination with free will and merit. But this still allows different Catholic theologians to explain how these three facts (single predestination, free will, and merit) fit together:

Thus, Banez affirms everything that the Church teaches (predestination, free will, and merit), but he adds this explanation, taken from St. Thomas Aquinas: God, stands outside of history and is not part of history, is the one who causes all things and, therefore, for a free act to exist, God must cause it. This is the famous "premotion." Thus, all of our acts are BOTH free AND caused by God, and this is not a contradiction. So, in short, Banez has: single predestination with free will, merit, and divine premotion.

Whereas Molina affirms everything that the Church teaches (BOTH predestination AND free will), but he adds this explanation: God is the cause of all things, except man's free will: He only cooperates with free will. But he cooperates with their will because he has a 'scientia media' (i.e., pretty much an 'educated guess') of their future choices: that is, he does not cause human beings to perform salutary acts (acts that will get them to heaven), but only knows who will choose salvation and because of this He cooperates with them to lead them infallibly to salvation. Predestination, then, consists merely in foreknowing the salvation of certain men, and not in infallibly causing their salvation. So, in short, Molina has: single predestination with free will, merit, and mere concurrence.

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/predestination-is-not-in-itself.html

I think the complex part is:

God chose from all eternity that certain men will USE THEIR FREE WILL to cooperate with His grace and thus merit (in a certain sense) their salvation.
(predestination to salvation)

Corollary:

God chose from all eternity that certain men will NOT use their free will to cooperate with His grace and thus merit (in a certain sense) their damnation.
(negative reprobation)

The mystery / philosophical complexity is: how can God choose something, while leaving man's free-will intact? How God can decide that a man will use His free-will in a certain way, without impeding upon its freedom?

But this refutes the objection against Thomism that it makes God out to be a capricious monster, because it's not that God is choosing favourites and damning the rest without any regard to their free-will / merits; rather, it's that God has preordained that some men will use their free-will to damn themselves; so the malice in their will and not in God's.
But the question is: why didn't God preordain it so that more men, or all men, would freely co-operate with His grace and merit salvation? It's this question that has only one answer, the one St. Paul gives: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!"

[Kreuzritter]

I've always been more partial to Molinism than Thomism as a truly successful attempt to reconcile God's nature and human free will. I think every other explanation ultimately fails by robbing God of His power or reducing free will to a mere word. But then I've always greatly preferred Plato to that crypto-materialist Aristotle too.

[Kreuzritter]

God, stands outside of history and is not part of history, is the one who causes all things and, therefore, for a free act to exist, God must cause it. This is the famous "premotion." Thus, all of our acts are BOTH free AND caused by God, and this is not a contradiction.

In what sense? In the sense I read it, it is a contradiction, and simply saying it is not so doesn't prove that it isn't. Will is emphatically not FREE in any sense I can think of if it designed by its creator to make pre-determined choices or is not causa sui in its own acts. As I said, all of the theories besides Molinism which err on the side of God's power reduce "freedom" to a mere word. Yes, one can talk of square circles too, but the term is pure nonsense. What do you even mean by "free" then? I'm with Wittgenstein in seeing a horrible game of semantics in much of man's philosophical discourse, and I'm seeing it here. Saying "it's a mystery" or somethign of the sort is not going to cut it in philosophy. Yes, yes, something like the Trinity is a "mystery", but one ousia in three hypostatses is a statement with well-defined terms that do not imply a contradiction to the intellect that needs to be explaiend away by an appeal to "mystery" cloaked in profound-soundign language. Mysteries don't trump the principle of the excluded middle.

Regardless, it's precisely BECAUSE god is omnipotent that he has the power to create such a mysterious thing as a will that is truly free and precisely BECAUSE he is omniscient that he has the foreknowledge of every potential act of thsi free will to organise His creation around it in such a way as to achieve His ends.

[LouisIX]

Are you open to the idea that Thomism could have something meaningful to say or to add, nuance, or perhaps even slightly adjust your views? If not, you're proselytizing here rather than engaging in real and sincere discussion.

Yes, I am open.  But I will put that back on you.  Are you open to the idea that I (or others) could have meaningful things to say or add or nuance that would cause you to perhaps slightly adjust your views?  In my experience, Thomists are never open to the idea they might be wrong on anything, and ascribe their opponents' objections to ignorance or bad will, and too often make the most specious and intellectually unsound arguments in support.  This is proselytization and in fact the m.o. of an ideologue - exactly the same as leftist politicians and materialist evolutionist scientists.  And, in my opinion, it's why things ground to a halt, for a certain willingness to "think outside the box" is necessary for progress.

I am always open to the idea that I may be wrong on any issue which is not de fide, and St. Thomas' views on grace and predestination are not explicitly de fide. Moreover, I have (I think) complimented you numerous times on these threads as giving penetrating and important objections. If I wasn't interested in what you had to say, I wouldn't continue to engage with you.

But, to be completely honest with you, it seems as though you feel personally slighted by Thomism itself, and that makes it nearly impossible to engage with you on a consistent basis.

And just why shouldn't I feel that way, I would like to know?  It delayed my conversion to the Church for quite some time.  And I am sorry but this is not some nonsense like Protestant claims that Catholics "worship statues" and "forbid to marry", etc.  It was at least reasonable for me to think as I did.  Maybe my experience is somewhat unique, but I am sure I am not the only one.  Just think about how this looks to a prospective convert.

(Glossy brochure, front page) Come into the Church!  God so loved the world He sent His only-begotten Son into it to die for my sins and yours and everyone else's!  Repent and be saved, for the kingdom of God is at hand!  And He gives Himself at every Mass both as Victim and in Holy Communion. (Certain conditions apply.)

(The fine print, at the bottom of the third page) *Salvation is something chosen by God prior to any actions of man, and "negatively reprobates" the majority of mankind, that is, does not choose them for Heaven prior to any action of theirs, which means (for those who reach the use of reason) an eternity in Hell.  This He does in order to better manifest His justice, and to better manifest His mercy and love towards the small minority who are saved.  But God is still Love, for He still wills some good to everyone.

The response: False advertising.  Your "God Who is Love" is a fraud.  He does not will the good of men for their sake, but only for His, even at the cost of the vast majority of men spending eternity in torment.  And that is not love, that is using others for one's own good; love means willing another's good for his sake, not for yours.  Granted human love is only analogically equivalent to God's, but this is using the term in an equivocal sense.

Suffice it for now to state that, this isn't false advertising. It's a difference between Catholics regarding the approach to theology and catechesis. The implication that you're making is that Thomists intentionally deceive people as to what they believe. I don't think that that is true.