Compatability Of Calvinism And Thomistic Catholicism

[N/A Gone]

I am epistemologically repulsed by a calvinistic soteriology. Yet I see her that thomistic logic is compatable..any thoughts?



[quote]A Thomist version of TULIP:
T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).


There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic.

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm[/url]

Quote:
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in 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.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'"

Quote:
Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere

Quote:
According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect."

Quote:
This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists. Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation.

Quote:
Aquinas taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.'"

Quote:
The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught [/quote]

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1124518' date='Nov 20 2006, 10:20 PM']
I am epistemologically repulsed by a calvinistic soteriology. Yet I see her that thomistic logic is compatable..any thoughts?
[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=2"]Predestination: Reasons For Centuries-Old Impasse by Father William Most[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=3"]St Thomas on Actual Grace by Father William Most[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=146"]Predestination by Father William Most[/url]

[Aloysius]

I am a pretty staunch thomist, and it is not "compatible" with calvinism if for no other reason than the double-predestination vs. passive reprobation idea outlined above. double predestination is heretical and has been condemned as such. passive reprobation is a theme in some form or another through all Catholic and thus orthodox soteriologies. that is really the main heart of soteriological divisions; everything else is gravy and, while it matters a great deal towards theological understanding, can be debated amongst the orthodox.

I really like thomism and don't see any reason to be repulsed by it except with a post-enlightenment mindset, which of course is a problematic mindset. I mean, to disagree with it and be a mollinist or follow some other form of Catholic soteriology is fine; but there's no need to be repulsed at it: it is a system perfectly in keeping with the nature of God and man.

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1124561' date='Nov 20 2006, 10:59 PM']
I am a pretty staunch thomist, and it is not "compatible" with calvinism if for no other reason than the double-predestination vs. passive reprobation idea outlined above. double predestination is heretical and has been condemned as such. passive reprobation is a theme in some form or another through all Catholic and thus orthodox soteriologies. that is really the main heart of soteriological divisions; everything else is gravy and, while it matters a great deal towards theological understanding, can be debated amongst the orthodox.

I really like thomism and don't see any reason to be repulsed by it except with a post-enlightenment mindset, which of course is a problematic mindset. I mean, to disagree with it and be a mollinist or follow some other form of Catholic soteriology is fine; but there's no need to be repulsed at it: it is a system perfectly in keeping with the nature of God and man.
[/quote]

I think what the good reverend was objecting too was the impression that according to St Thomas God deserts us before we desert God. That is God does not will all men to be saved but selects the ones he wants to be saved and predestines them whilst damning others. This is the impression created by the passages he has cited from Jimmy Akin's piece (is that the right inference Rev?) However, this is not an accurate reading of St Thomas.

Obviously if God [u]really[/u] wanted everyone to be saved they would be saved. Just if God wanted everyone to grow feathers and quack like ducks that is precisely what would happen. From this we can conclude that God doesn't really want everyone to be saved but that doesn't mean we should conclude the opposite. It is merely a question that what God really wills happens instead and what God really wills is that people accept Him willingly, which means not everyone can be saved. What we see in St Thomas by my reading of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#6"]Ia.IIae.,109, 6[/url] is the view we see in St Augustine's early work De Libero Arbitrio that is that God's grace activates our faculty to respond to grace. Human beings need God to turn to God, there can be no first movement of the human will towards God, but once God has given the will the ability to move towards Him it is not required to do so by neccessity (only because God wills human freedom more than He wills universal salvation). Man can resist grace, he has the God given autonomy to do so, and it is this resistence that leads to his condemnation and damnation.

[phatcatholic]

u should hit up JeffCR07 about this too.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1124561' date='Nov 20 2006, 05:59 PM']
I am a pretty staunch thomist, and it is not "compatible" with calvinism if for no other reason than the double-predestination vs. passive reprobation idea outlined above. double predestination is heretical and has been condemned as such. passive reprobation is a theme in some form or another through all Catholic and thus orthodox soteriologies. that is really the main heart of soteriological divisions; everything else is gravy and, while it matters a great deal towards theological understanding, can be debated amongst the orthodox.

I really like thomism and don't see any reason to be repulsed by it except with a post-enlightenment mindset, which of course is a problematic mindset. I mean, to disagree with it and be a mollinist or follow some other form of Catholic soteriology is fine; but there's no need to be repulsed at it: it is a system perfectly in keeping with the nature of God and man.
[/quote]
:applause:

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='1124583' date='Nov 20 2006, 06:24 PM']
I think what the good reverend was objecting too was the impression that according to St Thomas God deserts us before we desert God. That is God does not will all men to be saved but selects the ones he wants to be saved and predestines them whilst damning others. This is the impression created by the passages he has cited from Jimmy Akin's piece (is that the right inference Rev?) However, this is not an accurate reading of St Thomas.

Obviously if God [u]really[/u] wanted everyone to be saved they would be saved. Just if God wanted everyone to grow feathers and quack like ducks that is precisely what would happen. From this we can conclude that God doesn't really want everyone to be saved but that doesn't mean we should conclude the opposite. It is merely a question that what God really wills happens instead and what God really wills is that people accept Him willingly, which means not everyone can be saved. What we see in St Thomas by my reading of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2109.htm#6"]Ia.IIae.,109, 6[/url] is the view we see in St Augustine's early work De Libero Arbitrio that is that God's grace activates our faculty to respond to grace. Human beings need God to turn to God, there can be no first movement of the human will towards God, but once God has given the will the ability to move towards Him it is not required to do so by neccessity (only because God wills human freedom more than He wills universal salvation). Man can resist grace, he has the God given autonomy to do so, and it is this resistence that leads to his condemnation and damnation.
[/quote]
:applause:

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1125688' date='Nov 22 2006, 12:11 AM']
u should hit up JeffCR07 about this too.
[/quote]
:applause:

[Guest JeffCR07]

JeffCR07 has nothing more to add to this discussion. He bows to the great work of Al and Myles. Great job guys!


PS - JeffCR07 also thinks that Myles might have a Dominican vocation, and that he should seriously consider following St. Thomas to the Order of Preachers, unless he's too good for St. Thomas....


PPS - JeffCR07 is having a really good time talking in third person

[Myles Domini]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1126000' date='Nov 22 2006, 04:28 PM']
JeffCR07 has nothing more to add to this discussion. He bows to the great work of Al and Myles. Great job guys!
PS - JeffCR07 also thinks that Myles might have a Dominican vocation, and that he should seriously consider following St. Thomas to the Order of Preachers, unless he's too good for St. Thomas....
PPS - JeffCR07 is having a really good time talking in third person
[/quote]

Myles thanks Laudate Dominum and JeffCR07 for their compliments. Myles also hopes that he does not give over the impression that he's too good for St Thomas. That would be bad. A Dominican vocation? Hmm... Third person...Myles agrees that its truly fun talking this way....

...IF YA SMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLA WHAT MYLES IS COOKIN'!!!

PS) Why is Jeff not Church Scholar yet? I was making a push for that before I stopped actively posting here and that was like four/five months ago!