Thomism anyone?

[Guest Aluigi]

Okay, I wanna explore what ICTHUS's problem with Catholic soteriology here through discussion. You used to propose Thomism here on Phatmass (Catholic Teaching)
[b]Posted on: Sep 27 2003, 10:24 AM[/b]
[quote] Okie day, I shall first explain Thomist soteriology as I see it. Like Calvinist thought, it can follow the acronym TULIP.

Total inability - mans free will is damaged and is totally incapable of having faith in God unless God first gives him the grace to do so. (I believe that Canon III of the Council of Trent on Justification proves this, as well as various scriptural proofs)

Unconditional Election - God unconditionally elects those who will be saved everlastingly. Note that Catholics are forbidden to affirm double predestination, i.e. that God actively predestines those who will be eternally reprobate, to reprobation since that would contradict the will of God that all be saved.

Instead, He simply passes over and does not elect those who will be reprobate, leaving them to beaver dam themselves by their own free choice.

An example might be drawn. The manager of a cricket team might have 30 players available to him to call up to play in a match but he only selects 12 of them. The rest are "benched".

Limited efficacy of the atonement - the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind, but will only be efficacious (i.e. will only bring about everlasting salvation) for the Elect.

Intrinsically efficacious grace - because of the kind of grace that it is, grace that enables a person to persevere until the end will always result in final salvation, because of the kind of grace that it is.

Perseverance of the Saints - all those who are elected unto final salvation (some are elected to be saved in the first place, but then to lose their salvation) will persevere until the end.[/quote]

Let's start with a series of questions:

[b]This question is open to all to answer, i especially want Catholic thoughts on this one[/b]
Does this quote aggree or disagree with Catholic soteriology, specifically that of Thomas Aquinas?
If possible, provide evidence from Catholic Teaching to support your answer
[b]The following questions are only for ICTHUS to answer[/b]
If you answered yes to the previous question, what precisely do you disagree with now?

If you answered no, what is your evidence from Catholic Teaching and from Thomas Aquinas's teaching?

If you answered yes, what is your scriptural evidence for the point you disagree with?

I only want other Catholics to respond here by answering the first question, other than that: NO ONE but me and ICTHUS please (if the moderators so will it, i would like this enforced, but if you just wanna be lazy that's fine too).

So, I recall we before had a "Thomism" against "Mollinism" debate (I was Aloysius then)... here I guess I'd like to have a "Thomism" against "Calvinism" debate. I am leaning more towards Thomism right now, though I can't exactly affirm that quote. Okay, I will then explain Thomism [i]as I see it[/i] relative to what you said as you saw it before:

[u]"Total inability"[/u]- on one's own a person cannot come to faith in God. their works increase their faith. God grants grace to those through whom it has material (faith) to work with. Any good work done is set into motion by God, but man always has the ability to choose a good or a bad act. You were thus somewhat wrong about Thomism being about [u]total[/u] inability. From the Summa:
[quote]I answer that, There are two ways of fulfilling the commandments of the Law. The first regards the substance of the works, as when a man does works of justice, fortitude, and of other virtues. And in this way man in the state of perfect nature could fulfil all the commandments of the Law; otherwise he would have been unable to sin in that state, since to sin is nothing else than to transgress the Divine commandments. But in the state of corrupted nature man cannot fulfil all the Divine commandments without healing grace. Secondly, the commandments of the law can be fulfilled, not merely as regards the substance of the act, but also as regards the mode of acting, i.e. their being done out of charity. And in this way, neither in the state of perfect nature, nor in the state of corrupt nature can man fulfil the commandments of the law without grace. Hence, Augustine (De Corrupt. et Grat. ii) having stated that "without grace men can do no good whatever," adds: "Not only do they know by its light what to do, but by its help they do lovingly what they know." Beyond this, in both states they need the help of God's motion in order to fulfil the commandments, as stated above (2,3).[/quote]
[u]"Unconditional Election"[/u] - God unconditionally elects those who will be saved everlastingly. I can accept this with some clarification from the Summa:
[quote]I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (22, 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (22, 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.[/quote]
for the predestination thing, see the summa:
[quote]I answer that, Divine providence imposes necessity upon some things; not upon all, as some formerly believed. For to providence it belongs to order things towards an end. Now after the divine goodness, which is an extrinsic end to all things, the principal good in things themselves is the perfection of the universe; which would not be, were not all grades of being found in things. Whence it pertains to divine providence to produce every grade of being. And thus it has prepared for some things necessary causes, so that they happen of necessity; for others contingent causes, that they may happen by contingency, according to the nature of their proximate causes.[/quote]
So reprobation is by providence which is an action of God but an action of God's contigent providence. Election is providence by God's active plans, reprobation is providence by God's plans through contingency (see Aquinas's explanation)
[u]"Limited efficacy of the atonement" [/u]- the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind, but will only be efficacious (i.e. will only bring about everlasting salvation) for the Elect. I can agree with some clarificatrion from the Summa:
[quote]I answer that, There is a twofold efficient agency--namely, the principal and the instrumental. Now the principal efficient cause of man's salvation is God. But since Christ's humanity is the "instrument of the Godhead," as stated above (43, 2), therefore all Christ's actions and sufferings operate instrumentally in virtue of His Godhead for the salvation of men. Consequently, then, Christ's Passion accomplishes man's salvation efficiently.
Reply to Objection 2. Christ's Passion, although corporeal, has yet a spiritual effect from the Godhead united: and therefore it secures its efficacy by spiritual contact--namely, by faith and the sacraments of faith, as the Apostle says (Rm. 3:25): "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood."
Reply to Objection 3. Christ's Passion, according as it is compared with His Godhead, operates in an efficient manner: but in so far as it is compared with the will of Christ's soul it acts in a meritorious manner: considered as being within Christ's very flesh, it acts by way of satisfaction, inasmuch as we are liberated by it from the debt of punishment; while inasmuch as we are freed from the servitude of guilt, it acts by way of redemption: but in so far as we are reconciled with God it acts by way of sacrifice, as shall be shown farther on (49). [/quote]
[u]"Intrinsically efficacious grace"[/u] - because of the kind of grace that it is, grace that enables a person to persevere until the end will always result in final salvation, because of the kind of grace that it is. Agreed with some clarification from the Summa:
[quote]I answer that, Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we have said above (5, 5). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends," and the like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians [Hypognosticon iii, among the spurious works of St. Augustine].
Reply to Objection 1. Man, by his will, does works meritorious of everlasting life; but as Augustine says, in the same book, for this it is necessary that the will of man should be prepared with grace by God.
Reply to Objection 2. As the gloss upon Rm. 6:23, "The grace of God is life everlasting," says, "It is certain that everlasting life is meter to good works; but the works to which it is meted, belong to God's grace." And it has been said (4), that to fulfil the commandments of the Law, in their due way, whereby their fulfilment may be meritorious, requires grace.
Reply to Objection 3. This objection has to do with the natural end of man. Now human nature, since it is nobler, can be raised by the help of grace to a higher end, which lower natures can nowise reach; even as a man who can recover his health by the help of medicines is better disposed to health than one who can nowise recover it, as the Philosopher observes (De Coelo ii, 12). [/quote]
[u]"Perseverance of the Saints" [/u]- all those who are elected unto final salvation (some are elected to be saved in the first place, but then to lose their salvation[i][see the Summa Quotes above about predestination and providence][/i]) will persevere until the end. Agreed with some clarification from the Summa:
[quote]Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (De Persev. i) that no one can lose perseverance; whereas one can lose the other virtues. Therefore perseverance is greater than all the other virtues. Now a principal virtue is greater than its part. Therefore perseverance is not a part of a virtue, but is itself a principal virtue.
On the contrary, Tully (De Invent. Rhet. ii) reckons perseverance as a part of fortitude.
I answer that, As stated above (123, 2; I-II, 61, 3,4), a principal virtue is one to which is principally ascribed something that lays claim to the praise of virtue, inasmuch as it practices it in connection with its own matter, wherein it is most difficult of accomplishment. On accordance with this it has been stated (123, 2) that fortitude is a principal virtue, because it observes firmness in matters wherein it is most difficult to stand firm, namely in dangers of death. Wherefore it follows of necessity that every virtue which has a title to praise for the firm endurance of something difficult must be annexed to fortitude as secondary to principal virtue. Now the endurance of difficulty arising from delay in accomplishing a good work gives perseverance its claim to praise: nor is this so difficult as to endure dangers of death. Therefore perseverance is annexed to fortitude, as secondary to principal virtue. [/quote]

Okay, so I know you're busy and such but I would find this discussion interesting. All I ask now is that you answer the Questions (ICTHUS) [and that Catholics answer the first question only] and if you have the time resond to what you now disagree with about what I've explained about Thomism (if the error is that I'm wrong about Thomism, prove it with Aquinas if you have time; if the error is that you disagree then if you have time I'd like to see the scriptural backing of your disagreement)

Also, I believe that I can clarify most explanations of soteriology made by Mollinists in such a way that reconciles them with Scripture and that they would agree with to show that the wording of mollinist explanations is simply confusing, the belief is not necessarily wrong (nor is it necessarily opposed to Aquinas as much as you made it seem before)

Whenever you have time...
-Pax-[B]

Edited December 16, 2004 by Aluigi

[Benedict]

Jimmy Akin's Thomist 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).

www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm

[IcePrincessKRS]

Pssst... Isn't Icthus away for a couple weeks visiting family?

[Guest Aluigi]

I'll bump it when he gets back then. just gettin the thought together.

[p0lar_bear]

Just for fun...This is from [i]Disputed Questions on Truth[/i] ([i]Quaestio Disputata de Veritate[/i]), Question 7, Article 7. For some reason I don't have the actual title, but Question 7 is on the Book of Life. Article 7 is something like 'On whether the book of life without qualification can be said to refer to the life of grace and not only the life of glory'


[quote][i]Difficulties:[/i]
It seems it does, for

1. As is evident from what Dionysius has written, what is in the effect is found in a nobler manner in the cause. Now, glory is the effect of grace. Consequently, the life of grace is more noble than the life of glory. Hence, the book of life concerns the life of grace more than it does the life of glory.

2. As mentioned earlier, the book of life is the enrollment of those who are predestined. But predestination, in general, is the preparation of grace and glory. Therefore, the book of life concerns, in general, the life of grace as well as the life of glory.

3. The book of life designates certain persons as citizens of that city in which there is life. But, just as some are made citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem through the life of glory, so some are made citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem through the life of glory, so some are made citizens of the church militant through the life of grace. Therefore, the book of life concerns the life of grace as well as the life of glory.

4. What is predicated of many is understood as predicated without qualification of that of which it is predicated first. Now, the life of grace is prior to the life of glory. Therefore, when the book of life is mentioned, it is understood as referring to the life of grace.

[i]To the Contrary[/i]:

1. One who is in the state of grace possesses the life of grace without qualification. His name, however, is not said to be written in the book of life without qualification; it is written there only in a certain respect, namely, in so far as he is in the state of grace. Therefore, the book of life is not concerned simply with the life of grace.

2. The end is more noble than the means to the end. But the life of glory is the end of grace. Therefore, it is more noble. Consequently, when used without qualification, life should be understood as referring to the life of glory. Hence, the book of life used without qualification is concerned only with the life of glory.

REPLY:

The [i]book of life [/i]means the enrollment of someone who will obtain life as a kind of reward and possession, for men of this sort are customarily enrolled in something. Now, a thing is said to be a possession, properly speaking, when it can be had at one'’ command; and such a thing has no defects. Consequently, the Philosopher says that knowledge had about God “is not a human possession” but divine, because only God knows Himself perfectly, while man’s knowledge of God is necessarily defective. Thus, life will be had as a possession when through life all the defects opposed to life are excluded. Now, this is what the life of glory does; it excludes all death, spiritual as well as physical, so that there remains not even the possibility of dying. The life of grace does not do this. Consequently, the book of life does not concern the life of grace without qualification, but only the life of glory.

[i]Answers to Difficulties[/i]:

1. Certain causes are more noble than their effects, namely, the efficient, formal, and final causes. Hence, what exists in these causes exists in a more noble manner than what exists in their effects. On the other hand, matter is lees perfect than its effects. Consequently, a thing exists in a material cause in a less noble manner than it does in the effect of this cause; for in matter it is incomplete and potential, but in the effect of the material cause its existence is actual.

Now, every disposition that prepares a subject to receive a perfection can be reduced to the material cause; and it is in this way that the grace is the cause of glory. Consequently, life exists in glory in a more noble way than it does in grace.

2. Predestination does not concern grace except as grace is ordained to glory. Hence, to be predestined belongs only to those who have final grace, upon which glory follows.

3. Although those who possess the life of grace are citizens of the Church militant, the condition of the Church militant is not one in which life is possessed fully, because the possibility of dying still remains. Hence, the book of life is not spoken of in relation to those individuals.

4. Although in the line of generation, the life of grace is prior to the life of glory, nevertheless, in the line of perfection the life of glory is prior—just as the end is prior to the means to the end (all italics in original).[/quote]

It seems clear from this that St. Thomas in no way believed in "the perseverence of the elect" as understood by Calvinists. Those who have not achieved the life of glory, i.e. heaven, are not considered to be in the book of life even if they are in the life of grace (i.e. in sanctifying grace). It is possible for them to loose the life of grace and therefore to loose the life of glory.

[Guest Aluigi]

bump as it appears ICTHUS has returned.

[ICTHUS]

Not for this thread. Not yet, anyway.

Doh...

Also, I'm not sure I'll be able to get to this, or if I do, when. When I get home to Kingston, my moderators responsibilities at CGR will take up a good deal of my time online, as I've just been nominated moderator of the Theology and Apologetics forums - two very high maintenance forums indeed.

[Benedict]

And yet the ICTHUS at CGR is not a Calvinist, nor even Protestant.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 23 2004, 11:22 PM'] And yet the ICTHUS at CGR is not a Calvinist, nor even Protestant. [/quote]
What are you referring to? I direct you to a discussion I'm participating in between Goldenchild and myself...in the Theo. forum.

[Benedict]

I used to post on CGR and the ICTHUS I know from there is Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic.

When I first joined these boards, I thought, upon seeing the name, that you were he.

[Guest Aluigi]

he was. he converted

yeah... crazy world where satan has that much power.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 25 2004, 02:13 PM'] I used to post on CGR and the ICTHUS I know from there is Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic.

When I first joined these boards, I thought, upon seeing the name, that you were he. [/quote]
When I was a Roman Catholic, I favored the Eastern-rite liturgy. It could've been me.

[quote]he was. he converted

yeah... crazy world where satan has that much power[/quote] So CGR is doing the work of Satan, converting people out of a works-based (at least in part) salvation system and into a salvation system that teaches salvation by grace?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 25 2004, 05:38 PM'] When I was a Roman Catholic, I favored the Eastern-rite liturgy. It could've been me.
[/quote]
Why did you favor the Eastern liturgy? What in particular did you like about it?

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - To truly appreciate the Byzantine Liturgy it is important to understand the differences between the theological tradition of the West and that of the East.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 25 2004, 10:13 PM'] Why did you favor the Eastern liturgy? What in particular did you like about it?

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - To truly appreciate the Byzantine Liturgy it is important to understand the differences between the theological tradition of the West and that of the East. [/quote]
The theological language used therein was far, far more beautiful than the Novus Ordo Missae. I suppose it was a hunger for the sacred.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 25 2004, 08:48 PM'] The theological language used therein was far, far more beautiful than the Novus Ordo Missae. I suppose it was a hunger for the sacred. [/quote]
That is interesting, and I agree the language of the Eastern liturgy is majestic, but even more impressive is the iconography. To really comprehend the nature of the Byzantine liturgy one needs to understand the nature of salvation as a participation in the divine nature, and not merely as some type of non-imputation of sins. The whole point of the incarnation is the elevation of man into the uncreated life of the Triune God.

Merry Christmas,
Todd