Category: Summa Theologica

Welcome back readers to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re going through the doctrine of God right now in Christian thought. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. We’re on the topic of predestination and we’re going to be asking tonight if predestination is certain or not.

For Aquinas, predestination is absolutely certain. It will happen and it will happen infallibly. However, Aquinas at the same time believes that free will enters into this. He tells us that all that we’ve said about the will of God and the divine knowledge of God must be taken into consideration when discussing the topic. In other words, Aquinas is a believer that we must have the free will of man along with the sovereignty of God together. In many discussions today, we too often take one and then deny the other. In the doctrine of Aquinas, both must be taken together.

Aquinas does say that what will happen will happen of necessity however, but the freedom of man is the contingent aspect of it happening. Contingency is used to even bring about necessary events. What Pilate and Caiaphas did in nailing Jesus to the cross was done by their own free-will, but it was also necessary for our salvation that these events would take place.

Does the Bible say someone can lose a crown? If that happens, then it would seem that predestination is not certain. Aquinas says that if the crown is predestined, then that crown is not lost. However, it could be a crown got by the merits of grace. That is a gift and if it is lost, it is given to another in its place. Men can take the place of fallen angels and Gentiles the place of Jews, according to Aquinas.

But if God can will someone to be predestined, then can he not also will that person to not be predestined? I would hope that some readers of the blog regularly through our look at the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas will think back and be able to see the problem with such an idea.

When we spoke of the will of God, we said that the only thing that God wills necessarily is himself. He does not have to will anything else. Suppose however that he wills to create a universe, which in fact he did. If that is the case, since he has willed it, he necessarily wills it. He does not have to will things necessarily, but once he wills them, he wills them necessarily. It’s a fine distinction, but it is an important one.

Aquinas thus concludes that the one who is predestined is certain to reach the goal for which they were predestined for. My personal thought on this is to immediately think of Romans 8 and the comfort such a passage gives when it tells us that we will be conformed to the likeness of Christ. It is not a maybe. It is not a hope. (Although in the biblical sense, a hope can be spoken of as a sure thing) It is a certainty.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we’re going to be continuing our study of the doctrine of God. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. We’re looking at the doctrine of predestination in Aquinas now and we’ve seen how for Aquinas, the doctrine is more about God first than it is about salvation. Tonight, we’ll be discussing how Aquinas views the doctrine of predestination in regards to the question of if foreknowledge of merits is the cause of predestination.

What is being asked is if God saves us based on works that he knows that we are going to do in the future. Aquinas answers no. Now up front, I really don’t have a decided opinion on the topic of predestination, so at this point, I’m mainly giving Aquinas the way I see him. We must always remember that because we have great minds that we admire, that we do not have to agree with them on everything merely because they are great minds.

It is interesting how much though what Aquinas says reflects the current debate in the church on Calvinism. For instance, Aquinas says that man can be prepared for grace and this is included under predestination. If there is anything in man that is getting him to be predisposed towards God, that too is a work of grace and that is something that I do not believe we could deny. All good we have in our lives is from the grace of God, including our ability to follow Him.

Aquinas does say however that God could preordain to give someone glory because of the works that they have done. However, in order for them to do those works, they would have to be predestined prior to have the grace to even receive that glory that they have.

When asked for the reason why some are elected and some are not, Aquinas can point no further than the will of God. There are some that God elects to punishment and there are some that God elects to glory. This is the point that many of us in the debate, including myself, start to wonder. Of course, it could be that we have to resign ourselves to ignorance in some cases. In all cases, we should trust that the judge of all the Earth will do right.

When we as Christians come together to debate this issue, we must do our part to avoid views that are heretical as well. Calvinists, Arminians, and Molinists I count as Christians. My main beef normally is with those that are dogmatic on the issue to the point of seeing those that they disagree with as being less than Christians. Let us realize that even in Aquinas, we find some mystery in this doctrine as he can give no reason beyond the will of God. Is there something else in God’s will that we do not see that is the cause of election? Maybe. Are some of us colored against ideas or for ideas? We must be cautious and watch ourselves on this issue.

It’s not an easy topic and again, I can’t say I agree with Aquinas entirely yet, but I wish to simply present his view.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are continuing our dive into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the doctrine of God in Christian thought and tonight we’re going to be continuing our look at the doctrine of predestination. Our path has been guided by the Summa Theologica of the Medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we will be discussing if the predestined are elected by God.

Aquinas tells us that one reason we will an end is because we believe we have the ability or at least will have the ability to bring about an end. If you will to start going to school, it is because you believe you have the ability to finish school. If you will to marry, it is because (Or at least it should be!) you have the ability to love the person you have pledged your life to for better or for worse. (Sadly, too many couples have it be only for better.)

Thus, for some, according to Aquinas, God predestines their salvation. This is an act of election and love. It is love insofar as God wills this good to someone for their betterment. It is election insofar as it is this particular love that God happens to love.

Aquinas brings out an interesting idea on how the love of God differs in election for God in contrast to us. For us, we elect to love some people instead of others after all. I am married to one woman and in marrying that one woman, I said I would not marry other women and give a unique kind of love exclusively to her that I do not give to anyone else. Parents love their children more than they love the children of others. Friends have a unique bond of love between them that they do not give to the ordinary man on the street. Over this past month for instance, I have found out just how much some friends are supportive and I am incredibly grateful for that.

For us, the will to love does not cause good. It is because we see some good in someone instead that we are inspired to love that someone. We believe that there is something in that person that is worthy of the kind of love that we wish to give them. Based on a prior good, we offer love.

The reverse is true in the case of God. It is his will to love them that is the cause of goodness in them. God does not love us firstly because we are good. He loves us firstly because HE is good. Thus, love precedes election and election then precedes predestination. Let us remember that many times in the Bible, we are told that God does things for his name’s sake.

The love of God is not like the love we ourselves have. We love because of goods in people. God loves because of the good that is in Him. We ought to seek to mirror this love as much as possible however. The more we truly love someone, the more we will shape them into the image of God.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome to Deeper Waters where we are continuing our dive into the ocean of truth. We’ve been studying the Christian doctrine of God and we’re on the topic of predestination. As we have seen, predestination is more about the nature of God than it is about the nature of salvation. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas which can be read at NewAdvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to be looking at the question of reprobation.

“A loving God would never send anyone to Hell.” We’ve all heard it before. There are alternatives to such an idea. The first is universalism. This was a view that was held by Origen. In the end, all would be saved. The second view is annihilationism. This is the view that the lost will not go to hell and be there for the rest of time, but rather that they will eventually be destroyed and “perish.”

These views are nothing new. They were around in the days of Aquinas. There is nothing new under the sun. In fact, the very first objection against the view that God reprobates some people is that God is a God of love. If God loves every man, then he would not reprobate anyone.

However, because God loves every man, it does not follow that God wills every good come to every man. Some men are single and some are married and strong Christians come in both forms. Paul was likely single. Peter was not. It does not follow that God loved one more than the other in that he allowed one to be in one state and another in another.

I would contend in fact that Hell is really for the good of the ones who wish to avoid God. God grants them their desire. For such people, Heaven would be Hell. We find that hard to imagine since we desire to see God, but if you live your life in hatred of God and animosity towards him, you have no desire to constantly be in his presence.

However, I also am open to an idea that Heaven and Hell more describe relations than anything else, much akin to Lewis’s view in The Great Divorce. In that case, there is one place people end up, in the manifest presence of God. To those who love God, this is Heaven. To those who do not, it is Hell. However, I see no reason to think that all will be saved and enjoy the presence of God forever regardless.

As for annihiliation, the problem with this is that too many Scriptures do speak of a reality of suffering after this life and placed alongside of the eternal life of the blessed. It is my view philosophically that God does not destroy that which is in his image for that which is in his image is good. I do not even believe he destroys the devil for the devil has some goodness in that he exists, and existence is good, and he has intelligence, and intelligence is good, and he has will, and will is good. Make no mistake about it however. He is depraved morally entirely and cannot will to do any good.

We conclude sadly that God does reprobate man. No one delights in this, or rather no one should. Let it be our charge to advance the Kingdom as much as possible to prevent this from happening.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. We’re going through our look at the doctrine of God in Christian thought. Right now, we’re talking about the topic of predestination. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. For now, let us get to the question.

One point I’ve stated already in looking at this yesterday is that we need to look to see what we can learn more about God than other aspects of predestination. Right now, Aquinas is not interested in seeing how free-will fits in with this or with points related to a Calvinism and Arminianism debate. Instead, he’s interested in learning about the doctrine of God. Hence, in discussing that doctrine, he includes it in the doctrine of God section while most of us today would include it in salvation. Of course, it relates to salvation, but for Aquinas, it principally relates to God.

Aquinas states upfront that predestination should be seen more along the lines of foreknowledge. It is the foreknowledge of the benefits of God. Foreknowledge exists in the mind of the knower and thus it is the case that predestination is in the one who predestines and not in the predestined.

One objection is that actions cause passion. Predestination is an action of God. However, passion does not dwell in God as he is immutable. Therefore, passion must dwell in something else and that would be in the ones who are predestined. Therefore, predestination places something in the predestined.

However, Aquinas points out that actions that go out to external matter do produce passions. These would be things like cutting and warming. On the other hand, actions like understanding and willing are in the intellect and these do not produce passions as these remain solely in the agent. Predestination is in the intellect and is an act of willing and therefore it does not produce passion.

Doesn’t predestination however refer to one who exists? Augustine is quoted as saying that predestination is the destination of one who exists. Aquinas answers however that predestination can be of something that does not actually exist at that point in time even though its destination is known. This gets us back to exemplar causes in the mind of God, which is something after which something else is made.

Predestination does have an aspect of something in the thing prepared, in the sense that the patient is prepared in respect to the passion, however, the main area of predestination again lies in the agent as the agent prepares its intellect in order to act. Of course, God does not have to prepare, but that is analogical thinking for Aquinas. What we do is like what God does, but we are temporal.

As for grace, grace bears a relation to predestination. Grace is temporal and predestination being foreknowledge in the mind of God is not temporal. Predestination is meant to imply a relation to something that will be temporal, but the predestination itself is not temporal.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome to Deeper Waters. Normally, we don’t go into secondary issues much here, but right now in looking at the doctrine of God, we’ve come to such a situation. We’re using the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas as our guide which can be read at newadvent.org. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight, we’re going to start looking at predestination which is included in the doctrine of God. While we can be tempted to view this as telling us something about salvation, we should instead look to see what it can tell us about God.

Our question tonight will be if God predestines men. In this case, Aquinas refers to directing them towards an end. He uses a favorite illustration of his that he used when he gave the fifth way of an arrow heading for a target by an archer. The arrow does not have within its own nature the power to hit the target. It needs the archer to do so. For us, we are directed towards happiness to be found in the beatific vision. We cannot reach that on our own, as Aquinas explains in the very first question in the Summa. Therefore, we need God to direct us to that end.

An objection raised is that all creatures are guided by divine providence. This was covered when we discussed providence and shows us again that Aquinas is going in a specific order. One cannot come straight to this section to understand predestination in Aquinas’s view without first understanding what has come before that.

For Aquinas, animals cannot be properly said to be predestined for they do not possess the capacity to enjoy the beatific vision. For those who are wondering what this says about animals in the after-death, I really can’t say for sure. This is a question that I move back and forth on and often it can be in relation to my own experiences with animals.

But what about angels? There was never any unhappiness in them and they are not predestined. Augustine is quoted as saying that predestination is a work that shows mercy. If angels can avoid predestination, why not men?

Aquinas disputes however the idea that predestination does not apply to angels. He says that it does even though they have never been unhappy. It matters not to what an angel is predestined insofar as he is predestined. Some could be predestined to beatitude and some to misery, but it is still predestination anyway.

The interesting final objection is that predestination is a benefit given to men and man is benefited by knowing. 2 Cor. 2:12 is cited saying that we may know the things given to us by God. If all men were predestined, they would all know what they were predestined to.

Aquinas says this is not so because it would not benefit all. If some knew they were predestined, they could be lazy in their security and grow negligent. If some knew they were meant to be reprobate, they could stay there. God does not reveal our destinies even though he knows them to bring about good in those who love him and give a chance to bring about goodness in those who do not.

My position? I don’t have one firmly on this doctrine. For now, I am merely stating Aquinas’s position.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone. Welcome back to Deeper Waters. We are continuing our look at the doctrine of God in Christian teaching. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. If you do not own a copy, you can read one for free online at newadvent.org. Certain tools like Kindle, an Ereader, and an IPhone can provide a way for you to read as well. Of course, I think the best way is to go pick up the book and read it. We’ve come a long way and tonight we’re going to answer the question of if providence imposes necessity, which will wrap up our look at the providence of God.

What this means is that if all things are under the divine providence, then wouldn’t it follow that all things must happen the way they do and that all things are thereby necessary and not contingent. Aquinas will argue that this is not the case and some things are contingent.

Now some things are necessary. It is necessary that if anything exists, it participates in being. It is necessary that all things be ordered to the divine goodness by the providence of God. However, Aquinas does believe that there can be numerous ways to get to a necessary end.

Suppose we use this as an illustration. I wish to go to the store to purchase some items. I have a number of means at my disposal. I can walk if it’s close enough. I can drive if I need to. I can call a friend to pick me up. I can also call a taxi or take a bus to get there. It could be that reaching my end is necessary, but the means by which I choose to reach that end are contingent.

Divine providence has worked out that some things will happen necessarily, but these can also come about through different means. For instance, Christians will necessarily be conformed to the image of Christ. However, all that happens in their life is not necessary. God will still use these events that happen to bring about the goal that he has for us.

This also does work fine with the freedom of man. God does know what I will do for all time. He knows what will happen to me tonight and what will happen to me a year from now, but he also knows that I will freely choose to do whatever it is that I will do.

How this works with providence is the trust that if God has willed that something will necessarily happen, we can be sure that it will. Thus, if God has willed us to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, then this truly means that we can rejoice at all that happens in our lives. We can look and say that whatever it was, the master worker is capable of molding the clay in such a way that even this that has happened will be used to bring about his purpose. It’s all about trusting God and not trying to be God.

Tomorrow, we start a new subject.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are continuing our dive into the ocean of truth. We’re going through the doctrine of God now in Christian thought. The text that we are using is the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Remember also readers that these posts are available for further discussion at theologyweb.com in the Deeper Waters section. Tonight, we’ll be looking at whether God has immediate providence overall. Let’s go to the question.

Aquinas sets out two kinds of providence. One is the idea of guiding things towards an end and the other is the execution of that providence. For the second, that does not apply to God as God is not the primary efficient cause of everything in the sense that he causes all things directly. He acts through secondary means often. He allows others to take part in governing the universe out of the goodness of his abundance to give what Aquinas refers to as “the dignity of causality.” This is a term readers of Pascal and Lewis should recognize as spoken of in relation to what they say of prayer.

But does it not belong to the dignity of a king to have ministers under him in order to bring about what he desires? These ministers are the ones who have immediate providence over the areas that they rule. Since it is part of a king’s dignity to be this way, what of God who is much more dignified?

However, the reason a king has such ministers is because there is a deficiency in himself. He cannot be in all places at once and know all things. He must rely on His subjects due to a deficiency that He possesses in His finitude. God does not possess any such deficiency however and so He can rule over all things immediately and do so with dignity, however, as was said earlier, He grants some of us to be able to have some providence as well to give us the dignity of causality.

However, if God has immediate providence, wouldn’t there be no secondary causes? Not at all. The secondary causes are the executors of the order of God. God can act through these secondary causes still to bring about what He desires. Especially for the angels that are bound to Him, He can bring about what He desires.

We are also told that Augustine says it is better to not know some things, such as ignoble things. It would be better for us for instance to not know the evil that we are capable of lest we be tempted to bring about that evil. If such is better, then it follows God must not have providence over wicked and ignoble things.

However, this is only for us for we are finite. It is better for us to not know them because we do not possess true knowledge of the higher good and our wills are easily bent towards evil. This does not apply to God who is perfect goodness and cannot be bent towards evil.

Thus, we conclude with Aquinas that God does have immediate providence over the universe, something that should help us all sleep easier tonight.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we continue our dive into the ocean of truth. I think Mr. Minder for his question and I hope sometime soon to start up a thread in the Deeper Waters section of theologyweb.com where that can be discussed. For now, we’re going to continue our look at the Christian doctrine of God as it is found in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free at newadvent.org. Our topic now is the providence of God and tonight we’re asking if all things are under God’s providence.

One of the objections is one I’d particularly like to focus on and that is the problem of evil. If there is a good God who is providentially looking out over the world, why is there so much evil? This is not a new objection. It was the objection the Manicheans raised in fact. If God is good, whence evil? The objection in the Summa says that either God cannot hinder these things and is not omnipotent, or else he is not omnibenevolent. Today, it is also asked that he might not know how to stop evil and thus he is not omniscient.

Aquinas points out the different between particular providence and universal providence. Particular providence resides over one particular matter. Consider a conveyor belt at an automobile factory. Suppose you are the guy in charge of the left headlight on the car. That is what you have particular providence over. If a car comes off the line and its tailpipe is damaged, well nothing can be done to you about that. If, however, one comes off the line and the left headlight doesn’t work, the boss will be talking to you.

However, the one who is over the factory has universal providence. It could be he’ll allow some defects to assure the goodness of the whole. He might like to have the best workers possible, but that might not be possible or else they might spend so much time on their job that a car will never come off the line. He puts up with the lesser evil of less than the best workers to bring about the greater good of getting more of the product off of the assembly line.

In the same way, Aquinas reminds us that God is so almighty that the only reason he would allow any evil is if some good will come out of it. Now suppose someone speaks of gratuitous evils? Well if that is their argument, they will have to first name such an evil and then demonstrate how it is that they know no good has come of that or evil will come.

A common one is the story of the young deer caught in a forest fire and cannot escape and is burnt alive. What good comes of that? However, how do they know no good has come? My wife, for instance, is an animal lover. She and several others would be spurred at that to be more watchful in our nation’s forests and take better care to prevent forest fires from taking place so that less animals would be harmed, which would be a good. (Note that I do recognize some forest fires are good as they help destroy the overgrowth)

Aquinas even points to examples of the lion having to slay his prey as being a good and to even martyrdom. Since there are tyrannical despots allowed to persecute the church, then that means the church gets to bring glory to God as everyone sees the reality of their faith. As Tertullian said, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.

If someone wishes to raise the problem of evil as an objection to providence, it is up to them to show the necessary contradiction. So far, no one has succeeded.

We as Christians then can rest assured that nothing happens that God does not allow. His providence is at watch and in the end, he will bring about the desired outcome.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Hello everyone. Welcome to Deeper Waters where we dive into the ocean of truth. For all who were expecting a blog last night, I apologize. My wife and I had an exceptionally busy day and when we got home, it was just a time for us to relax. If you ever see a day without a blog, don’t panic. I could just be busy that day.

Having said that, we are going to start a new section in our doctrine of God tonight and that will be the providence of God. Our guide for this has been the Summa Theologica, written by the brilliant 13th century monk, Thomas Aquinas. This can be read for free online at newadvent.org. Our first question will be if providence can even be suitably attributed to God.

Aquinas says it definitely can. Providence is God’s overseeing hand guiding all things to a fitting end. This gets us into the area of teleology, why something is the way it is. This does not apply to God because God does not have an end beyond Himself but rather He is the end of all things.

Thus, to say that God maintains providence over the world is to say that He is actively working in all things to bring things to an end befitting their natures. This also involves the exemplar cause, which is that after which something is made, much like blueprints are the exemplar cause of a building. The end of all things is in God in the sense of an exemplar cause as well.

But how can this be the case since God is eternal? Can he truly have providence eternally since all that he creates is temporal? If providence is a component of the nature of God, then it would seem that either things are eternal other than God, which we know is not true, or that God changed to become providential, which we also know is not true.

Aquinas deals with this by breaking it into two types of providence. The exemplar of order is eternal. That is, in God, there is always the idea of things being ordered towards their end and it is with this in His mind that He creates. The second is the execution of order which is temporal. God was free not to create but any creation he makes he has providence over.

Providence however includes both intellect and will, but God is not composite, so how can this be? Aquinas says that providence does lie in the intellect, but to have providence presupposes an end that one is willing. This still would not be a problem for divine simplicity anyway since in God, intellect and will are one and the same thing.

What we can get out of this is a reminder that we should believe in the providence of God. Too much of what we do in the form of worrying is forgetting that God is in control. Whatever is going on in your life today stop and relax and realize that God is still overseeing the universe. A passage like Romans 8:28-29 is highly helpful in this.

We shall continue tomorrow.