Grace: Kinds and Refusal (Aquinas 101)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
“God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4)
This brings us to the question of how it's possible for a human being to refuse God's offer of salvation. Here, we find the dark mystery of evil because such a refusal is always a failure, a defect of the creature.
Grace: Kinds and Refusal (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
ruclips.net/user/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic
Any negative views I had for Catholicism from my Evangelical upbringing are being demolished by these videos.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam! (“For the greater glory of God” motto of the Society of Jesus [Jesuits])
Thank you for these videos. I have gone from a Calvinist to a Thomist. This is a much more balanced view.
If you don’t mind, could you explain a little as to what led you to Thomistic theology? I’m a Catholic, and recently had a conversation with a Calvinist regarding faith and grace. In all honesty, he left me with many questions, and I wasn’t entirely sure how to answer his objections to free will.
@@russbus1967 Calvinism is a perfect systematic theology. It really is flawless. My issue with it (why I left) is that I think it answers questions that Scripture does not tell us. In other words, in order to make sense of things, Calvinism takes it too far. My attraction to Thomistic thought was that while Aquinas answers a lot of questions, he leaves tension and mystery where it is needed.
@@merecatholicity I think that’s a fair assessment. My most prevalent thought after my recent conversation was that Calvinism seems hyper-logical, that it is inspired by an unhealthy desire for certainty regarding faith and grace. Thanks.
@@russbus1967 My thoughts exactly.
Praise God
Listening to a Dominican priest takes me back 75 years when I believed all priests were Dominican's
The analogy of the light of the sun to the light of grace is profound!
The refusal of grace is really well described in this video, and reminds me of what CS Lewis wrote in The Great Divorce:
"Good beats upon the damned incessantly as sound waves beat on the ears of the deaf, but they cannot receive it. Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut. First they will not, in the end they cannot, open their hands for gifts, or their mouths for food, or their eyes to see."
I experienced actual grace! I wasnt in a church but i said a similar prayer looking up at the stars! Its why i love Psalm 8 so much!
Yup actual grace for the conversion as well. Happened maybe 2 weeks later.
Great video. I find it humbling that God wills all to be saved, and Christ's sacrifice could cover all sins, but that the majority of souls will insist on following the broad road to perdition. The narrow path that few find...wow, I need grace to not be overwhelmed, Jesus I trust in you!
So good - we listened through twice! Thanks so much.🙏🏼💙✝️📖
Cheers!
Thank you Aquinas101!
May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
This was wonderful, Father! Thank you! I have been struggling with the nature of grace. I see it all the time when I read and hear it all the time. I can read the definition of the word grace, but it never really clicked in my little mind on what it means. I will have to watch this a few more times to fully absorb what you are saying ha ha. Again, thank you.
Grace is Love of God and favor given by God to us gratuitously unconditionally without string attached to us! St Thomas define Love in a boring way its Just Willing the Good of the other person! I like more how St Paul described Love in his epistles Love is patience Love is kind Love endures all things! For St. Thomas accdg to him we can Love someone without feeling anything. Love is a Decision not an Emotion! K Thanks Father for the enlightening awakening simple videos like this! Godbless Godspeed! K
this was so helpful, thank you Father!
Our pleasure!
thank you, Father.
What an amazing reflection.
These Aquinas 101's are so helpful, and no one video gets you there. It has taken absorbing quite a few and taking notes for Aquinas' concepts to come together - yes, a bit of attention and work. Coming back to this vid today, things started to come together. Glory to God and thank you TI.
Thank you for this explanation!
May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!
Best talk on grace I have ever heard.. it was very clear and concise... and very very helpful Thank you so much
We're glad it was helpful! May the Lord bless you!
Thanks much for this video.
It is true, God acted in me to help myself and others from ignorance and evil, the infusion exist and it is a wonderful experience with god
AMAZING EXPLANATION... GOD BLESS YOU !
Thank you!
I can see that ignorance of grace can lead to rejecting it. Good video!
A wonderful video, thanks,great to to know God offers us Grace,so needed to help us manage our lives,towards God .
ruclips.net/video/tRa4MhjDjF0/видео.html
Thanks for this explanation! If I had learned all this when I was younger, my life would be totally different, and much more directed to God. Thanks, TI.
Glad it was helpful! God can, and does, act at any time of life. May he bless you!
I have appreciated it. A video and audio with excelent quality. Im brazilian and im not good in understanding english, but this video the autor knows how to speak with calm and it helps us to understand even without legend.
Have you tried the auto-translate function in the closed captions (CC)?
Great series great class at Aquinas on Grace's praise be to God that He gave you the grace to share with us
Thank you, Alfred!
This guy is one smart dude
I love your website.
Thanks
Cheers!
Grace start by recognizing we need it.
keep up the amazing videos!
Cheers!
Thank you
You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Really appreciate it
Thanks!
So goood!
Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
My difficulty with this whole concept is helpfully illustrated by the sun analogy. Of course the sun continues to shine regardless of what we do, and wandering around with our eyes closed is certainly the cause of us falling in the ditch...but we don't have the power to open our eyes without yet another grace. The sunshine of sufficient grace hardly seems sufficient to those who aren't given the gift of sight in this case.
Can anyone help out with this?
God is so gracious that he is the very actuating principle of the very ability (active potency) to open and close your eyes, such that he gives you the freedom to use the ability by which you "see" or not "see" him.
The explanation about how God moves the will through grace without taking free will from us was excellent, one of the best I have heard. Thank you so much for that.
If you could help me with one question I have in regards to the issue of Thomistic Predestination. I know that many accuse Augustine of teaching determinism, and you can see how St Thomas talks about grace being infallible in ST IaIIae.10.4 obj 3. Can you summarize for me the main differences between Aquinas and Augustine views on Predestination? For what I have seen they are in essence very similar but many scholars talk about key distinctions.
thanks for your excellent videos.
Have you taken a look at this video yet?
ruclips.net/video/aV2GGMvpRz0/видео.html
@@ThomisticInstitute yes, I did. It was excellent. But still I don't see in which way Aquinas and Augustine's view differ? In essence they are the same but I have read a few scholars who say that Aquinas "tweaked" Augustine a little bit. The only thing I see is St Thomas developing Augustine's ideas. Do you see any meaningful difference between their views of predestination?
thank you so much. You guys are in my prayers
@@HosannaInExcelsis To be honest, I don't know St. Augustine well enough to make a meaningful comparison. What is more, St. Augustine is often read through the interpretation of Calvin, Jansen, Baius, and others, which may make it more difficult to distinguish St. Augustine from his reception. I'd recommend Garrigou-Lagrange on this issue (Predestination and Grace are both great texts). You might also read St. Augustine's On Grace and Free Will and compare to St. Thomas's treatise on grace in the Prima Secundae. Sorry, I can't be of more help!
@@ThomisticInstitute No worries. Thank you so much. Right now in the protestant world there is a very significant debate since a new study from a recent Oxford Thesis claims that Augustine intoduced "maniquean determinism" into the Church teachings.
I'll leave the link here in case anyone is interested in studying this topic ruclips.net/video/BnOMORGM2Qw/видео.html.
I am also reading all the books you recommended me. Fascinating topics indeed.
@@HosannaInExcelsis Excellent! God bless your studies.
What I find impossible to swallow is that God does not pour his grace on us like a waterfall such that we could not refuse to acknowledge it even if we believed we wanted to. If God is infinite, he loses nothing by doing so. By being shown a vision of heaven or by being renewed by some experience or bit of knowledge, all could freely come to love God and enter heaven. God can supply all of those things, but he does not. Why? If his desire for us to find our happiness in him were so great, why stop at mere conversions? Why not manifest himself perfectly through each and every one of us? Such would be a happier existence anyway. I would absolutely love to see this happen, and so would everyone else.
Where exactly in Summa or anywhere else does Aquinas say that we can reject God’s offer of Grace? Thanks!
I am glad you addressed a certain point that has been troubling me. You said that God gives all people sufficient grace for salvation, but people can refuse to cooperate with God's grace. Dr. William Marshner teaches that, in the case of those who are damned, it is because God does not give them sufficient grace to be saved. It is because of this teaching that I feel he portrays God as a neglectful parent. And because his was the first presentation I'd heard on Thomism, I thought that was the Thomistic position. Thank you for clearing that up. But why does Dr. Marshner say otherwise?
God gives sufficient grace to all, however, this sufficient grace, despite being truly sufficient, is inneficacious, because of our will's resistance to it. For a man to be converted, he needs to be granted an intrinsically efficacious grace, that will make he freely accept it. This grace is not given to all.
@@tiagoviana5161correct. How is this fair though? How can man be guilty of sin if he cannot avoid it without the intrinsically efficacious grace that is not given to him?
Amazing video. I have a question. Why does God allow people that He already knows will go to hell (because he sees the whole future at a glance) to exist? He gives us free will, but because He knows everything, it means He knows which people will freely refuse Him for their whole life and therefore reject His grace...
I am having trouble uploading this video ...is there a problem with the link?
So here's a question, Thomistic Institute: When in Baptism we receive sanctifying grace, and the Trinity comes to dwell "in the soul" as per 4:10 -- what does that mean? Dwell in my soul or alongside my soul? If my soul is finite and is my "form" as it were, which is not God's essence, would alongside be a better term?
A good bit has been written about this question. One of the best little introductions is Anselm Moynihan's The Presence of God. St. Elizabeth of the Trinity also has a lot to say about the indwelling Trinity that accords squarely with the teaching of St. Thomas.
@@ThomisticInstitute great - thanks for taking time to respond! What a great online ministry you are offering!
If the sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient and perfect to ensure salvation of all people, how so it remains in potency when someome supposedly refuses His Grace? In that particular case, He didn't die in vain?
Will there be a video focusing on the principle of double-effect?
There will not for this series, but we plan to keep rolling this out for many months to come, so it's something we could cover in the future . . .
@@ThomisticInstitute Up until what topic will the series end? The people need more of these, so we're willing to wait for more quality content.
@@kevinroque5374 Right now, we're planned through November with this course. Then we'll have short courses on virtues and then faith and science. That'll take us through August of 2021. Now taking requests for future courses!
@@ThomisticInstitute Looking forward to it! If I were to request something, I'm keenly interested on a deeper take on St. Thomas' moral philosophy and the relation it has with epistemology. Will concupiscence be covered at this current series?
@@kevinroque5374 Just in the treatment of Original Sin. You might try these two videos on the theme:
1. Original Sin - ruclips.net/video/T5pSrlr1rJI/видео.html
2. Born Broken? Aquinas on Original Sin - ruclips.net/video/UqZ-bSdhTY0/видео.html
In the example of an actual grace - this is my thought process, where does it go astray?
1) Can the will reject an actual grace?
Yes > Why does the will not co-operate with the actual grace
No > Why does God not grant all the actual grace necessary to convert
2) Why does the will not co-operate with the act grace if yes
Because the will did not desire to > Why does the will not desire to, did God not give us our desires?
In this case Romans 9: 21-23 comes to mind - 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory...
3) Why does God not grant all the actual grace necessary to convert?
Because the soul would not have co-operated with it, and God only gives it if the soul would freely desire it but, why does the will not desire to co-operate with it in that case?
Hence - if our will is determined by what we desire to do - and what we desire to do is determined by God, in what sense are we forced to believe in double predestination at least to the extent that God provides grace and only with that do I make it to Heaven and thus de facto when God does not provide grace one cannot make it to Heaven. How do we avoid the conclusion that God is making people and predetermining them to Hell - even if indirectly, a hard line Calvinist might say that God is actively leading them to Hell, but are we not committed to saying that even if God doesn't actively do it, He indirectly does it? And furthermore determines the desires of the will of the person who goes to heaven and equally the other who goes to Hell?
We aren't determined the choose based on our desires. Look for Steven Jensens 2017 paper on a libertarian interpretation of Aquinas philosophy of choice
@@callums6570 Thanks for the tip - just sent him an email asking for the paper and giving him a few questions as well! Hopefully he is just what I am looking for.
@@michaeldonohue8870 you should by his book 'sin' which covers the whole topic of choice, culpability etc. Really good book. Most of his stuff is
@@callums6570 Thanks for hopping in!
Let us know once you've read Jensen whether the question perdures . . .
Thank you Father!
A question, if I may,
So, if anyone doesn't receive salvation, is it because he/she choose to "close their eyes", or is it simply because God doesn't give grace to them? In Matt Fradd's podcast, it sounds like you were saying that it is because God simply doesn't give grace to everybody. If the later is true, then what is the difference between this view and Calvin's?
With sufficient grace, God gives man the power to perform the salutary act; with efficacious grace, God actually causes man to freely perform the act (although God doesn’t coerce man; man remains free). With sufficient grace, man’s power to perform the salutary act remains in potency and is never actualized (because God allows man to resist the grace). With efficacious grace, man’s power to resist the grace is in potency and is never actualized (because God moves man to freely respond to the grace). With the latter, the grace is intrinsically efficacious; with the former, it is inefficacious but truly sufficient. This means that God is the cause of all good and salvation, and man is responsible for all evil and damnation. Because God grants grace according to the eternal decrees of His will, Thomists generally hold that the antecedent will is the principle of sufficient grace, and the consequent will is the principle of efficacious grace.
In His antecedent will, God wills all men to be saved and thus gives all men sufficient grace to that end (God considers each person absolutely). But in view of the greater good of the universe, He consequently wills to infallibly save His elect, and to permit the reprobate to be damned (God considers each person relative to the whole). It follows that the good that God antecedently wills, and the sufficient grace He grants to all men, are not efficacious, whereas His consequent will and the related grace He eternally decrees for His elect are efficacious. Thus, St. Thomas says, “It is clear that whatever God simply [consequently] wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.” Because God unconditionally elects man to salvation based on His decree and not foreseen merits, man does not determine the type of grace he receives. God has decreed the grace He would bestow upon man from all eternity. As St. Paul says, “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. 4: 7). St.Thomas comments on this verse: “Who is it that distinguisheth thee from the mass of those who are lost? This is more than thou canst do. Who is it that makes thee superior to another? Thou thyself canst not do this, and therefore why art thou proud of thyself?”
If you have any more questions you can add me on Discord: Roman_Catholic#8415
May God save himself everyone by an effective, special, and infallible grace, why not everyone? The elect are saved purely by grace, but freely, ok. I understood. Now, if it's not faith that "determines" salvation, but only-pay attention! - grace, then, therefore, a creature rejects God because the same measure of grace was not upon him! Not? I would like you to help me with this! 🙏
Does God choose to give an "infallible grace to some rather than to others?"
Yes.
Is it correct to say that we need grace to co-operate with grace? This seems to be the case if we hold that God's grace, like the light of the sun, is not wanting to anyone, yet at the same time "the very fact that a person places no obstacle is due to grace".
I believe that would be correct, but the friars surely know better than me
That's correct! God moves the will by a sweet and strong impulse that is intrinsically efficacious. As the liturgy recounts, "even our desire to praise Him is itself His gift."
@@ThomisticInstitute I am troubled by that statement as it can be construed to mean that God is responsible for our sins and even our damnation because He doesn't give us the grace to accept His grace. We know that this conclusion is wrong but i see the only way to avoid it to say simply that God makes grace available to all aand we have the power of choice to either accept or reject His grace.
In the thomistic view God is not responsible for our sins. We are responsible. The problem ist that God does not want all and everyone to be seved: some are condemned simply because they do not belong to the elects.
This is NOT the Faith of the catholic Church, but it is its official theology.
I am a Roman Catholic myself: I believe in the Church Christ founded but most of the western theology is heretical speculation.
No I understand.
I did walk away consciously, or atleast partly from grace. Are there stories of what happens now? How can i get back into grace? By patience?
What happens to those who walk away once?
If you are Catholic, the sacraments! Going to confession is a sure way to receive anew the graces of God into our life as we are reconciled to the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Everyone has sinned (walked away from God) and falls short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23 paraphrase). You are not alone, and God surely desires for you to return to him. And in answer to what happens to those who walk away once? He will make you new. :)
@@Katie-yc4el Ok. Katie thank you. I will be in contact with my local priest. What if im not exactly Catholic, but still maybe in need of support, and believers, and wise people around me?
@@MrAvaraa Praise God! I'll give an analogy, if I may. In the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke Ch. 15), the son walks away from his family. His process of returning has several parts: 1) he realizes what he lost 2) he begins journeying back to his father, prepared to be treated only as a hired worker 3) he is reunited with his father, as his father embraces and kisses him 4) the feast is prepared, and the son is reunited with the larger community. This is a symbol of our return to a life of grace. First, we realize our sinfulness, then we journey to confession with conviction on our hearts. When we receive absolution in the sacrament of reconciliation, it's as if the Heavenly Father comes to embrace and kiss us! After we have been reconciled with the father, we are then reconciled with and surrounded by the father's household (of believers) like the prodigal son. I'm not sure what you mean by not exactly Catholic, but my point is that even if you were perfectly Catholic, you would also need support of believers and wise people around you. It is good that you desire it. This can be achieved through many ways - getting involved with service work, going to bible studies, spending time in prayer or spiritual direction. I can promise you that the more you strive for God, and run toward him, you will soon look to your right and left and find that others are also running the good race with you.
@@MrAvaraa Feel free to reach out to me on Facebook also! I would love to hear your story.
@@Katie-yc4el Loving your energy and kindness. What is your name on Facebook? Im this same, Antti Kuikka.
Im trying to be similar to the prodigal son. Its a bit working already.
Is it possible to lose all of the grace we have received?
I am no theologian, but given the clasification in the video, you could refuse to accept all grace, which would effectively be the same.
Nicolas Delgado thanks for your input
"God offers to all a grace sufficient for salvation" (6:35 timestamp). This has been on my mind a great deal lately and I've yet to find an answer. How do you square that with Our Lady of Fatima's message, which in part she is quoted to have said "Take note, many souls will go to Hell because YOU did not pray and make sacrifices for them ..."?
When we pray for sinners, are we in a sense calling down grace on their behalf - grace which they did not already posses and yet need for salvation - or are we merely participating in God's saving plan for them, though not actually changing any outcome?
Look back to my first sentence where I quoted what was said in the video. Do you see my confusion?
Excuse me Nick, has anyone been able to clear up your confusion?
@@goeb16 Hey thanks for asking. No one has been able to answer my questions about salvation/co-redemption, either here or anywhere haha I've asked priests, theologians - they have some theories, but they inevitably fall short of answering the question. It seems the Church doesn't actually know how exactly it works.
@@nickk4851 Ok, I am sorry no one has been able to answer your question. Your previous comment is a little confusing. Could you please succinctly ask your question one more time?
@@goeb16 Very kind of you to try to help - thank you. Basically I'm asking about co-redemption (I think that's what it's called). To get straight to the point, I could ask a question like this:
Will souls go to hell if you and I don't pray and offer up our sacrifices for them?
If the answer is "yes", then that would seem to imply that you and I can save people that God can't or won't, which sounds ridiculous and completely false, based on who God is, His will to save all, His power to save, and the fact that I can't even save myself let alone anyone else. So to imply that souls would be lost as a result of ME not praying enough doesn't seem like it could be true.
If the answer is "no" ... well that could have many implications for how people seem to understand co-redemption and the missionary activity of the Church. It would also cast suspicion on the Marian apparition of Our Lady of Fatima.
@@nickk4851 Hey Nick, thank you for responding to my last comment! I just wanted to quickly check in and say that it will most likely take me a long time to digest your question and then thoughtfully answer it to the best of my ability. I don't want you to think that I have disregarded your question! And, obviously, if someone else comes along who is more theologically orthodox and more qualified, please refer to their response, because I am just an untrained laymen who enjoys seeking the Truth and trying to help my fellow seekers along the way. Thank you again for responding and I hope I can answer question soon!
I've found that people generally are broken at the time of refusal, but that may not have anything they can control. If it is a chemical imbalance for instance, Is that the person refusing? If life has them continuously in anxiety and they don't have the capacity to make it passed that, how much of that is really their ownership. If people are closer to the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs it is probably easier to make this case.
It seems like we haven't forwarded that thinking to fall in line with modern day psychiatry? I believe God uses context for everyone for every sin, for every decision, for every life. Many I find don't refuse God, but rather they refuse what many say about God when they speak for him and it doesn't align with no-conflict principal as their 'inner grace' or 'the wisdom that is given to all of man'- Aquinas screams to them, not that there is no God, but rather, there is no way this is what God could be.
In the Catechism, 'Actual' simply means 'pertaining to the Act' but I can see why we would want to define it as 'Activating the will': it underscores the intrinsic Effectiveness of Grace and its dynamic nature, Grace being a participation in the will of God to do Good!
But this is Banez's position, isn't it?
Saint Thomas never defined 'Actual' Grace: the Summa only talks about 'Cooperative' Grace from what I could gather.
The whole debate presupposes that the will is ALWAYS active, in every act, and tries to reconcile Free will with the Grace of God but perhaps it is this presupposition which is the problem: perhaps, once we have elected to love God above all things, it is God Himself who dwells within us 'to will and to act' (Philippians)...
This would not take away our Free will: it would simply limit the circumstances in which we use it.
Does that make sense?
Why does he claim that Aquinas' teaches are held by the RCC when so many RCC churches do not believe or teach Thomist doctrine?
“RCC churches not believe or teach Thomistic doctrine” is an oxymoron: The Catholic Church (with capital C) is the one Mystical Body of Christ devided in 24 sui juris autonomous Churches all in full communion to each other and the Pope, that the Roman Catholic Church (even though the most populous and present in the West) is but one; alongside the: Maronite Catholic Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church, Coptic Catholic Church… “RCC churches” (with lowercase C) are the temple buildings of the Roman Catholics and they cannot “not believe or teach” anything, and the clergy that are bound to them cannot go against “Thomistic doctrine” without falling in heresy (condemned beliefs against the one true one revealed to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church by God).
And how is the difference between infallible grace and John Calvin's resistible grace not merely a difference in semantics?
I believe it is merely semantic. You might be interested in Blaise Pascal's Provincial Letters. Besides, Calvin cited Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux when discussing grace. The papal bull Unigenitus forced the Dominicans to be clever with their words.
I’m checking it out thanks brother! Jc do you hold to a molinistic or thomistic view of soteriology by any chance? I’m becoming Catholic and was raised reformed Baptist and I’m digging into it again it’s been a hot minute.
@@nathanmontgomery5535 I'm also from a reformed background but I'm now Catholic and I tend to be more on the thomistic side. I find the practical implications of molinism too obscuring regarding habits. Why cultivate good habits if my acts aren't ultimately influenced by them? From what I gather, the impetus to find an alternative to the thomistic view came from dissatisfaction with St Bernard's definition of free will, but I find St Bernard's explanation of the fall and of free will in his book on grace satisfactory. The old Princeton theologians (I think I remember this from Hodge's Outlines of Theology) viewed the calvinist/methodist split as roughly parallel to the jansenist/jesuit split within the Catholic church, with the Calvinists and jansenists being on the Augustinian side. When the jansenists were definitively condemned by the Vatican, the Dominicans who wanted to stay on the Augustinian side basically adopted the new acceptable verbiage but with their particular definitions, leaving them technically legitimate and also consistent with Aquinas's tradition.
@@TheCanadamailmaster I see where you are coming from. I also feel like the Molinist view can take away from man's free will because one's choice seems completely contingent on the situational factors in one's life, but I need to study it more, basically saying if you went experienced these events you might have chosen God, but since you did not you did not choose God..but I might be totally butchering the concept. I am currently reading up on the debates between the Dominican's and the Jesuits. I feel like I can explain the TULIP all day long, but everything else is very new to me. Can a Thomist truly say that God grants intrinsically efficacious grace to some yet sufficient grace for all and that some are saved by this sufficient grace alone? Btw, praise God that He led you to The Church man!
Sufficient grace saves NOBODY. This is the problem with the thomistic view of predestination and it was clearly seen by the jansenist.
2:25 Aprox. "no OTHER CREATURE????"
GOD???
You show a person turned away from God looking at a candle and say this represents us freely choosing some created good over God. This, however, appears impossible given your classical understanding of freedom as a rational ordering of the will toward the good.
"The truth shall set you free." You can't freely do something in ignorance of what it is you're doing. Yet you claim that you can freely choose a created good(which is always lesser) over God. How does this work?
hello there!
in trying to answer your dilemma, i think it is wise to develop this idea " You can't freely do something in ignorance of what it is you're doing"
. i don't think you can do anything in ignorance of what you're doing
in order to act freely, Aquinas says, we must elect a certain object as good (at least apparently good), in order to pursue it.
That is to say, freedom is the rational ordering of the will toward the apparent good.
But the intelect can err, when an individual chooses an apparent good that is contrary to The Good, and that is called a sin;
By sinning, one’s freedom is reduced, because we will develop an habit of acting sinfully.
I hope this is correct and it helps,
God love you
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Thanks for the reply! I would agree with most of what you said. Of course you can freely choose to pursue the (apparent)good of the candle, as shown in the video. The question, however, is, whether that free choice for the candle can at the same time be a free rejection of God. Given the knowledge requirement of freedom it implies that I know God to be the greater good and yet I choose the lesser good. That is impossilbe given the classical understanding of human action.
You can't both know God to be your greatest good and reject him at the same time. The only way you could reject him is by not knowing him to be your greatest good. But even in that case you couldn't reject God, because you would only reject a figment of your imagination which differs from God in not being the greatest good, and, given divine simplicity, is therefore unlike God in every respect.
My conclusion is that it's utterly impossible to reject God qua God.
@@CIVIAN I agree completely. When people reject God, they do not know Him, and reject only a caricuture of Him. If people trully knew Him, they wouldn't reject Him. they'd love God. I guess that's what the beatific vision is.
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Great line, brother: "When people reject God, they do not know Him, and reject only a caricuture of Him." I'm borrowing that one!
João Albuquerque then how can we say that those in Hell are there because they rejected God?
KUDOS! Summa in small bites
Why does the Catholic (or Thomistic?) teaching say that "free will" is not coerced? Doesn't God "coerce" the will when one is convicted of sin and convinced to turn to God?
Not really conviction I suppose works more like a revelation. God grants you the understanding or removes whatever that is inhabiting you from seeing the rightness or wrongness of your action.
J M J
And yet 11 of the 12 apostles, who must have accepted grace, had their eyes open in the sun, still ended up in a ditch, so to speak, being murdered violently.
Father: two comments:
First: to avoid the intrinsic problems of thomism you conflate 2 notions of free will. Your first example (actual grace) is a good example of physical premotion, a notion that constitutes the core of the thomistic notion of free will. On the one had you say that Gods moves the free will to act freely, withour coerction. Fine. But the absence of coerction is due to the following fact: the free movement of the free will can be reduced or identified with the divine premotion. The free act of the free will is the same act of God (ipse Dei actus) in a composed sense. The model is perfect and beautiful when the story ends well. Bur this model does not work in your second example. If I turn to the Sun the cause of my free movement is God moving me: the act of God identifies with my free will. Yes, there are a difference between the act of God and my free act but ONLY in a divided sense, that is: in a mere abstraction. What is the problem if I turn to the candle instead of turning to the Sun. The problem is that I cannot turn to the Sun UNLESS God turns me (freely) to the Sun. I am lacking something that I have not received, because, had I received the motion, undoubtfully I would have turned tobtje Sun, because the physical premotion is not something added to my free act, but it is my free act itself.
Second: actual grace, as you present it, is clearly an extrasacramental grace and extrasacramental grace is extremely problematic. Grace is given ALWAYS and EXCLUSIVELY through the Sacraments, this is the doctrine of saint Thomas.
Sorry to burst your bubble. But Father fails to solve the problems of grace and predestination. God gives to the elect the extra gift of nonresistance to His grace that He does not give to the nonelect. Without this extra good thing that is given to the elect, the nonelect cannot cooperate with grace and cannot be saved. Lagrange says exactly this in Predestination and explains it in depth.
Also, God truly does love the elect more than the nonelect. This extra love that He has for the elect is what causes the elect to possess more goodness. This is an uncomfortable reality and one that Father does not address in this video.
Sorry, Father. You do not accomplish what you think you do in this video.
J M J