Predestination, for us stupider folks

[Vetus Ordo]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

[Walty]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

There is a possibility that he was, in a sense, correct.

[Vetus Ordo]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

There is a possibility that he was, in a sense, correct.

I wouldn't discount him, at least as it relates to his initial intentions.

He was obviously an educated theologian, despite the later revolt towards the Church.

[Walty]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

There is a possibility that he was, in a sense, correct.

I wouldn't discount him, at least as it relates to his initial intentions.

He was obviously an educated theologian, despite the later revolt towards the Church.

Right.  And I'm not certain that he wasn't actually being consistent with Augustine.

[Vetus Ordo]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

There is a possibility that he was, in a sense, correct.

I wouldn't discount him, at least as it relates to his initial intentions.

He was obviously an educated theologian, despite the later revolt towards the Church.

Right.  And I'm not certain that he wasn't actually being consistent with Augustine.

Some more inputs from the CE:

To Calvin the ordinances of Deity seemed absolute, i.e. not in any way regardful of the creature's acts, which they predetermined either right or wrong; and thus reprobation — the supreme issue between all parties — followed upon God's unconditioned fiat, no account being had in the decree itself of man's merits or demerits. For God chose some to glory and others to shame everlasting as He willed, not upon foreknowledge how they would act. The Jesuit school made foreknowledge of "future contingencies" or of what creatures would do in any possible juncture, the term of Divine vision "scientia media" which was logically antecedent (as a condition not a cause) to the scheme of salvation. Grace, said Catholic dogma, was offered to all men; none were excluded from it. Adam need not have transgressed, neither was his fall pre-ordained. Christ died for the whole human race; and every one had such help from on high that the reprobate could never charge their ruin upon their Maker, since he permitted it only, without an absolute decree. Grace, then, was given freely; but eternal life came to the saints by merit, founded on correspondence to the Holy Spirit's impulse. All these statements Calvin rejected as Pelagian, except that he would maintain, though unable to justify, the imputation of the sinner's lapse to human nature by itself.

To be consistent, this doctrine requires that no prevision of Adam's Fall should affect the eternal choice which discriminates between the elect and the lost. A genuine Calvinist ought to be a supralapsarian; in other terms, the Fall was decreed as means to an end; it did not first appear in God's sight to be the sufficient cause why, if He chose, He might select some from the "massa damnata," leaving others to their decreed doom. To this subject St. Augustine frequently returns in his anti-Pelagian treatises, and he lays great emphasis on the consequences to mankind as regards their final state, of God's dealing with them in fallen Adam. But his language, unlike that of Calvin, never implies absolute rejection divorced from foreknowledge of man's guilt. Thus even to the African Father, whose views in his latter works became increasingly severe (see "On the Predestination of the Saints" and "On Correction and Grace") there was always an element of scientia media, i.e. prevision in the relation of God with His creatures. But, to the Reformer who explained Redemption and its opposite by sheer omnipotence doing as it would, the idea that man could, even as a term of knowledge, by his free acts be considered in the Everlasting Will was not conceivable. As the Arian said, "How can the Eternal be begotten?" and straightway denied the generation of the Word, in like manner Calvin, "How can the contingent affect the First Cause on which it utterly depends?" In the old dilemma, "either God is not omnipotent or man is not self determined," the "Institutes" accept the conclusion adverse to liberty. But it was, said Catholics, equally adverse to morals; and the system has always been criticised on that ground. In a word, it seemed to be antinomian.

With Augustine the Geneva author professed to be at one. "If they have all been taken from a corrupt mass," he argued, "no marvel that they are subject to condemnation." But, his critics replied, "were they not antecedently predestined to that corruption?" And "is not God unjust in treating His creatures with such cruel mystery?" To this Calvin answers, "I confess that all descendants of Adam fell by the Divine will," and that "we must return at last to God's sovereign determination, the cause of which is hidden" (Institutes, III, 23, 4). "Therefore," he concludes, "some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death, that His name may be glorified in their destruction." And the reason why such necessity is laid upon them? "Because," says Calvin "life and death are acts of God's will rather than of his foreknowledge," and "He foresees further events only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen." Finally, "it is an awful decree, I confess [horribile decretum, fateor], but none can deny that God foreknew the future final fate of man before He created him — and that He did foreknow it because it was appointed by His own ordinance." Calvin, then, is a supralapsarian; the Fall was necessary; and our first parents, like ourselves, could not have avoided sinning.

[Resurrexi]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

There is a possibility that he was, in a sense, correct.

I wouldn't discount him, at least as it relates to his initial intentions.

He was obviously an educated theologian, despite the later revolt towards the Church.

Right.  And I'm not certain that he wasn't actually being consistent with Augustine.

The idea that St. Augustine was a proto-Calvinist is rather creepy tbh.

[randomtradguy]

So, in other words, I am right, but also, since I"m right in saying he wills all souls to be saves, he also predestines souls to go to heaven. This makes much sense, with sound logic.

So can I tell a non-Catholic asking me: God, willing all souls to be saved, predestines them to eternal paradise by giving them the grace they ask for, if they ask, but never purposely denies saving grace to anybody?

[Walty]

I think that people would be surprised to see just how similar Thomistic and Augustinian conceptions of predestination are to Calvinism.

Calvin himself claimed he was restoring the Augustinian view to its proper place in the Church.

There is a possibility that he was, in a sense, correct.

I wouldn't discount him, at least as it relates to his initial intentions.

He was obviously an educated theologian, despite the later revolt towards the Church.

Right.  And I'm not certain that he wasn't actually being consistent with Augustine.

The idea that St. Augustine was a proto-Calvinist is rather creepy tbh.

Creepy?

[justlurking]

If I understand correctly, what Molinism says is that God no only know everything that happened, happens and will happen, but that God also knows everything that could happen under any set of circumstances.

So, it would be like saying that God also knows how everything would have been had Columbus found America in 1493 instead of 1492.

So, since God knows everything, God predestines only those who would freely chose him. Sorry if it does not make much sense, English is my second language.

Molinism makes a lot of sense to me, I fear that millions of people nowadays, for example people who support gay marriage and abortion, wouldn't change their opinions even if God sent an Angel from heaven to convince them on what is the true, they would probably spit the Angel. Under any set of circumstances they would abhor the truth.

[James02]

The idea that St. Augustine was a proto-Calvinist is rather creepy tbh.

Backwards.  Calvin was a proto-Augustinian.  He took the doctrine of predestination and warped it by denying free will.  St. Augustine believe in free will.  Calvin denied it.

We can never completely figure out why some are saved and some are damned.  Heck we don't even know the number.  In order to know this, you would have to know the mind of God.  This is only possible where He has revealed it.

I'll give you an example.  Suppose the Lord's motive under a free will regime is to save the most people possible?  It's possible.

One thing is certain, free will is critical.  We truly grasp on to our God through Faith.  We freely choose to love Him.

I may get to heaven and find out only a small handful were saved.  I am open to that possibility.  I have Faith that I will find God's reasons are Just and Merciful no matter what.

In the meantime, work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.