Holodeck

1. Summa Theologica, 1 q23
2. De Veritate q6

• Utrum praedestinatio AD scientiam vel voluntatem spectet
• Utrum praescientia meritorum sit caused praedestinationis
• Utrum praedestinatio certitudinem habeat
• Utrum praedestinatorum numerus sit certus
• Utrum praedestinatis certa sit sweated praedestinatio
• Utrum praedestinatio juvari valeat precibus sanctorum

1. Définition
   1. All the theologists bring back the definition of Augustin saint (Of dono perseverantiae, c.XIV): “Praedestinatio is praescientia and praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur quicumque liberantur. ”
   2. All retain also the definition of Thomas saint: “Ratio transmissionis creaturae rationalis in finem vitae aeternae, in lies divina existens. ” (cf ST1 q23 a1)
   3. De Veritate (q6 a1) specifies that predestination diffèrede providence as for two elements:

• Providence relates to all universally that is ordered by God at an end (rational or irrational beings, goods and evils); predestination looks at only the principal end of the rational creature: the glory of the eternal life.
• In any ordination at the end, it is necessary to distinguish:
• the order itself AD, ordination with
• the term of the order exitum vel eventum ordinis” This being, here distinction:
• Providence looks at only the order at the end, “unde per Dei Providentiam omnes homines AD beatitudinem ordinantur”.
• Predestination relates to the term of this “kind with”: obtaining the end.

1. Thesis

The doctrines thus stated are at least théologiquement certain according to the Council of Thirty (D 805 and 825), read in the prolongation of the ordinary doctrines of Magistère, such as it appears in the texts of Hadrian I (D 300) and of the provincial councils of Quiercy (D 316) and Valence (D 322).

One can specify the theological note while distinguishing: the existence of predestination in general is of fide; the fact that only predestined are actually saved is at least théologiquement certain.

As for the objective certainty of predestination, all the theologists admit that it is about a certainty not only of prescience, but still of causality a divine causality which obtains infallibly though not necessarily its effect. That, against Pélagiens and the Semiones which admits to the maximum the certainty of prescience, raising only of the intelligence and by no means of the will.

On this objective certainty of causality, one can quote:

“Ego vitam aeternam C eis ovibus, and not peribunt in aeternum, and not rapiet eas quisquam of manu mea. ” (OJ 10.28)

Saint Thomas touches this point, inter alia, out of FD q6 a3 where he affirms that predestination does not have a certainty (of causality) compared to the nearest causes (the free will), but which it has this certainty compared to the Main cause.

The subjective certainty, directly rejected by the council of Thirty, was especially affirmed by Calvin.

1. Reprobation

Saint Thomas does not seem to make use of the later distinction between “negative reprobation” and “positive reprobation”. He recognizes only one reprobation having for object the permission of the sin and the infliction of the sorrow.

“Sicut enim praedestinatio includit voluntatem coferendi gratiam and gloriam, ita reprobatio includit voluntatem permitttendi aliquem cadere in culpam and inferendi damnationis poenam pro culpa. ” (ST1 q23 a3)

“Malum culpae, quod privat ordinem AD bonum, Deus nullo modo vult. ” (ST1 q19 a9)

{to be brought closer to FD q23 a2 AD 2 cité above. ==> God wants the evil of sorrow, the sin being presupposed; he does not want at all the sin}

{Previously with the sin envisaged, it has as a God no will there to exclude an unspecified man from the hello. Because:}

“Deus, quantum in is, paratus is bus gratiam dare; vult enim omnes homines salvos fieri and AD agnitionem veritatis venire, C dicitur 1 Tim 2.4. Sed illi soli gratia privantur, which in seipsis gratiae impedimentum praestant; sicut plate mundum illuminating in culpam imputatur I.E.(internal excitation), which oculos caludit, if ex hoc aliquid Mali sequatur, licet videre not possit, nisi lumine solis praeveniatur. ” (CG3 c159)

“Dicendum quod istae condition, quibus homo efficitur deordinatus has consecutione finished, sub quibus existentem Deus eum salvum ess not vult, sunt ex ipso homne, and ideo totum, quod sequitur, sibi imputatur AD culpam. ” (S1 d46 q1 a1 ad5)

“AD secudum dicendum quod to confine to bed habet reprobatio in causando, quam praedestinatio. Nam praedestinatio east caused and ejus quod expectatur in will futura vita has praedestinatis, scilicet gloriae; and ejus quod percipitur in praesenti, scilicet gratiae. Reprobatio vero not east caused ejus quod is in praesenti, scilicet culpae; sed east caused derelictionis has Deo. Is tamen caused ejus quod redditur in futuro, scilicet poenae aeternae. Sed culpa provenit ex libero arbitrio ejus which reprobatur and has gratia deseritur. And secundum hoc verificatur dictum prophetae, scilicet: perditio killed, Israel, ex you. ” (ST1 q23 a3 ad2)

1. the Exemption from payment of predestination

   1. Présentation of the question according to saint Thomas
      1. It acts of the central article of the treaty in the Sum: q23 a5: “Utrum praescientia meritorum sit caused praedestinationis”.
      2. the answer of Thomas saint, perfectly clear and specifies, implements the following distinctions:

Thomas affirms initially that one must in the same way seek the “reason” of the predestination which one seeks the “reason” of the divine will, considering predestination includes this will, according to articles 3 and 4

Predestination

• Ex leaves actus volendi

“not is assignare causam divinae voluntatis”

nullus ergo flees ita insanae lied, which diceret deserved ess causam divinae praedestinationis, ex leaves actus praedestinantis”

• Ex leaves volitorum

“potest assignari ratio, in quantum Deus vult ess aliquid propter aliud”; it is necessary for that to introduce a distinction:

Effectus praedestinationis in particulari

then an effect can be cause and reason of another: posterior effect causes of a former effect according to the order of the final cause; former effect causes posterior effect according to the order of the causality méritoire, which remene at the disposal of matter.

Effectus praedestinationis in communi

“Sic impossibile is quod totus effectus praedestinationis in communi habeat aliquam causam ex leaves will nostra” [BL13]

1. Doctrine of the Church and agreement of the theologists

The doctrines of the Church, whose the agreement testifies to the theologists, can be stated in the following Thesis:

voluntatis Dei salvificae antecedentis, neque praedestinationis AD primam gratiam or usual… according to the authors, neque praedestinationis supplements sumptae, existit caused meritoria ex leaves hominis.

1. the exemption from payment of the first grace rises immediately owing to the fact that works former to it can be only of a natural nature.

1. the exemption from payment of the whole of the effect of predestination (= adequate predestination or supplements sumpta authors) is implied by that of the first grace.

From the dogmatic point of view, these two assertions rise from the judgment of Pélagianisme and the Semi-Pelagianism (cf the Council of Orange II, D 176 - D 200; and the Council of Thirty, D 797)

1. the debate scholastic

• the predestination, considered in a précisive and formal way as predestination with Glory, is it consequent with the absolute forecast of the merits?

And into this divine will certain theologists introduce moreover a distinction between the order of intention and the order of execution (envisaged, prévoulu, not to confuse with the execution itself).

It seems that certain authors then wanted to react: for example Satolli and Paquet… now forgotten

Positions

• According to Thomistes, Scotistes, several Jesuits of XVIème and XVIIème centuries; in a measurement also according to Congruistes (Suarez, holy Robert Bellarmin…):

There is predestination or election with glory handle praevisa deserved according to the order of intention, though post praevisa deserved according to the order of execution.

• Toledo, Molina, Valencia, Vazquez, Lessius, commonly Jesuits thereafter, holy François the Dirty ones:

Predestination AD gloriam is post praevisa deserved: the elective divine will of glory is the last sign (= virtual moment) of predestination.

For Thomas Saint

- There is only one act of the divine will, which carries on the order various effects created between them, and which thus does not reach all only confusedly, but which reaches the various parts also explicitly.

- Thomas Saint affirms very firmly that there is no prius and of posterius in the divine will.

With this is attached the fundamental axiom (ST1 q19 a5):

“Vult ergo hoc ess propter hoc: sed not propter hoc vult hoc”

- Two formulas of the Guérard Father of the Bay-trees o.p. express very well the bottom of the position of Thomas saint:

“The distinction between the divine decrees does not have any reality as a God. What is real like order, it is that which exists between the things that God creates by an operation which in Him is Him. ”

“It is the order inherent in the act to sin, complex and one, which could found the direction of an order between the decrees; to try the reverse cannot bring any real intelligibility, because is to leave unknowable to explain the least badly known. ”

“Not enim omnia quae AD finem ordinantur, finem consequuntur”

In addition to what we explained in the preceding part, one can hear “predestination”, in the statement of this thesis as “divine Providence on those which obtains safety”.

D 300: “Opera misericordiae and justitiae praeparavit Deus in aeternitate incommutabilitatis suae… praeparavit ergo justificandis hominum deserved; praeparavit iisdem glorificandis and praemia… Haec is aeterna praedestinatio futurorum operum Dei, quam… fiducialiter praedicamus. ”

D 316: “Deus autem no-claims bonus and justus reduces ex eadem massed perditionis secundum praescientiam suam quos per gratiam praedestinavit AD vitam and vitam eis praedestinavit aeternam. ”

D 322: “Fidenter fatemur praedestinationem electorum AD vitam. ”

D 805: “Usque Nemo quamdiu in hac mortalitate vivitur of arcano praedestinationis mysterio adeo praesumere debit balance, C certo statuat omnino ess in number praedestinatorum… Nam nisi ex speciali revelatione sciri not potest quos Deus sibi elegerit. ”

D 825: “If quis dixeriot hominem renatum and justificatum teneri ex fide AD credendum certo ess in number praedestinatorum, a.s.”

Thomas saint precise:

“sed hoc sub quaestione vertitur utrum ex leaves effectus, praedestinatio habeat aliquam causam. And hoc is quaerere, utrum Deus praeordinaverit daturum effectum praedestinationis alicui, propter deserved aliqua.”

“Sicut if dicamus quod Deus praeordinavit daturum alicui gloriam ex meritis; and quod praeordinavit daturum alicui gratiam, C mereretur gloriam. ”

Because all that in the man orders it with the hello is included/understood in this effect.

Thomas saint precise:

“Habet tamen hoc modo praedestinatio, ex leaves effectus, pro rations divinam bonitatem; AD quam totus effectus praedestinationis ordinatur C in finem, and ex qua procedit sicut ex principio firstly movente. ”

On this point, to re-examine the question of the exemption from payment of the beatific Vision, against Baïus (D 1004,1005,1011,1021,1023) like Humani Generis of Pie XII.

Conc. from Thirty (oecum. XIX, 1545-1563); Session VI, January 13rd, 1547, decree on the justification; Cape. 5. " Of necessitate praeparationis AD justificationem in adultis, and unde sit" ; D.797:

" Declarat praeterea, ipsius justificationis exordium in adultis has Dei per Christum Jesum praeveniente gratia sumendum ess, hoc is, ab ejus vocatione, qua nullis eorum existentibus meritis vocantur, C which per peccata has erant Deo aversi, per ejus excitantem atque adjuvantem gratiam AD convertendum AD suam ipsorum justificationem, eidem gratiae releases 4 and 5 assentiendo and cooperando, disponantur, ita C, tangent Deo horn hominis per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, neque homo ipse nihil omnino agat, inspirationem illam recipiens, quippe which illam and abicere potest, neuqe tamen sine gratia Dei movere AD justitiam coram illo was released sweated voluntate possit. Unde in sacris Litteris cum dicitur: " Convertimini AD me, and ego convertar AD vos" 1.3, libertatis nostrae admonemur; cum respondemus: " Converte our, Dominates, AD you, and convertemur" 5.21, Dei our gratiam praeveniri confitemur."

Cf for the previous and consequent will: ST1 q19 a6 ad1 “thirdly… ”.

And thus God wants “uno actu finem and ea quae sunt AD finem”.

Cf The sin and duration of the angel, pp.285-287 and 292 §ult -293.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2 This definition is taken quasi textually in the text of Thomas saint.

Notice thomist: in the ad1, holy Thomas makes it clear that “predetermination” can be included/understood like “not requiring”.

2 Donc predestination relates to only the men (or angels), and the things having a report/ratio with the hello of the men.

2 It is seen here that holy Thomas is completely for the thesis supported by Garrigou-Lagrange (good here) p.432-433: “not solum Deus praeparat in communi bus auxilia generalia sufficentia AD salutem, sed and offered, imo bus confert and singulis adultis auxilia sufficientia AD salutem. ”.

This point is also constant by Salmanticenses, Billuart, but fought âr Gonet for its second part…

One also notes (Zubizarretta, p.235-236, n°398 scholion III) that predestination left objectifies, and nonsubjective, of Providence.

2 Thesis stated by the VAT p.184.

3 These texts, quoted in note 3, contain the fact of predestination, its subjective uncertainty, and implicitly its objective certainty.

3 the VAT, p.186-187 (n°239) presents the particular doctrines of Catharin, which distinguishes two categories of saved: predestined and not predestined. This completely singular manner to speak can escape the note from error, if one precisely understands (as seems Catharin) by predestination the free election with glory, than Catharin allots to the ones and not to the others. But catharin did not want to deny predestination with the grace, and thus what the other theologists understand by this name of predestination.

See also Pesch p.223-224 n° 380; Zub p.242 n°404 for Biel and Ockham (without quoting Catharin; but cf p.253 note 4), and p. 254 n.427.

3 cf VAT p.187 n°239

3 Zub p.252 n°424;

3 cf:

" However, the will of that which sent to me is that I do not lose any of those which it gave me, but that I them ressuscite with the last jour." (Jn 6.39)

3 cf Zub p.257 n°431.

4 One can only assign with this act a formal and primary object, divine kindness.

4 I.e.: “all the effect” of predestination.

4 See also (in addition to the text quoted in note 6) in the ad3: “quare hos reduces (...) and illos reprobavit not habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem”

Cf ST1 q19 a5 ad3; and cf what is known as on the predestination of Christ, ST3 q24 has…

Notice thomist:

to note in the body of the article: “Not is autem distinctum quod is ex libero arbitrio, and ex praedestinatione; sicut nec is distinctum quod is ex caused secunda and caused PRIMA. ”

4 cf Pesch p. 210ss; VAT p.191ss.

5 One can quote OJ 15.16:

" It is not you who chose me; it is me which chose you and established so that you will bear fruit, and a permanent fruit; then all that you will request from the Father on my behalf, it you it accordera." (Jn 15.16)

The agreement of the theologists is clarified for example by Pesch pp.212-213, VAT p.193.

N.B.:

Thomas saint, like Pesch and the VAT, affirms the need for the exemption from payment of all the effect on the basis of the exemption from payment of the first grace: cf in Eph 1 lect.1; in Romanians 8 lect.6; can be also: ST1 q19 a5 ad3.

According to Pesch (pp.213-214 n°367): old the scholastics, when they seek simpliciter the cause of predestination, always consider adequate predestination sumpta. In the same way for the VAT, p.195 n°252 beginning. 5 cf VAT p.195 n°252… 5 VAT p.194 thesis 23; Pesch p.217 prop.LVI; Fine Zub p.238 of the 401 (“6)”) and p.243 n°407. 5 VAT p.194-195 n°251: especially §2 and p.195 §2; Zub pp.239-243.

5 cf Pesch p.217 n°373; Zub p.243 n°406; VAT p. 196 n°253.

Molinistes refuse this distinction.

5 Cities by Zub p.242-243 n°405.

The way in which Zub answers the obj. 3 p.246 brings back it to that…

It was perhaps also the thought of Molina, according to VAT p.195 n°252 §ult, and that of Block…

See however Pesch p.217-218 n°374.

5 For those which accept this order, distinguished from the execution itself in time: cf VAT n°253. 5 These authors, moreover, reject the distinction of the two orders as a God: the benefits of predestination are prepared eternally in the same way that they are given in time.

Detail of the “signs of reason”: VAT p.197-198 n°254; Zub p.239-243. 6 As opposed to what the VAT p.194 n°251 §2 insinuates.

6 cf explanations of Jean of Saint-Thomas on the causality of the ideas, which go completely in this direction.

----! >-->

Islam

In the Coran the role of the prophet is to bring at the same time the Good news and alarm as for the last Jugement.

The fact that a man believes or not depends then only on Allah.

Acharisme

This thesis is defended by the acharites. It is taken again by Abû Hamid Al-Ghazali. God does not have of account to return to anybody and does not have to subject itself to any law, the universe is perfect as it is without nothing being able to be improved there. The condition of each human is not the object of any injustice because it would be contrary with the principle of divine justice: miseries of the terrestrial life are certainly losses on ground, but they are also profits in beyond. Without the night, the day would not have a value. Without the disease, health would not be so appreciable. If the imperfection had not been created, the perfection would remain unknown.