Hello all! I'd like to introduce myself. I am Thomist Anglican, but you can call me Thomist. I was born and raised one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I was devout and active in that religion until I was 19 when I left. I left due to a conviction from Scripture and the Early Church. Through my studies, I was that the JW religion was in error and didn't teach the historical Christian Faith. I joined a Reformed Non-denominational church after I left, and attended that church dutifully. But, I was disillusioned with the Reformed view after my studies of the Church Fathers, and after stumbling into the writings of St Thomas Aquinas. I learned that I couldn't agree with Calvin and his five points. I began to believe Thomist Predestination, and that led me into a very hearty discussion with my pastor at the time, him denouncing Aquinas as a Catholic heretic, and that if I believed in Thomism, which I had become thoroughly convinced of, I was on my way to heresy. So, I left that church and attended a multitude of different churches until I settled on a small Anglican community near my home. It is a mission of ACNA and I have found much joy and light there. Through this community, I found the brilliance of the Anglican Faith as the historical faith. I do attend an Antiochan Orthodox Church near me as well, being quite fascinated with Orthodoxy. Now the big question looming, why am I not a Roman Catholic since I consider myself a Thomist. And the answer is complicated. But really comes down to the big issue of the papacy. I have not been convinced of the papacy. And don't know if I could be. I have found the Anglican Communion to be the best representation of the Early Church, and feel lead to be apart of this Communion.
Welcome among us. The Anglican fathers were always keen to preserve and recover something of the classic truth of primitive christianity. I pray you being here will be a blessing to you as you will be to us.
You may know their writings but both Dr F.J.Hall ( a long time ago) and Dr E.L. Mascall O.G.S. ( very much more recently) were both staunch Anglo-Catholic Thomists and you might enjoy their writings.
Absolutely. In Scripture, the Bible absolutely speaks of predestination, major passages would be Romans 8 and 9 and Ephesians 1. But the question arises, is it suitable that God, who is all-loving and all-merciful, predestine anyone? And if we understand the providence of God, that He directs all things toward their end since He is created all good things, including the good things in creatures, and a good thing is the end or fulfillment of said creature, God would then direct creatures toward their end. But, there are two ends toward which creatures are directed, one that exceeds all proportion and faculty of creatures, which we would call eternal life. And the second is one that is proportionate to the creature, to which end the created nature can attain according to its power. Now, if a thing cannot attain something by its own power, it must be directed toward that end by another. Salvation is so. Mankind cannot attain salvation by any merit or faculty of their own, being lost in sin. God saves us, we do not save ourselves. And, since God is omniscient, He has foreknown all who are saved by His grace and direction from eternity. This foreknowledge of who are saved by His choice, his direction, is predestination. But, God does not reprobate sinners. He does not reprobate the damned. He does not direct them towards damnation from all eternity. That is their choice wholly. So that would be a basic intro to Thomstic Predestination. Here is a link for a deeper look through it from Aquinas own writings. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm God's blessing
Have you seen this? https://www.anglican.net/works/william-king-sermon-predestination-consistent-with-free-will/ I confess that we need more books on this topic.
When our articles speak of predestination I believe them to mean that God knows all who will choose him so they are his predestined but he makes no one choose him and or rejects no one.
And I understand that view. But I guess I would push back with the question of, how does man choose God? Is it by their own absolute freedom of themselves or do they need God's grace and help to choose Him? If it is the latter, then God foreknows who He will draw and who He will give the grace to choose Him. That is predestination in this Thomist mind.
I just finished reading it, and after my read I don't see anything that stands out in opposition to Aquinas. In fact, I see much similarity to Aquinas. First William King agrees that all things humans use to describe God are merely analogical since God is infinitely beyond anything we could say or describe, which is what Aquinas argues for in his Summa Theologica. Then, King goes into then the seemingly contradiction between free will and predestination. But he tries to provide a compatibilist version of it, which is really where Aquinas theology leads. So, I really see mainly agreement between King and Aquinas. Thanks for the read!
My feeling is that God gives each and every man the measure of faith (Romans 12:3) that the man needs in order to believe in Him, for He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). So, man does need God's help to choose Him, but I would say that God supplies this to every man. Then each man by his own free will accepts or fails to accept God's gift of grace, a gift extended to every single person but not received by most. One might describe me as somewhat of a Molinist (after Molina), as I believe God used what some call His "middle knowledge" to discern all possible outcomes and created the world such that the optimum number (or group) of people would come to salvation by their own choice. Have you ever read anything by William Lane Craig on the subject?
Oh yeah! I have his book Reasonable Faith and have watched more debates and lectures than I can count. He is great! While I don't necessarily agree with his view, I can understand the premise and its attraction. I guess my only issue is the idea of God gives this grace to everyone. There is a really good set of letter by Blaise Pascal that talks about what the Molinist were calling effectual grace. And Pascal delves into what that implies and issues with the Molinist view of it. I'd recommend those letters. Their called the Provincial Letter by Pascal. But the wonderful thing about the Church, is that even though I agree with Thomism and others with different views, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. It is quite wonderful the diversity in and unity in the Anglican Communion. One Scripture I'd point to for a defense of the Thomist view would be Romans 9:11-18. It goes to show that it doesn't depend on man's will but on God's mercy. And I think we can all agree that God must first draw the sinner to Him before that person can believe. As Christ our Lord says: "No one can come to Me unless drawn by the Father Who sent Me, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44) So, God must draw the person for them to come to Christ. So, this can have many implications. Such as God draws some and doesn't draw others. We know this, because not all will be raised up on the last day. But, Christ says He will raise up on the last day those that the Father draws to Him. But that is merely my understanding and it may very well be wrong. I have much to learn. God's blessings
Thomas is a good witness to the faith, and probably the best of the Romans, given his historical impact and the relative distance from the distortions of the apostolic faith that were introduced at Trent and beyond. He even denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as did all Romans until Duns Scotus formulated that heresy in the 13th century. That being said, I would caution against seeing Thomas as something like what he's seen as in the traditionalist Roman circles, namely; a kind of philosophic all-true prophet. As the Scriptures are to theology, so Thomas is for philosophy. At the Council of Trent, he was put alongside the Scriptures on the altar. Now as it happens, philosophy is one of my key interests, and one of my university degrees. I love talking about Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, Zeno, Avicenna, Aquinas, Suarez, Grotius, Locke, Leibniz all day every day. These are my homeboys. While Aquinas plays an honorable role in that tradition, he's not the father of that tradition. Aquinas is important in natural law, but not the father of natural law. But I challenge you to search for "natural law" on Youtube, and find even a single academic conference that's not on Thomas Aquinas and natural law, as if he invented the category. In fact he's gotten some things wrong, just as Aristotle had. In Thomas' time, it was Aristotle who was seen as the prophet of Philosophy, and his errors weren't corrected by Thomas but adopted wholesale. Here's just one example: Aristotle defined law as a rule promulgated by one in authority, for the good of the community. This proviso, "for the good of the community", is incredibly important for the history of philosophy. Aristotle didn't see its problems because he lived within the conceptual limits of a Greek city-state (polis), but after his death, this definition was taken to incredibly immoral and unjust consequences. For example the Soviet Union made plenty of laws "for the good of the community." When heretics were burned in Europe, this wasn't seen as merely pious but also legal, and moral, because "this was done for the good of the community." It's not until Grotius that we finally repealed this definition. Under Locke we've adopted a new definition: "Law is a rule of justice, for the defense of inalienable rights." America was founded on that proposition. Now, in late-modernity, we're returning to this idea of adopting rules "for the good of the community" and any sane person should shudder at the thought; and we don't realize it was pushed by Aquinas, and originated by Aristotle, although he (being just one man) didn't realize where his definition would lead. That's the problem with idols (as God will tell ya). Aristotle is a genius philosopher, but not the philosopher. Aquinas is a genius philosopher, but not the philosopher. As long as we put him in the fraternity of thinkers that stretches across thousands of years, then he's one of the greats and to be celebrated.
Ab I absolutely agree with you! St Thomas Aquinas is really the main philosopher who's writing have really impacted me and taught me the most about God through philosophy. While Scripture is my authority and then the Church, Aquinas holds a special place to me. I have found things in his writings that I view as wrong or at least incomplete. For instance, his writings on Divine Simplicity aren't the best. While I hold to Divine Simplicity, I wouldn't necessarily go to Aquinas for good arguments for that. But yeah, philosophy continues to grow and improve, unless the modernists get their hands on it then it just goes backwards. Lately I have been studying some more of Anselm of Canterbury. And that has been fruitful. Also been reading more of the Church Fathers. But Aquinas just makes the most sense to me in the way he explains things. That's just me though. God bless
Man does not choose God. God acts first by having his grace readily available to all. He makes the first move by making his grace open to all. If we accept it then he does the rest of the work.
I have heard Anglicans distinguish between "choose" and "accept," and I think I understand that they're cautioning against a concept of "choosing Christ" as a work (contrary to Eph. 2 and Gal. 3). Is that how you see it, too? Coming out of other Protestant churches which spoke of 'making a decision for Christ' and of 'choosing' to believe (churches who are plenty vigilant about faith only versus faith plus works), this distinction between "choose" and "accept" has been a surprise to me. Although most scriptures regarding choosing have to do with God making a choice, in a couple of places God counsels man to choose correctly. Deu_30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Jos_24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. God told His people to choose obedience to Him over disobedience, and to choose to worship Him rather than some false gods. It seems to me that man is faced with a conscious choice: believe God or believe not. It's the same choice Adam and Eve faced (but they chose to believe the serpent instead). God does make the first move by supplying 'the measure of faith' to every person, but the way I see it, each person then chooses to accept or does not. So I would word your sentence, 'If we choose to accept it then He does the rest of the work.' Is there some fatal flaw in the difference between "accept" and "choose to accept"? I'm puzzling over this.
It's the concept of prevenient grace, for which Arminius got in trouble in the 17th century, but which is present in our Articles a century earlier. Prevenient Grace is the grace which enables us to choose God. Naturally we are incapable of accepting him; but he offers prevenient grace which then unlocks our heart of stone, and provides a chance that we could (or not) accept him thereafter. "Preventing" there is the old English word for 'prevenient grace', so it actually means in today's language, "enabling".