Thomism and Predestination: Principles and Disputations

by Steven A. Long, Roger W. Nutt, Thomas Josepth White

There is perhaps no aspect of traditional Thomistic thought so contested in modern Catholic theology as the notion of predestination as presented by the classical Thomist school. What is that doctrine, and why is it so controversial? Has it been rightly understood in the context of modern debates? At the same time, the Church's traditional affirmation of a mystery of predestination is largely ignored in modern Catholic theology more generally. Why is this the case? Can a theology that emphasizes the Augustinian notion of the primacy of salvation by grace alone also forego a theology of predestination?

Thomism and Principles and Disputations considers these topics from various the principles of the classical Thomistic treatment of predestination, their contested interpretation among modern theologians, examples of the doctrine as illustrated by the spiritual writings of the saints, and the challenges to Catholic theology that the Thomistic tradition continues to pose. This volume initiates readers―especially future theologians and Catholic intellectuals―to a central theme of theology that is speculatively challenging and deeply interconnected to many other elements of the faith.

Genres: Theology

336 pages, Paperback

Published January 6, 2017

Reviews

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

For centuries, the Church's doctrine of predestination was acknowledged to be central to her spiritual teaching, and this was certainly reflected in the works of the great doctors of the Church - most notably St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and their followers. However, in recent decades, we have lost the richness of this doctrine in theological discourse. Because people have negative associations with the word due to the Protestant Reformation (and later, the Jansenist heresy), people balk at predestination or use it to mean a mere foreknowledge. This book is an effort to reclaim the riches of the theological tradition and bring them back into prominent theological discourse.

Since this is a book of essays, I will not attempt to give an over-all commentary or review on the entire book except to say that it is well worth the read. That being said, I would like to draw attention to a few essays in the book in particular. Fr. Serge-Thomas Bonino, OP is the first author and he provides a wonderful "status quaestionis" of the Thomistic doctrine of predestination; he brings up prominent historical objections and also modern objections from Thomists (e.g, Maritain) and non-Thomists alike. Dr. Steven Long writes the Introduction (which gives some information on all of the essays) as well as an essay on some of the metaphysical underpinnings of the doctrine. Dr. Nutt locates the theology of predestination within the theology of the Incarnation showing how the two are intrinsically linked. Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP gives 6 principles necessary for the proper understanding of predestination while acknowledging (a la Dr. Matthew Levering) the impossibility of reconciling them this side of eternity.

Finally, I would like to call attention to Dr. Lawrence Feingold's essay (one of the four essays in the volume which are critical of the classical Thomistic position) on the distinction between Operative and Cooperative grace. Dr. Feingold connects this distinction up with the classical distinction between Nature and Grace (which he has also written extensively on elsewhere and with which other Thomists may find common cause). Then he shows how any discussion of predestination and grace should be grounded in this distinction primarily. He then offers criticism of both the Molinist and classical Thomistic positions on this point. Finally, he defends his positions from multiple objections that proponents of the classical Thomistic theory would have against his theory. It is my opinion that Dr. Feingold offers the only legitimate alternative to the classical Thomistic position (although ultimately, I think his position falls short of remaining faithful to St. Thomas's principles). I think Dr. Feingold's essay MUST be dealt with by anyone attempting to defend the classical Thomistic position (and not merely by writing it off as "Molinist" or "Syncretic" which it is most certainly not).