Predestination and Divine Predilection

Predestination and

Divine Predilection

Predestination is the process by which God by His grace directs man to eternal life. This plan to direct man to eternal life is part of God’s providence over all His creation. As the Catechism says, “[P]rovidence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.”¹ Indeed, God’s providence over all things is one of the most powerful proofs of His existence. The Book of Wisdom teaches that God’s providence “reacheth therefore from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly” (8:1); “but thou has ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight” (11:21); “But thy providence, O Father, governeth it: for thou hast made a way even in the sea, and a most sure path among the waves” (14:3).²

Because God’s providence governs all things, God is in control of all things and can do all things, for He says, “Is there any thing hard to God?” (Gen 18:14) and “Behold I am the Lord the God of all flesh: shall any thing be hard for me?” (Jer.32:26). Job confessed to God, “I know that thou canst do all things, and no thought is hid from thee” (Job 42:2). God has “absolute sovereignty over the course of events” and “is the sovereign master of his plan.”³ God’s control over His entire creation means that His purpose in ordering things to their final end is always accomplished. God says through Isaiah, “Surely as I have thought, so shall it be: and as I have purposed, [s]o shall it fall out” (14:24-25); and, “My counsel shall stand, and all my will shall be done” (46:10).St.Paul confirms that God predestines man “according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11).

God’s providential plan to order all things to their final end pre-exists in His mind, just as our plans pre-exist in our minds before we carry them out. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, because God is the cause of all things by His intellect, the ordering of those things toward their final end must also exist in His intellect.⁴ Hence, the word “predestination” is composed of the prefix pre, which means “before,” and destine, which means “direct” or “send.”⁵ This means that God decided prior to creating the universe how He would direct all things in His creation to their final end.

It is clear to us that unintelligent things—such as plants and animals—act toward their good end. Plants grow and bear fruit; animals reproduce and feed their young. It is evident that these things are directed to their end by an intelligent cause. But what about human beings? If humans have an intellect and a free will, then why is it necessary for God to order us to our final end? The answer: because God created heaven as our final end, and attaining heaven is above our nature and the nature of every creature.

We would never see God unless He granted us this supernatural privilege. Eternal beatitude surpasses our natural capacities. As St. Thomas teaches, “[E]verlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature.”⁶ The Catechism also states, “The vocation to eternal life is supernatural … It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.”⁷ Because man cannot attain to eternal life by his own natural efforts, he must be predestined to that end by God. St. Thomas says that “if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another;thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark.”⁸ Because we cannot attain the Beatific Vision by the power of our nature, God must direct us to this end by His power and grace. Thus, predestination is a certain and infallible truth, revealed by Scripture and taught by the Catholic Church.

SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

How does God choose to predestine His elect to glory? How does He choose to permit the reprobate to fall away? Does He grant and withhold graces according to His own good will and pleasure? Or does He base His acts on man’s foreseen merits and demerits? The remainder of this section presents a brief synopsis of the major competing schools of Christian thought dealing with predestination. This background is important as we dig more deeply into the mystery of predestination and attempt to discern truths and identify errors.

In Catholicism, the two major schools on predestination are Thomism and Molinism.⁹ Thomists believe that God gives man both sufficient and efficacious graces according to His divine decree. With efficacious grace, God infallibly moves man to freely choose the spiritual good. Man is infallibly moved because the grace is intrinsically efficacious to produce the salutary act. Even though man remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, God is the first and primary cause of the good act. With sufficient grace, God provides man with the power to choose the good, but man resists, and so the power remains in potency and is never actualized.¹⁰ Because sufficient grace is truly sufficient to apply man to act, the defect (the resistance or sin) is attributable to man, not God. The distinctions between these graces reveal that God is responsible for man’s salvation, and man is responsible for his damnation.

Although God grants man both sufficient and efficacious graces, He grants the efficacious grace of perseverance only to His elect. God causes the elect to persevere in grace because He lovingly wills them a greater good, even though He gives all men the grace to be saved.¹¹ This is called the principle of predilection: No one thing would be better than another unless it were loved more by God. Because God’s love is the cause of all goodness in things, God favors the elect because He gives them more, and not because of anything independently in them. We will explore this principle in greater depth in the next section.

Because God does not depend on man for anything, Thomists reject the notion that God predestines certain men based on their future merits. Rather, God grants the elect the intrinsically efficacious grace of perseverance out of pure benevolence. If God were to base His decision to grant grace on man’s foreseen merits (that is, how man would respond to the grace), this would render God passive and dependent upon the will of man. This is impossible for the Supreme Being who, as St. Thomas says, is pure Act.¹² Because God’s choice to predestine certain men is not conditioned upon man’s future efforts, Thomists believe in what is called “unconditional election.” At the same time, however, Thomists maintain that a man’s demerits (namely, the sins he commits by rejecting sufficient grace) are the reason for his reprobation.

Molinists, named after the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina, have difficulty reconciling the Thomist position of the absolute gratuity of predestination with the freedom of the will. Thus, Molinists believe that God establishes His plan of predestination based upon His foreknowledge of man’s future cooperation with His grace, which is called “conditional election.”¹³ For example, God decides to give someone the grace of perseverance because He foresees that the person will freely persevere with the help of the grace. In this system, the person’s cooperation is essential to the granting of the grace and the final result. The grace is not intrinsically efficacious (as it is for Thomists), but rather is made efficacious by the person’s consent and cooperation (often referred to as extrinsically efficacious grace).¹⁴

In fact, Molinists generally believe that one person may receive a lesser grace than another person, and yet the person with the lesser grace may be converted while the person with more grace may not be converted. Thus, unlike Thomists, Molinists believe that one who makes a greater effort has not necessarily received a greater grace (and hence greater love from God). Although the Church has allowed Catholics to hold either the Thomist or Molinist position, I maintain that the Thomist position on predestination best reflects the teaching of Scripture and the Magisterium, and will attempt to demonstrate the same throughout this book.¹⁵ As Pope Pius XII declared, “Theology, which is concerned with the interpretation of dogmas, also found in St. Thomas by far the richest of all commentators; for nobody ever more profoundly penetrated or expounded with greater subtlety all the august mysteries, as, for example … the obscurity of eternal predestination.”¹⁶

In Protestantism, the two major schools on predestination are Calvinism and Arminianism.¹⁷ Calvinists believe that God by eternal decree gratuitously grants the grace of salvation to the elect, but does not grant salvific grace to the reprobate. In Calvinism, God gives the elect irresistible grace which they never refuse, similar to the efficacious grace of Thomism. However, although Calvinists maintain that God does not save a sinner against his will, they do not admit that the person has the actual power to resist God’s “irresistible” grace. Thomists, on the other hand, maintain that the sinner has the power to resist efficacious grace, but that this power to resist remains in potency, and is never actualized, because God infallibly moves man to freely choose the good by such grace.

Further, in Calvinism, the reprobate are never offered sufficient grace for salvation, whereas in Thomism the reprobate are offered this grace but reject it. This means that in Calvinism God’s constant pleadings with sinners to repent and be converted serve only to glorify His mercy in saving the elect and vindicate His justice in punishing the reprobate. Thus, Calvinism supports the notion of a “double predestination,” whereby God leads the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation. Because God is directing the reprobate to their final end, Calvinism practically makes God responsible for man’s sin—an idea at odds with Scripture and God’s supreme goodness.¹⁸ Double predestination is incompatible with the truth that God loves all men and desires all to be saved. We examine Calvinism in greater depth throughout this book.¹⁹

Arminians, like the Molinists, believe that God uses His foreknowledge to determine who will cooperate with His grace and receive salvation. Based on this foreknowledge, God pronounces who He will predestine to heaven. Thus, like the Molinists, Arminians deny the intrinsic efficacy of grace and believe that man’s cooperation renders the grace efficacious. Also like the Molinists, Arminians believe that man can resist salvific graces, and like the Molinists (and Thomists) they generally believe that those who cooperate with saving grace can still fall away from salvation through sin. Calvinists, on the other hand, like many Reformed and Evangelical traditions within Protestantism, believe in “eternal security.” That is, once a person accepts Christ, he is assured of his salvation.

DIVINE PREDILECTION

Having summarized the various schools of thought, we now set forth what we maintain is the true and correct motive for predestination: Divine predilection. The word “predilection” is used to describe God’s special love for His elect and the divine favor He bestows upon them. This is the most foundational principle for apprehending the mystery of predestination and should be the guiding light for our analysis and reflections. Because God is love and “first hath loved us” (1 John 4:19), all discussions concerning predestination should hinge upon this fundamental truth.

As we will see below, the principle of predilection is revealed in the teachings of Scripture. It was also formulated by the Church at the Second Council of Orange (a regional council held in 529). Canon 12, entitled God loves such as us, states: “God loves us, as we shall be by the gift of His grace, not as we are by our own merit.”²⁰ In other words, the Council teaches that the more we are loved by God, the more we will be aided by His grace. The Catechism also says, “Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love.”²¹ The truth that God’s love is the reason for divine favor and election was developed in great detail by St. Thomas.

In the Summa, St. Thomas explains that the will of God is the cause of things. A thing has existence, or any kind of good, only insofar as it is willed by God.²² Because love is the willing of good for another, this means that God’s love is the cause of goodness in things. We see this at the beginning of divine revelation, where each time God creates He sees that His creation is “good.”²³ From these basic truths, St.Thomas concludes that “no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.”²⁴ St.Thomas further says that “the reason why some things are better than others, is that God wills for them a greater good. Hence it follows that He loves more the better things.”²⁵

As we said in the beginning, God’s providence, of which predestination is a part, is the plan existing in His intellect that directs the order of things to their end. Nothing, however, is directed toward an end unless the will for that end already exists. Because good is the essential object of the will, and love is the willing of good for another, love is the first movement of the will.²⁶ St. Thomas says, “Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love: love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation … election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others.”²⁷ This means that God’s love is the motive for election and predestination.

Although the principle of predilection means that God chooses to save the elect because He loves them more, we are not to confuse God’s predilect love for His elect with our love for God and others. This is a key to understanding the Thomist position. We choose whom we love because of the goodness that exists in them. However, God chooses whom He loves because of the goodness that His love thereby creates in them. St. Thomas says that “the love of God creates and infuses goodness” in His creatures.²⁸ The Council of Orange II also says, “Although we were displeasing we were loved, so that there might be produced in us [something] by which we might please.”²⁹ Thus, the way humans love and choose is ordered differently in God. St. Thomas explains:

Election and love, however, are differently ordered in God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause the good, but we are inclined to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love.”³⁰

That there are distinctions, if you will, in God’s love is certainly not inconsistent with the truth that God is all-loving. If we are ever tempted to question God’s eternal love for each one of us, we need only to look at a crucifix. Although Jesus loves all men so much that He shed His blood for them, His love for the Father exceeds His love for any man. Likewise, the Father loves Jesus more than anyone or anything, and He loves the Blessed Virgin Mary more than any other human being or any angel. Jesus had a special love for John the Apostle vis-à-vis the other apostles (see John 19:26), and has a unique love for His Church in preference to those outside His Church (see Eph. 5:25).

Although certainly not a perfect comparison, we can relate to the distinctions in God’s love in light of our own love for others. For example, we are called “to work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith” (Gal. 6:10). Men are to sacrificially love their wives “as Christ also loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). Men are also “to love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph. 5:28). However, men are not to love their neighbors’ wives or bodies the same way. Parents have a greater and more intense love for their children than for the children of other parents. Parents also love some attributes in their children more than other attributes. Grades of intensity within the act of loving do not negate the fact that the love exists.

In summary, St. Thomas teaches that God’s love is the cause of goodness in all things. This means that one thing would not be better than another unless it were loved more by God. God the Supreme Good is not a spectator of good;He is the author of all good. Even though God loves all men and thus wills them good, God loves the elect more because He gives them more. God loved St. Peter more than Judas Iscariot because He gave St. Peter more grace and help than Judas (even though He gave Judas sufficient grace to avoid sin and repent of his sins). As St.John the Baptist says, “A man cannot receive anything unless it be given him from heaven” (John 3:27). St. James also says, “Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17).

Hence, where there are two sinners, the one who converts is loved and helped more by God than the one who does not, even though God loves both sinners and gives them both sufficient grace for conversion.St.Augustine says the same regarding the angels: “If both were created equally good, then, while some fell by their evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted, and reached that high degree of blessedness from which they became certain they would never fall.”³¹ All good, whether it’s the grace of profound conversion or the grace of resisting temptation, comes from God through Jesus Christ. As St. Paul says, “Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. 4:7). Jesus also says, “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). St. Thomas further says, “For a man receives all his power of well-doing from God, and not from man. Hence a man can merit nothing from God except by His gift.”³²

ROMANS 8: “FOR WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE ALSO PREDESTINATED”

St. Thomas’s teaching on divine predilection is clearly supported by Sacred Scripture. For example, in his letter to the Romans, St. Paul reveals that predilection is the motive for predestination. In chapter 8, St. Paul writes:

And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified (vv.28-30).

In verse 28, St. Paul says that “all things work together unto good” for those who are called to be saints. Because God’s love is the cause of the “good” in verse 28, St. Paul is teaching that God elects His saints according to His predilection. In verse 29, St. Paul reveals a sequence of five active verbs that have God as the subject and the elect as the object: God “foreknew,” “predestinated,” “called,” “justified,” and “glorified.”³³ Calvinists refer to Romans 8:29 as “the golden chain of redemption.”

The first verb in the chain is “foreknew,” which comes from the Greek proginosko. In the two other instances of the use of this verb in the New Testament in the context of predestination, it likewise refers to predilection. For example, St. Paul uses proginosko two chapters later, in Romans 11:2, when he says, “God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew [proginosko]. Know you not what the scripture saith of Elias; how he calleth on God against Israel?”

In this verse, St. Paul is revealing that God grants a special love to His elect that secures their salvation. St. Paul could not have chosen a better Old Testament example than Elias (Elijah). God had a very special and unique love for Elias, for Scripture says that “the Lord would take up Elias into heaven by a whirlwind.”³⁴ A few verses later, St. Paul confirms that he is discussing divine election when he says, “Even so then at this present time also, there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (vv. 5-6). In this last verse, St. Paul affirms that God does not base His election on “works” or future merits but chooses out of His pure benevolence and gratuity.

St. Peter also uses proginosko in the context of divine predilection. In 1 Peter 1:19-20, he says that we have been redeemed “with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, foreknown (proginosko) indeed before the foundation of the world.” In this passage, St.Peter is clearly referring to the love that the Father had for Christ before He sent Him into the world. In fact, in St. John’s gospel, Jesus refers to the Father’s predilect love for Him in almost the same words: “Father … thou hast loved me before the creation of the world” (17:24).³⁵

Notwithstanding these examples, Molinists and Arminians insist that St.Paul’s use of “foreknew” in Romans 8:29 means that God chose His elect based on His foreknowledge of their future merits (even though the verse says nothing about the elect’s future merits), and not His predilection. It is true that when proginosko is used as a noun, it refers to knowledge of future events. For example, after St. Peter warns how private interpretation of Scripture can lead to one’s own destruction, he says, “[T]herefore, brethren, knowing these things before (proginosko), take heed.”³⁶

Moreover, Scripture is clear that God knows all things, for the Psalmist says, “Behold, O Lord, thou hast known all things, the last and those of old” (138:5). God’s knowledge includes knowledge of future events, as He says through Isaias (Isaiah), “[B]efore they spring forth, I will make you head them” (42:9). Daniel also reveals, “But there is a God in heaven that revealeth mysteries, who hath shown to thee … what is to come to pass in the latter times” (2:28). St.Peter also declared at the council of Jerusalem, “To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18).

However, when proginosko is used as a verb, as it is in Romans 8:29 and 11:2 and in 1 Peter 1:20, it does not refer to God’s knowledge of future events but rather God’s action of arranging those events in advance, according to His divine plan. Love is an act of the will. This means that God is not predestining those in Romans 8:29 based on His “passive” foreknowledge of their future merits (the Molinist and Arminian position) but is actively foreordaining those events that will infallibly fulfill His plan of predestination based on His predilection (the Thomist and Calvinist position).

St. Peter’s use of proginosko in 1 Peter 1:20 could not possibly refer to the Father’s knowledge of Christ’s foreseen merits. St. Thomas explains that the human nature in Christ was united to the Son of God “without any antecedent merits.”³⁷ Further, because Christ had an impeccable free will, His obedience to the Father was certain to occur. St.Thomas further adds that “Christ’s predestination is the exemplar of ours.”³⁸ As St. Paul says, Jesus “was predestinated the Son of God in power” (Rom. 1:4). This means that we, who are “predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son,” are also predestined by God in Christ, irrespective of our foreseen merits. Moreover, St. Thomas says that Christ “was predestinated to be the natural Son of God, whereas we are predestinated to the adoption of sons, which is a participated likeness of natural sonship.”³⁹ Thus, if Christ’s predestination is the exemplar of ours, and He was predestinated as a natural Son without regard to foreseen merits, much more are we predestinated as adopted sons without regard to foreseen merits.

St. Augustine agreed that Scripture’s use of God’s foreknowledge in the context of predestination referred to His divine prearrangement of the elect to glory and the means by which they will infallibly attain it. St. Augustine says, “By predestination, God foreknew those things which He was going to do.”⁴⁰ The Doctor of Grace equates foreknowing with divine action. God foreknew the special love and goodness He would freely give man. Similarly, St. Augustine refers to the “foreknowledge and preparation of those gifts whereby whoever are liberated are most certainly liberated.”⁴¹ Once again, Augustine connects foreknowledge with preparation, both of which are divine actions that cause the liberation of the elect. In short, Augustine says that predestination is the foreknowledge of God’s benefits, not man’s merits.⁴²

The Church at the Third Council of Valence (a regional council held in 855) also attributes action to foreknowledge in regard to God’s punishment of the reprobate. The third canon says: “But God foreknew the malice of the wicked, and because it was their own and He was not the cause of it, He did not predestine it. The punishment, of course, following their demerit, this He foreknew and predestined.”⁴³ In this canon, we clearly see that God’s foreknowledge of future demerits is not part of predestination. However, God’s punishment of the wicked is a foreordained (or “foreknown”) divine action that is part of His plan of predestination.

St. Thomas teaches in no uncertain terms that divine election is not based upon foreseen merits. In fact, in a departure from his usual calm and objective tone, St. Thomas says that “nobody has been so insane as to say that merit is the cause of divine predestination as regards the act of the predestinator.”⁴⁴ St. Thomas’s position that election is exclusive of human effort is clearly supported by Scripture and the teachings of the Church. For example, in his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul reveals that God “hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world” (1:9). St. Paul is clear that God calls us independently of our works according to His purposes and before time began.

In his letter to Titus, St. Paul says, “Not by works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost” (3:5). St.Paul also writes to the Ephesians, “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory” (2:8-9). He also says to the Romans, “[T]here is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (11:5-6). These and other verses demonstrate that God saves us through grace and not works (current or future merits), according to His purpose and election.

Canon 18 of the Council of Orange II says: “That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes that they may be done.”⁴⁵ The council further says that “in every good work we do not begin, and afterwards are helped by the mercy of God, but He Himself, with no preceding good services [on our part], previously inspires us with faith and love of Him.”⁴⁶ Pope Boniface, in confirming the Council of Orange, says that “the beginning of all good will, according to Catholic truth, is inspired in the minds of individuals by the preceding grace of God.”⁴⁷ In fact, the pope states that all blessings, including faith in Christ, are conferred upon us by the preceding grace and mercy of God, and not because of our merits.⁴⁸ Canon 3 of the Council of Valence III says that “in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes the merited good.”⁴⁹ For those who are justified by grace, the Ecumenical Council of Trent says, “[W]hereby without any existing merits on their part they are called.”⁵⁰

St. Thomas also explains that God’s purported reliance on foreseen merits confuses the effects of grace with the effects of free will, as if both effects didn’t come from God. Attributing our free-will acts to man and not to God suggests that our acts are outside the effect of predestination. This is not possible. St.Thomas says:

Now there is no distinction between what flows from free will, and what is of predestination; as there is no distinction between what flows from a secondary cause and from a first cause. For the providence of God produces effects through the operation of secondary causes … Wherefore, that which flows from free will is also of predestination.⁵¹

St. Thomas further says that “whatsoever is in man disposing him towards salvation, is all included under the effect of predestination; even the preparation for grace.”⁵² The Catechism similarly says, “The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace.”⁵³ This is because acquiring God’s divine life of grace surpasses our natural abilities. Jesus affirmed the same when He said, “No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him” (John 6:44). This is also why in the Preface we said that our salutary acts should give us great humility and comfort, for they are a sign that God is “disposing us toward salvation,” which is an effect of predestination. St. Thomas beautifully summarizes his thoughts on this issue by saying that “God preordained to give glory on account of merit, and … He preordained to give grace to merit glory.”⁵⁴

Thus, God’s “foreknowledge” refers to the special favor He gives to the elect that causes them to freely choose salvation. This favor includes even the secondary causes that will bring about His plan of predestination, such as our free-will decisions. This is why Jesus at the end of time will tell the reprobate, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” When Christ will say that He never knew the reprobate, this doesn’t mean He didn’t personally know them or their future merits and demerits. Rather, it means that He did not love them the way He loved the elect. Even though Jesus loved them enough to die for them, He permitted them to resist His grace by their own free will (whereas He caused the elect to freely choose salvation). No one thing can be better than another thing unless it is loved more by God.

ROMANS 9: “JACOB I HAVE LOVED”

After revealing God’s plan of predestination in Romans 8:28-30, St. Paul provides further insights into the motives for God’s plan in chapter 9 (remember, the chapter divisions are not part of the original text). St. Paul opens this chapter by grieving for the unbelief of the Jews with “great sadness” and “continual sorrow” (v. 2). St. Paul refers to the Jews as “my brethren” and “my kinsmen” (v. 3), and even says that he would be willing to be separated from Christ if that would save the Jews (v. 3). St. Paul affirms that the Israelites had received the promises of salvation from God (v. 4), but then states: “Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel” (v. 6). St. Paul goes on to say:

Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they, that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed. For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come; and Sara shall have a son. And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once, of Isaac our father (vv. 7-10).

What is St. Paul’s point? He is responding to those who were accusing him of preaching a false gospel. St. Paul was being so accused because many Jews, who were still thought by some to be God’s chosen people, had rejected St. Paul’s gospel. St. Paul reveals that their understanding is erroneous. The Jews were rejecting Christ because God saves “the children of the promise,” not “the children of the flesh.”⁶⁵ That is, not all who are the physical seed of Israel are the spiritual seed of Abraham and “the children of God” (v. 8). Thus, St.Paul reveals that the national identity of a person is irrelevant to God’s plan of salvation. In fact, as St. Paul later explains, only a fraction of the nation of Israel would be saved, which Paul describes as “a remnant saved according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5).⁶⁶

If the Jews were wrong and national identity is irrelevant to God’s saving plan, then how does God determine who are “the children of God”? How does He determine who is saved according to “the election of grace”? St. Paul further explains: “For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (vv. 11-13).

Once again we see God’s election based on divine predilection. In referring to an example of divine election in Malachias 1:2, St. Paul says, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” St. Paul could have just as easily said, “Jacob I have predestined, but Esau I have reprobated.”⁶⁷ Hence, St. Paul in Romans 9:13 is expressly connecting God’s election with His love for the elect. Just as God chose Isaac before Ishmael, He chose Jacob over Esau because He loved him more. God loved Jacob more because He gave Him more. Jacob would not have been better than Esau unless he had been given more and loved more by God.

On what basis did God love Jacob and hate Esau?⁶⁸ In no uncertain terms, St. Paul says that it was not because of their future merits or demerits. God made His decision before the twins “were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand)” (v.11). St.Paul also excludes merits in the next verse when he says, “Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger” (v. 12). The phrase “not of works, but of him that calleth” literally means “not out of acts but out of the One calling.”⁶⁹

Turning to the original Greek, the double use of the preposition “out” (ek), which is separated by the conjunction “but” (alla) forcefully distinguishes between man’s acts and God’s call. St. Paul’s usage reinforces the truth that God’s decree to prefer Jacob over Esau is made independently of anything in them and proceeds “out” of the complete sovereignty of God. God loved Jacob before He created him and before he had any opportunity to respond to God’s graces. It is not what Jacob did, but what God gave Jacob, that determined his election.

In an effort to deny God’s sovereign election of individuals independently of future merits, some Protestants (generally Arminians and other non-Calvinists) argue that Romans 9 is not about the individual Jacob, but about the nation of Israel, which Jacob fathered.⁷⁰ They base this argument on St. Paul’s reference to Genesis 25:23, where God reveals to Rebecca that she is having twins and says, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided out of thy womb, and one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.” According to the Protestant argument, since Jacob represents Israel and Esau represents Edom, the verse speaks only to the corporate election of God’s chosen Israel, but not to individual people (such as Jacob himself).

Catholics (and Calvinists) strongly disagree with this interpretation. First, even if Jacob did represent Israel, God’s basis for choosing Israel was because He loved Israel more (e.g., “Israel I loved, but Edom I hated”). Thus, the Protestant argument does not deny predilection. Secondly, St. Paul denies a corporate election of the nation of Israel when he grieves over their unbelief (Rom.9:2-3) and says that only a remnant of Israel will be saved (Rom. 9:27; 11:5). In fact, the reprobation among the Israelites was so obvious that St. Paul had to declare the Word of God had not miscarried (Rom.9:6). Thirdly, one cannot reconcile a corporate election of Israel with St.Paul’s statement, “For all are not Israelites that are of Israel” but “the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed” (Rom.9:6, 8). St.Paul is clear that God’s election was not based on the Israelites’ national identity but on the spiritual identity of His chosen ones.⁷¹

To deny any eternal decree of predilection, Arminians also argue that God is expressing His love for Jacob (Israel) and hate for Esau (Edom) not before, but after they were born. To support this argument, Protestant apologist Norman Geisler emphatically states, “The citation in Romans 9:13 is not from Genesis when they were alive (c. 2000 B.C.) but from Malachi 1:2-3 (c. 400 B.C.), long after they died!”⁷² Because God is purportedly speaking about the post-natal twins, their respective nations and their role in salvation history, the Arminian argues that God in Romans 9:13 is condemning the Edomites for their conduct, and not in consequence of His eternal decree. This is a silly argument for a number of reasons.

First, the argument presupposes that God is referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, which we have demonstrated is not true. Secondly, although God surely hated the Edomites for their evil ways, God hardly had good things to say about Israel during their persecution by the Edomites. In fact, God allowed the Edomites to kill many of the Jews precisely because of the Jews’ unfaithful-ness. Thus, it doesn’t follow that God would connect His love for Israel and His hatred for Edom in a single verse in Scripture, when both nations were guilty of faithlessness and idolatry at the same time. This is especially true given that Israel continued to reject God in the New Covenant, as St. Paul so clearly and regretfully expresses.

Thirdly, while the Prophecy of Malachias was written about 1,600 years after Jacob and Esau were born, this doesn’t mean that Malachias 1:2-3 is about the post-natal Jacob and Esau! In fact, the Hebrew phrase “[b]ut have hated Esau” (oshu shnathi) in Malachias 1:3 includes a past-tense verb which means that God’s hatred for Esau is not limited to the time the verse was penned (c. 400 B.C.) but can go back indefinitely, even prior to Esau’s birth. Fourthly, although Romans 9:13 cites Malachias 1:2-3, which was written after the twins’death, the preceding verse cites Genesis 25:23, which refers to the time period before the twins’ birth! God determined that Esau would serve Jacob before they were born, and that is because God loved Jacob more than Esau from all eternity.

Finally, St. Paul in Romans 9:11 refers to “the children … not yet born.” These pre-born children (not adults or nations) are none other than Jacob and Esau. Because both verses 11 and 12 are about the pre-natal Jacob and Esau, St.Paul in verse 13 interprets Malachias 1:2-3 to also be about the pre-natal Jacob and Esau. St. Paul, in three consecutive verses, is revealing that God’s plan of election is not determined by anything in man. Rather, God’s predestination plan is conceived in the divine mind from all eternity, and executed in time according to God’s good will and pleasure.

If God made this decision before Jacob and Esau were born, without any consideration of their future response to His grace, one might think that God was acting arbitrarily. Does this mean that God acts unjustly? St. Paul was certainly aware of this inquiry and the potential allegations of injustice in God. To preempt any such arguments, St. Paul says in the very next verse: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (vv. 14-16).⁷³

Obviously, St. Paul’s answer does not include a detailed list of criteria that God uses for determining divine predilection. Rather, St. Paul reveals that God’s predilection is based purely on His mercy. After referring to the statement that God made to Moses in Exodus 33 (“I will have mercy on whom I please”), St. Paul eliminates any possibility that predilection is based on human effort (will or action) when he says that it is not “of him that willeth” and not “of him that runneth” (v. 16)⁷⁴ In other words, God does not base His decision on any foreseen merits or demerits, but sees all involved in sin, in the common “mass of perdition.”⁷⁵ Therefore, whoever God delivers from condemnation, He delivers in His mercy, and whoever God leaves in condemnation, He leaves in His justice. Such was the interpretation of both St. Augustine and St. Thomas.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR PREDESTINATION/REPROBATION?

The question still remains: On what basis did God prefer Jacob over Esau? On what basis does God choose to save some in His mercy, and to leave others in their condemnation? St. Augustine believed that any attempt to answer this question would be fraught with so much potential error that it was best not to form a judgment: “Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.”⁷⁶ St. Thomas says, “Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will.”⁷⁷ But St. Thomas also says that any effort to understand the divine will on this matter must focus on the goodness of God: “The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God.”⁷⁸ As we will see in the next chapter, God desires to communicate His goodness in the greatest measure possible, and He accomplishes His desire by communicating both His mercy to the elect, and His justice to the reprobate, according to His will.

St. Paul reveals this truth about predilection and reprobation in the next two verses. Specifically, St. Paul refers to the hardening of Pharao’s heart in Exodus 33. Pharao was the evil ruler of Egypt who persecuted the Israelites during the time of Moses. St. Paul says, “For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may show my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth” (vv. 17-18). Thus, St. Paul expands the discussion to include God’s action in hardening the hearts of sinners. There is a clear parallel between God’s sovereign will to have mercy and His sovereign will to harden hearts.

Because of this parallel, many Calvinists contend that God hardened Pharao’s heart without regard to Pharao’s free will. In fact, most Calvinists don’t believe that God gave Pharao sufficient grace to be saved but created him for destruction in order to achieve God’s plans.⁷⁹ In other words, if God doesn’t consider future merits in granting mercy, the Calvinist argues that He doesn’t consider future demerits in hardening hearts. Moreover, the Book of Exodus is clear that God did harden Pharao’s heart, when He reveals: “See that thou do all the wonders before Pharao, which I have put in thy hand: I shall harden his heart, and he will not let the people go” (4:21); “But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, [a]nd he will not hear you” (7:3-4); “And the Lord hardened Pharao’s heart, and he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken to Moses” (9:12).⁸⁰

Although it is true that God decrees to permit certain people to reject His grace without regard to future demerits, there are a number of problems with the Calvinist argument. First, Scripture says that Pharao also hardened his own heart, for example: “And Pharao seeing that rest was given, hardened his own heart, and did not hear them, as the Lord had commanded” (Ex. 8:15); “And Pharao seeing that the rain and the hail, and the thunders were ceased, increased his sin. And his heart was hardened, and the heart of his servants, and it was made exceeding hard” (9:34-35).⁸¹

Secondly, if the Calvinist attributes the hardening exclusively to God (without regard to Pharao’s free will), he denies the verses that reveal that Pharao also played a part in the hardening. Clearly, these verses need to be reconciled. Thirdly, attributing the hardening to God alone makes God responsible for Pharao’s sin, even though “to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike” (Wis. 14:9). God doesn’t cause the things He hates but rather permits hateful deeds for a greater good. This truth is lost in the Calvinist position.

So how do we reconcile God’s hardening of Pharao with Pharao’s hardening of himself? If God doesn’t consider future demerits when He decrees to permit sin, then what role do sinners play in their spiritual blindness? Further, if God is not determined by man’s sin, then how can God’s hardening not be the cause of his sin? The Thomist answer: God’s eternal decree includes both the permission to sin and the punishment of sin without regard to future demerits, but God is not the cause of sin, as Scripture teaches. This means that the permission and the punishment come from God, but the defect (the sin) comes from man. In other words, God in His eternal decree permitted Pharao to reject His graces (Pharao hardened his heart), and God predestined Pharao’s punishment for rejecting these graces (God hardened Pharao’s heart).

Because hardheartedness is a punishment from God (which St. Thomas teaches),⁸² it is predestined by God without regard to future demerits, just like the punishment of the reprobate in hell is predestined without regard to future demerits. These principles are set forth in the teachings of the Catholic Church. For example, the Council of Quiersy (a local council held in 853) teaches that, of those God left in the mass of perdition, “He did not predestine that they would perish because He is just; however, He predestined eternal punishment for them.”⁸³ The Council of Valence (855) also says that “God, who sees all things, foreknew and predestined that their evil deserved the punishment which followed, because He is just.”⁸⁴ This punishment is the withholding of grace, which leads to both spiritual blindness in this life and eternal damnation in the next life.

Thus, the teachings of these councils, as further expounded by St. Thomas, hold in balance two fundamental truths regarding reprobation: (1) God is not the cause of man’s sin, and (2) God is not determined by man’s sin (He is unmoved). This position maintains that God is completely in control of the salvation/reprobation process while also maintaining that man sins through the use of his free will. Mercy and justice come from God, whereas sin comes from man. We will look at the mystery of reprobation in greater detail later in the book.

Because God permits sin but is not the cause of sin, St. Paul is clear that no sinner can accuse God of “forcing” him to sin. St. Paul poses the hypothetical objection: “Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will?” (Rom. 9:19). In other words, the sinner may be inclined to retort: “Why does God blame me for my sin? Who resists His will?” St. Paul provides the following stern reply to those who would make such an accusation:

O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, [t]hat he might show the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory? (vv. 20-23).

With this reply, St. Paul forcefully rejects the suggestion that God is to blame for one’s sin. In fact, the purpose of St. Paul’s raising this hypothetical objection was to assert this very truth. No man has any business making such a reply against God. He is not only blameless when it comes to man’s sin but He does not even tempt man to sin. St. James says, “Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death” (1:13-15).

St. Paul uses the metaphor of the potter and the clay to underscore God’s sovereignty in choosing who are the objects of His mercy (predilection), and who are the objects of His justice (reprobation). St. Paul uses the same metaphors of “vessels” of “honor” and “dishonor” elsewhere in Scripture, for example: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency may be of the power of God, and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:7); “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth: and some indeed unto honor, but some unto dishonor” (2 Tim. 2:20).

God applied the same metaphor to the Israelites through the prophet Jeremias: “Cannot I do with you, as this potter, O house of Israel, saith the Lord? Behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel” (18:6). God also said through Isaias: “And now, O Lord, thou art our father, and we are clay: and thou art our maker, and we all are the works of thy hands” (Isa. 64:8).⁸⁵ We also read in Ecclesiasticus, “As the potter’s clay is in his hand, to fashion and order it: All his ways are according to his ordering: so man is in the hand of him that made him, and he will render to him according to his judgment” (33:13-14).

Of course, the potter determines the clay; the clay does not determine the potter or force the potter’s hand. Moreover, the criteria that the potter uses to determine the clay are known to the potter alone. There is nothing inherent in the “same lump” of clay that determines how the potter will use it. Thus, the metaphor teaches us that God simply chooses, according to His secret purposes, those on whom He desires to have mercy (“vessels of mercy”), and those whom He will permit to reject Him (“vessels of wrath”). Scripture never says that God bases this decision on any foreseen merits or demerits, which, as we have said, would imply potentiality in God, and which would not exist in the absence of His divine decree.

Calvin interpreted Romans 9:22-23 as evidence that God determines whom He will condemn before man ever commits sin. Whereas Catholics believe that God merely permitted the vessels to become fitted for destruction by their sins, most Calvinists argue that God actually made the vessels for destruction. Calvin even labeled God’s purported decision the “dreadful decree” (decretum horribile). However, if Calvin’s position were true, then all things would happen of necessity, and free will would be sham. Moreover, the Greek verb St.Paul uses to describe the vessels “fitted for destruction” is in the passive voice, whereas the verb that describes the vessels “prepared unto glory” is in the active voice.⁸⁶ This usage further underscores God’s causality in determining the final end of the elect, and His mere permission in allowing the fate of the reprobate. As the Catechism teaches, “God predestines no one to go to hell” (CCC 1037).

Because mercy is a free gift from God, He can bestow it in the proportion He deems fit, without offending justice. As St. Paul states, “Is there injustice with God? God forbid” (v. 14). St. Thomas teaches, “Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things … In things which are given gratuitously a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice.”⁸⁷ God bestows mercy on His elect out of pure gratuity, according to His good will. As Jesus said in the parable of the master of the house: “Take what is thine, and go thy way … Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will?” (Matt. 20:14-15).

As we noted in the very beginning, God bestows mercy on sinners in proportion to how much He loves them and wills their good, which is called predilection. God loves all men, but loves some more than others, because He creates more goodness in one sinner than in another. One sinner would not be better than another unless he were loved more and given more by God. St. Thomas says, “In the justification of the ungodly justice is seen, when God remits sins on account of love, though He Himself has mercifully infused that love. So we read of Mary Magdalen: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much (Luke 7:47).”⁸⁸

FR. MOST AND ROMANS 8-9: A “TRADITIONAL” OR “NOVEL” INTERPRETATION?

In his influential book Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God (GPS), Catholic theologian Fr. William Most rejects the traditional interpretation of Romans 8 and 9. In fact, Fr. Most denies that Romans 8-9 is about individual election at all. Moreover, Fr. Most says that Sts. Augustine and Thomas had “erroneous interpretations” of these passages. As we have seen, because all men are condemned (part of the massa damnata), Sts. Augustine and Thomas held that God rescues some in His mercy, and permits others to be damned in His justice, according to His will and before foreseen merits and demerits (see Rom. 9:16, 18). For example, St. Thomas says, “Since all men because of the sin of the first parents are born exposed to damnation, those whom God frees through His grace, He frees out of mercy alone. And so He is merciful to certain ones whom He delivers, but to certain ones He is just, whom He does not deliver.”⁸⁹

Fr. Most claims “that the interpretation of Romans 8-9 which St. Thomas inherited from St. Augustine is erroneous,”⁹⁰ and he emphatically states, “All exegetes today reject this interpretation.”⁹¹ It is important to address Fr. Most’s claims for a number of reasons. First, Fr. Most is a worthy scholar whose opinions have influenced the views about predestination of a significant number of Catholics, and we are not aware of any meaningful scholarship that has challenged his unique positions. Secondly, Fr. Most’s rejection of the traditional interpretation of Romans 8-9 is the basis for many of his novel interpretations of St. Thomas and his theories on grace (more on this later). Thirdly, interacting with Fr. Most’s argumentation helps us see more clearly the principles that St. Thomas has left us. These principles help us build our spiritual lives upon a necessary, dogmatic foundation and give the greatest glory to God.

We first note that Fr. Most in GPS does not provide any meaningful exegesis of Romans 8 or 9. He engages in no contextual, grammatical, or lexical analysis of the applicable texts. This is uncharacteristic of Fr. Most’s otherwise thorough scholarship. One would expect more from a renowned scholar, particularly when he is criticizing a position shared by the two greatest minds of the Church. Yet Fr.Most repeatedly claims that St.Augustine, St.Thomas, and other theologians who followed them “were severely hampered by a formerly current misinterpretation” of the passages.⁹² Fr.Most says, “Today we know that these interpretations of Scripture were all erroneous for they are rejected with unanimity by all good exegetes of all schools.”⁹³ Fr. Most continues by saying, “[E]xegetes of all schools teach a different interpretation of the passage from the Epistle to the Romans.”⁹⁴ And again, he says, “[T]his interpretation … is now rightly abandoned, as false and lacking in foundation, by all good exegetes of all schools.”⁹⁵ Fr. Most makes these kinds of sweeping statements throughout his nearly 700-page book.

After summarily dismissing the views of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, Fr.Most appeals to the “modern scholarship” of Père Lagrange, J. Huby, and A.M.Dubarle. Based on this modern scholarship, Fr. Most says, “As a result, we are able to know clearly that which was hidden in the days of St. Thomas, namely:St. Paul, in Romans 8-9, was not speaking about the infallible predestination of individuals to eternal glory, but about the plans of God for the call of peoples to be members of the Church, in the Old or New Testament, in the full sense, and about the divine plans for those who already are members of the Church in the full sense.”⁹⁶

Notwithstanding Fr. Most’s assertions, the Council of Valence authentically teaches that Romans 9 is about individual predestination and election! After citing both Romans 9:21 (about the potter’s power over the clay) and Romans 9:22 (about the vessels of mercy and wrath), the council offers its interpretation of those verses: “[F]aithfully we confess the predestination of the elect to life, and the predestination of the impious to death; in the election, moreover, of those who are to be saved, the mercy of God precedes merited good. In the condemnation, however, of those who are to be lost, the evil which they have deserved precedes the just judgment of God.”⁹⁷ In short, Fr. Most’s interpretation of Romans 8-9 is expressly rejected by the Council of Valence as well as the constant teaching tradition of the Church espoused by Sts. Augustine and Thomas.

Continuing with his novel theory about Romans 9, Fr. Most sees a distinction between what he calls the “internal economy” that regards individual salvation (whether a man will go to heaven or hell) and the “external economy” that regards the external order (whether a man or a nation will belong to the Church). Fr. Most applies this concocted paradigm to any verse he thinks speaks of individual predestination (e.g., Rom. 8-9; 1 Cor. 4:7; Acts 13:48).Fr. Most argues that Romans 9 is about the external economy, not the internal economy. Specifically, Fr. Most advances the Arminian argument that St. Paul is speaking about the predestination of “nations” and not individuals.⁹⁸

We have already demonstrated that Fr. Most’s interpretation is at odds with the Council of Valence. We have also refuted the “nations” argument with an exegesis of the text, and so will not repeat that analysis here. We remind the reader that St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 9 flows directly from his explicit teachings about individual predestination in Romans 8:28-30, which St. Thomas also emphasizes.⁹⁹ We also remind the reader that St. Paul was specifically rejecting the idea that God predestines nations and not individual persons. The Jews were using their place in the “external economy” (as the nation of Israel) to claim that they were the beneficiaries of God’s election (Rom. 9:4-5), and St.Paul said they were wrong. To emphasize that God predestines individuals and not nations, St. Paul says, “For all are not Israelites that are of Israel,” but are “the children of the promise” (Rom. 9:6, 8). To further emphasize individual predestination, St. Paul brings it down to the level of individual persons: Jacob and Esau (vv.11-13).St.Paul’s references to individual man’s “works” and “will” (see Rom. 9:12, 16) vis-à-vis God’s gratuitous election also underscore that St.Paul is talking about individuals and not nations.

When Fr. Most reveals his two categories, he also includes the Church in the category of the “external economy.” However, St. Paul never mentions the “Church” in Romans 8 or 9. Rather, he is focused on the nation of Israel and the Jews’erroneous understanding of how God determines His election. Moreover, we fail to understand Fr. Most’s distinction between individual election (internal economy) and membership in the Church (external economy). God predestines people (internal economy) to eternal salvation precisely by bringing them into the Catholic Church (external economy). In light of this truth, we must also disagree with Fr. Most’s assertion that “God has freely decided upon different fundamental principles for the two economies. These principles are quite incompatible with one another.”¹⁰⁰

This assertion is problematic because individual salvation is one effect of predestination, and membership in the Church is another effect of predestination. In fact, one effect (Church membership) may be called the cause of the other effect (salvation). As St. Thomas remarks, “[T]here is no reason why one effect of predestination should not be the reason or cause of another.”¹⁰¹ Even if there were two economies as Fr. Most maintains, this does not mean that God would govern them by different principles, since both economies flow from God’s single decree of predestination. This is why St.Thomas says that all the effects of predestination proceed “from its first moving principle,” which is God.¹⁰² If God really governed the “external economy” differently than the “internal economy,” one could argue that God wills to save some people (internal economy) but doesn’t will them to be Catholic (external economy). Nevertheless, we do not assume that Fr. Most’s distinction was motivated by any dissent from the Church’s infallible dogma: Extra ecclesia nulla salus est (outside the Church there is no salvation).¹⁰³

Fr. Most contends that modern scholarship refutes the massa damnata interpretation of Romans 9. He even implies that the Church has overturned this long-standing interpretation. After claiming that “the obstacles that arose from the erroneous interpretations of the Epistle to the Romans (and a few other passages in St. Paul) have been removed,” he says that “the Church, benefiting from the cumulative light which the Holy Spirit has now sent through so many centuries, teaches many truths more clearly, especially the salvific will of God.”¹⁰⁴ Fr. Most gives his readers the impression that the teachings of the modern Church are at odds with the Augustinian and Thomistic interpretation. However, not only has the Church never criticized the traditional interpretation but she essentially adopted it at the Council of Quiersy in 853!¹⁰⁵ In addition, the Church has not issued any other interpretation of Romans 8-9 in the context of grace and predestination since Quiersy and Valence, Fr. Most’s opinions notwithstanding.

The council of Quiersy explicitly teaches St. Augustine’s view of the massa damnata (“mass of perdition”), even referring to the Doctor of Grace’s works. The council proclaimed:

Omnipotent God created man noble without sin with a free will, and he whom He wished to remain in the sanctity of justice, He placed in Paradise. Man using his free will badly sinned and fell, and became the “mass of perdition” of the entire human race. The just and good God, however, chose from this same mass of perdition according to His foreknowledge those whom through grace He predestined to life [Rom. 8:29ff; Eph.1:11], and He predestined for these eternal life; the others, whom by the judgment of justice he left in the mass of perdition, however, He knew would perish, but He did not predestine that they would perish, because He is just.¹⁰⁶

Fr. Most appears to reject the traditional interpretation of Romans 9 because he incorrectly believes it promotes positive reprobation (God wills some to be damned) and not negative reprobation (God wills to permit some to damn themselves). For example, Fr. Most says, “Now if God were to reject a man from eternal salvation as He rejected Esau, that is, before considering anything that the man would or would not do … the rejected man could not ‘distinguish himself ’ in regard to being reprobated or not: then he could not simultaneously say sincerely that He willed all men—including those reprobated—to be saved.”¹⁰⁷ However, as we will further examine, God does not “reject a man” and will his damnation; He only permits man to choose it. St. Thomas defines reprobation as “the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.”¹⁰⁸ Moreover, whereas Fr. Most thinks one man should be able to “distinguish himself ” from another by his positive response to grace, St. Paul tells man that nothing “distinguisheth thee” except the will and intention of God (1 Cor. 4:7).

Although it is true that God determines whom He will reprobate before they do any good or evil (see Rom. 9:11),¹⁰⁹ we know that God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved. By using his free will to reject this grace and commit sin, man is responsible for his own damnation. St. Thomas further says, “Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated … he that falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will.”¹¹⁰ Fr. Most’s rejection of the traditional interpretation of Romans 9 results in his erroneous understanding of sufficient grace. As we will see later in the book, Fr. Most holds that sufficient grace (in the Thomistic understanding) is actually insufficient for salvation, contrary to what St. Thomas and his adherents teach.

Fr. Most’s misunderstanding of Romans 9 also results in his rejection of the principle of divine predilection and causality (God’s will is the cause of all good). Fr. Most not only twists the meaning of Romans 9 to deny predilection (“Jacob I have loved”) but also does the same with 1 Corinthians 4:7: “Or what has thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” Fr. Most says that “in these words St. Paul is simply not speaking of the graces of the internal economy. He was merely rejecting the pride of the Corinthians who thought they had been called into the Church because of their special good qualities.”¹¹¹ Fr. Most’s interpretation is not only a-Thomistic but also contrary to the official interpretation of the Council of Orange (529), which issued canons on the Church’s doctrines of grace and predestination.

In canon 6, the Council of Orange clearly equated St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 4:7 with the spiritual graces of the “internal economy:”

If anyone asserts that without the grace of God mercy is divinely given to us when we believe, will, desire, try, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, urge, but does not confess that through the infusion and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in us, it is brought about that we believe, wish or are able to do all these things as we ought, and does not join either to human humility or obedience the help of grace, nor agree that it is the gift of grace that we are obedient and humble, [he] opposes the Apostle who says: ‘What have you, that you have not received?’ [1 Cor. 4:7]; and: ‘By the grace of God I am that, which I am’ [1 Cor. 15:10; cf. St. Augustine and St. Prosper of Aquitaine].

Although Fr. Most ignores the Council of Orange’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:7, he admits that “because of the special confirmation given it by Pope Boniface II, the canons of this council have the force of a solemn definition.”¹¹²

EEPHESIANS 1 — “HE CHOSE US IN HIM BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD”

We conclude this discussion by taking a brief look at the beginning of St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ. As He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in His sight in charity. Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto Himself, according the purpose of His will, unto the praise of the glory of His grace … That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him … In whom we are also called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will that we may be unto the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:3-6, 9, 11).

In this classic passage, St. Paul reveals many truths about God’s plan of predestination that we have seen in other scriptures. St. Paul first blesses God, because God has blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places. This blessing in “heavenly places” refers to nothing less than eternal salvation. The verb that St.Paul uses in the phrase “hath blessed us” in verse 3 (Greek, eulogeo)is in the aorist tense. The aorist tense describes an action in the past that has ceased; it does not describe the effects that the action may have on the future. This usage reveals that God has already decreed who will be predestined to eternal life, and it underscores that God’s plan of predestination is a certainty.

In verse 4, St. Paul continues the thought by revealing that God “chose us” in Christ. Again, St. Paul uses the aorist tense for the verb “to choose” (Greek,eklego), emphasizing that God has already decreed the number of His elect in eternity. Scripture elsewhere uses the verb “chose” in connection with God’s elect. For example, in John’s gospel, Jesus uses the same tense verb (eklego) three times when He identifies His elect by saying, “I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen” (13:18); “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you” (15:16); “If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (15:19).¹¹³ In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says, “For many are called, but few are chosen (eklektos).”¹¹⁴ In Mark’s gospel, Jesus also refers to “the elect which he hath chosen” (13:20).

St. Paul reveals that God chooses His elect “before the foundation of the world” (Greek, pro katabole kosmos). This phrase confirms the usage of the aorist tense for “chose.” God chose His elect in eternity and predestines them to heaven in time. God chooses before He brings us into being, before “we were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil” (Rom. 9:11). The Greek phrase “foundation of the world” is often used in the New Testament in connection with God’s bestowing favors upon His chosen ones before their existence. For example, Jesus says, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34). Note also that both Jesus and St. Paul call the elect “blessed” (eulogeo) for the great grace God has given them.

In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus prays that His chosen ones “may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.”¹¹⁵ Here, Jesus reveals God’s predilect love for Him before time began, and it was because of this love that God glorified Jesus in His human nature (as we have learned, love precedes election and predestination). St. Peter also says that Christ was “[f]oreknown indeed before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20). Like Jesus, St. Peter is referring to the love that God had for Christ before the Incarnation. Because God loved Christ independently of His future merits, He predestines us in Christ before our future merits as well.

St. Paul continues the theme of predilection by stating “that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity” (v. 4). God didn’t choose us because of our holiness (future merits) but chose us so that we might become holy by His election and love. Because God chose us “in charity,” His election is gratuitous and inspired by the love He has given us, and it is not because of anything in us or from us. In Romans 9:13, we saw how God predestined Jacob because He loved (agapao) him. Now, in Ephesians 1:4, we see how God chooses His entire elect people in love (agape). God’s plan of predestination is inspired completely by His love for us, and not because of anything we do.

In verse 5, St. Paul says that God “hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will.” By using “predestination” in the past tense,¹¹⁶ St. Paul reveals once again that God has already established His plan of predestination. Moreover, God has established it according to His will and not according to anything we have done. St. Paul emphasizes this again in verses 9 and 11 when he refers to “the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure” (v. 9) and to how we are “called by lot … according to the counsel of His will” (v. 11).

St. Paul is clearly emphasizing God’s sovereignty in His plan of election. God chooses His elect according to His secret purposes, which St. Paul rightly calls a “mystery.” St. Paul even says that God takes “pleasure” (eudokia) in His plan, and that is because God has a special love for His elect. Jesus uses this same word when He describes the Father’s predilect love for His “little ones” and says, “Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good (eudokia) in thy sight” (Matt. 11:26). In Luke’s gospel, Jesus also says, “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased (eudokeo) your Father to give you a kingdom” (12:32). The “little ones” and the “little flock” are those whom God was pleased to choose in love for eternal life.

In verse 11, St. Paul also says that those who are predestinated are “called by lot.” This phrase reminds us of St. Thomas’s statement that God “prepares unequal lots for not unequal things.” Elsewhere, St. Paul uses “call” in connection with God’s choice of election. For example, in his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul says, “But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace” (Gal.1:15). To Timothy, St.Paul says, “Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of the world” (2 Tim. 1:9). In both verses, St. Paul affirms that God calls us by His grace before we were born, and even before He created the world.

St. Peter refers to the call of the elect when he says, “As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3). St. John also says, “Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called, and should be the sons of God” (1 John 3:1).¹¹⁷ Like St. Paul, St. John reveals that God calls us in “charity” (predilection). St. Jude also says, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called” (Jude 1). Like St. Paul, the apostles Peter, John, and Jude were also inspired to reveal God’s special call of the elect in the grace of Jesus Christ.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF OUR INTRODUCTION TO PREDESTINATION

In this chapter, we have learned about the incredible and profound truth of divine predilection as taught by Scripture, the Church, and St. Thomas: God’s love is the cause of goodness in things, and one thing would not be better than another unless it were loved more by God. Because God created us in love, He loves all men and desires all to be saved. Yet because God loves “the better things,” He chooses to infallibly save His elect because He has made them “better” and thus loves them more. Moreover, God chooses His elect according to His secret counsel and not because He foresees that the elect will cooperate with His grace.

Because grace is a gratuitous gift of God, He gives it according to His good will and pleasure, and not because He owes us anything. Further, because God gives all men sufficient grace to be saved, He doesn’t offend justice by giving more grace to some than to others. Those who are predestined to salvation have nothing to boast about because their salvation is a work of grace. Those who reject God’s grace have nothing to complain about because their reprobation is their own fault. Those who are saved are saved by God’s mercy, and those who perish are allowed to perish by God’s justice.

We continue to explore the great mystery of God’s universal will to save sinners, and His plan of divine election, in the next chapter.

¹. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) mentions “predestination” only once outside of a few direct Scripture or Patristic quotations, in paragraph 600.

². For this book, I have chosen the Douay-Rheims (DR)translation of Scripture for the following reasons: (1) it is the only traditional Catholic Bible in the English language (for over 300 years, the DRwas the only Catholic English translation of Scripture used)and does not suffer from the defects of many modern Bibles (e.g., non-literal, dynamic translations; inclusive language); (2) it is a word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate (compiled by St. Jerome from the original Hebrew and Greekunder Pope St. Damasus), which is the official translation of the Catholic Church (the Vulgatehas been universally used in the Latin Rite for over 1,600 years); (3) the Council of Trent declared that “theold Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it” (4th Session, April 8, 1546); (4) Pope Pius XII declared that the Latin Vulgate is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals” (Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), no.21); (5) the DR has been repeatedly approved by great churchmen throughout the ages, such as Bishop Challoner (who made important revisions from 1749 to 1752) and Cardinal Gibbons (1899); (6) the English translations of the primary sources used in this book (St. Thomas Aquinas’Summa Theologica; Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma)rely uponthe DR translation of the Latin Vulgate; (7) the Protestant King James Version (KJV)is based on the DR translation, which helps Catholicsconvict Protestants of thecorrect interpretation of God’s Wordusing their ownhallowed KJVtranslation (this meansthe DR is older than the KJV; the DR New Testament was completed in 1582 and the Old Testament in 1609; the KJV was completed in 1611); (8) the DR provides the best translation of thescriptures concerning the study of predestination, with all the relevant subtleties and nuances that bear upon the verses’true meaning; (9) Iwantthose unfamiliar with the DR to discoverthis mostfaithful and accurate translation of the original languages and experience the true joy of reading such a translation (and to discourage them from using the many modern, liberal translations that distort and fabricate God’s Word);and (10) it is my favorite English translation!

³. CCC 303 and 306. The Catechism also says, “God is master of the world and of its history” (CCC 314).

⁴. Summa Theologica (ST), Pt I, Q 22, Art 1.

⁵. The word “predestination” comes from the Greek proorizo and is used six times in the New Testament to describe a predetermining knowledge or decree (Acts 2:25; 4:28; Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). Generally, when we use the word “predestination,” we mean to refer to the fact that we are oriented to the glory of salvation, although, as we will see, one can also be predestined to grace but not to final glory (that is, some are not given the grace of final perseverance).

⁶. ST, Pt I-II, Q 109, Art 5.

⁷. CCC 1998.

⁸. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 1.

⁹. Thomists are followers of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who developed the doctrines of grace first propounded by St. Augustine (354-430) and the Second Council of Orange (529). Molinists are followers of Luis de Molina (1536-1600).

¹⁰. The term “potency” in Thomism refers to the ability or capacity to be changed. The term “actualized” refers to the principle of change whereby something is completed or perfected. Because God is unchanging (Mal.3:6; Num.23:19; Jas.1:17), He is pure Act with no potency. This is why God’s will is never contingent upon the will of man.

¹¹. Every salutary act is a product of efficacious grace, and thus the reprobate also receive efficacious graces to the extent they perform such acts. However, God grants only the elect the efficacious grace of perseverance.

¹². “Act” means both “existence, being, actuality,” and “fully real, complete, perfect.” God is pure Act because He is the first and only perfect Being who is undetermined and unchanging.

¹³. Molinists refer to this knowledge as “middle knowledge” (Latin, scientia media). St. Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez were two Molinists who believed in unconditional election but not in the intrinsic efficacy of grace.

¹⁴. There is a “middle” system called Congruism that lies between Thomism and Molinism; it holds that intrinsically efficacious grace is required only for difficult salutary acts, while sufficient grace is required for common acts like prayer.

¹⁵. After nearly two centuries of heated debate, Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) appointed the congregation known as De Auxiliis (1598-1607) to investigate these questions. Although the congregation favored Thomism and censured 42 propositions of Molinism, Pope Paul V concluded the investigation on August 28, 1607 without rendering a definitive judgment. On July 13, 1748, Pope Benedict XIV confirmed Pope Paul V’s decision that the Thomist, Molinist, and Augustinian schools can promote their positions without accusations of heresy until the Church resolves the controversy. I speculate that the Church did not condemn Molinism at that time because of the rise of Calvinism. A condemnation of Molinism may have confused the faithful into believing in the legitimacy of Calvinism (because of some of the latter’s similarities with Thomism).

¹⁶. Pope Pius XI, Studiorem Ducem (1923), No 19.

¹⁷. Calvinists are followers of John Calvin (1509-1564), and Arminians are followers of Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). Calvinism is found in Reformed, Presbyterian, and some Baptist communities. Arminianism is found in Methodist, Pentecostal, Wesleyan, Congregational, and most Baptist communities. Protestants also contend that there are different traditions within each of these schools (e.g., “extreme” and “hyper” versus “moderate” Calvinism and Arminianism).

¹⁸. Although Calvinists generally deny that God is responsible for man’s sin (see, for example, Canons of Dort, Article V), their theology demands this conclusion if God doesn’t give man the power to obey His commandments. In fact, Huldrych Zwingli, the leader of the Reformation in Switzerland, declared that “God is the sinless author of sin.”

¹⁹. Most Calvinists are known for believing in the five doctrines called the “Five Points of Calvinism.” They are: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (forming the acronym T-U-L-I-P). We examine these points throughout the book. See also the Appendix.

²⁰. Denz., 185. The council based this canon on St. Prosper’s 56^th sentence.

²¹. CCC 1994 (emphasis in original). The Catechism also says, “The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God” (2011; emphasis in original).

²². See ST, Pt I, Q 19, Art 4, and Q 20, Art 2.

²³. Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31.

²⁴. ST, Pt I, Q 20, Art 3.

²⁵. ST, Pt I, Q 20, Art 4.

²⁶. See ST, Pt I, Q 20, Art 1.

²⁷. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 4.

²⁸. ST, Pt I, Q 20, Art 2.

²⁹. Denz., 198.

³⁰. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art. 4. St. Thomas says “in the order of reason” presumably because there is no chronological sequencing of events in eternity and God does not have discursive knowledge. However, we maintain that God’s decrees in eternity must precede His foreknowledge of future events because future events exist only because of His decrees.

³¹. De civitate Dei, XII, 9.

³². ST, Pt I-II, Q 114, Art 2.

³³. We note that Paul in Romans 8:28-30 is referring to the elect because they are ultimately glorified (they received the efficacious grace of final perseverance). However, this doesn’t mean that everyone in Scripture who is “predestined,” “called,” and “justified,” receives final glory. As we mentioned and will see in greater detail in the last chapter, God permits those who resist sufficient grace to fall away.

³⁴. 4 Kg. 2:1; see also 4 Kg. 2:11; Ecclus. 48:13; 1 Mac. 2:58.

³⁵. The Greek for “before the foundation/creation of the world” in these verses is identical (pro katabole kosmos).

³⁶. 2 Pet. 3:17; see also Acts 26:5.

³⁷. ST, Pt III, Q 24, Art 3.

³⁸. Ibid.

³⁹. Ibid.

⁴⁰. De praed. sanct., chapter 10.

⁴¹. De dono persever., chapter 14.

⁴². This is St. Thomas’s interpretation of St. Augustine. See ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 2.

⁴³. Denz., 322.

⁴⁴. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 5.

⁴⁵. Denz., 191. The Catechism also says, “The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes … the free response of man” (CCC 2022) and “We can merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace” (CCC 2025).

⁴⁶. Ibid., 200.

⁴⁷. Ibid., 200a.

⁴⁸. Ibid., 200b.

⁴⁹. Ibid., 322.

⁵⁰. Ibid., 797.

⁵¹. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 5. The Catechism also says, “God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes” (CCC 308).

⁵². Ibid. See also Pt I-II, Q 109, Art 6.

⁵³. CCC 2001 (emphasis in original).

⁵⁴. Ibid. In Catholic theology, “merit” means “deserving justly.” Man can merit under the influence of grace because the grace causes man to act freely, without coercion. See CCC 20062011.

⁵⁵. The author acknowledges the different systems of metaphysics, but maintains the superiority of Thomism, based on the teachings of Scripture and the Church. Scripture (from revelation) and metaphysics (from reason) are not inconsistent with each other, but teach the same truths about God (e.g., God is the first cause, all good comes from God, etc.).

⁵⁶. Commentary on Matthew 25:15.

⁵⁷. ST, Pt I, Q 14, Art 8.

⁵⁸. See Garrigou-LaGrange, Predestination, p. 147.

⁵⁹. ST, Pt II-II, Q 171, Art 3. St. Thomas teaches that God has “practical knowledge” or the “knowledge of vision” of all things that He brings about by His divine causality, and “speculative knowledge” or “simple intelligence” of things that are not, nor will be, nor were that He has never planned to make (ST, Pt I, Q 14, Art 9; De veritate, 2.8.c.). This knowledge includes future contingents (ST, Pt I, Q 14, Art 13).

⁶⁰. ST, Pt I, Q 19, Art 4.

⁶¹. ST, Pt I, Q 14, Art 8.

⁶². ST, Pt 1, Q 19, Art 8.

⁶³. This scenario proves that there is a distinction between sufficient grace (which man freely resists) and efficacious grace (which man does not resist), which we will further examine throughout the book.

⁶⁴. Of course, the Sodomites would have repented only if God had eternally decreed to grant them the efficacious grace of repentance. Because God did not decree this result, it is an undetermined contingent future that God knows only speculatively. Thus, it is no surprise that the Greek of Matthew 11:23 is not definitive about the Sodomites’ repentance, and that the Douay-Rheims translation says that Sodom “perhaps” would have remained unto this day.

⁶⁵. The “promise” refers to the covenant of grace that God inaugurated through Abraham (Gal 3:18, 29), and not the covenant of law that came through Moses. The Abrahamic covenant of grace has been fulfilled in the New Covenant of Christ (Rom. 4:16; Gal 3:14), and the Mosaic covenant of law has been abolished (Rom. 7:4; 1 Cor. 3:14; Gal 3:10-13; Eph. 2:15; Col 2:14; Heb.7:12, 18; 8:13; 10:9).

⁶⁶. Scripture indicates that only a remnant of all Jews throughout history will convert to Jesus Christ. See, for example, 4 Kg. 19:31; 2 Para. 34:21; Isa. 10:20-22; 37:32; 46:3; Jer. 31:7; Rom. 9:27;11:14; Apoc. 1:7. Because God saves the elect Jews and the Gentiles in the same manner (through Christ and the Catholic Church), the “all Israel” of Romans 11:26 that will be saved refers to the Church, “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16).

⁶⁷. In Hebrews 12:16-17, St. Paul intimates that Esau was reprobated because he says, “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau; who for one mess, sold his first birthright. For know ye that afterwards, when he desired to inherit the benediction, he was rejected; for he found no place of repentance, although with tears he had sought it.”

⁶⁸. God’s hatred for Esau can be explained in two ways. First, God eternally decreed to permit Esau to reject His grace through his own free will, knowing that he would do so. Second, God eternally decreed to punish Esau for his final impenitence. Although Scripture says that God “hatest none of the things which thou hast made” (Wis.11:25), it also says that God “hatest all workers of iniquity” (Ps. 5:7).

⁶⁹. The Greek transliteration is “ou ek ergon alla ek ho kaleo.”

⁷⁰. Protestant apologist Norman Geisler makes this argument in his book Chosen But Free. Catholics and most Calvinists rightfully reject this Arminian interpretation.

⁷¹. To deny individual election, some Protestants also say because “the elder” (Esau) did not actually serve “the younger” (Jacob), Romans 9 must be about nations and not individuals. Not only does such an argument completely overthrow St. Paul’s argumentation, but Esau did serve Jacob by reversing the birth order in selling his birthright to him (Gen. 25:33).

⁷². Geisler, Chosen But Free, p. 85.

⁷³. The Greek verbs for “I will have mercy” (eleao) and “I will show mercy” (oiktiro) are singular future active verbs and literally mean “I will mercy” and “I will pity.” These verbs emphasize that God actively, not passively, bestows His mercy, that is, independently of foreseen merits.

⁷⁴. The Greek verbs for “willeth” (thelo) and “runneth” (trecho) are two singular present active participles that underscore that the personal and individual actions of man are not considered in God’s eternal decrees (but rather flow from those decrees). They also demonstrate that the passage is about individual people, not “nations.”

⁷⁵. Council of Quiersy (853), Denz., 316.

⁷⁶. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 5, citing Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26:2.

⁷⁷. Ibid.

⁷⁸. Ibid.

⁷⁹. Protestant apologist James White says that Pharao “is but a servant, one chosen for destruction.”The Potter’s Freedom, p. 212.

⁸⁰. See also Ex. 10:1, 20, 27; 14:4, 8.

⁸¹. See also Ex. 7:13-14, 22; 8:19, 32; 9:7, 35; 13:15.

⁸². See ST, Pt I-II, Q 79, Art 3.

⁸³. Denz., 316. The council condemned the views of a Saxon monk named Gottshalk (d.868) who believed that God predestined the reprobate to hell irrespective of their free will acts (a view of “double predestination”).

⁸⁴. Denz., 322.

⁸⁵. See also Isaias 29:16.

⁸⁶. The Greek phrase “fitted for destruction” (katartizo eis apoleia) uses a perfect passive participle that can be translated has “having been made.” Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis also notes that the verb could be in the middle voice, which would be translated as “having made themselves for destruction” (Not By Faith Alone, p. 461). This is in stark contrast to the aorist, active voice of “prepared unto glory” (proetoimazo eis doxa), which emphasizes the divine causality of the preparation, before future merits.

⁸⁷. ST, PT I, Q 23, Art 5.

⁸⁸. Ibid., Pt I, Q 21, Art 4.

⁸⁹. Commentary on Romans 9 (Lesson 3, comments on v. 15; lesson 2, comments on v. 13).

⁹⁰. GPS, p. 307.

⁹¹. GPS, p. 24.

⁹². GPS, p. 3. In this statement, Fr. Most specifically refers to Romans 8:28-9:24 and 1 Corinthians 4:7.

⁹³. Ibid.

⁹⁴. GPS, p. 4.

⁹⁵. GPS, p. 55. Notice that Fr. Most uses the all-inclusive adjective “all” when he says “all exegetes,” “all erroneous” and “all schools.” With due respect to Fr. Most, authors have a tendency to use such all-encompassing adjectives when their case is weak. Not only do “all” exegetes not reject the traditional interpretation of Romans 8-9, but most theologians before Vatican II adhered in some way to the traditional interpretation (whether Thomist or Molinist).

⁹⁶. GPS, p. 4.

⁹⁷. Denz., 322.

⁹⁸. GPS, p. 28.

⁹⁹. In the Summa, St. Thomas quotes from both Romans 8:29-30 (Q 23, Art 1-2, 5-7) and Romans 9:11-13, 22-23 (Q 23, Art 3 and 5) in his articles on individual predestination, showing the continuity between the chapters. In these articles, St. Thomas also quotes from 2 Mac. 6:20;Mal. 1:2-3; Osee 13:9; Lam. 5:21; Job 34:24; Eph. 1:4; Titus 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:20; and Matt. 20:14-15 to prove individual predestination. Fr. Most does not say whether he believes St.Thomas also interpreted these verses incorrectly.

¹⁰⁰. GPS, p. 30, cf. pp. 35-36.

¹⁰¹. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 5.

¹⁰². Ibid.

¹⁰³. The Church teaches that Christ saves man through the Catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body. If one is invincibly ignorant of his obligation to be a member of the Catholic Church, he may still have the possibility of salvation if he obeys the natural and moral law. In this way, such a man would be inside the Catholic Church through the charity of Christ. Those who are culpable of their rejection of the Church have no hope of salvation. Only God—not the Church—is the judge of these matters. For more on this topic, see my books The Biblical Basis for the Papacy (pp. 203-211) and Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons (pp. 9-10; 62-63).

¹⁰⁴. GPS, p. 5.

¹⁰⁵. We acknowledge that Quiersy was a regional council only (not an ecumenical council). Nevertheless, the teachings of Quiersy have never been reformed by the Church, and can be easily harmonized with the teachings of the regional Council of Orange (confirmed by Pope Boniface II) as well as Sts. Augustine and Thomas.

¹⁰⁶. Denz., 316. Although Quiersy was not a dogmatic council, its condemnation of double predestination (God predestines some to heaven and others to hell) is considered part of the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium. Thus, the council’s teachings on the massa damnata carry significant dogmatic weight. We believe it is unfortunate that Fr. Most holds “modern scholarship” above the authentic teachings of the Magisterium.

¹⁰⁷. GPS, p. 31.

¹⁰⁸. ST, Pt I, Q 23, Art 3.

¹⁰⁹. In reading Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s interpretations of ST, Pt I, Q 23 Art 4-6, Fr. Most says, “He wants to prove by these passages that St. Thomas teaches predestination before consideration of merits. We grant that it is at least probable that St.Thomas does teach this” (GPS, p.190, emphasis added). “At least probable” ! It seems that certainty on this question is eliminated for Fr.Most when the proper interpretation of Romans 9 is eliminated.

¹¹⁰. Ibid.

¹¹¹. GPS, p. 201, cf. p. 34.

¹¹². GPS, p. 39. Although Fr. Most may have dismissed the Council of Valence’s interpretation of Romans 9 because it was a particular council (we don’t know, because he never addresses its interpretation), he acknowledges the dogmatic authority of the Council of Orange.

¹¹³. The verb eklego in John 13:8; 15:16, 19 and Mark 13:20 is identical to the verb in Ephesians 1:4 (aorist tense, middle voice, singular).

¹¹⁴. Matt. 22:14; see also Matt. 20:16. Further, see 1 Cor. 1:27-28, where St. Paul repeatedly affirms that God has chosen (eklego) that which is foolish, weak, and contemptible (the “little ones”) to shame the wise and strong.

¹¹⁵. John 17:24; Jesus uses the exact same phrase “before the foundation of the world” (pro katabole kosmos) that St. Paul uses in Eph. 1:4 and St. Peter uses in 1 Pet 1:20.

¹¹⁶. Proorizo is an active verb in the aorist tense.

¹¹⁷. The verb for “called” (Greek, kaleo) in Gal. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Pet. 1:3; 1 John 3:1 is in the aorist tense, which demonstrates that God’s calling of the elect occurred in the past.

↑ Back to top

Predestination and Divine Predilection