PabloSerna said:
#1 - I can tell you that Aquinas heavily cites the Bible in every Question of the Summa. Let's stop with the idea that he was "freelancing" in some way.
#2 - He never uses your terminology, "double predestination" because he clearly defines predestination as basically God's plan for salvation. But that is an overly simplistic view and you would have to read a good chunk of the Summa to get a more fuller understanding.
#3 - Aquinas is actually a big proponent of free will. I know this because it was one of the questions I had in 1996. I kept "peppering" my pastor, Fr. Kirby Garner, about this and other questions. At which point he gave me one of his books, a commentary on the Summa. I later found out that there was a study group meeting at (of all places) the UT Library. That was a wonderful group of faithful men that met regularly to read question by question the Summa Theologica. That is how I came upon the work of Aquinas and later the Dominican Order.
#4 - I admit I do not have the background of a theologian, so we can discuss, but it is important to keep reading. We were fortunate to have a Thomist expert/philosopher Walter Redmond drop in from time to time and explain difficult passages. "Wally" as we called him made Aquinas more accessible. I still have some of his handouts, they are great starting points.
I don't know anything about Calvin except what you have been posting, so I take that into consideration. I was responding to your claim that Aquinas was an advocate for "double predestination" and so based on your definition and what I do know- I was providing you with his words that are at odds with your understanding of Aquinas. Other than that, I admire your fire and welcome your insight.
ETA: to your question about my baptism- yes God washed away original sin and infused into my being his love which moves me to conform my will to his. But when I fall, through my fault, I know too that I can go back to God and be made new again (renewed) and that is what gives me hope.
1. He does site a verse here and there and the Summa is more based on Scriptural support.
His other natural theological reflections? Not so much.
And that to which I was referring.
2. Aquinas states in three different paragraphs that God chooses some and doesn't choose some. That is double predestination. The Summa doesn't contradict on this matter with other issues stated by Aquinas.
3. You're reading into Aquinas that freewill is for the unbaptized pagan. I have already addressed this. He agreed with St. Augustine on double predestination. Aquinas just focused more on the immutable will of God and freewill.
So which will wins out according to Aquinas?
Is it God's ultimate will that wins out or is man's freewill that wins out?
Does Aquinas recant in the Summa what he said in three chapters? Something does not add up for your diatribe as an enemy of God's grace.
4. I'm not really too much into Aquinas overall. Too dry for the soul. I like his doctrine of God and his view of ultimate double predestination. But I care not to read those who reject his foundation for all things. For Aquinas writes from his base.
All the other pretenders miss this. And I believe what Calvin taught that Scripture is the lens through which we properly view the world. And Aquinas was very much more grounded to accept the teachings of Christ, Paul, and John on double predestination and other aspects of the faith in the Scripture , too.
And these self-practitioners of righteousness read into Aquinas.
Holding to their pride an adulterated fairness.
That man's freewill has the final say.
As to whom gets into the pearly gates.
