Predestination in Aquinas and Calvin CHARLES PARTEE Until modern times the most influe ntial systematic theologians in the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions re spectively were Thomas Aquinas and John Cal­ vin . Because each was syste matic, it is possible to evalua te hi s thought in terms of the context which he provides, and because each was influe ntial , it is worthwhil e not only to examine hi s thought in its own context, but also in relation to the other. Regarding the doctrine of predestination the relationshi p between Aquinas and Calvin e vokes sharply differing evaluations: On the one hand , Reginald Garrigou­ Lagrange sees a substantial dichotomy , 1 while J. B. Mozley recogni zes no real differ­ e nce between Thomas and Calvin. 2 A more extended and helpful treatme nt of both similarities and differe nces is found in Caspar Fri ethoffs, " Di e Pradestinationslehre bei T homas von Aquin and Calvin". 3 Ac cording to F ri ethoff there is significant agreement between Thomas and Calvin concerning the sovereignty of God and there­ fore that God's foreknowledge of the good works of man is not the cause of salvation, but rather that salvation is the cause of good work s. However, T homas believes God to have a rranged that those predestined to glory should receive salvation in connec­ tion with the good works attendant upon the predestination to grace, thereby affi rm­ ing the meritori ous nature of good works in a sense to which Calvin is irreconcilably opposed. The purpose of this essay, then, is to consider the doctrine of predestination in Thomas and Calvin , not so. much with the expectation of solving the proble ms, but with the hope of understanding the issues better. Therefore we will ( I) outline certain essential differences between the intellectual positions from which T homas and Cal­ vin approach the doctrine of predestination in general, a nd (II), delineate in particular the significance of the differing contexts in which the doctrine is discussed in the 5 11111111<1 Theologica a nd the /11stit11tes of th e Christian R eligion. 4 Indeed, these points may be regarded as of more crucial and determinative importa nce than those aspects of their doctrine of predestination which can be isolated a nd compared as Friethoff does. I. Philosophy and Theology While both Thomas and Calvin desire to be, and are, Christian theologians, they obviously approach the doctrine of predestination from different perspectives. Al­ though not polar opposites, Thomas and Calvin defend considerably different posi­ tions on philosophy and theology, specifically in regard to (I) Aristotle and Plato, (2) Reason a nd Revelation, (3) Being and Knowing, and (4) Intellect and Wi ll. (I) -Thomas' careful synthesis of philosophy and theology , nature and grace, reason and revelation, termed by G il son " the very essence of Thomism," 5 has no 14 exact counterpart in Calvin 's thought. Thomas calls his work a " theological synop­ sis" and Calvin call s hi s "Christian philosophy," but Thomas' exposition is more explicitly related to the philosophic tradition than Calvin's. Thomas may be called an Ari stoteli an in the sense that he considers Artistotle to be " th e Philosopher" and constantly uses Aristotle's thought as an in strume nt of analy sis and synthesis, while Calvin refers to Ari stotle only ten times in the /11stit11t es. On the other hand , Calvin may be related to the Platonic tradition by way of opposition to the Aristotelian, but thi s di stincti on is scarcely helpful in the re lati on of Calvin to Thomas since Thomas cites Plato by name in the Summa some one hundred times and Calvin in the lnsti- 111/es only twenty. Basically Calvin cites the philosophers, not as a source of insight, but as confirmation that God was not without witness even a mong the heathe n.6 Calvin's closest hi storical affinity is with theological, rather than philosophical, Au­ gustinianism. (2) According to Thomas , " Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it " (ST. I . I. 8.). Thomas' view of the compleme ntary relation between the natural and the supernatural allows him to give a more positive evaluation of human reason that Calvin 's does. Man, as created in the image of God, is a rational being (ST. I. 93. 6) . The fa ll removes the supernatural gifts, but the natural gifts, while affected, are not totally impaired. Therefore, Thomas thinks that " ma n may progress in the knowl­ edge.of God by beginning wi th lower things and gradually ascending" (SCG. IV. I. I). Thus grace restores the natural function of reason and will which then co-operate with grace. Calvin is not so clear on this point. Reason and revelati on are not always con­ tradi ctory for him , and he can praise the human reason, but he also criticizes "carnal reason." Still , Thomas emphasizes the continuity of reason and re velati on; Calvin emphasizes the inadequacy of reason fo r knowing God. Calvi n, like Bonaventure , seems to think that any philosophy whic h is presented indepe nde ntly of Christian fa ith , while interesting and perh aps helpful in some particul ars, is bound to be, not merely inadequate as a whole, but viti ated in the parts . Calvin welcomes philosophi c in sights because he, li ke Thomas, regards all truth as belonging to God, but he does not beli eve that a philosoph y can de velop a true, even though limited, system without the aid of God's revelation. Calvin occasionall y speaks of what can be naturall y kno wn, but hi s chi ef concern is the revealed Word of God. T hu s he comes close to a kind of positivism of Christi an revelation. Calvin' s view is that " the Scriptures should be read with the aim of fi nding Christ in them. Wh oever turns aside from this object , even though he wears himself out a ll hi s li fe in learning, will ne ver reach the kno wledge of the truth" (Comm. Jn . 5. 39). (3) In ge neral Thomas' theology is more ontological and Calvin ' s in contrast more epi stemological. T hat is 'to say, that while for Thomas "first philosophy is wholly orde red to the knowing of God, as its ultimate end" (SCG. III. 25. 9), he begins with the being of God. Calvin begi ns with the knoll'ledge of God as the fi rst sentence of the /nstit11t es indi cates: " Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wi sdom , consists of two parts: The knowledge of God and of 15 ourse lves" (Inst . I. I. I) . Thus Thomas de votes a good deal of attention to the existence and nat ure of God and then to the divine persons, while Calvin assumes the doctrine of the Trinity. without much di scussion and has comparatively little to say about the being a nd attributes of God. However, even within the framework of this generali zation , one finds more e pi ste mological considerations (e.g., human knowl­ edge as derived from the senses, etc.) in Thomas than in Calvin. Thomas' ontological interest involves the vi ew of the universe as a hierarchy of beings. The metaphysical doctrine of grades of being is utilized by Thomas in the analogy of being and to explain the bein g of ange ls. Calvin's angelology does not focus on the be ing but the activity of the a ngels. Another aspect of the scale of being, the principle of plenitude, allows Thomas to account for evil as a reality , though in a privative sense, while Calvin sees evil in a direct re lation to the will of God. Perhaps Calvin's most explicit stateme nt of God as the author of our affli cti ons (though he deni es that God is the author of evil) is this: All the servants of God in this world [are represented] as wrestlers ... Moreover, it is not said that Satan, o r a ny mortal ma n, wrestled with Jacob, but God himself; to teach us that our fa ith is tried by him ; a nd whene ver we are te mpted, our business is truly with him, not only be­ cause we fi ght under hi s a uspi ces, but because he, as an antagoni st, descends into the arena to try our strength. This, though at first sight it seems a bsurd, experience and reason teaches us to be true. For as all prosperity flow s from hi s goodness, so adversity is e ithe r the rod with which he corrects our sins, or the test of our fa ith and patience. [God] both fights again st us and./(J r us. In short, suc h is hi s apportioning of this conflict , that, while he assail s us with one hand , he defends us with the other ... we may truly and properly say, that he fights again st us with hi s le.Ii hand , and.f(1 r us with hi s righl (Comm. Gen. 32. 34). T homas' theology is an explication of the structure of being, of God as infinite being and man as created being. Calvin's theology revolves around the knowledge of God as Creator-Savior and man as creature-sinner. T hu s Calvin uses personal and noetic rather than rati onal and ontological categori es. (4) Concerning the primacy of the will or of the intellect, Thomas fo llowed Aristotle' s psychology whi ch ho ld s that the reason is the best thing in man and aki n to the gods.