Brief Overview of Predestination's Relation to the Universal Call, the Nature of Reprobation, Sufficient Grace, and Limbo

NOTE: Quickly wrote some notes down. Not polished.

In order to properly understand the nature of predestination, we must understand that it is generally taken for an act of the consequent will. Thus, in order to properly understand the teaching on the matter, there must be serious reflection on the nature of the distinction between the antecedent and consequent will, and their respective orders and ends. Upon these reflections, the teaching on the universal call, reprobation, and sufficient grace will become clear, along with an interesting corollary on the nature of the punishments of limbo.

First, the antecedent will is the will of God that is involved will general providence. From the antecedent will flows a general premotion that is frustratable by certain physical and moral evils in the natural order. Thus, the particular ends of the providence of the antecedent will are often frustrated, e.g., it is the particular end of the deer that it lives, and this is frustrated by the physical evil of disease, yet, its general end is achieved.

Thus, we have will-->order of ends-->premotion

This three-fold movement comes naturally from the nature of cause in general, i.e., the end is antecedent to the means in the order of intention, and thus is the "cause of causes."

For, it is the apprehension of the end that "motivates" intellectual agents to apply the form via the efficient cause.

Now...if this were the perfectly work, the order would go like this, will-->order of ends (end in intention)-->premotion-->end (end in execution).

But, those physical and moral evils mentioned above "stand between" the premotion and end, frustrating it from reaching its particular end.

Now, what happens when the antecedent will is frustrated in its general providence? In this case, there is also the consequent will, which does not consider things in their generality, but in their particularity. The application of premotions flowing from the consequent will infallibly move to its particular end, rather than simply the general end, as mentioned above.

Thus, we have

Antecedent Will-->Order of Ends-->Premotion-->Frustration of Particular end...

Then, in order to acquire the end frustrated

Consequent Will-->Premotion-->Success in Particular End

Now, it is upon this framework that we need to conceive of Predestination.

God, of course, wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Is this an act of the antecedent will or the consequent will? Clearly, not the consequent will since the particular end of the consequent will infallibly comes to pass. Thus, it is something of the antecedent will.

Now, what is that order of ends that comes from the antecedent will "motivating" (according to our understanding) the premotion that flows from the will. This is the supernatural order. Thus, there is now an integral supernatural end for all men (which will become important when we discuss limbo). In this, all men can be said to be "supernatural" by way of extrinsic denomination, i.e., insofar as the will of God has ordered them to a supernatural end. From this, we can say that all men have a posse of supernaturality that will be brought to act unless there is a frustration. This general order of ends and everything involved in it can be given the label "sufficient grace," which is only united by that extrinsic denomination. 

Then, after the order of ends (i.e., the extrinsic denomination of supernaturality), there are certain premotions in this order. These premotions are called "motions of sufficient grace." These motions are ordered to that supernatural end which is intended by the antecedent will of God. Thus, these motions are said to "virtually terminate" and "virtually contain" the supernatural end.

Yet, in the fall of man, this order and these motions of the antecedent will ordering and providing for our supernatural end have been frustrated by moral evil.

So, we must now speak of the order of the consequent will.

It is important to first note that, when we get to the consequent will, we are discussing man as fallen, man as rejecting sufficient grace. Thus, this account is "infralapsarian." It is also said to "suppose original sin."

Thus, God looks at this mass damnata et damnibilis and, rather than damning these to hell (as he could), he chooses to give certain premotions of the order of his consequent will that will infallibly achieve its end. This is what we call "infallibly efficacious grace." The preparation and knowledge that God has of giving these graces is what is simply called "predestination" or, more properly, "predestination to grace." When it is particularly in reference to the giving of the grace of final perseverance, we can call it "predestination to glory."

It is important to note, lest we fall into the Calvinist heresy of perseverance of the saints, that "end" is not necessarily taken for "ultimate end." Thus, there are many who receive infallibly efficacious grace that infallibly achieves ITS END (i.e., the proximate end), but does not lead to heaven since heaven is its REMOTE END.

We can call this grace given to the elect "positive unconditional election." Since, 1. It is positive, i.e., certain premotions are given that achieve the ultimate end, 2. It is unconditional, i.e., there is not a *natural* (condign) connection between any works done and this election, and 3. It is election, i.e., to heaven.

Now, as to others, God clearly chooses not to give this infallibly efficacious gift of final perseverance, either merely giving conversion, but not final perseverance (as with those who go from a state of grace to a state of mortal sin), or merely calling with the sufficient graces, but not giving the efficacious.

This is what we call "negative unconditional/antecedent reprobation." Since, 1. It is negative, i.e., consists in the choice to NOT give those premotions of the order of the consequent will, 2. It is unconditional, i.e., the choice of whether to give efficacious grace to one and not to another does not flow naturally from the greater demerit of one over another and naturally precedes any motion of the consequent will in the supernatural order, although it supposes them as fallen.

Lastly, we can also ask about the consequent will of God in relation to hell. In this, we speak of a "predestination to punishment," i.e., God has predestined punishment for some. It is important to note that the character of this predestination is said to be "positive consequent/conditional." 1. It is positive, i.e., flows forth from the will of God, rather than permission, and 2. IT IS CONDITIONAL, i.e., God is willing to punish a man who has merited his own damnation.

Thus, we have, either

Antecedent Will-->Order (order of sufficient grace)-->Motion (motion of sufficient grace)-->Rejection of sufficient grace-->Decree of consequent will (election)-->Motion of Consequent Will (infallibly efficacious grace)-->End

or

Antecedent Will-->Order (order of sufficient grace)-->Motion (motion of sufficient grace)-->Rejection of sufficient grace-->No Motion of Consequent Will (negative reprobation)-->Sin-->Decree to punishment (positive reprobation)-->Hell

Application to Limbo and the Sufficiency of Grace

At this point, there are two great difficulties as to the doctrine of sufficient grace.

First, there is the issue of limbo, for, it seems like limbo is intrinsically contrary to the doctrine of sufficient grace, for, even if one were to state, rightly, that sufficient grace is retained for those infants whose parents have the ability to baptize them, yet, it is evident that there are many instances of those who cannot be baptized (i.e., fetus' in early stages of development).

On this point, it is clear that one would be forced with two options,

1. Restrict sufficient grace only to adults, as Vazquez, or

2. Admit that sufficient grace is some posse

It is clear that 1 cannot be the case, as the Church has been clear about the universality of sufficient grace, neither can there be a 3rd option of stating that there is some gift immediately before death, thus regenerating the infants and keeping them out of limbo (as the CCC has been open to the possibility of), for, it is not sufficient to retain the doctrine of sufficient grace by merely positing a single moment of time in which it is present. Rather, the teaching on sufficient grace is that it is something that is ever present, not at this or that moment of time.

Thus, the great insight of the Thomists who place the fundamental notion of sufficient grace in some posse.

Second, there is the issue of the true sufficiency of sufficient grace. It has long been the Jesuit argument against the Thomists that, for us, "sufficient grace is not sufficient." Thus, while we know from the first antinomy that the fundamental notion is some posse, on the other hand, how can such be sufficient?

Well, this is where the concept of a motion of sufficient grace comes to play. For, the motions that flow from the antecedent will of God in the supernatural order VIRTUALLY TERMINATE in justification. Thus, if one were not to resist these motions, they would be justified.

Thus, we can think of a certain case where Adam was created in a state of pure nature and then God decided to raise him to the supernatural order. If God decided to simply give these motions and Adam was diligent in not resisting them, he would be converted. This is what is called "ordinary efficacious grace" as opposed to the "extraordinary efficacious grace" that is given by the consequent will of God.

Those who are given merely sufficient grace today are in the same situation. The reason they do not acquire grace is due to their evil, not on God's lack.

It is with the distinction between the order of sufficient grace (which is by way of extrinsic denomination in that we have been made for such an end) and the motion of sufficient grace (which is a certain motion that virtually terminates in that end) that we are able to solve many of the antinomies present in the doctrine of sufficient grace.

CONFIRMATION: There is a confirmation to this doctrine on the basis of the punishments of limbo. It is the teaching of St. Thomas that infants have the poena damni, but not the interior affliction (i.e., worm of conscience) that comes with this. Further, they do not have the poena sensus. 

Here, we can map on these punishments to our order above,

First, the poena damni is present due to not achieving our end, i.e., the beatific vision. This flows from a lack of conformity to the end of the order of sufficient grace. This is necessarily present in infants since their are supernatural by way of extrinsic denomination, i.e., they are made for a supernatural end and if they do not acquire that end, they have lost their ultimate end, thus being under the punishment of loss.

Second, the worm of conscience is present due to our resistance to certain motions of sufficient grace. For, in reflecting on our resistance to these motions, we recognize that we have actively cut off the means given to us that virtually contain our ultimate end, thus tormenting us. This second one is not present in the infants since, while they are supernatural by way of extrinsic denomination, they do not have certain supernatural motions in their souls that they reject (as to some physical defect).

Third, the poena sensus is present due to acts of sin.