Aquinas and the Catholic schools

Is sola gratia, stated sharply, a Protestant doctrine? Thomas Aquinas wrote, three centuries before Dort, that "if God intends, while moving, that the one whose heart He moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it" (Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, question 112, article 3; cited below as I-II q.112 a.3). And in the grace by which the will is converted, "our mind is moved and does not move, but … God is the sole mover" (I-II q.111 a.2). Aquinas calls that operating grace: grace in which God alone moves the will. In cooperating grace the will, once moved, moves as well.

The Dominican school that followed him, Domingo Báñez in the sixteenth century and Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange in the twentieth, held with Garrigou-Lagrange that grace is "efficacious of itself, producing of itself the virtuous act" (Grace, ch. V): when it is given, the grace itself, by its own power, brings about the will's consent. This argument calls that grace effectual of itself, the second part of sola gratia.

The Jesuit school of Luis de Molina read Trent otherwise. For the Molinists, as Joseph Pohle reports them, "the infallible success of efficacious grace is not to be ascribed to its own intrinsic nature, but to" God's "middle knowledge" (scientia media), his knowledge of what a person would freely do in any circumstance; "it is rather the will itself which by its consent" makes grace efficacious. So for them efficacious grace is infallibly followed by consent, but because God foresaw the consent, not because the grace produces it. The two schools argued before the popes for twenty years. Paul V's decree of 5 September 1607 "allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion" (Astrain, "Congregatio de Auxiliis"), and Rome has not decided between them since. The Trent of this argument's other chapters is Trent on the Molinist reading of its fourth canon.

What the Thomists reach

The Thomists accept Trent's fourth canon: the will, moved by God, cooperates by assenting and can dissent if it would. But they read it so that it denies neither part of sola gratia that Trent seems to deny. Garrigou-Lagrange explains the canon so, in his own translation of it: "The Council does not maintain that man does, in fact, sometimes dissent, but that 'he can dissent if he so wills.' In other words, the contrary power remains, but under efficacious grace man never wills to resist, nor does he." The schoolmen call this the divided sense: taken apart from grace, the will can dissent; in the composite sense, taken together with efficacious grace, it does not. So the step from the canon to "grace is not effectual of itself", rated disputed because Aquinas grants the canon's ground and denies that it follows, is a step the Thomists refuse.

Grant the Thomists their premises, and the second part of sola gratia follows: the grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks (thomists_reach_effectual_grace). The step that delivers it is rated disputed, because the Molinists grant God's intention and the infallible result and ascribe the efficacy to the consent God foresees.

Two Thomist claims are about resisting grace, and neither is the claim that the grace that saves can be finally refused. Grace "really sufficient in its own order" (Garrigou-Lagrange, after Lemos) is resisted, and through that resistance the efficacious grace offered with it is withheld. And justifying grace, once given, can be lost: Aquinas holds that the charity of one still on the way (in this life) can be lost, and Trent condemns anyone who says otherwise (canon 23). The grace resisted in the first is not the grace that converts, and the grace lost in the second is grace once given. So they are encoded as claims of their own. Dort parts from the Thomists on the second, the perseverance of the saints, which this argument does not weigh.

The word "passive"

The Thomists' operating grace gives them that conversion is God's work alone. What they do not take is Dort's next step, from God's work alone to the will's passivity. Instead they say the will is "not merely passive". Garrigou-Lagrange: under operating grace "the will elicits its act vitally, in fact, it freely consents to the divine motion or inspiration, but it does not strictly move itself", and "in these acts the will does not remain passive". He lists Calvin's "merely passive" among the errors. Taken at their face, these words deny the third part of sola gratia.

But he is exact about the sense. The will's consent, "although as a disposition it precedes it [grace] in the genus or order of material cause, it nevertheless follows it in the genus or order of formal, efficient, and final cause". These are Aristotle's four kinds of cause: the material, what receives a thing; the efficient, what brings it about; the formal, what makes it what it is; the final, what it is for. So the consent comes before grace only as the readiness that receives it, and grace is what brings the consent about. Aquinas says the same: the movement of the free will "is not the cause of grace, but the effect". The third part of sola gratia, as this argument states it, says that the will is not the agent of its own new life. On Garrigou-Lagrange's own explanation the Thomist grants it in that sense; but that is a reading of him, rated disputed, not something his premises settle.

If "not merely passive" makes the will's consent a cause of the new life, as the Molinists hold of the will's part, the Thomist breaks with Dort at Dort's step from God's work alone to the will's passivity. If it means the will acts while God alone gives the new life, as Garrigou-Lagrange explains it, the Thomist can stand with Dort, and breaks instead with Trent on the Molinist reading, at the step from the will's cooperation, which Aquinas already disputes (whatNotMerelyPassiveMeans). Granted the Thomists' premises and no more, the third part neither follows nor fails (thomists_leave_passivity_open).

So is sola gratia a Protestant doctrine?

The Thomists' premises reach the first two parts of sola gratia and leave the third open. Nothing here shows that they hold sola gratia as stated, and nothing shows that they deny it. Weighed with the other positions, the Thomists can be defended with Dort and are not forced (thomist_defensible, thomist_not_forced). Where the Thomists plainly part from the Reformers is elsewhere: on faith formed by charity, which Aquinas calls "the form of faith", and so not faith alone, which Dort's position here does not carry; and on perseverance. Neither is part of sola gratia as this argument states it.

How this is checked

The positions, steps and results behind this chapter, each with the formula or the Lean that checks it

The Thomist position

thomistCite

The Thomist citations: Aquinas, with Trent's ninth canon, for the denial of faith alone, faith being formed by charity (II-II q.4 a.3).

def thomistCite : Claim → AtomMeta

thomist — Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange)

The Thomists, from Aquinas (Summa I-II qq.109–113) and Garrigou-Lagrange. They hold Romans 11:6, and operating grace, in which God is the sole mover. They hold that God moves the will intending it to attain grace, so that it attains it infallibly. They accept Trent's canon 4, that the will cooperates and can dissent, but draw neither of the steps that Trent's Molinist reading draws from it. They hold that the will under operating grace is not merely passive, that grace truly sufficient is resisted, that justifying grace can be lost, and that grace is not received by faith alone, faith being formed by charity.

The conclusion set against these premises is sola gratia as this argument states it, to test how far they reach. It is not the Thomists' own conclusion, which is thomistPosition below.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) — Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — In converting grace God is the sole mover: the mind is moved and does not move
  • (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — God moves the will intending that it attain grace
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — The free will, moved by God, cooperates by assenting to God's call
  • (5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}\) — The free will, moved by God, can refuse its assent if it wishes
  • (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — Under operating grace the will is not merely passive: it freely consents
  • (7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — Grace truly sufficient, giving the power to do good, is resisted
  • (8) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — Justifying grace, once given, can be lost
  • (9) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-15}{P_{15}}\) — denied: Grace is received by faith alone
  • (10) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) — would give: Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act
  • (11) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — would give: Conversion is God's work alone: God regenerates, and the will does nothing to it
  • (12) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would give: The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — at issue: \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act; \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks; \(\href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) In being made alive the will is passive, and contributes nothing to it

Grounded in scripture alone: Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works.

thomistPosition — Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange)

The Thomists' position, concluding what their sources draw: salvation by grace, and grace effectual of itself.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) — Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — In converting grace God is the sole mover: the mind is moved and does not move
  • (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — God moves the will intending that it attain grace
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — The free will, moved by God, cooperates by assenting to God's call
  • (5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}\) — The free will, moved by God, can refuse its assent if it wishes
  • (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — Under operating grace the will is not merely passive: it freely consents
  • (7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — Grace truly sufficient, giving the power to do good, is resisted
  • (8) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — Justifying grace, once given, can be lost
  • (9) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-15}{P_{15}}\) — denied: Grace is received by faith alone
  • (10) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) — would give: Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act
  • (11) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — would give: Conversion is God's work alone: God regenerates, and the will does nothing to it
  • (12) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would give: The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue: \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act; \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks

Grounded in scripture alone: Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works.

thomistReading

The Thomists' reading, with "not merely passive" taken as the Molinists take it: grace effectual of itself, God alone the one who regenerates, the will not passive in it, and not faith alone.

def thomistReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.willIsPassiveInRegeneration => False
    | Claim.faithAloneReceivesGrace => False
    | Claim.savingGraceCanBeFinallyRefused => False
    | x => True

thomistWithDortReading

The Thomists' reading, with "not merely passive" taken as Garrigou-Lagrange explains it, so that the will is not the agent of its new life; and Dort's answer to Acts 7:51 granted besides, so that Dort's premises hold with it.

def thomistWithDortReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.faithAloneReceivesGrace => False
    | Claim.savingGraceCanBeFinallyRefused => False
    | Claim.acts7_51ResistsSavingGrace => False
    | x => True

What the Thomist reaches

thomists_reach_effectual_grace

The Thomists' premises reach grace effectual of itself, the second part of sola gratia. Aquinas's "if God intends, while moving … he will infallibly attain to it", read as Garrigou-Lagrange reads it, delivers that the grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks. The step is rated disputed: the Molinists grant the intention and the infallible result, and ascribe the efficacy to the consent God foresees.

theorem thomists_reach_effectual_grace : Entails thomist.premises (p
    Claim.graceIsEffectualOfItself)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

thomistPosition_establishes

The Thomists' premises deliver their position.

theorem thomistPosition_establishes : Establishes thomistPosition
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

thomistPosition_is_satisfiable

The Thomists' position can be held without contradiction.

theorem thomistPosition_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable thomistPosition.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

thomists_leave_passivity_open

Granted the Thomists' premises, the will's passivity neither follows nor fails. Their operating grace gives them that conversion is God's work alone. What they do not take is Dort's next step, from God's work alone to the will's passivity, which is rated well supported. Instead they hold that the will is "not merely passive", which can be read either way: as denying the third part of sola gratia, or as consistent with it. Their premises alone do not choose: a reading that takes the will as passive in the sense of not being the agent of its new life satisfies them, and so does one that does not. So the Thomists do not reach sola gratia as stated, and they do not refute it either.

theorem thomists_leave_passivity_open : Independent thomist.premises (p
    Claim.willIsPassiveInRegeneration)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

What "not merely passive" means

asAgentOfNewLife

"Not merely passive" read as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, as the Molinists hold of the will's part, for whom "it is rather the will itself which by its consent" makes grace efficacious (Pohle). No Thomist reads his own claim so; the horn asks what follows if the phrase meant this.

def asAgentOfNewLife : Reading Claim :=
  {
    name :=
      "as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, in the Molinists' sense",
    commits := notP Claim.willIsPassiveInRegeneration,
    source := asAgentOfNewLifeSource }

asDisposition

"Not merely passive" read as the will acting while God alone is the agent of the new life: the will is passive in the sense the third part of sola gratia means. Garrigou-Lagrange's reading.

def asDisposition : Reading Claim :=
  {
    name :=
      "as the will consenting while God alone is the agent, Garrigou-Lagrange's sense",
    commits := p Claim.willIsPassiveInRegeneration,
    source := asDispositionSource }

thomistAsAgent — Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange), read as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, in the Molinists' sense

The Thomists, with "not merely passive" read in the Molinists' sense.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) — Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — In converting grace God is the sole mover: the mind is moved and does not move
  • (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — God moves the will intending that it attain grace
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — The free will, moved by God, cooperates by assenting to God's call
  • (5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}\) — The free will, moved by God, can refuse its assent if it wishes
  • (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — Under operating grace the will is not merely passive: it freely consents
  • (7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — Grace truly sufficient, giving the power to do good, is resisted
  • (8) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — Justifying grace, once given, can be lost
  • (9) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-15}{P_{15}}\) — denied: Grace is received by faith alone
  • (10) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) — would give: Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act
  • (11) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — would give: Conversion is God's work alone: God regenerates, and the will does nothing to it
  • (12) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would give: The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks
  • (13) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — would deny: In being made alive the will is passive, and contributes nothing to it
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue: \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act; \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks

Grounded in scripture alone: Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works.

thomistAsDisposition — Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange), read as the will consenting while God alone is the agent, Garrigou-Lagrange's sense

The Thomists, with "not merely passive" read in Garrigou-Lagrange's sense.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}}\) — Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\) — In converting grace God is the sole mover: the mind is moved and does not move
  • (3) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}}\) — God moves the will intending that it attain grace
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\) — The free will, moved by God, cooperates by assenting to God's call
  • (5) \(\href{claims.html#claim-27}{P_{27}}\) — The free will, moved by God, can refuse its assent if it wishes
  • (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\) — Under operating grace the will is not merely passive: it freely consents
  • (7) \(\href{claims.html#claim-19}{P_{19}}\) — Grace truly sufficient, giving the power to do good, is resisted
  • (8) \(\href{claims.html#claim-20}{P_{20}}\) — Justifying grace, once given, can be lost
  • (9) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-15}{P_{15}}\) — denied: Grace is received by faith alone
  • (10) \(\href{claims.html#claim-4}{P_{4}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) — would give: Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act
  • (11) \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\) — would give: Conversion is God's work alone: God regenerates, and the will does nothing to it
  • (12) \(\href{claims.html#claim-17}{P_{17}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — would give: The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks
  • (13) \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — would give: In being made alive the will is passive, and contributes nothing to it
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — at issue: \(\href{claims.html#claim-29}{P_{29}}\) Salvation is by grace and not earned: grace goes before every saving act; \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) The grace that saves brings about the consent it seeks

Grounded in scripture alone: Romans 11:6 — if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works.

thomistAsAgent_is_satisfiable

The Thomists read the first way can be held without contradiction.

theorem thomistAsAgent_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable thomistAsAgent.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

thomistAsDisposition_is_satisfiable

The Thomists read the second way can be held without contradiction.

theorem thomistAsDisposition_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    thomistAsDisposition.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

dort_holds_with_garrigou_lagrange

Dort holds together with the Thomists read the second way.

theorem dort_holds_with_garrigou_lagrange : Satisfiable (reformed.premises ++
    thomistAsDisposition.premises)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

whereTheAgentReadingFalls

Why Dort stands against the Thomists, with "not merely passive" in the Molinists' sense. The Thomists' own operating grace gives them that God alone does the work. Dort's step says that if God alone does it, the will is passive. Read in the Molinists' sense, the Thomists' "not merely passive" says it is not. They cannot hold all three, and the crux is Dort's step.

Why Reformed (the Canons of Dort) stands against Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange), read as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, in the Molinists' sense.

  • The crux: \(\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\), a premise of Reformed (the Canons of Dort).

  • What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.

  • Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) cannot be held together with \(\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.

  • What this rests on:

whereTheDispositionReadingFalls

Why Trent, on the Molinist reading, stands against the Thomists, with "not merely passive" in Garrigou-Lagrange's sense. The crux is the first half of Trent's canon 4 as the Molinist reading takes it: the will cooperates by assenting, so it is not passive. That step is rated disputed, because Aquinas grants that grace cooperates with a will that moves and holds that in grace's first effect the mind "is moved and does not move".

Why Trent (Session VI, canon 4, on the Molinist reading) stands against Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange), read as the will consenting while God alone is the agent, Garrigou-Lagrange's sense.

  • The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\), a premise of Trent (Session VI, canon 4, on the Molinist reading).
  • What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
  • Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\), which the break also needs.
  • Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
  • What this rests on:

whatNotMerelyPassiveMeans

What "not merely passive" means, read both ways. The claim is the Thomists': under operating grace the will is not merely passive, but freely consents.

Read as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, in the Molinists' sense, it cannot be held with Dort, at Dort's step from God's work alone to the will's passivity.

Read as the will consenting while God alone is the agent of the new life, Garrigou-Lagrange's sense ("it nevertheless follows it in the genus or order of formal, efficient, and final cause"), Dort can hold it without contradiction. It cannot be held with Trent on the Molinist reading, at the step from the will's cooperation, which is rated disputed because Aquinas grants that grace cooperates with a will that moves and holds that in grace's first effect the mind "is moved and does not move".

Each reading is consistent: the Thomists read either way can be held without contradiction. Which one the Thomists mean is not something the dilemma decides, but Garrigou-Lagrange's own explanation is the second.

Every reading of \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), answered. Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange) holds \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\). It is read 2 ways here, and each reading is checked; none can be left out.

1. Read as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, in the Molinists' sense. The claim commits Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange) to \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — so read by Pohle 1911 (disputed).

Against Reformed (the Canons of Dort), it cannot be held. Where it breaks:

Why Reformed (the Canons of Dort) stands against Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange), read as making the will's consent a cause of the new life, in the Molinists' sense.

  • The crux: \(\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\), a premise of Reformed (the Canons of Dort).

  • What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.

  • Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-16}{P_{16}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) cannot be held together with \(\href{claims.html#claim-28}{P_{28}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.

  • What this rests on:

2. Read as the will consenting while God alone is the agent, Garrigou-Lagrange's sense. The claim commits Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange) to \(\href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) — so read by Garrigou-Lagrange 1952, §ch. X; Aquinas 1920, §I-II q.111 a.2 ad 2 (disputed).

Against Trent (Session VI, canon 4, on the Molinist reading), it cannot be held. Where it breaks:

Why Trent (Session VI, canon 4, on the Molinist reading) stands against Thomist (Aquinas; Garrigou-Lagrange), read as the will consenting while God alone is the agent, Garrigou-Lagrange's sense.

  • The crux: \((\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\), a premise of Trent (Session VI, canon 4, on the Molinist reading).
  • What it does: its conclusion does not follow without it.
  • Granted: \(\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\), which the break also needs.
  • Where the rival breaks: \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-18}{P_{18}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) cannot be held together with \((\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-31}{P_{31}}\) and \(\href{claims.html#claim-21}{P_{21}}\), \(\href{claims.html#claim-26}{P_{26}}\); each is needed for the break, and without the crux they stand.
  • What this rests on:

Against Reformed (the Canons of Dort), it is not reached: Reformed (the Canons of Dort) holds, and can be held together with it.