Tertia Pars
59. Summa III, Q. 24: The Predestination of Christ and Why It Is the Model and Cause of Ours
Class of 2009-11-12
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/059-summa-iii-q-24-the-predestination-of-christ-and-why-it-is/

[0:00] To the predestination of Christ, then one ought to consider about the predestination of Christ, and about this four things are asked: first of all, whether he was predestined;

[0:16] and secondly, whether he was predestined according as he was a man; and third, whether his predestination is an exemplar of our predestination. That's an interesting thing that the average guy wouldn't think about. And four, whether it is a cause of our what predestination? Right.

[0:42] I wonder if that's going to add something to three. Yeah. Because exemplar is one kind of cause that Aristotle talks about in the in the second book of Natural hearing and the fifth book of Wisdom. So he says to the first one goes for it thus: it seems that to Christ it does not belong to be predestined, for the limit there's the word terminus, right? So we get the three terms in syllogism.

[1:11] The term or limit of any pre of each predestination would seem to be adoption of what sons, according to that of Ephesians chapter one verse five. He predestined us for the adoption of what sons? Huh? Saint John talks a bit like that in the epistle, right? We have the sons of God and so on. And he goes on to talk about it does not yet appear what we will be right, but we will be like him when he appears.

[1:44] We shall see him as he is. Famous text. But to Christ it does not belong to be an adopted son, and therefore to Christ it does not belong to be what predestined.

[1:58] That's a good argument. Moreover, in Christ two things are to be considered: the human nature and the person. But it cannot be said that Christ is predestined by reason of human nature, because this is false that the human nature is the son of God.

[2:19] Likewise, neither by reason of the person, because that person does not have from grace that it is the son of God, but it has this from nature. The predestination is of those things which are from grace, as has been said in the first part. Therefore, Christ was not predestined the son of what God. However, just as that which is made not always was right. So also that which was predestined.

[3:01] In the predestination implies a certain antecedent, antecedents. But Christ was always the Son of God. But because Christ was always the Son of God, yeah. Oh, excuse me. Yeah, because Christ was always God and the Son of God, not properly as it said that that man was made the what, Son of God. Therefore, for a like reason, it ought not to be said that Christ was predestined the Son of God, huh?

[3:39] How do you get to this kind of strange question, you know? Well, look at the sed contra here. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, what Saint Paul himself says. By Antonomasia, he's called the apostle. John the John Paul II would call him with Peter the princes of the apostles, right? But Thomas points out how in the in the New Testament they are spoken of as the apostle, right?

[4:07] These two guys. So, but against this is what the apostle says, Romans one four, speaking of Christ, who was predestined the Son of God in virtue.

[4:27] I answer: It should be said that, as is clear from those things which were said in the first part, predestination, taken properly, is a certain divine preordering from eternity about those things which are going to come to be in time through the grace of God. You got that? Stop and say, okay. So preordering, right? From eternity, those things which are going to come about in time through the grace of God, right?

[5:08] She's going to knock Paul off his horse, right? Give him some grace. Well, doesn't say he's not off his horse. It just says he fell down.

[5:18] There's nothing about a horse. Not even a horse. He was an elephant. This, however, in time was made through the grace of union, right? By God, that man was God, and God was what.

[5:41] Nor it can be said that God, from eternity, did not preorder this to come about in time, because it would follow that something happened newly to the divine mind. What's that?

[6:01] It is necessary, therefore, to say that the union of natures in the person of Christ Christ comes under the eternal predestination of God, and by reason of this, Christ is said to be what predestined, by the grace of union, what's going to take place by the grace of union that God is man and man is what God.

[6:28] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the apostle speaks there about the predestination by which we are predestined that we might be the adopted sons of God. But just as Christ, in a singular way, before all others, is the natural son of God, so in a certain what unique way, right, singular way, is what predestined.

[7:05] Now the second objection requires a longer reply, right? The third, oh my God, it's really long. Okay. You got a few of these in the de potentia of course apply to the objections. So the whole treatise there, you know, reply.

[7:29] So this second objection was saying that there are two things in Christ to consider, and by reason of neither of them can he be said to be predestined, right? The human nature is not him, and the Son of God in his divine generation is not predestined. So to the second, it should be said that as the gloss says, right, on Romans one four,

[8:01] some say that the predestination ought to be that predestination not to be understood about the nature, not about the person, Because, because to human nature it was made or done right that this grace right would be united to the Son of God in the unity of the person. But according to this, the speech of the apostle is improper on account of two things. First, for a common notion, for we do not say that the nature of someone is predestined, but the what person, because to be predestined is to be directed to salvation, which belongs to the suppositum acting on account of the end of the what the actor what the attitude.

[9:00] Secondly, for a special reason. Because to be the Son of God does not belong to the what human nature. For this is false that the human nature is the Son of God,

[9:19] unless one wishes to expound it by this extorted, this this strained position, right? Who has predestined the Son of God in virtue? That is, was predestined that human nature would be united to the Son of God in his person.

[9:41] It remains, therefore, that predestination is attributed to the person of Christ, not in itself, right, or according as it subsists in divine nature, but according as it subsists in what human nature. Whence, when the apostle said before, "Who was made to him from the seed of David according to the flesh," he adds, "Who was predestined the Son of God in power." So that one might understand that, according as he was made from the seed of David according to the flesh, he is predestined the Son of God in what power?

[10:32] Because although it is natural that person considered by himself that he be the Son of God in power, it was not, however, natural to him according to its human nature, according to which it belonged to him through grace, the grace of union, that is to say.

[10:56] That's a little thing that's chewing a little bit. Close up the machine, and then tomorrow I'll get it again. I can't. I can't see that. Predestination is a difficult thing, you know. I first got into predestination with those treatises of Augustine on the predestination of saints. And my cousin Donald had, you know, these these two volumes of Augustine there that they have in English now, and I'd go over it to my aunt's and I'd go up into Donald's room there and get the words of Augustine and start to read these things.

[11:32] And that's quite a quite a reduction to the to the subject. I'm always struck with just his letters, you know, across passages, and you know, where did he get the time? I mean, he must have bilocated most of his active ministry as a bishop because he writes out these letters where he's expounding, you know, huge stuff, very profound, very subtle. I mean, he's writing on, on, on, on, on.

[12:10] It's just one letter he wrote to this guy over here. Good thing they didn't throw them away. Oh, another letter from him. Thank you. Third objection, right?

[12:40] He can't be said properly to be made the Son of God, right? Therefore, he can't be said to be predestined the Son of God.

[12:52] To the third, it should be said that Origen, upon the epistle to the Romans, says that this letter. Of the apostle, who is destined,

[13:08] predestined some texts have, the son of God and virtue. Oh, okay, did you drop out the predestinatus, right? Okay, so that there is not designated any antecedents, and thus it has nothing of difficulty. Others, the antecedents, which is designated in this participle predestinatus, refers to not to that which is to be the son of God, but but to his manifestation, according to that accustomed mode, customary mode of speaking scripture, that a thing is said to come about when it are made known.

[13:54] That the sense might be that Christ was predestined to be made known as the son of God, huh? But thus not properly is predestination taken, for someone is said properly to be predestined, according as he directed to the end of what beatitude. So predestination is a part of divine providence, right? And by divine providence, all things are directed towards their what end, right? So Thomas takes up divine providence in the third book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, after he shows what is the end of creation, so on.

[14:36] Predestination is something for the rational creature, right? But for his end, that's properly the meaning of it. For thus not properly is predestination is taken, for someone is said properly to be predestined, according as he directed to the end of beatitude. That's a part providence for rational creatures, but the beatitude and for those who are to be saved. But the beatitude of Christ does not depend upon what our knowledge, huh?

[15:08] And therefore it is better said, that that antecession, which is implied in the participle predestinatus, does not refer to the person in himself, but by reason of what human nature. Because that person, although from eternity he was the son of God, nevertheless this was not always so that he was subsisting in the what that what subsists in human nature was the what son of God. Once Augustine says in the book on the predestination of saints, and I'm trying to get out of that when I first read it,

[15:59] that Jesus was predestined, huh? That who, in the future, was to be according to the flesh, the son of David, right, would also be in power the son of what, God.

[16:17] And it should be considered that although this participle predestinatus implies antecedents, just as this participle factus made, right, nevertheless in a different way. For fieri, coming to be, pertains to the thing according as it is in itself. But to be predestined belongs to something to someone, according as they are in the knowledge or the apprehension, the grasping of someone, foreordaining. But that which is what, under some form or nature, secundum rem, can be apprehended either in so far as it is under that form, or also absolutely.

[17:09] And because absolutely it does not belong to the person of Christ that he began to be the son of God, right? It belongs, however, to him, according as he is understood, or grasped as existing in what, human nature. Because this at some time began to be, that what. The son of God would be existing within nature. That something, yeah.

[17:41] For this at some time began to be that what was existing in human nature was the son of God. And therefore, this is more true that Christ was predestined the son of God, than Christ was made the son of God, right?

[18:01] Because Christus is more the name of him as what, as existing as human nature, right? So he is predestined to be what, son of God. But he's not made the son of God. because The son of God was not made. He's not going to

[18:28] drop the subject entirely. He's going to go on. It was Thomas pray for you know how you see his prayer after communion he prays you know had the vices removed and then virtues right what virtues does he mention right? Charity, humility, first I forget now. Yeah, got humility, obedience, charity, and patience. You know,

[19:01] to to to to go through these things, you know, and all this detail, right? Yeah. You know, it says Aristotle in the second book of wisdom. There, he says that some people don't like this precision, right? Because it seems you're being stingy, right? And the guy who's tight with money and counts every every penny, right? And

[19:31] can't say keep the change or something, you know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's got. What they say, you know, during the 1952 campaign, there, you know, Senator Taft is a very strict man, you know, and he only left somebody a dime tip. And the person got so mad, only getting a dime tip from the secretary for the the Republican nomination for presidency, that he calls the reporters, you know, the woman, I guess it was, complaining about this dime tip, and saw this thing gets out about.

[20:05] Some funny things that happen. I guess when when Dewey was running for office, right? And they're heading towards. Well, stop. Train stops, right? And so he's kind of at the end of the you know the end of the train. He gives his speech, you know. Well, some guy makes a mistake up front of the train and the car, you know, and oh, you know, he lets out some kind of a swear.

[20:28] So he's browbeating the poor guy, you know. Yeah. So Shakespeare in the guy, watch the word here now, but he speaks of niggard truth.

[20:51] and I'm not talking about our black brothers, but you use the word niggard, you're talking about this. Well, people wouldn't understand, but but but what niggard means when niggardly means stingy, right? Sure. So he calls truth as being what niggard, yeah, yeah, as opposed to you know flattering, right? Now you see, and most of the time we you know flatter somebody, you know, and see how wonderful they are, you know, and how wonderful the meal was, what it was, you know, they've done, you know, and it's a wonderful paper, you know, and so on.

[21:25] Yeah, yeah, yeah, and and if we are. You know Shakespeare says a flatter you know kind of smooths things over you know, but if you just were truthful about what someone has done or not done you know you'd make a lot of enemies.

[21:44] So, talking about truth, it seems to be something kind of stingy, right? You know. So you can see Thomas here, you know, right down to the little you know the last penny, you know. The president isn't stingy, that's for sure. Every time talking about taking some of the money there, that big money that they passed, you know the recovery bill or it was, and usually had to pay off the debt.

[22:22] This is the last thing. Anybody pay off the debt? Rush Limbaugh would say, Why not just you know pay off the whole debt?" You know. That'd be crazy. You guys are protective of some of the madness out the world. There, you know. We're here for a reason, guys. Yeah, yeah, yeah. At least one. Some of us are many.

[22:53] It's tottering out there, huh? Okay. To the second one proceeds thus. it seemed that this is false. Christ, according as he is what man, is predestined to be the what. Son of God. Son of God, huh?

[23:23] For this is what each one, according to some time, that he was predestined to be. In that the predestination of God does not what. Yeah. Fail. If therefore Christ, according as he is man, was predestined to be the Son of God, it would seem to follow that what he is the Son of God, according as he is what man. But this is false. Therefore, the first.

[24:04] So Christ is saying, as man is not the Son of God, right? So how can he be predestined to be the Son of Man?

[24:16] Gets me puzzled here. More of that which belongs to Christ, according as he is man, belongs to every man, in that he is of one species, of one kind, with other men, huh? If therefore Christ, according as he is man, is predestined to be the Son of God, it would follow that to each man this belongs. But this is false. Therefore, the first

[24:51] something unique about this man, I don't know. More that this from eternity is predestined, that at some time will come about in time. But more is this true: the Son of God was made man, and the Word was made flesh. That's what it says in John.

[25:15] Then that man was made the Son of God. So, if someone said to you, "Would you say that that would you rather say that God became man in the incarnation rather than man became God?"

[25:35] Yeah. Therefore, more is this true that Christ, according as he is the Son of God, is predestined to be a man, than the reverse that Christ, according as he is man, is predestined to be the Son of God. Right. Especially given who's the Son of God before he was man.

[26:02] Now, Thomas, you don't mean to be that you undertake that with its side, Thomas. You can't. You can't possibly mean that, can you? But against this is what Augustine says in the book on the predestination of the saints.

[26:21] High school reading for me. You mastered it at such a tender age. It mastered me. The Lord of Glory, right? Insofar as he was what a man, was made the what Son of God. We say him to be what predestined.

[26:47] He's pretty much an authority, this Augustine, isn't he? Well, let's see what Thomas says. Houdini getting himself in one tie up, you know, another, and he's got to find a way out, and he's he's never going to get untie this one. You know. You know, I told you how there's a likeness there between fiction there, where the plot Aristotle says should have what tying of the knot and then untying the knot, and something like that in philosophy.

[27:25] You know, you tie the knot and then you untie it. And, but Aristotle has another saying there in the book on the Poetic Art that the the Young or inexperienced poets, or the inferior poets, are better at tying the knot than untying it, huh? And I think you've all seen maybe a movie or a story or something like that, and it's kind of interesting the way the complication developed.

[27:51] But then the way you didn't know how to untie it, the poet, huh? And so I say, well, the same is true of philosophers, right? They're much better at tying themselves and others into a knot than they are to untie the knot, right? And that's what separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

[28:10] So let's see how Thomas does to untie this knot. I answer: It should be said that in predestination, two things are able to be considered. One, from the side of the what? Eternal predestination itself, huh? And According to this, it implies a certain antecedence with respect to that which comes under predestination. So the word pre there, the preface there, I mean, prefixer.

[28:44] In another way, it can be considered according to the temporal effect, which is some gratuitous some graceful, gift of God, right? It should be said, therefore, according to both of these, predestination is attributed to Christ by reason of human nature. What? Alone. For human nature was not always what united to the Word, and to it also, through grace, was this bestowed that it might be united to the Son of God in person.

[29:30] And therefore, only by reason of human nature does predestination belong to Christ. Whence Augustine says in the book on the predestination of the saints

[29:44] that the predestined was what. All of our human nature. Yeah. This so much and so high and what and highest right subjection right that something could not be what

[30:13] higher. There was you couldn't be predestined to something higher human nature than to be united to what God in person. But that we say belongs to someone according as he is man, that belongs to it by reason of what human nature, and therefore it should be said that Christ, according as he is man, is predestined to be the what Son of God. And

[31:04] the first objection was saying that he can't be the Son of God according as he is man. So how can he be predestined to be the Son of God? To the first, therefore, it should be said that when it is said that Christ, according as he is man, is predestined to be the Son of God, this determination. According as right man can refer to the act signified by the participle in two ways.

[31:42] In one way, on the side of that which, in a material way, comes under predestination, and in this way it is false, for it is the sense that the predestin that be predestined that Christ, according as he is man, be the son of what God, and in this sense the objection what goes forward, yeah. Another way it can refer to, but the very notion of the act itself, right.

[32:18] In so far as predestination implies in its definition both what antecedents and a gratuitous what effect, and in this way it belongs to Christ predestination by reason of human nature, as has been said, and according to this it is said to be predestined according as he is what man.

[32:49] That's something to chew on that over there. What? This whole question. Yeah. Now the second objection, what belongs to Christ as his man belongs to every man. No, I'd be careful about that.

[33:12] To second should be said that something can belong to some man by reason of human nature in two ways. In one way, thus that human nature is a cause of that, right? Just as to be visible, capable of laughter, and so on, belongs to Socrates by reason of human nature, from whose principles this is caused, right? And in this way predestination does not belong either to Christ nor to any other man, right, by reason of human nature.

[33:47] And in this sense the objection what proceeds, huh? In? Another way that is said to belong to, to someone by reason of human nature, of which human nature is what susceptible, right? And thus we say that Christ is predestined by reason of human nature. Because predestination refers to the exalting, the rising up of human nature in him, right? As has been said.

[34:26] If you think of Mary there, you could say Mary was predestined to be the mother of God, right? But not every woman is predestined to be the mother of God. huh? To have that same exaltation, you know? I mean, it's a similar exaltation in some sense.

[35:10] Because the human, the divine nature of Christ was not exalted by the union. Fact. So I mean, Philippians says he kind of what emptied himself, right?

[35:31] The third objection. That is predestined from eternity. That will come about some time, in time, right? But more is this true that the Son of God was made man, and that man was made the Son of God. Therefore, more is this true true that Christ, according as Son of God, is predestined to be man, and that Christ, according as He is man, is predestined to be the Son of God.

[35:59] It's an interesting objection, huh? Very interesting. The third, therefore, should be said, that as Augustine says in the book on the predestination of the saints, that is what, in an inexpressible way, right?

[36:31] Maybe that what unique receiving of man by the word of God, huh? That the Son of Man at the same time, on account of the what

[36:48] man received, right? Yeah, but I got a footnote here about the should have said more on account of the received humanity, right? Augustine not speaking the way he should altogether. Um.

[37:12] And the Son of God, yeah, and the Son of God, on account of the what, only begotten God, receiving taken on, is truly and properly said, right?

[37:28] But the Son of God, the Son of Man, is said to be the Son of God in Phasis, I guess, huh? And therefore, because that receiving under predestination,

[37:44] becomes under predestination, something gratuitous. something gratuitous, both can be said that the Son of God was predestined to be man, and the Son of man predestined to be the Son of God.

[37:59] Because, however, grace was not made for the Son of God that he be a man, but more human nature that be united to the Son of God. More properly, it can be said that Christ, according as man, is predestined to be the Son of God, than that Christ, according as he is the Son of God, is predestined to be man. Right. So, if you're just saying, you know, did man become God or God become man?

[38:34] Because you could say both, but maybe you'd say more that God became man. Right. But in terms of predestination, if you have the definition of predestination, there's something gratuitous, right? Well, then it's by the grace that the human nature there receives, right, that is appropriately taken on by the Son of God, right? While it's not by grace that the Son of God is appropriately able to take on human nature, right?

[39:07] God has no grace. But but the human nature does. Time for another one here. Okay. To this. Okay. The third one precedes us. It seems that the predestination of Christ is not the exemplar of our predestination, right? That's the thing that Augustine says. I'm going to quote it here. God became man so that man might become God, huh?

[39:46] For the exemplar preexists to the exemplato, the exemplar. But nothing preexists to the eternal. Since, therefore, our predestination is eternal, it seems that the predestination of Christ is not the exemplar of our what predestination.

[40:11] Moreover, the exemplar leads into a knowledge of the exemplar, but it's not necessary that Christ, that God, be led into what a knowledge of our predestination from something else. Because, as is said, in Romans eight, those whom he foreknew, these he also what predestined. Therefore, predestination of Christ is not the exemplar of our predestination. If he needed that to know about ours. Moreover, the exemplar is conformed to the exemplar, but of a different reason seems to be the predestination of Christ than our predestination.

[40:56] Because we are predestined to be adoptive sons, but Christ is predestined to be the Son of God in power, as is said, in, Romans one four. Therefore, his predestination is not the exemplar of our predestination. But against all this is what Augustine says in the book on the predestination of the saints. For that is a most clear light of predestination, and of grace, the Savior Himself, right?

[41:32] The mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, huh? But he is said to be the light of predestination, grace, in so far as through his predestination and grace is made known our predestination, which seems to pertain to the notion of exemplar. Therefore, the predestination of Christ is the exemplar of our predestination.

[42:02] Thomas begins the distinction here. I answer: It should be said that predestination can be considered in two ways. In one way, according to the act of the one predestinating, huh?

[42:19] And thus the predestination of Christ cannot be said to be the exemplar of our predestination, for in one way and by one eternal act God predestined both us and Christ.

[42:42] Another way predestination can be considered, according as according to that to which someone is predestined, right, which is the limit of the predestination and the effect of it. And according to this, the predestination of Christ is the exemplar of our predestination, and this in two ways. First, as regards the good to which we are predestined,

[43:17] for he was predestined to this that he would be the natural son of God. We are predestined to the sonship of adoption, which is nevertheless a certain what partaken likeness of the divine, the natural sonship. Once it is said in Romans eight twenty nine, whom he foreknew, these he also predestined, right, to be conformed after the image of his what son.

[43:48] Maybe the image there is taken in the sense of exemplar, right, rather than the usual sense of image. Another way, as regards the way of what obtaining that good, which is through grace, which in Christ is most manifest, because human nature in him, no merits preceding, right, was united to the Son of God. And from the fullness of his grace, we have all what received.

[44:27] And the first objection proceeds from the what side of the act of the one predestining, the same way for the second objection. And the third says it is not necessary that the exemplar be conformed to the exemplar in regard all things, right? But it suffices that in some way the exemplar imitates its exemplar, right? Okay. Now let's go in the last article. What that was easy.

[45:11] Article four: Would the predestination of Christ as a cause? Cause of our predestination. To the fourth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination. For the eternal does not have a cause, but our predestination is eternal. Therefore, the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination. Moreover, that which depends on the simple will of God does not have any other cause except the will of God.

[45:47] But our predestination depends upon the simple will of God. According to that of Ephesians one, we are predestined according to His what proposal? Who does all things by the counsel of His will? Therefore, the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our what predestination. Moreover, the cause removed, the effect is removed. But if one takes away the predestination of Christ, there is not taken away our predestination.

[46:24] Because even if the Son of God was not made flesh, there would be another way possible for our salvation, as Augustine says in the book on Trinity. And Thomas had argued before, right, that incarnation was not what absolutely necessary for our redemption, right, but for the well-being of our redemption, right.

[46:50] Therefore, the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination. But against this is what is said in Ephesians one five. He predestined us in the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ.

[47:06] So he says, I answer. It should be said that if predestination is considered according to the very act of predestination, then the predestination of Christ is not the cause of our predestination. Since he said before, by one and the same act, God predestined Christ and us, right?

[47:31] But if predestination be considered according to the term of predestination, then the predestination of Christ is the cause of our predestination. For thus God foreordered our salvation by predestining it from eternity in this way that it be what completed through Jesus Christ.

[47:58] For under predestination, eternal predestination, not only falls that which is going to come about in time, but also the way and order according to which is going to be completed in time.

[48:17] Now he says the first two objections are, according to those, for their reasons, they proceed from predestination, according to the act of predestination, which is the same act by which he did both. So he admits that.

[48:37] And to the third, it should be said: if Christ was not what, incarnated, God would have foreordered men to be saved through some other cause. But because he foreordered the incarnation of Christ, the same time with this, he foreordered that he would be the cause of our salvation.

[49:05] That's in the one section there. But now the next one is about those things which pertain to Christ in comparison to us. First, about adoring him. Secondly, is about his being what, our mediator, right, to God. That's next two questions.