/lit/ - Literature

So he's just a Calvinist when it comes to predestination? He says predestination doesn't deny free will, but then says God causes our free choices? What am I missing here?

So he's just a Calvinist when it comes to predestination? He says predestination doesn't contradict free will, but then says that God is the cause of our free choices. What am I missing here?

Seem like an atheist is committed to an infinite regress

>>22069998
There is no definitive teaching. St. Thomas argues that unbaptised babies go to limbo, which is the nice part of hell, where people do not suffer but are happy. They just don’t get to feast on the essence of God like the Saints do.
I personally believe that God gives everybody the chance to be united with him, so those unbaptised babies in limbo could eventually turn to God and go to Heaven.


> Further, Gregory Nazianzen, in his fortieth sermon, which is entitled On Holy Baptism, distinguishes three classes of unbaptised persons: those namely who refuse to be baptised, those who through neglect, have put off being baptised until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death and those who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs. Of the first, he says that they will be punished, not only for their other sins but also for their contempt of Baptism; of the second, that they will be punished, though less severely than the first, for having neglected it; and of the last, he says that a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism. He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: Because there isamean between the two, since he who deserves not honour and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment and, on the other hand, he who is not deserving of punishment is not, for that reason, worthy of glory and honour.
St Thomas

>“He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men.

>As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.


>He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.

>What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms.

>Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.


>It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly.

>Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4. Footnote: 1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36

Any literature that debunks Aquinas' proof of God?

Protip: there isn't.

the definition of a midwit

On what basis did he make the leap from "prime mover" to "Christian God"?

>>21483482
St Thomas Aquinas

So he read averroes and avicenna, but what translation is he quoting? How did he get access to them? Is there a specific source?