Thomas Aquinas: Nature and Grace

I've been rereading Sproul's very good offering "The Consequences of Ideas" and taking notes. One thing about Thomas Aquinas jumped out at me this time --- his thoughts on "efficient causes" as 2nd proof of the existence of God.

"Every effect has an antecedent cause.

In Aristotle's scheme the efficient cause is that which produces the effect. In the case of a statue, it is the sculptor." In the case of a believer, God?

Connected to this is his notion of the separation of nature and grace. It seems biblically based -- natural man vs spiritual man -- philosophy or science vs theology. Aquinas sees them separate totally realms (according to his critics). Sproul says not so much.

But to get to the point ---- Doesn't Aquinas 2nd proof teach us that the "efficacious calling" cannot have a natural cause? Isn't this the argument of Calvinism? That God has to directly change the heart because there is nothing in the natural that changes the spiritual? In fact, imagine this happening in any Calvinist proposition -- prayer (our speaking to God) doesn't change God or His "plan." Evangelizing doesn't change who He saves/elects. There does seem to be a kind of "wall" between the two in Calvinism as well, no? What is the "efficient cause" of salvation -- spoken gospel or God?

Sproul gives an example: In Islam, "what may be true in faith may be false in reason. Just as Protestant theologians distinguish between general (or natural) revelation and special (biblical) revelation, so Thomas distinguishes between nature and grace."

Now to be fair, Aquinas and Sproul didn't see nature and grace as diametrically exclusionary. However, think about the concepts for a minute and see that the only "effective cause" of regeneration would not occur in the natural man but from God alone, right? Hearing words (naturally) would be of no "effect" in the realm of the spirit or grace. Regeneration and faith have to be some intervention of the spirit (or, perhaps, intellect) by God.

Now the question is --- is this a valid truth?

skypair

 

Thanks humblesmith! :applause: I saw the 4 causes but you added some good "brain food" to the mix.

Did Westminister really see a free will aspect in salvation? Trying to compare:

Efficient Cause: God
Formal Cause: glorified, eternal children
Final Cause: fellowship of those created in His image
Material Cause: Sinful mankind
Exemplar Cause: Justification, sanctification, glorification pattern of design?
Instrumental Cause: Scripture, Christ, believers

The only place I can find man having an active part is as a "secondary cause," right? Do you think Calvinism overlooked secondary causes in their sotierology?? It often seems Calvinists think man has no part in sanctification either being as they see it "all of God."

Am I missing something? Cause is cause and in the above, I don't see man's involvement except in the Instrumental cause if my analogy is right.

skypair