TryingToLearn
Puritan Board Freshman
Richard Muller in his Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms in defining the donum superadditum states that,
Aquinas maintained that the donum superadditum was part of the original constitution of man and that its loss was the loss of the original capacity for righteousness. Since the superadded grace was not merited in the beginning, it cannot be regained by merit after the fall.
Then in defining the Reformed counter donum concreatum states,
The Protestant argument was that the donum gratuitum, the utterly free gift, of iustitia originalis(q.v.) was part of the original constitution of man and therefore a donum concreatum, naturale, or intrinsecum rather than something superadded to the original constitution of man. By extension, the loss of the iustitia originalis in the fall was the loss of something fundamental to the constitution of man that could be resupplied only be a divine act and not, as the semi-Pelagian tendency in late medieval Scotism and nominalism indicated, something superadded that could be regained by a minimal act of human obedience.
So, my question, then is what exactly is the difference between Thomas and the Reformers on this? Both affirm it was part of the original constitution of man and cannot be regained by obedience.
I've read elsewhere that Bavinck's critique of the donum was not accurate to what Thomas believed (so John Bolt argues) but rather was against the Catholic interpretation of Thomas at his time. That's fine and useful as far as it goes, but where can I read a Reformed critique of Thomas' actual position?
Aquinas maintained that the donum superadditum was part of the original constitution of man and that its loss was the loss of the original capacity for righteousness. Since the superadded grace was not merited in the beginning, it cannot be regained by merit after the fall.
Then in defining the Reformed counter donum concreatum states,
The Protestant argument was that the donum gratuitum, the utterly free gift, of iustitia originalis(q.v.) was part of the original constitution of man and therefore a donum concreatum, naturale, or intrinsecum rather than something superadded to the original constitution of man. By extension, the loss of the iustitia originalis in the fall was the loss of something fundamental to the constitution of man that could be resupplied only be a divine act and not, as the semi-Pelagian tendency in late medieval Scotism and nominalism indicated, something superadded that could be regained by a minimal act of human obedience.
So, my question, then is what exactly is the difference between Thomas and the Reformers on this? Both affirm it was part of the original constitution of man and cannot be regained by obedience.
I've read elsewhere that Bavinck's critique of the donum was not accurate to what Thomas believed (so John Bolt argues) but rather was against the Catholic interpretation of Thomas at his time. That's fine and useful as far as it goes, but where can I read a Reformed critique of Thomas' actual position?