Dist. 40, Art. 3, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/40/q/bon-sent-I-d40-a3-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II.
#### *Whether election is the same as predestination.*

Secondly it is asked what election is, and that it is the same as predestination is shown.

1. The *Master* says in the text: «*Since predestination is the election by which God chose those whom he willed, before the foundation of the world*»: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it seems by *reason*, because every predestined person is elect, and every elect person predestined; therefore predestination is election, since they are predicated of one another *per se*.

3. Likewise, those whose opposites are the same are themselves the same; but the opposite of election is reprobation, and this is the opposite of predestination: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. Whatever things belong to different subjects are themselves different; but predestination is only of the good, whereas election is of all those to be saved and of some to be damned: therefore etc. The proof of the minor is had in John six: *Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?* If you say that this is to be understood of temporal election; on the contrary: temporal election is a sign of the eternal: either then they agree, or it is a false sign.

2. Likewise, if there were never anyone evil, there would still be predestination, but there would not be election; according to this, then, election regards one object, and predestination another: therefore they are not entirely the same.

3. Likewise, an agent acting from purpose is called an agent through election, and is not said to act according to predestination: therefore predestination and election differ.

It is asked therefore what is the *difference*, and *what is prior according to the order of understanding*.

### Conclusion.

> *Election according to the affection of love is the same as predestination; election according to the effect of final glorification is an infallible sign of predestination.*

**I respond:** It must be said that election is spoken of in three ways. For there is election according to the *affect of love*, and according to the *effect of final glorification*, and according to the *state of pre-eminence*. The first is eternal and is the same as predestination; the second is temporal and an infallible sign of the first; the third likewise is temporal, and is neither an effect nor a sign of eternal election. For many evil and reprobate are set in pre-eminence; and would that there were not more evil than good!

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected concerning the word of the Lord in John six, it must be said that it is to be understood of *election to pre-eminence*, and this is not only of the good, nor of all the good; and so it clearly appears that it is not the same as predestination. — And to that which is objected, that it is a sign; it must be said that it is not a certain sign, nor does the Lord give it as a sign, and foolish is he who trusts in this sign. But election according to the effect of final glorification — this is a sign certain absolutely speaking, but it is not certain to us. And this differs from vocation, because grace is given to many who do not persevere; therefore they are called *vocati* (called) but not *electi* (elect); and of these it is said in Matthew twenty-two: *Many are called, but few are chosen.*

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that election regards evil and is fitting to every agent acting from purpose, but predestination does not; it is to be noted that in God *purpose*, *predestination*, and *election* are the same in reality, yet they differ according to the order of understanding. For *purpose* simply expresses the will of doing something. For he is said to purpose who firmly wills to do something. But *election* and *predestination* add upon the [will's] conception, yet differently, because predestination adds order and direction toward an end, while election adds discretion or separation from its opposite. Hence *purpose* expresses a firm conception of the will, *predestination* together with conception expresses pre-ordination, and *election* expresses a certain discretion. According to this, then, it is clear that purpose is prior in the order of understanding, and election follows, since it must first be understood that something is separated from evil or from the *mass*, and then directed toward an end; and so the diversity and order are clear.

*To 3.* And from this is clear what is asked last, namely why an agent from purpose is not always called acting according to predestination as he is according to election; because every agent who deliberates from purpose seizes upon one part of the contradiction beforehand, and therefore every such agent is said to elect; but not every such agent thus orders the effect toward an end, but for the most part toward himself. To predestine, however, is to pre-ordain another toward an end, and this properly belongs to God; and so the matter is clear. For predestination connotes three things, namely the *one pre-ordained*, and this is a human being; the *ground of pre-ordaining*, and this is grace; and the *ground of the end*, and this is glory: and so there are three, namely *that which*, *through which*, and *toward which*.