Thomas Aquinas died in 1274, writing his major works about 300 years before Calvin. Aquinas' theology about God moving man is generally in line with what most Calvinists would agree. In his several theological works, and specifically in his commentary on Romans, he provides a lengthy description of God being the mover of man to salvation, a description that most strict Calvinists would love. For the sake of keeping this post short(er) and readable, we'll not give a lengthy quote of this. But trust me, Aquinas writes strong, clear, and lengthy, that God must move man to Himself. However, Aquinas teaching does not quite fit into all the modern pidgeon holes. In his commentary on Romans 9, when he gets to explaining v.16 ("So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy"), Aquinas shows some additional ideas that do not fit so neatly into modern theology. Before you read the quote below, first be aware that Aquinas repeatedly uses the phrase "it seems that" to introduce an idea that he is about to refute. Almost every point of his writings is preceded by the phrase "it seems that," then Aquinas explains why this is not so. So part of his explanation for Romans 9:16 is as follows: Then again, in a separate work called De Rationes Fidei (Reasons for Faith), Aquinas says this: Now, considering the lengthy support of God being the first mover of man (again, not quoted here), all this seems interesting. Aquinas says that man cannot move to God without God being the mover, yet holds that free will is in the nature of man, therefore God moves man by man's free choice. Thus Aquinas can hold that man is master of his own action when he moves toward God, yet God being the primary mover when man moves to God. God moves man "in a manner befitting his nature" which is that of free will. Aquinas holds that man cannot move to God without God moving him first, but "God orders human actions in a way that these actions are not subject to necessity, but come from free will." Aquinas gives a lengthy explanation for why this is so, one that involves time, eternity, immutability, and the nature of man. I post this partly because those modern theologians who have followed in this moderate teaching have been lambasted by the severe 5-pointers, often to the point of ridicule, sometimes even being accused of inventing such a moderate position in modern times. Comments on the points above?