Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin seeks to analyze a revi­sionist movement within Thomism in the 20th century over and against the traditional or classical Thomistic commentatorial treatment of phys­ical premotion, grace, and the permission of sin, especially as these re­late to the mysteries of predestination and reprobation.

The over-arching critique leveled by the revisionists against the clas­sic treatment is that Bañezian scholasticism had disregarded the dissym­metry between the line of good (God’s causation of salutary acts) and the line of evil (God’s permission of defect and sin).

The teaching of St. Thomas is explored via intimate consideration of his texts. The thought of St. Thomas is then compared with the work of Domingo Bañez and the foremost ‘Bañezian’ of the 20th century, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. The work then shifts to a consideration of the major players of the revisionist treatment, including Francisco Marín-Sola, Jacques Maritain, and Bernard Lonergan. Jean-Herve Nico­las is also taken up as one who had held both accounts during his life­time. O’Neil analyzes and critiques the revisionist theories according to the fundamental tenets of the classical account. Upon final analysis, it seeks to show that the classical account sufficiently distances God’s causal role in regard to free salutary acts and His non-causal role in re­gard to free sinful acts. Moreover, the revisionist account presents sig­nificant metaphysical problems and challenges major tenets of classical theism, such as the divine omnipotence, simplicity, and the exhaustive nature of divine providence.

Finally, the implications of the traditional view are considered in light of the spiritual life. It is argued that the classical account is the only one which provides an adequate theological foundation for the Church’s robust mystical and spiritual tradition, and in particular, the abandon­ment to divine providence.