Oh, but it does, and I will explain this below. But perhaps this is a better example:
But were I to concede that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context, where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause of hardening. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23)
(I have heard scholars and Lutherans disagree on whether Luther held to double predestination. The salient point is that Concord did not hold to it and Lutherans did not generally take up double predestination.)
No, this is altogether incorrect. Aquinas addressed the same sorts of issues relating to human freedom that Calvin focused on in his <
Treatise against Pighius>, and they were only following the precedent of earlier thinkers such as Boethius, Augustine, Aristotle, etc. The
predestinarian heresy was already being addressed ecclesially at the Second Council of Orange in 529 A.D.
Orthodoxy--including in the medieval period--demands that God reprobate individuals
only because they have freely sinned. The reason my first quote of Calvin relates to double predestination is because we see him there attributing the cause of sin to the command of God and not to the agent. This is the key distinction that separates the heretics from the orthodox in the historical Christian West with respect to predestination.
Pascal had important points to make in his
Provincial Letters, but they had more to do with later Thomism than with Thomas. The idea that Calvin went no farther than Thomas is demonstrably false.