Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
#31
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?
Reply
#32
(07-20-2011, 12:23 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:01 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: Here is St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the passage from Romans: http://newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

Few points of clarification.

I would not approach the subject in the manner of the OP.  What we call Molinism is not heresy, the correct distinctions being made.  Furthermore, the Roman Church does not decisively or dogmatically settle the dispute between Molinists and Thomists.

As a Thomist, I am arguing for what I consider to be the more likely theological opinion.


Here is a quote from the homily that caught my eye.


"What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? Why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, the elder shall serve the younger. With what intent then did God say this? Because He does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows which is the wicked and which not such. And this took place in the Israelites' case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites' case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not."


St John seems to be teaching that God predestines because He knows what our free choice will be. I don't know enough about Molinism or St Thomas to know how that teaching compares.

From what I read of the Homily, St. John Chrysostom's position seems to be closer to Molina than to St. Thomas.

I was sincere in what I said before.  If you are aware of other relevant passages from the fathers, please bring them to the table.  I am not 100% committed to any position.  The mysteries involved in the interaction between grace, free will, and God's knowledge will always be beyond us this side of heaven.  Nonetheless, since reading Fr. Lagrange, I have held Thomism as the likely theological opinion.
Reply
#33
(07-20-2011, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?

Yes it is.  But I would broaden the scope in a metaphorical sense. 
Reply
#34
(07-20-2011, 01:11 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:23 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:01 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: Here is St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the passage from Romans: http://newadvent.org/fathers/210216.htm

Few points of clarification.

I would not approach the subject in the manner of the OP.  What we call Molinism is not heresy, the correct distinctions being made.  Furthermore, the Roman Church does not decisively or dogmatically settle the dispute between Molinists and Thomists.

As a Thomist, I am arguing for what I consider to be the more likely theological opinion.


Here is a quote from the homily that caught my eye.


"What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? Why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good. And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, the elder shall serve the younger. With what intent then did God say this? Because He does not wait, as man does, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knows which is the wicked and which not such. And this took place in the Israelites' case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites' case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not."


St John seems to be teaching that God predestines because He knows what our free choice will be. I don't know enough about Molinism or St Thomas to know how that teaching compares.

From what I read of the Homily, St. John Chrysostom's position seems to be closer to Molina than to St. Thomas.

I was sincere in what I said before.  If you are aware of other relevant passages from the fathers, please bring them to the table.  I am not 100% committed to any position.  The mysteries involved in the interaction between grace, free will, and God's knowledge will always be beyond us this side of heaven.  Nonetheless, since reading Fr. Lagrange, I have held Thomism as the likely theological opinion.


I don't know what the position of St Thomas is. I am somewhat familiar with Calvinism and I know that it was condemned as heresy by a synod in Jerusalem in 1672. I've always understood the orthodox position to be that God loves and desires the salvation of every single human being and that it is our free choice to accept or reject God's love that determines whether or not we are saved.

What is the Catholic position? What did St Thomas teach? I've heard that it is similar in some respects to Calvinism.
Reply
#35
I'd really like to get an answer to my question if those who do not receive efficacious grace can get to Heaven.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#36
(07-20-2011, 01:12 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?

Yes it is.  But I would broaden the scope in a metaphorical sense. 

Isn't that one of the ways heresies get started?  Broadening the scope of a passage to use it as a way to explain a theolegoumena the passage was never intended to mean in the first place?  So, to use St. Augustine's (I believe) principle for scriptural interpretation, wouldn't it be unwise to interpret this as anything other than election to the apostolic office?
Reply
#37
(07-19-2011, 09:54 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: It is true that if you could poll people with a few questions and then classify them, I'd say 95/100 Catholics lean Molinist.

I think most Catholics probably just think it is Catholic teaching and confuse Augustinianism or Thomism for Calvinism.

Most Catholics are pelagians or semi-pelagians. I don't think they mean to be. It's just how they visualize things.
Reply
#38
(07-20-2011, 02:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 01:12 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?

Yes it is.  But I would broaden the scope in a metaphorical sense. 

Isn't that one of the ways heresies get started?  Broadening the scope of a passage to use it as a way to explain a theolegoumena the passage was never intended to mean in the first place?  So, to use St. Augustine's (I believe) principle for scriptural interpretation, wouldn't it be unwise to interpret this as anything other than election to the apostolic office?

The point is that Our Lord was walking along the seashore and said, "Come, follow me."  He saw Nathanael under the fig tree.  He gathered together the twelve, a motley crew of sorts, and made them what they were.  Of course, Our Lord knew these men from all eternity, but they were not the twelve most worthy or holy or intelligent or steady or wise men in the world, apart from what God Himself made them later through the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. 

Consider this passage from 1 Corinthians 1:
[26] For see your vocation, brethren, that there are not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble:  [27] But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. [28] And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: [29] That no flesh should glory in his sight. [30] But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption:

[31] That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord.
Reply
#39
(07-20-2011, 02:35 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 01:12 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 12:26 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 11:37 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: By the way, I think the A/T doctrine of salvation is well summarized by Our Lord as follows:

"You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."  --St. John 15:16

In context, isn't this about Jesus electing them to the office of apostle, and not a genreal teaching on election to salvation?

Yes it is.  But I would broaden the scope in a metaphorical sense. 

Isn't that one of the ways heresies get started?  Broadening the scope of a passage to use it as a way to explain a theolegoumena the passage was never intended to mean in the first place?  So, to use St. Augustine's (I believe) principle for scriptural interpretation, wouldn't it be unwise to interpret this as anything other than election to the apostolic office?

There are other relevant passages like the one in Romans that I quoted earlier.
Reply
#40
(07-20-2011, 02:09 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I'd really like to get an answer to my question if those who do not receive efficacious grace can get to Heaven.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange would say no.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)