Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
#11
95% of Catholics who have any moderately deep thoughts on predestination, grace, freewill and election come up molinist.

Most Catholics think it is the Catholic Church's teaching that God's predestination is simply his fore-knowing what will happen. Or they deny there is such a thing as predestination.

99% of Catholics believe that God in no sense whatsoever elects any for damnation.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that Calvin was wrong because Calvin Taught that God UNCONDITIONALLY elects some for damnation. That is heresy. True.
However, it is acceptable for Catholics to believe, and I believe it is actually part of the magisterial teaching of the Church that GOd DOES elect and predestine some for damnation, CONDITIONALLY; that is, in foreknowledge of their future sinfulness. Because he knows they will never turn to him, he predestines them for damnation. And it is not unfair BECAUSE...they never desire him to begin with.

COnversely, it is FULLY Catholic to believe that God UNCONDITIONALLY elects some to salvation. GOd wills some men to be saved, and so he gives them the grace to be saved. THose whom he does not will to be saved are reprobate, infallibly damned. Not because of a lack of God's grace, but because of their OWN sinfulness.

Augustine's big issue was "How can God will to accomplish what he in fact does NOT accomplish (namely universal salvation), especially taking into consideration that GOd's will cannot be thwarted by our will. All things he does are perfect and are not subject to a variety of scenarios."

Augustine himself interpreted that GOd's will that ALL be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth is not ALL in the sense of every individual, but ALL in the sense of all types of peoples, races, sexes and stations.
Reply
#12
(07-19-2011, 10:54 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 10:24 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 09:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: What is Molinism? 

This thread is useless without a definition.

It is a basic theological school of thought.

It does not normally need to be defined in discussions about it.


Says who?

Thats a weird thing to ask.  We're talking about a very specific brand of theological opinion.  Thats like asking "Before we talk about Thomism, I we need to define it."

You may need a definition, but it doesn't "need to be defined."  It already is.
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
#13
(07-19-2011, 11:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 10:54 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 10:24 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 09:45 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: What is Molinism? 

This thread is useless without a definition.

It is a basic theological school of thought.

It does not normally need to be defined in discussions about it.


Says who?

Thats a weird thing to ask.  We're talking about a very specific brand of theological opinion.  Thats like asking "Before we talk about Thomism, I we need to define it."

You may need a definition, but it doesn't "need to be defined."  It already is.



A very specific brand that almost no one on this thread is familiar with. Ergo, it needs to be defined.  :)



(that is, if you want anyone else to participate in the thread)



I read the Catholic Encyclopedia article and the Wikipedia article and I don't have a clue what they are talking about. Perhaps a simple definition for us plebes would help?  ;D
Reply
#14
Quote: Because he knows they will never turn to him, he predestines them for damnation.

This is not necessarily Thomist or Augustinian.  In fact, a Molinist could believe in trans-world damnation (see wiki article).
Reply
#15
It is definitely more Augustinian in tenor.
Reply
#16
(07-19-2011, 08:09 PM)Gregory I Wrote: What would it take for the Catholic Church to return to its Augustinian roots and abandon the Molinism that has seemed to seep in like an oil spill?

I am not a fan of Molinism because it fails to taker seriously not only At. Augustine, but also Saint Thomas; both of whom were basically the theological foundations of the western Church, both of whom taught God's unconditional election of man to salvation, and conditional election to damnation.

Molinism seems soft and kinda wimpy.

What would it take?

That's dumb, I could just as easily say "what would it take for the Catholic Church to return to its Apostolic roots and abandon Augustinianism and Thomism?"  The Catholic Church doesn't have Augustinian roots because he only had one perspective that was adopted only in the West.  Neither he nor St. Thomas Aquinas speak for the Catholic Church as a whole.

And why would you base all your theology off of only one Father anyway?
Reply
#17
(07-20-2011, 12:05 AM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Because he knows they will never turn to him, he predestines them for damnation.

This is not necessarily Thomist or Augustinian.  In fact, a Molinist could believe in trans-world damnation (see wiki article).

Not only is it not necessarily Thomist/Augustinian, but I would say it is flatly erroneous.  In what sense would they "never turn to Him."  We hold that God may efficaciously will the salvation of anyone: St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Augustine himself.  The first quote makes it sounds as though God's choice is determined by the creature, which is exactly what Augustinianism/Thomism seeks to avoid. 

Fr. Lagrange summarizes the A-T doctrine as God who determines and is not determined.
Reply
#18
(07-20-2011, 08:39 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: Not only is it not necessarily Thomist/Augustinian, but I would say it is flatly erroneous.  In what sense would they "never turn to Him."  We hold that God may efficaciously will the salvation of anyone: St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Augustine himself.  The first quote makes it sounds as though God's choice is determined by the creature, which is exactly what Augustinianism/Thomism seeks to avoid. 

Fr. Lagrange summarizes the A-T doctrine as God who determines and is not determined.

What if God determines by not determining?  Could Almighty God possibly be secure enough in himself that he doesn't need to elect us to either damnation or salvation to prevent offending his sovereignty?  Could he not have decided, "hey, I'm going to create these people, and I want them to freely choose me, so I'm going to let them choose, even if ultimately I know they won't choose me"?  I don't see how that confounds God's will, if it is his will for us to choose him freely.  After all, we can't really confound God's will by rejecting him.  Did we have any power to raise ourselves from the dust?  St. Augustine took it in the wrong direction, seeing God's will can't be confounded therefore he must predestine to heaven and hell.  He should have gone in the other direction, saying God's will can't be confounded, yet people choose to reject him, therefore his passive will must be that all mankind would be saved, but his active will is to let it be each person's choice so that the love is true.  That's Molinism, from what I understand of it.  That's orthodox Christianity.  The end :)
Reply
#19
(07-20-2011, 10:51 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 08:39 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: Not only is it not necessarily Thomist/Augustinian, but I would say it is flatly erroneous.  In what sense would they "never turn to Him."  We hold that God may efficaciously will the salvation of anyone: St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Augustine himself.  The first quote makes it sounds as though God's choice is determined by the creature, which is exactly what Augustinianism/Thomism seeks to avoid. 

Fr. Lagrange summarizes the A-T doctrine as God who determines and is not determined.

What if God determines by not determining?  Could Almighty God possibly be secure enough in himself that he doesn't need to elect us to either damnation or salvation to prevent offending his sovereignty?  Could he not have decided, "hey, I'm going to create these people, and I want them to freely choose me, so I'm going to let them choose, even if ultimately I know they won't choose me"?  I don't see how that confounds God's will, if it is his will for us to choose him freely.  After all, we can't really confound God's will by rejecting him.  Did we have any power to raise ourselves from the dust?  St. Augustine took it in the wrong direction, seeing God's will can't be confounded therefore he must predestine to heaven and hell.  He should have gone in the other direction, saying God's will can't be confounded, yet people choose to reject him, therefore his passive will must be that all mankind would be saved, but his active will is to let it be each person's choice so that the love is true.  That's Molinism, from what I understand of it.  That's orthodox Christianity.  The end :)


Then how does St Augustine differ from Calvin? Why is one heresy and the other not?
Reply
#20
(07-20-2011, 10:51 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-20-2011, 08:39 AM)Christus Imperat Wrote: Not only is it not necessarily Thomist/Augustinian, but I would say it is flatly erroneous.  In what sense would they "never turn to Him."  We hold that God may efficaciously will the salvation of anyone: St. Paul, St. Ignatius, St. Augustine himself.  The first quote makes it sounds as though God's choice is determined by the creature, which is exactly what Augustinianism/Thomism seeks to avoid. 

Fr. Lagrange summarizes the A-T doctrine as God who determines and is not determined.

What if God determines by not determining?  Could Almighty God possibly be secure enough in himself that he doesn't need to elect us to either damnation or salvation to prevent offending his sovereignty?  Could he not have decided, "hey, I'm going to create these people, and I want them to freely choose me, so I'm going to let them choose, even if ultimately I know they won't choose me"?  I don't see how that confounds God's will, if it is his will for us to choose him freely.  After all, we can't really confound God's will by rejecting him.  Did we have any power to raise ourselves from the dust?  St. Augustine took it in the wrong direction, seeing God's will can't be confounded therefore he must predestine to heaven and hell.  He should have gone in the other direction, saying God's will can't be confounded, yet people choose to reject him, therefore his passive will must be that all mankind would be saved, but his active will is to let it be each person's choice so that the love is true.  That's Molinism, from what I understand of it.  That's orthodox Christianity.  The end :)

1. God isn't the God of the deists, in the sense that He doesn't just sit back and do nothing and let us figure it out.  That isn't theism.

2. The efficient cause of salvation is God's grace.  The will of God is involved in giving anyone grace, which raises the obvious question as to how He chooses to give grace, e.g. why some receive more than others.

3.  The position you are taking seems to make grace a reward for a good will.  In other words, we have a good will and good intentions, thus we earn grace.  But then grace is no more grace.  What happens to St. Paul's teachings in this scheme? 

It also seems to me that such doctrines are problematic in the spiritual life.  Instead of standing in awe before God's free choice, humbly receiving the free gift of God, one would think that the logical conclusion of the doctrine that you are espousing is to think, "I have received grace and the gift of faith because I am better than my unbelieving neighbor."  In other words, one merits salvation by having a better will than your neighbor who doesn't merit salvation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)