Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
#71
Melkite, are you a Pelagian? DO you follow the Views of Either Pelagius or Coelestius?

Are You Semi-Pelagian? DO you follow the errors first put forth by St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins?

Do you accept the second Synod of Orange which condemned both pelagianism and semi-pelagianism and which was universally accepted in the west?

Perhaps you should read what the Council Fathers, who were fathers of the church had to say.

This is the main point:

Man cannot desire God unless the grace of God first comes to him.
Man cannot be saved unless man perseveres.
But perseverance is a particular gift.
God does not give all the grace of perseverance.
Without the Gift of Perseverance, none will be saved.
God foreknows from all eternity whom he will give his gifts to, and he has elected to give these gifts to some, and not to others.
Therefore, there are some who are elected to righteousness, and there are some who are elected to reprobation.

Calvin was condemned for teaching UNCONDITIONAL election to reprobation. Conditional election to reprobation is Catholic, i.e. God foresees all who will refuse his grace and sin mortally, and therefore who are destined for hell. Because of his FOREKNOWLEDGE which is infallible, the reprobate are CONDITIONALLY predestined to hell.
This should come as no surprise: Since God is outside time, those of us who will persevere are already with him anyway. But we need to ratify this IN time, Hence St. Paul; "Make every attempt to make your calling and election sure."
Those who are given the gift of perseverance will infallibly persevere, and those who God chose FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH to give this gift to, WITHOUT consideration of future merits are the elect. They alone will be saved.
This is just, because God is under no obligation to save anyone, and his just would be manifest by letting us, the mass of perdition, cast ourselves into hell. It is what we deserve. But he chooses to show forth his mercy by saving some, and not saving others to show forth his justice.

This is what St. Paul taught in all of Romans 9.

Reply
#72
(07-21-2011, 12:02 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Melkite, the contempt you show towards Thomism is not a very Catholic attitude.

If you are referring to my remark of it being forensic soteriology, I didn't mean it contemptuously.  That being said, like I said before, St. Aquinas does NOT speak for the whole Catholic Church.  It's is not only possible in theory, but happens in reality, for Catholics to live their whole lives in good standing and never subscribe to Thomist principles.  Until the Catholic Church teaches officially that Thomism is the only correct and acceptable way to consider philosophical and theological questions, I am perfectly free to view Thomism unfavorably.  Doing so does not make my attitude toward it unCatholic.
Reply
#73
I'm just going to add my comments in red because it's too much to quote each line separately.

(07-21-2011, 12:39 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Melkite, are you a Pelagian? DO you follow the Views of Either Pelagius or Coelestius?
I don't know who Coelestius is or how he differed from Pelagius.  I disagree with Pelagianism insofar as it teaches that man can save himself completely by his own actions.  But, I definitely prefer it much more than Augustine, so if the Church had not already condemned it and I was free to accept it, I probably would.  The only reason I really don't is because the Church has officially condemned it.

Are You Semi-Pelagian? DO you follow the errors first put forth by St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins?
Were St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins semi-pelagians?  Or are you referring to other errors?  No, I don't believe that the initial act of faith is something that man can do on his own, either.

Do you accept the second Synod of Orange which condemned both pelagianism and semi-pelagianism and which was universally accepted in the west?
Did the Church make the canons of the Synod binding on the whole Church?  Or did it just accept them as not being contrary to the Catholic faith?  In looking up the synod on wikipedia, apparently the canons of the second synod of Orange were used as the foundation for Calvinism.

This is the main point:

Man cannot desire God unless the grace of God first comes to him.  Agreed.
Man cannot be saved unless man perseveres.  Agreed.
But perseverance is a particular gift.  Agreed to an extent.
God does not give all the grace of perseverance.  I think I agree.
Without the Gift of Perseverance, none will be saved.  Agreed.
God foreknows from all eternity whom he will give his gifts to, and he has elected to give these gifts to some, and not to others.  First part agreed, second part I think I disagree in the context of salvation.
Therefore, there are some who are elected to righteousness, and there are some who are elected to reprobation.  Disagree.

Calvin was condemned for teaching UNCONDITIONAL election to reprobation. Conditional election to reprobation is Catholic, i.e. God foresees all who will refuse his grace and sin mortally, and therefore who are destined for hell.  No problem there.
Because of his FOREKNOWLEDGE which is infallible, the reprobate are CONDITIONALLY predestined to hell.
This should come as no surprise: Since God is outside time, those of us who will persevere are already with him anyway. But we need to ratify this IN time, Hence St. Paul; "Make every attempt to make your calling and election sure."
Those who are given the gift of perseverance will infallibly persevere, and those who God chose FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH to give this gift to, WITHOUT consideration of future merits are the elect. They alone will be saved.
If God chooses to elect some without consideration of their future merits, then this gives those chosen something to boast about over those who were not chosen.  If those elected are only elected by God's choice without consideration of their future merits, and they alone will be saved, then it logically follows that it is absolutely impossible for one to attain salvation unless and solely because God preordains it.  If this is the case, then it cannot possibly be said that God conditionally predestines to hell, but rather unconditionally to hell.  If one cannot attain salvation without God's subjective election, then by that act of election everyone else is infallibly excluded because they did not meet God's requirements for his unconditional election to salvation.  Therefore, the only logically consistent statement to make is that God must necessarily elect to reprobation unconditionally those he does not choose to elect to salvation, because he likewise chose to elect to salvation those he chose without consideration of who they would be.  Or, to put it another way,  if God elects to salvation individuals prior to considering their merits, and those who are not elect are immediately excluded from the body of those saved, then the latter are likewise elected to reprobation prior to a consideration of their merits and so it is only possible that their rejection was unconditional.

This is just, because God is under no obligation to save anyone, and his just would be manifest by letting us, the mass of perdition, cast ourselves into hell. It is what we deserve. But he chooses to show forth his mercy by saving some, and not saving others to show forth his justice.
It is unjust in the sense that certain individuals will receive eternal punishment when you yourself say it was absolutely impossible for them to choose otherwise.  If those elect are chosen without consideration of their merits, it still remains that those not chosen didn't receive the gift that is the only thing possible that could free them from eternal punishment.  Yet the only reason they did not receive it was not because they didn't choose it, but rather because God did not choose it for them.  So they receive eternal punishment for actions that they were completely incapable of choosing to avoid because God withheld the necessary grace, and that is unjust.  Calvinism IS the logical conclusion of Augustinianism.
Reply
#74
If I'm understanding the argument as stated in this thread, I share sentiments with Melkite. 
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
#75
(07-21-2011, 01:47 AM)Melkite Wrote: I'm just going to add my comments in red because it's too much to quote each line separately.

(07-21-2011, 12:39 AM)Gregory I Wrote: Melkite, are you a Pelagian? DO you follow the Views of Either Pelagius or Coelestius?
I don't know who Coelestius is or how he differed from Pelagius.  I disagree with Pelagianism insofar as it teaches that man can save himself completely by his own actions.  But, I definitely prefer it much more than Augustine, so if the Church had not already condemned it and I was free to accept it, I probably would.  The only reason I really don't is because the Church has officially condemned it.

Are You Semi-Pelagian? DO you follow the errors first put forth by St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins?
Were St. John Cassian and St. Vincent of Lerins semi-pelagians?  Or are you referring to other errors?  No, I don't believe that the initial act of faith is something that man can do on his own, either.

Do you accept the second Synod of Orange which condemned both pelagianism and semi-pelagianism and which was universally accepted in the west?
Did the Church make the canons of the Synod binding on the whole Church?  Or did it just accept them as not being contrary to the Catholic faith?  In looking up the synod on wikipedia, apparently the canons of the second synod of Orange were used as the foundation for Calvinism.

This is the main point:

Man cannot desire God unless the grace of God first comes to him.  Agreed.
Man cannot be saved unless man perseveres.  Agreed.
But perseverance is a particular gift.  Agreed to an extent.
God does not give all the grace of perseverance.  I think I agree.
Without the Gift of Perseverance, none will be saved.  Agreed.
God foreknows from all eternity whom he will give his gifts to, and he has elected to give these gifts to some, and not to others.  First part agreed, second part I think I disagree in the context of salvation.
Therefore, there are some who are elected to righteousness, and there are some who are elected to reprobation.  Disagree.

Calvin was condemned for teaching UNCONDITIONAL election to reprobation. Conditional election to reprobation is Catholic, i.e. God foresees all who will refuse his grace and sin mortally, and therefore who are destined for hell.  No problem there.
Because of his FOREKNOWLEDGE which is infallible, the reprobate are CONDITIONALLY predestined to hell.
This should come as no surprise: Since God is outside time, those of us who will persevere are already with him anyway. But we need to ratify this IN time, Hence St. Paul; "Make every attempt to make your calling and election sure."
Those who are given the gift of perseverance will infallibly persevere, and those who God chose FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH to give this gift to, WITHOUT consideration of future merits are the elect. They alone will be saved.
If God chooses to elect some without consideration of their future merits, then this gives those chosen something to boast about over those who were not chosen.  If those elected are only elected by God's choice without consideration of their future merits, and they alone will be saved, then it logically follows that it is absolutely impossible for one to attain salvation unless and solely because God preordains it.  If this is the case, then it cannot possibly be said that God conditionally predestines to hell, but rather unconditionally to hell.  If one cannot attain salvation without God's subjective election, then by that act of election everyone else is infallibly excluded because they did not meet God's requirements for his unconditional election to salvation.  Therefore, the only logically consistent statement to make is that God must necessarily elect to reprobation unconditionally those he does not choose to elect to salvation, because he likewise chose to elect to salvation those he chose without consideration of who they would be.  Or, to put it another way,  if God elects to salvation individuals prior to considering their merits, and those who are not elect are immediately excluded from the body of those saved, then the latter are likewise elected to reprobation prior to a consideration of their merits and so it is only possible that their rejection was unconditional.

This is just, because God is under no obligation to save anyone, and his just would be manifest by letting us, the mass of perdition, cast ourselves into hell. It is what we deserve. But he chooses to show forth his mercy by saving some, and not saving others to show forth his justice.
It is unjust in the sense that certain individuals will receive eternal punishment when you yourself say it was absolutely impossible for them to choose otherwise.  If those elect are chosen without consideration of their merits, it still remains that those not chosen didn't receive the gift that is the only thing possible that could free them from eternal punishment.  Yet the only reason they did not receive it was not because they didn't choose it, but rather because God did not choose it for them.  So they receive eternal punishment for actions that they were completely incapable of choosing to avoid because God withheld the necessary grace, and that is unjust.  Calvinism IS the logical conclusion of Augustinianism.

But the reprobate are not damned because God did not give them the grace to turn to him, they are damned on account of their sinfulness.

No, calvinism is not the logical outgrowth of Augustinianism, Pelagianism is the Logical outgrowth of Molinism,because itsays that man's freewill is the deciding factor in his salvation, when it is the grace of God.

The church has said that it is the Doctrine of AUGUSTINE that is the Church's understanding of grace as EXPLICATED in his books on predestination.

Pope St. Hormisdas: “What the Roman, that is the Catholic, Church follows and preserves concerning free will and the grace of God can be abundantly recognised in the various books of the blessed Augustine, and especially in those to Hilary and Prosper, but the prominent chapters are contained in the ecclesiastical archives and if these are lacking there, we establish them.” (Sicut Rationi, AD. 520)

Pope John II: “According to the enactments of my predecessors, the Roman Church follows and maintains the teaching of Augustine.” (Epistle)

Augustine’s teaching was codified in canons infallibly approved by Rome as a rule of the doctrine of the faith. For instance, the II Council of Orange, approved by Pope Boniface II and recognised by all Catholic theologians as infallible, defined in AD. 529, using sentences taken from Augustine, the doctrine of the two loves, caritas (love of God) and cupiditas (worldly love).

“Worldly desire creates the fortitude of the Gentiles, but the charity of God, which is diffused in our hearts, not by free will, which is from us, but by the Holy Spirit, which is given to us produces the fortitude of the Christians.”

Pope Pius XI: “It is a further tribute to the glory of the Bishop of Hippo, that more than once the Fathers in lawful Councils assembled, made use of his very words in defining Catholic truth. In illustration it is enough to cite the Second Council of Orange”. (Ad Salutem)
Reply
#76
(07-21-2011, 02:16 AM)Gregory I Wrote: But the reprobate are not damned because God did not give them the grace to turn to him, they are damned on account of their sinfulness.

No, calvinism is not the logical outgrowth of Augustinianism, Pelagianism is the Logical outgrowth of Molinism,because itsays that man's freewill is the deciding factor in his salvation, when it is the grace of God.

If God elects to salvation some without any consideration of their future merits, and all those he does not elect are infallibly excluded from salvation, then saying they go to hell either because they sinned or because God didn't give them grace is really just semantics.  If they sinned, it is also because God did not give them grace not to, correct?  Calvinism is the logical outgrowth of Augustinianism, Pelagianism is not the logical outgrowth of Molinism because Molinism came later.  Perhaps you meant Molinism is another form of Semi-pelagianism?  You say that one goes to hell on account of their sinfulness, but that salvation is by God's grace.  That makes absolutely no sense.  Salvation and damnation are flipsides of the same coin, each being the result of a yes or no answer to the same question.  If choosing yes is not by us but because of God's grace, then choosing no must necessarily also be not by us but because God's grace is withheld, which really is exactly what you said when you say God unconditionally elects some and everyone else is necessarily excluded without exception.  If choosing no is a free choice on our part and we are solely responsible, then choosing yes is also free choice on our part and we are solely responsible (for the act of saying yes, not for effecting salvation from the yes).  If I am understanding your argument correctly, then the doctrine of predestination as according to Augustine and Aquinas is schizophrenic and thoroughly and clearly inconsistent with itself.

If God must will some to hell because his will can't be confounded by man's choice, then it must mean that God not only chooses for some to go to hell, but unconditionally because for them to go by their own sinfullness would also confound God's will, it would be by their doing and not God's, removing his sovereignty in the matter.  So you see, Calvinism clearly is Augustinianism logically followed through.  It will be a great day for the Catholic Church when it abandons the myopic patristics of focusing solely on Augustine and Aquinas and returns to a balanced patristic outlook, one encompassing the entire sensus fidei.
Reply
#77
It is clear that it is better to live a proper Christian life according to one's calling than to worry too much about exactly how God works.
Reply
#78
(07-21-2011, 08:44 AM)Rosarium Wrote: It is clear that it is better to live a proper Christian life according to one's calling than to worry too much about exactly how God works.

It's kind of worrisome to think that your entire lifes work towards loving God and choosing to accept His grace doesn't matter if He doesn't give you the right grace, don't you think?  I don't see how such a teaching is compatible with the concept of free will.  The two seem absolutely and completely mutually exclusive.
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
#79
(07-21-2011, 08:47 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(07-21-2011, 08:44 AM)Rosarium Wrote: It is clear that it is better to live a proper Christian life according to one's calling than to worry too much about exactly how God works.

It's kind of worrisome to think that your entire lifes work towards loving God and choosing to accept His grace doesn't matter if He doesn't give you the right grace, don't you think?  I don't see how such a teaching is compatible with the concept of free will.  The two seem absolutely and completely mutually exclusive.

Why worry?

Luke Wrote:For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom

If that is how God thinks of us, and what God has chosen to tell us, I think the "fear not" should be taken to heart.
Reply
#80
I have thought of an example to illustrate the Thomistic doctrine of election.  Comments and critiques are welcome.

Imagine two Catholic men, both obviously baptized and receiving the sacraments and as far as we can tell, in a state of grace.  Both of these men strike up a fancy for their neighbors' wives and become adulterers.  Thus we consider two men, fallen from grace, entirely by their own free will.  No one forced them to start sleeping around with the woman next door.

The first man persists in his adultery.  He eventually even leaves the Church and joins the Episcopalian Church so that he can get a bogus marriage with the woman of his affair.  He is reprobate and he goes to hell.

Now consider the second man, also an adulterer, except this man is convicted by the Holy Ghost.  He feels stronger and stronger the guilt of his crime and despite his efforts to rationalize it, cannot shake the thought of hell.  He continues to go to Church, though he does not receive the sacraments.  One day he picks up the Bible, urged on by the Holy Ghost, and he opens to say 1 Corinthians 6:18.  Filled with remorse, the man heads down to the nearest Church for Penance and returns to the life of grace.

The first man is reprobate.  The second man is elect.  Suppose further that the second man was given more graces than the first man, though both men had the opportunity to confess their sins.  Would there be any injustice in God?  Did God force either to sleep with his neighbors' wife?  Or in the first case did God simply allow the man to follow his own will into hell?  What defense will the first man have before the judgment seat of Christ?

Admittedly, there may be problems with this example, but it might illustrate the ideas a little more tangibly.  
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)