Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
(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)

Messages In This Thread
Re: Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism? - by Gregory I - 07-21-2011, 02:16 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)