Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism?
(08-05-2011, 09:05 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 06:55 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-05-2011, 01:09 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 10:10 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-04-2011, 09:08 PM)Melkite Wrote: Inpefess, I see two possible holes in your argument off the top of my head.  If it were practically impossible to resist the good once it has been seen, then the original sin would presumably never have taken place. 

No. Efficacious grace does not mean one will never sin. It means that one will persevere to the end such that, in the end, he will choose good.

Quote: The Original sin took place because Adam, who saw the good as perfectly as he was capable, resisted it anyway, and was tempted to resist it by one who saw everything the elect will see,

Adam didn't see the Beatific Vision before he fell.


and presumably more that no man shall ever see, and also resisted the good as well.  If good were inherently irresistable once seen, neither fall should ever have taken place.

See above.

Satan was the highest of angels, how could he not have seen God?

None of the angels have seen God; nor will they ever. They enjoy His presence but they do not behold the Beatific Vision.

They envy man with a holy envy because we have the ability to see God and they cannot.

What exactly is the beatific vision then?  I always thought that was just a fruity way of connoting heaven.  At any rate, it doesn't make sense for the cherubim and seraphim to constantly serve the throne of God if they can't see what they're doing.

The demons don't envy man because we can see God and they can't.  They see him too.  They envy us because God gave us the power of creation, not them.

INP answered this question above by expandin on his original statement, saying that the angels couldn't see God at first.  He didn't mean they couldn't and can't see Him at all- which is what I thougt he said to begin with

Yes, I apologize for my vagueness and imprecision. I didn't qualify any of my statements and assumed that the groundwork of what I was saying was already understood. This laziness on my part is the cause of the Melkite's confusion, I believe.

Melkite, please see the above-referenced post. I meant to say that none of the fallen angels ever enjoyed the Beatific Vision at any point (not even Lucifer), so using Lucifer as an example of an angel who sinned after seeing the Beatific Vision is not a valid objection. No fallen angel has ever beheld the face of God; nor will they ever. The only angels who see the Beatific Vision are those who have chosen to serve God (by obeying His command to serve man) after their creation. But I apologize, as my post was vague and misleading. In any case, I hope the cited portion from A Tour of the Summa helps to clarify what I made very confusing by my clumsily-worded post about angels.

As this relates to efficacious grace:

Efficacious grace is in many ways like the effect produced by the Beatific Vision. They are the same in that both efficacious grace and the Beatific Vision never allow one to be finally condemned or damned to hell. They are different in that one may continue to sin after having received efficacious grace, but one cannot sin after having seen the Beatific Vision. (The infinite chasm between not beholding the face of God and beholding the face of God accounts for this difference.) But even those who still sin (due to fallen human nature) while co-operating with efficacious grace will not turn from God in the end; nor will they choose to finally abandon God. This is not to say that they have forfeited the power of their free will; instead, this is to say that the effects of efficacious are irresistible to the soul created in the image and likeness of God.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Can we extricate ourselves from Molinism? - by INPEFESS - 08-05-2011, 03:31 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)