If I am not mistaken the “Thomist” school of thought teaches that some receive a grace of final perseverance, but everyone at least receives sufficient grace to be saved.
This is the point I wish most to discuss: whether our free will is the cause of our perseverance or whether it is God’s gracious will and mercy that we live.
However, later on it states:
Now, I have trouble understanding the compatibility between both statements. Upon first glance I found them both perfectly reasonable; after all, true love does not impose or force itself on its object of affection, but call it tenderly in hopes that it may follow. Yet, this assumes that the ability to respond is within the individual.
ByronThank you for that information.
I must kindly disagree, however, with the position of Molinism. It clearly places the center of salvation in the creature rather than the Creator.
Certainly we must draw a distinction between what is *predestined* by God and what is *foreknown* by God. It seems that God's sovereignty is severely limited by this method of application.
Clearly though, you do not agree with my assessment.
What do you prefer about the Molinist system over and above the Thomistic one? I ask in all sincerity.
In Christ,
Byron
The Molinist view most definitely does not place salvation in the creature, for without God’s grace no one is saved. (apart from God we can do nothing…but with Him…) The Thomistic view lends to less of a cooperative effort with God’s grace on our part, and Molinism focuses on the gift of free will given by God, who wants us to freely choose Him. God recognizes those who cooperated with HIS grace outside of time, thus composing who is the elect. It also represents our love for Him in a greater sign…we have the capacity to reject the grace…and therefore those who choose Him give Him greater glory.
The point at where I disagree is in the placement of free will at the center of the salvation equation. God “foresaw” *our *choosing Him freely. Since it is ultimately left up to our freedom, the possibility that follows is that none could have been saved from eternity if they had chosen to reject God’s grace.
Sincerely in Christ,
While I see your point, it does not quite suffice. That is, unless we are willing to make free will and grace synonymous with one another. Our freedom may be a “grace” in a lesser sense, but it is an unthinkable postulate that it be equivocated with the grace of salvation.Look at it this way. In a sense Grace is the ability to do something or to choose something. Using our free will, we can choose to use this ability or not to. Many of us have natural abilities that we choose never to use. Why should this not also be true on a supernatural plane? Lacking the ability to choose would render free will useless. In my opinion God gives us the gift, grace if you will, of free choice which undergirds our acceptance or rejection of all else that He offers.
Byron, there is more than one kind of grace. The first broad division in the Catholic teaching is between Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace. I am not sure, but would expect freewill to be a subdivision of Actual Grace. Any grace is a gift which we cannot gin up on our own. Perhaps our definition of grace needs to be broadened. Sanctifying Grace is the grace that makes it possible to see and be with God, i.e. be saved. It lifts our human nature to a level that allows us to take part in the life of the Trinity. It is not Actual Grace which is a whole second category.
You ask some interesting questions. I have never heard the Catholic Church teach salvation in these terms. That is not to say however that it is not implied in some ways. I would say that the principal focus is on salvation by Christ acting through His Church. We see the Catholic Church as a mystical entity, the Body of Christ which has a real soul and a metaphysical presence that that is mysteriously linked to Christ through the passion on the Cross and joined through The Eucharist. Thus a person can be saved through the faith of The Church and The Communion of The Saints - even when the person is living imperfectly in communion with the Church. This is the beauty of The Church and ther merits of its faith and sacraments. Of course Jesus is the Head of the Church - so it is He who saves but He does so ALWAYS through The Church.
Further, even among the apostles there was a differentiation - some responded more quickly to God’s grace and rose more speedily toward fullness of belief. John was the apostle beloved by Jesus. And only Peter, James and John were permitted to see Jesus in His glory in the transfiguration. Why is that? Interesting mysteries to be contemplated.
Neither. And they are not denominations. They are theological suppositions on the nature of “the elect”, both acceptable beliefs for a Catholic.
Yes you missed it. Note the spellings.Neither. And they are not denominations. They are theological suppositions on the nature of “the elect”, both acceptable beliefs for a Catholic.
p.s. and if this question is toungue in cheek, I missed it.
Not so much “equal amounts of grace” or else we would all be born into Catholic families and receive the Sacraments of Initiation at the appointed times - but I do believe that God gives everyone sufficient grace for their state and condition - no one, at their moment of death, will be able to say “But I never knew!” Everyone will have had the choice, during this lifetime, to orient their lives either towards or away from God, in a full and conscious manner.
The ultimate point by which our salvation now rests? Now, as in now that Christ has accomplished for us what we could never have accomplished on our own? Sort of.
In the general sense, Christ died on the Cross for all and in that sense everyone is equally represented. God does not limit his offer of grace to anyone; rather some respond to His grace more receptively than others.