T
thinkandmull
Guest
You don’t believe Aquinas believed in the classical Thomistic physical premotion idea?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
I did not have my book at the time I made the first post so I did not include the quotes from Trent, just the teaching.
Denzinger (Council of Trent)
832 Can. 22. If anyone shall say that he who is justified can either persevere in the justice received without the special assistance of God, or that with that [assistance] he cannot: let him be anathema [cf. n. 804, 806].
836 Can. 26. If anyone shall say that the just ought not to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God and the merit of Jesus Christ for the good works which have been performed in trod, if by doing well and in keeping the divine commandments they persevere even to the end: let him be anathema [cf. n. 809].
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Grace is a free gift. Nonetheless, Aquinas believed everything in creation hits the mark just as God intends it to in His overall plan, and also that people cannot go through life without sinning because free will is too corrupted. So he was a Calvinist by reduction
V
Vico
Guest
Calvin denies the distinction between primary and secondary causes (The Institutes, Ch. 23 Book III).
- Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself–viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; …
biblestudytools.com/history/calvin-institutes-christianity/book3/chapter-23.html
T
thinkandmull
Guest
If man cannot refrain from sinning and also must accept efficacious grace, he is not free except in the sense that he feels free
F
fhansen
Guest
Sin can be overcome only with grace, only totally overcome via complete union with God. And grace is always resistible. So why shouldn’t the proper use of the will involve refinement, a struggle, a process?
V
Vico
Guest
Contra Gentiles 3:159 St. Thomas Aquinas states:
[2] To settle this difficulty, we ought to consider that, although one may neither merit in advance nor call forth divine grace by a movement of his free choice, he is able to prevent himself from receiving this grace: Indeed, it is said in Job(21:34): “Who have said to God: Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Your ways”; and in Job (24:13): “They have been rebellious to the light.” And since this ability to impede or not to impede the reception of divine grace is within the scope of free choice, not undeservedly is responsibility for the fault imputed to him who offers an impediment to the reception of grace. In fact, as far as He is concerned, God is ready to give grace to all; “indeed He wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” as is said in 1 Timothy (2:4).But those alone are deprived of grace who offer an obstacle within themselves to grace; just as, while the sun is shining on the world, the man who keeps his eyes closed is held responsible for his fault, if as a result some evil follows, even though he could not see unless he were provided in advance with light from the sun.
Maybe you are thinking of what Banez proposed? The Thomist position is not what St. Thomas wrote.
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm
T
thinkandmull
Guest
If man is free he does not have to sin and so can overcome it with or without grace. That doesn’t mean he can be justified alone. I have proven that over and over on this thread. As for Aquinas, it would be nice if he didn’t agree with Banez. But Aquinas specifically said that everything happens exactly how God intends it to. Nothing contradicts His plan. Also man cannot go through life without sinning, so there is a promotion physica of fallen nature. So Aquinas did agree with Banez.
Vico, if you don’t agree with Banez, what problem do you have with Molinism then??
Vico, if you don’t agree with Banez, what problem do you have with Molinism then??
V
Vico
Guest
The Catholic Church calls free will which is natural free will, however free will cooperation with grace is the subject of the dogmas.
Catechism 406 … Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life …
Dogma of faith, from Trent:
814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].
A person that assents to the Catholic dogmas does not have to accept a particular logical explanation such as proposed in one of the several schools of Molinism.
Molinism admits:
- Efficacious grace includes the free consent of the will.
- God’ decree of bestowal of efficacious grace upon a man involves the free co-operation of man’s will.
- So, God must possess an infallible source of knowledge of the co-operation or resistance to grace.
F
fhansen
Guest
But to truly overcome sin would mean to *be *in a state of justice, and such a state cannot be achieved without God, apart from union with Him, apart from grace. So St Paul, in Phil 3:9, would forsake his former so-called “righteousness” and pursue “that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” Faith places us “under grace”; it’s the first step in the establishment, or reestablishment, of relationship between man and God.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
What problem do you have with Molinism, since you reject Aquinas and Banez?
T
thinkandmull
Guest
No, we have no right to grace, which is union with God.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he** thus **reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; **they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. **The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, this is true, and yet we cannot refrain from sin without it. We’re free not to sin, but will inevitably fail without sanctifying grace/relationship with God.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, the Reformed position would mean that man is not free not to sin.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Which is your Calvinist position as well
T
thinkandmull
Guest
To says inevitably fail means no free will. If it is up to a person, who is to say what is inevitable. Are you really ignorant of what free will is?
F
fhansen
Guest
My position is that man is free to sin or not to sin but will fail unless justice is complete in him, because, “As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” CCC 1732
To be definitively bound to God in the absolute sense would mean the exclusion of sin- by its nature. But who do you know in this life who’s freedom is definitively bound to God? So the freedom to sin or refrain from it remains, but the complete and total binding itself, which alone can accomplish sinlessness, is lacking in this life. The reason for the need of Purgatory would be because we’re still attracted to lesser, created things over and above God; we still aren’t quite definitively bound to Him, even if only in regard to venial sins.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
My position is that nobody will inevitably sin because that would mean people aren’t free.
V
Vico
Guest
I have not rejected. Note also, that St. Thomas Aquinas is not represented by Thomism (Dominican). What school of Molinism are you thinking of?
- Status