T
thinkandmull
Guest
As I have showed, Aquinas is in line with Banez. You said in the past you rejected Molinism. Now you are saying different. I change my mind too, so that’s fine.
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
The Reformers believed fallen man has a sin nature, i.e. concupiscence is the state of OS. Catholicism teaches that OS consists of the deprivation of sanctifying grace/ God’s life in us. In the first case sin is inevitable because of something that’s added while in the second sin is inevitable because of something missing. In the first case man is not free not to sin. In the second he’s free not to sin but finds that he cannot avoid it anyway-even in the justified state, because he’s under-equipped; God has not restored the preternatural gift of freedom from concupiscence or self-mastery. We must “struggle with sin” in order to be tested, refined, molded, in order to “own” our justice so to speak as we strive to overcome sin and embrace justice fully, for ourselves, with the help of grace.
N
neophyte
Guest
Does not follow. You might as well say that “if man is free then anyone can go through life breathing nothing but water, even though no one always wants to do it”.
V
Vico
Guest
Won’t directly answer my question, huh?
Banez is a Thomist, however Thomism (Dominican) is not what St. Thomas Aquinas held.
Before I said I was for compatibilism. I think I mentioned b-series time, however using Mctaggart unreality of time, the series that is logical is the c-series: ordered events relative to the perceiver and that they are commensurable.
I have read that Dominicans and Jesuits are libertarians, not compatibilists or hard determinists.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Breathing water is not a choice. Sin is. You can’t predict what people will do with free will if it is free. Another Calvinist
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Time is irrelevant. You won’t say what you believe. Dominicans more libertatian than Aquinas as you interpret him? On this issue you never clearly honestly write what you believe because you know I will likely refute for all to see
V
Vico
Guest
I said I believe in the Church dogmas on the subject. These theories are speculation so I do not have a belief, only I may favor one over another. As I wrote, I like compatibilist and did mention unreality of time before, relevant or not.
So you won’t answer which school of Molinism that you are referring to?
For example:
Molina – idea of middle knowledge, efficacy of grace is contingent on free will assent.
Conditioned predestination to glory, condemned negative reprobation
Lessius and Vasquez
Eternal and unchangeable decree of predestination, include negative reprobation
Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez
Virtual bestowal of efficacious grace:
Molina, Vasquez, and Gregory de Valentia
Formal predefinition of efficacious grace.
Francisco Suárez, Tanner, Silvester Maurus, others
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Those are quibbles over virtually nothing in my opinion. When Molinists say that God knows what you will do in every situation, does that mean you chose in every situation or God knows without you having any choice? How can God know if you haven’t chosen it? Obviously He can’t unless you then side with the Thomist. With the Thomist you have to ask “how can God know which side you will turn to aside from foreknowledge”. Since man is free man can turn to either side on a decision so only foreknowledge can predict which way one will turn. Aquinas believed with you and many others on this thread that fallen nature ensures one will fall in one’s life. That is apart from foreknowledge. Calvinist live life with choices and believe men choose in “the way man make decisions” but believe on a different level they don’t have free will when it comes to sin. So Aquinas was a Calvinist. What gets thrown out when you try to acccept his position is free will. What, furthermore, is a normal length of life. If someone dies when they are twelve, is it certain that they sinned? What about 8?
V
Vico
Guest
I agree with the Church dogmas that one is born fallen, but after baptism (justification) one can remain without loss of justification until the end of life. Supernatural intervention is given preceding each act of will and supernatural influence in each *free act of the will *(coinciding in time). If reject anything in any theologians views that are contrary to that. Therefore I do not commit to a particular view that is optional.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
You already said you are in agreement with Aquinas’s compatibilism, trying to accord determinism with free will. Anyone who tries to do that doesn’t know what it is to be free. Very weird for a human to think like that
V
Vico
Guest
Not accurate, since I just said: “I said I believe in the Church dogmas on the subject. These theories are speculation so I do not have a belief, only I may favor one over another. As I wrote, I like compatibilist and did mention unreality of time before, relevant or not.”
What is Aquinas’s compatibilism? Scholars disagree about Aquinas with regard to these theories:
- Compatibilist – free decisions are compatible with determinism.
- Incompatibilist – free decisions are not compatible with determinism.
- hard incompatibilist – deny the existence of free decisions.
- libertarian – affirm the existence of free decisions.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
That is not a direct quote. Also, you say some positions are MORE libertarian. You either believe in free will or you don’t. I know for a fact you don’t. Aquinas said that God orders all things to the end He desires initially. He too is notlibertarian
V
Vico
Guest
I believe what the Catholic Church teaches in the dogmas of faith:
- By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
- There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)
- There is a supernatural influence of God in the faculties of the soul which coincides in time with man’s free act of will. (De fide.)
- The Human Will remains free under the influence of efficacious grace, which is not irresistable. (De fide.)
- There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens. (De fide.)
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Yet you believe determinism can be reconciled with free will 
V
Vico
Guest
I certainly reject double predestination which the Catholic Church condemned.Yet you believe determinism can be reconciled with free will
I said I favored compatibilism, which it is a theory not a belief. The last paper I read on St. Thomas Aquinas and free will, actually showed that he had arguments consistent with both determinism and libertarianism.
Catechism 600 is one definition of predestination:
600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
“permitted”. In believing determinism, you and Aquinas contradict Church teaching by implication
V
Vico
Guest
You are not reading my posts. I wrote: "I said I favored compatibilism, which it is a theory not a belief. "
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Post 124 you said you were “for compatibilism”. Every theory believed in is a belief. There is no distinction. Free will is true. So you are wrong and in heresy
V
Vico
Guest
Have no fear, I accept the Catholic dogmas, as I posted before. I do not believe in theories, but have studied them.
U
Usagi
Guest
Ultimately, you do only one thing in each situation, even if you were free to take any of multiple options beforehand. God knows what you do, in fact, choose, and knows that from eternity.
- Status