T
thinkandmull
Guest
That is not what Molinist say. They believe God knows what you would do in situations you were never put in. If you never had to make the choice there is nothing to know about it 
- Status
U
Usagi
Guest
Huh, youāre right. I had mistakenly thought that the Molinist view was the one that attributes Godās foreknowledge to āknowledge of visionā ā that He knows what āwillā happen because he observes from all eternity what does happen.That is not what Molinist say. They believe God knows what you would do in situations you were never put in. If you never had to make the choice there is nothing to know about it
In any case, all these imperfect theories exist because we need to reconcile the truth of free will with the truth of (some form of) predestination and grace. Itās tough, and no one seems to have done a perfect job of it yet. Even the Church hasnāt āpicked sidesā between the different explanations so far. Nevertheless, I wouldnāt go throwing around accusations of heresy, especially aimed at saints and Councils, when you are the one that appears willing to be a ānominal Catholicā if the Church doesnāt agree with your take on the issue. I especially wouldnāt insist that the only alternatives are your position and Calvinism, since thatās a specific set of beliefs that non-Calvinists (and Catholics in particular) do not share.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Free will is one of the most basic things you can know. Aquinas for example tried to reconcile free will and determinism. Its false. You can call a position āheresy by implicationā or āborders on heresyā. If a position contradicts free will I think I have the right to call it heresy
V
Vico
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia provides insight on the issue:
Thomism
- The Thomistic School is distinguished from other schools of theology chiefly by its doctrines on the difficult questions relating to Godās action on the free will of man, Godās foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the different theories advanced by the different schools in their effort to explain these mysteries, for such they are in reality. As to the value of these theories the following points should be borne in mind:
- No theory has as yet been proposed which avoids all difficulties and solves all doubts;
- on the main and most difficult of these questions some who are at times listed as Molinists ā notably Bellarmine, Francisco SuĆ”rez, Francis de Lugo, and, in our own days, Cardinal Billot (āDe deo uno et trinoā, Rome, 1902, Th. XXXII) ā agree with the Thomists in defending predestination ante praevisa merita. Bossuet, after a long study of the question of physical premotion, adapted the Thomistic opinion (āDu libre arbitreā, c. viii).
Molinism
This system was first developed by Luis de Molina, and was adopted in its essential points by the Society of Jesus. It is opposed by the Thomistic doctrine of grace ā the term Thomism has a somewhat wider meaning ā whose chief exponent is the Dominican BaƱez. Along lines totally different from those of Molina, this subtile theologian endeavours to harmonize grace and free will on principles derived from St. Thomas. Whereas Molinism tries to clear up the mysterious relation between grace and free will by starting from the rather clear concept of freedom, the Thomists, in their attempt to explain the attitude of the will towards grace, begin with the obscure idea of efficacious grace. The question which both schools set themselves to answer is this:
Whence does efficacious grace (gratia efficax), which includes in its very concept the actual free consent of the will, derive its infallible effect; and how is it that, in spite of the infallible efficacy of grace, the freedom of the will is not impaired? It is evident that, in every attempt to solve this difficult problem, Catholic theologians must safeguard two principles: * first, the supremacy and causality of grace (against Pelagianism and Semipelagianism), * and second, the unimpaired freedom of consent in the will (against early Protestantism and Jansenism).
For both these principles are dogmas of the Church, clearly and emphatically defined by the Council of Trent. Now, whilst Thomism lays chief stress on the infallible efficacy of grace, without denying the existence and necessity of the free cooperation of the will, Molinism emphasizes the unrestrained freedom of the will, without detracting in any way from the efficacy, priority, and dignity of grace.
Pohle, J. (1911). Molinism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htmFor both these principles are dogmas of the Church, clearly and emphatically defined by the Council of Trent. Now, whilst Thomism lays chief stress on the infallible efficacy of grace, without denying the existence and necessity of the free cooperation of the will, Molinism emphasizes the unrestrained freedom of the will, without detracting in any way from the efficacy, priority, and dignity of grace.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Banez was not a subtle theologian. His doctrine did away with free will, which can not be made to turn to one side or the other while remaining free. I see *no difficulty *in understanding predestination
V
Vico
Guest
Banez thought ten points of Molina deserved severe censorship and number eight was:
The effects of predestination have a cause in us of our free will.
Which leans towards the idea of Pelagius that places the cause of the effects of predestination on our part.
Banez said he walks the middle path by denying the necessary consequences of these two herecies:
- Pelagius: since we have free will there is no divine predestination based on Godās absolute decree.
- Luther: since there is divine predestination there is no free will.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
He was just wrong. Predestination comes from God and from man. There can be no way to infallibly move the will without the will ceasing to be free. It is tempted to both sides and chooses on its own
V
Vico
Guest
Per Banez, human free will stems from an innate freedom rather than from a divine decree. There ensued a debate about intrinsic vs extrinsic efficacy of grace.
A commission De Auxiliis met in Rome, but did not resolve the issue between Banez and Molina. The result was to forbid Dominicans to call Jesuits āPelagiansā (notable instance occurred on May 5, 1594) and forbid Jesuits to brand the Dominicans as āCalvinistsā (occurred in rebuttal). De Auxiliis met between between 1598 and 1607.
Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
PAUL V 1605-1621
The Aids or Efficacy of Grace *
[From the formula for ending disputes sent to the superior generals of the Order of Preachers and of the Society of Jesus, Sept. 5, 1607]
1090 In the matter of aids [de auxiliis] the right is granted by the Supreme Pontiff not only to the disputants but also to the consultors of returning to their countries and their homes; and it is added that this will be so that His Holiness may promulgate at an opportune time the declaration and conclusion which were awaited. But it was most seriously forbidden by the same Most Holy Lordship that in treating this question anyone either qualify the position opposite his own or note it with any censure. Even more he desires that they in turn abstain from harsh words indicating bitterness of mind. *
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The Pope didnāt condemn anything, but the Dominicans were basically Calvinists and the Molinist had an untenable position as I have demonstrated
V
Vico
Guest
The Pope told them to abstain from harsh words indicating bitterness of mind. Both groups accepted the dogmas of the Church (so were neither Calvinists nor Pelagians) and neither theory was decided upon.
F
fhansen
Guest
This is true. The question is not an easy one to resolve, obviously, and the Church herself has not officially come down on any side, other than to maintain that fallen manās will is not totally dead or depraved, and that God solicits it to play a role, however small to begin with, and an increasingly larger role if and as time allows, in his salvation.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The pope should have condemned both sides. Its unfortunate that he didnāt. The Church has never condemned all sex change procedures but it should. Any position that denies free will is not Catholic. Thomist say they believe in free will then forget about free will and propose opposite doctrines. If you focus your mind on how the faculty of free will works you will realize that it canāt be reconciled with determinism, either from grace or fallen nature. Man cannot be made to freely do something is the bottom line. Molinism proposes in place a ridiculous theory. The truth is that man is free and God has foreknowledge. Thatās it. We donāt have to postulate that God is somehow responsible for people going to hell like these two theories propose. Free will, foreknowledge. Not God deciding who will get the infallible grace or who will be put in the infallibly determined situation
T
tgGodsway
Guest
I agree thinkandmull, and fhansen, ā¦ man is free. But, for whatever reason Iām not sure why you do not recognize that as a free man his choices are only within the parameters of his sinful nature. Man can choose all day long and his choice is free, free within the parameters of his ability as a human being. In that sense only is he free. However in a spiritual sense man is DEAD ā¦ not dead to the ability to make choices, but dead to make a spiritual choice for God.
Listen to what the Church at Ephesus learned about this: āAnd you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sinsā¦ Eph. 2:1 ā¦ even when we are dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved,) and raised us up together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, v5,6 Couple that that with 1st. Cor. 2:14,15 where the Apostle Paul said āThe natural man (a man who does not have the Spirit of God) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.ā Natural, unconverted men, can make choices all day long, and their choice is free, but they are unable to know anything spiritually, and thus their will, still unviolated, will not make a choice that it cannot discern.
When the Church fathers (centuries later) decided manās will was not totally dead or depraved, their decision transformed Paulās claim to deadness. It would have been better for Paul to say that the Ephesians were merely unconscious, or, asleep in trespasses and sins. But he used the word dead, which whether metaphorically or literally, is still dead. Manās ability to connect with God (spiritually) is dead in every way that the word can suggest. To water this point down is to find oneself arguing against one of the founders and framers of Christianity.
But where does that leave us? ā¦ St. John gave us the answer, āJn 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Listen to what the Church at Ephesus learned about this: āAnd you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sinsā¦ Eph. 2:1 ā¦ even when we are dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved,) and raised us up together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, v5,6 Couple that that with 1st. Cor. 2:14,15 where the Apostle Paul said āThe natural man (a man who does not have the Spirit of God) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.ā Natural, unconverted men, can make choices all day long, and their choice is free, but they are unable to know anything spiritually, and thus their will, still unviolated, will not make a choice that it cannot discern.
When the Church fathers (centuries later) decided manās will was not totally dead or depraved, their decision transformed Paulās claim to deadness. It would have been better for Paul to say that the Ephesians were merely unconscious, or, asleep in trespasses and sins. But he used the word dead, which whether metaphorically or literally, is still dead. Manās ability to connect with God (spiritually) is dead in every way that the word can suggest. To water this point down is to find oneself arguing against one of the founders and framers of Christianity.
But where does that leave us? ā¦ St. John gave us the answer, āJn 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
J
James248
Guest
How can you make this statement and have Catholic has your religious label?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Hello again James 248,
Thank you for the question. I was raised in the Catholic faith and confirmed in my home Church, Holy Rosary Catholic Church in San Antonio Texas. I was saved in that Church when, at 21 years old, I walked into the Sunday evening mass during the performance of the Eucharist. I was desperate for a life-change and was as wild as they come at 21. I sat in the first pew and cried out to God, as I glared at the life-size crucifix in front of me. My prayer was a simple one: āif you really exist, Jesus, prove it to me because I want to die.ā In that moment, (what I know now was the Holy Spirit) came upon me and overwhelmed me sitting in the pew, to the point that I fell over into the isle. A row of nuns were sitting near and I remember them looking at me but they did not assist. But I did not need anyone to help me. Jesus walked by me and touched me, and allowed me to know he loved me. I claim to the Catholic Church because there is only one Catholic Church. It is a universal body of believers from every sect or flavor. It is not the standard Roman Catholic system I grew up with. Jesus is so much more than any system.
Going back to my story, when I was 14 years old my mother died in a freak accident. I asked priest if I could have the crucifix that was on her coffin. He said yes. I posted it on my bedroom wall. Later than year, a public school bus driver was singing praises to God. Me and my friend would make fun of him until one day he sat us down and told us about Jesus. I went home that day and put the crucifix around my neck and wore it around the house. My Catholic family thought I had a loose screw in my head. I didnāt care. Seven years later I got really serious about my faith when the holy Spirit fell upon me with great love and grace.
I hope this got to your answer.
Thank you for the question. I was raised in the Catholic faith and confirmed in my home Church, Holy Rosary Catholic Church in San Antonio Texas. I was saved in that Church when, at 21 years old, I walked into the Sunday evening mass during the performance of the Eucharist. I was desperate for a life-change and was as wild as they come at 21. I sat in the first pew and cried out to God, as I glared at the life-size crucifix in front of me. My prayer was a simple one: āif you really exist, Jesus, prove it to me because I want to die.ā In that moment, (what I know now was the Holy Spirit) came upon me and overwhelmed me sitting in the pew, to the point that I fell over into the isle. A row of nuns were sitting near and I remember them looking at me but they did not assist. But I did not need anyone to help me. Jesus walked by me and touched me, and allowed me to know he loved me. I claim to the Catholic Church because there is only one Catholic Church. It is a universal body of believers from every sect or flavor. It is not the standard Roman Catholic system I grew up with. Jesus is so much more than any system.
Going back to my story, when I was 14 years old my mother died in a freak accident. I asked priest if I could have the crucifix that was on her coffin. He said yes. I posted it on my bedroom wall. Later than year, a public school bus driver was singing praises to God. Me and my friend would make fun of him until one day he sat us down and told us about Jesus. I went home that day and put the crucifix around my neck and wore it around the house. My Catholic family thought I had a loose screw in my head. I didnāt care. Seven years later I got really serious about my faith when the holy Spirit fell upon me with great love and grace.
I hope this got to your answer.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
T
thinkandmull
Guest
the parameters of free will donāt make the will do something
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Thinkandmull, hello again
I agree the will is exercised when there is a desire to exercise it. Every decision you make is for a reason. Free will is the ability to choose what you want. This choice comes to rest on the important foundation of human desire. Desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice. A human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment. This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined. But determined, here, does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to oneās internal motivation or desire. In short, our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination which is the essence of freedom.
I agree the will is exercised when there is a desire to exercise it. Every decision you make is for a reason. Free will is the ability to choose what you want. This choice comes to rest on the important foundation of human desire. Desire plays the vital role of providing a motivation or a reason for making a choice. A human being is not only free to choose what he desires but he must choose what he desires to be able to choose at all. The will always chooses according to its strongest inclination at the moment. This means that every choice is free and every choice is determined. But determined, here, does not mean that some external force coerces the will. Rather it refers to oneās internal motivation or desire. In short, our choices are determined by our desires. They remain our choices because they are motivated by our own desires. This is what we call self-determination which is the essence of freedom.
F
fhansen
Guest
But the Church isnāt bound to condemn or accept* anyoneās* theories-yours, mine, or even Aquinasās. And the reluctance to formally reject any particular viewpoint can just show the Churchās exacting, responsible side. Sometimes she just doesnāt know; some things remain cloaked in a degree of mystery. And yet she did positively affirm that manās will is not uninvolved.
- Status