Who's Who in CAF? I'm just Curious

[Syele]

I am a Protestant Thomist, which I guess would make me “Protestant, Other.” However, I’m SO Thomistic I lean toward voting that way (Catholic, Thomist). This is honestly thought-provoking: Even though Protestant, would I identify myself as Catholic because I think of myself as more of a Thomist than a Protestant?

Sorry–guess I was thinking out loud there.

heh thinking outloud is OK… Since you identify with Thomist, could you perhaps give us a quick summary of it since I was not to knowledgeable on it?

 

[Chancellare]

I have no idea what you mean by Catholic-Tomist, Catholic-Molinist. Never heard of the terms, Can you please explain?

Thomas Aquinas and Juan Molina were one of the best known thinkers who shaped many Church doctrines and Christian thinking from middle ages to Enlightenmnent period (1700s). Studying them is a very interesting journey down to medieval period if that excites you.

My spiritual director cautions me to go slow, lest I get indigestion. Doctrinal formation is a must before you start eating solid foods especially when on the road, away from Mother’ Church’s dinner table.

 

[Chancellare]

Shoot. I voted “other” instead of “other Catholic.” I wanted to vote “other Catholic” because I don’t understand the Tomast and Molinist (or whatever) views. I’m just your good old average Catholic mommyof4.

Being a hubby who worships his wife, I wouldn’t put “JUST” before any word describing “mommy”. The best minds who have the right balance between heart and brains are mommy’s. They also have the best amount of time to do research at home while the dumb machos are busy elsewhere.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What is a Mid-Acts dispensationalist? Is it the same as belief in a Mid-Tribulation Rapture?

No, we believe that we “shall be caught up together” prior to the tribulation. Mid-acts dispensationalism:

Recognizes and respects the revelation of the mystery to the Apostle Paul.
Believes that Israel and the Body of Christ are different and we cannot claim Israel’s promises.
Delineates between the Gospel of the kingdom and the Gospel of the grace of God.
We believe this occured mid-Acts as opposed to traditional Acts 2 dispensational thinking.

Which do you consider to be false doctrines? Would you be willing to tell us which of the 5 points of Calvinism and which of the 5 points of Arminianism you consider to be false?

sometime yes. The differences in Calvinism and its view of the elect and what the Bible teaches are too numerous for a brief discussion.

 

[lak611]

Actually “Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation” is not contradictory to Catholic belief. It does not equal total depravity. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Faith is a grace
153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come ‘from flesh and blood’, but from ‘my Father who is in heaven’.[24] Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. ‘Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’[25]”

They mean without the grace of God, humans are unable to make any effort towards salvation. This was put in explaination most likely to distinguish Arminians from pelagianism. Maybe the following will help more (the red & bold I added):

***This is Arminian

1. Free Will or Human Ability*** Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance (because he is not naturally able to do it alone), but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

The Catholic and Arminian positions sound almost identical.​

 

[Rightlydivide]

What do you mean by conditional salvation? I have never heard that term.

I recognize we would run in different groups. Conditional salvation is a dumbed down term that means the same thing as Arminianism for people who do not like to study history.

 

[lak611]

I think the long version will help in this question too:
Armenian
2. Conditional Election God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon** His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. **He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Calvinist
2. Unconditional Election God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.​

So in other word the Arminian says God chose them for election because He knew they would choose him given the option. This can easily apply even if they were never actually given the option… God knows everything.
The Calvinist, however,says God chose completely arbitrarily so what the person would have or would not have done is moot.

Conditional election is basically the same thing as Molinism. So again, Arminianism is closer to the Catholic teaching than Calvinism.

 

[lak611]

I recognize we would run in different groups. Conditional salvation is a dumbed down term that means the same thing as Arminianism for people who do not like to study history.

Actually I do understand it thanks to Syele’s post. I had always heard it called “conditional election”, not “conditional salvation”, hence my confusion. I am a Catholic Molinist, so that viewpoint is very close to mine.

 

[cpayne]

heh thinking outloud is OK… Since you identify with Thomist, could you perhaps give us a quick summary of it since I was not to knowledgeable on it?

Thanks for asking–my friends have already let me know they don’t want to hear any more about Thomas Aquinas, especially since I usually don’t wait for them to ask.

“Thomism” covers a huge variety of topics, but here’s a general summary of Aquinas’s views: He thought there was no real division between the “revealed” truth known by faith and the general, “natural” revelation known by reason; truth itself is a unity, since ultimately the same God authors all that is true. Grace does not destroy nature, but rather perfects it (one of his most famous and often-repeated sentences); consequently, supernatural revelation certainly will go beyond natural revelation, but will not contradict it. For example, one may know of God’s existence simply because the Bible declares it, but one may also know of God’s existence rationally by the famous “Five Ways” (motion, causality, contingency, degrees of perfection, and teleology). By reason one may also know some of God’s attributes, such as his unity and perfection.

On the other hand, some aspects of God, such as his Trinitarian nature, may be known only by faith.

Likewise, moral laws may be known directly by God’s commands, but are also accessible to all by the “natural law” written in the human heart. This is why arguments against abortion, gay marriage, and so on, are not necessarily “religious” arguments.

In general, Aquinas is what Aristotle would have been if Aristotle were Christian, Catholic, and saintly. There actually are a lot of Protestant Thomists around; for example, there’s the book “Thomas Aquinas for Evangelicals,” written by Norman Geisler, a Protestant theologian. My favorite Catholic Thomists are Chesterton (of course), Peter Kreeft, Ralph McInerny, and J. Budziszewski. Any of their books are good–McInerny is by far the most technical of them and can be a difficult read, but the others are quite non-technical.

 

[Linkowski]

Christ died for the elect and for the world…

His death was sufficient for all…

1 John 2:2 KJV 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Hebrews 2:9 KJV 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

1 Timothy 2:6 KJV 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

But His death is only efficient for the elect…

Matthew 1:21 KJV 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

John 10:15 KJV 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 6:39 KJV 39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 17:9 KJV 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

It makes sense - why would the sins of those who would not believe be paid for on the cross??? They will only be paid for by the one who is being punished…those sins did not fall on Christ but will only fall on the condemned.

 

[lak611]

My favorite Catholic Thomists are Chesterton (of course), Peter Kreeft, Ralph McInerny, and J. Budziszewski. Any of their books are good–McInerny is by far the most technical of them and can be a difficult read, but the others are quite non-technical.

I read Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft. It was a good read, although I am not a Thomist.

 

[Syele]

I read Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft. It was a good read, although I am not a Thomist.

I’ll have to look for a copy of that to read.

 

[lak611]

I read Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft. It was a good read, although I am not a Thomist.

I’ll have to look for a copy of that to read.

I actually found it in my church’s library. It should still be in print or available in public libraries since it was published in 1990.

 

[Mirdath]

I read Summa of the Summa by Peter Kreeft. It was a good read, although I am not a Thomist.

Alternately, there’s the Shorter Summa, which is Aquinas’ own double-summary. I read it a while back and it was quite clearly written, so it’s not like a gigantic mountain of impenetrable text.

 

[cpayne]

I’d likewise recommend “A Shorter Summa,” also by Kreeft. If you like his style of explanation, which I do (extensive, clear footnotes and examples of what Aquinas is saying), then I’d get the longer book. A big HOWEVER–both of Kreeft’s books only cover Parts I and I-II of the Summa Theologica, which are the more “philosophical” parts. Parts II-II and III (the more “theological” parts) are not dealt with, except that they are summarized in Kreeft’s introduction. I think the reason is that the later parts are more specifically “Catholic” in nature, and Kreeft was writing for a more general audience.

Anyway, Kreeft is a great introducer (is that a word?) to Aquinas.

 

[boppaid]

A great thread! I honestly don’t know what I am. I am a Catholic who has more protestant views. I’m still searching what I am. And it hurts.

 

[Steadfast]

Is molinism even considered orthodox?

I thought it had been anathematized.

 

[Syele]

Is molinism even considered orthodox?

I thought it had been anathematized.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp:

In Catholic circles, the two major groups discussing predestination are the Thomists and the Molinists, the followers of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Luis de Molina (1536-1600). Thomists emphasize the role of grace, while Molinists emphasize free will. Neither school ignores grace or free will.

Some anti-Catholic site:

the Roman Catholic Church accepted the Molinist heresy in 1609.

http://www.whartono.ca/salvation5.htm:

Until now the Catholic Church does not declare dogmatically on how God predestines the Elect, whether it is Conditional or Unconditional Election. Catholics are still free to choose from a number of predestination views, among which are: Thomism (after Thomas Aquinas) and Molinism (after Luis de Molina). Thomists (and some Molisnists) teach Unconditional Election while Molinism believes in the Conditional Election.

…

[2] As for the relation between efficacious Grace and human freedom the Catholic      Church does not yet define the official teaching of the Church.  There      are five views on this issues: *Thomism*, *Augustianism*, *     Molinism*, *Congruism* and *Syncretism* (for the detail of each      please refer to Ludwig Ott: *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*, page      248-249).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10436a.htm:

Doubtless Molina took to the grave the impression that Molinism was doomed to incur the censure of the Holy See, for he did not live to see his new system exonerated by Paul V in 1607. (For further details see the article CONGREGATIO DE AUXILIIS.)