Thomism Vs. Mollinism

[ICTHUS]

Okie day, I shall first explain Thomist soteriology as I see it. Like Calvinist thought, it can follow the acronym TULIP.

Total inability - mans free will is damaged and is totally incapable of having faith in God unless God first gives him the grace to do so. (I believe that Canon III of the Council of Trent on Justification proves this, as well as various scriptural proofs)

Unconditional Election - God unconditionally elects those who will be saved everlastingly. Note that Catholics are forbidden to affirm double predestination, i.e. that God actively predestines those who will be eternally reprobate, to reprobation since that would contradict the will of God that all be saved.

Instead, He simply passes over and does not elect those who will be reprobate, leaving them to beaver dam themselves by their own free choice.

An example might be drawn. The manager of a cricket team might have 30 players available to him to call up to play in a match but he only selects 12 of them. The rest are "benched".

Limited efficacy of the atonement - the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind, but will only be efficacious (i.e. will only bring about everlasting salvation) for the Elect.

Intrinsically efficacious grace - because of the kind of grace that it is, grace that enables a person to persevere until the end will always result in final salvation, because of the kind of grace that it is.

Perseverance of the Saints - all those who are elected unto final salvation (some are elected to be saved in the first place, but then to lose their salvation) will persevere until the end.

[ICTHUS]

Okie day, I shall first explain Thomist soteriology as I see it. Like Calvinist thought, it can follow the acronym TULIP.

Total inability - mans free will is damaged and is totally incapable of having faith in God unless God first gives him the grace to do so. (I believe that Canon III of the Council of Trent on Justification proves this, as well as various scriptural proofs)

Unconditional Election - God unconditionally elects those who will be saved everlastingly. Note that Catholics are forbidden to affirm double predestination, i.e. that God actively predestines those who will be eternally reprobate, to reprobation since that would contradict the will of God that all be saved.

Instead, He simply passes over and does not elect those who will be reprobate, leaving them to beaver dam themselves by their own free choice.

An example might be drawn. The manager of a cricket team might have 30 players available to him to call up to play in a match but he only selects 12 of them. The rest are "benched".

Limited efficacy of the atonement - the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind, but will only be efficacious (i.e. will only bring about everlasting salvation) for the Elect.

Intrinsically efficacious grace - because of the kind of grace that it is, grace that enables a person to persevere until the end will always result in final salvation, because of the kind of grace that it is.

Perseverance of the Saints - all those who are elected unto final salvation (some are elected to be saved in the first place, but then to lose their salvation) will persevere until the end.

[ICTHUS]

alright, im gonna call myself a mollinist, cause that's what ICTUS called me.

basically, my position is the following.

the elect are the predestined.  They are predestined because God knew them even before He created them.  They are predestined because they eventually make it into heaven.  Heaven is on another time zone, completely outside our comprehension, cause God created time so he exists outside of it. 

anyway, tomism is basically just a big TULIP

we all have free will. By our own choices and free will, we will either accept God's grace and all that cool jazz and go to heaven, or not and end up in the inferno. God, however, exists outside of time. Therefore, certain people He knows will make it to heaven. THey are the 'elect.' However, ppl can change at any time. God could be lookin down on the head of the Planned Parenthood Nazi Murderer group and considering them the 'elect' because He knows they convert later. However, he does not control this. It's like an arial view of an intersection. U see two cars goin really fast, you can know they're goin to crash, but u don't know control it. It's somethin like that.

I agree with most of that, or at least I see how it could be considered orthodox. However, there is one bit that I dont like....

However, ppl can change at any time. God could be lookin down on the head of the Planned Parenthood Nazi Murderer group and considering them the 'elect' because He knows they convert later. However, he does not control this. It's like an arial view of an intersection. U see two cars goin really fast, you can know they're goin to crash, but u don't know control it. It's somethin like that

God is SOVEREIGN. How can you say that He does not control something??

[Aloysius]

1st, i hope this doesn't violate the no Catholic vs. Catholic rule... that was only for traditional vs. modern, right?

anyway, ill at least respond to the crazy tulip

Total inability - mans free will is damaged and is totally incapable of having faith in God unless God first gives him the grace to do so. (I believe that Canon III of the Council of Trent on Justification proves this, as well as various scriptural proofs)

alright, i kinda agree her. The thing i'd like to emphasize is God gives man the grace, but he still must use his free will to accept the grace.

Unconditional Election - God unconditionally elects those who will be saved everlastingly. Note that Catholics are forbidden to affirm double predestination, i.e. that God actively predestines those who will be eternally reprobate, to reprobation since that would contradict the will of God that all be saved.

Instead, He simply passes over and does not elect those who will be reprobate, leaving them to beaver dam themselves by their own free choice.

An example might be drawn. The manager of a cricket team might have 30 players available to him to call up to play in a match but he only selects 12 of them. The rest are "benched".

hmmmm interesting. I'm still a bit weary of this. God wishes all men to be saved. THerefore, He makes His grace available to all men, God gave us the amazing gift of free will to either accept or reject this grace. So it kinda depends on your definition of election. He elects all men by making His grace available, but knows the ones that will accept it and therefore those who will accept it and persever He names the 'Elect'.

Limited efficacy of the atonement - the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of all mankind, but will only be efficacious (i.e. will only bring about everlasting salvation) for the Elect.

If you define the 'Elect the way i defined them above, then i agree with this statement.

Intrinsically efficacious grace - because of the kind of grace that it is, grace that enables a person to persevere until the end will always result in final salvation, because of the kind of grace that it is.

okay... intrinsically efficacious grace, but it must be accepted. again, defining elect the way i did b4, then the 'Elect' recieve this grace because they have accepted it, and they will only revieve this grace if they are going to persever to the end.

Perseverance of the Saints - all those who are elected unto final salvation (some are elected to be saved in the first place, but then to lose their salvation) will persevere until the end.

those who are elect in the way i defined, the ones that by free will which God gives them choose to accept His grace and persevere by not choosing to reject the grace later on, will persevere to the end.

I'll call my acronym

T-CLIP

The 'C' stands for 'Conditionally Elected' i.e. all are elected on the condition that they will accept it.

and dUST, if this thread violates your no Cath vs. Cath debate rule, i apologize. delete it if u want.

[Aloysius]

However, ppl can change at any time. God could be lookin down on the head of the Planned Parenthood Nazi Murderer group and considering them the 'elect' because He knows they convert later. However, he does not control this. It's like an arial view of an intersection. U see two cars goin really fast, you can know they're goin to crash, but u don't know control it. It's somethin like that

God is SOVEREIGN. How can you say that He does not control something??

i say He does not control it because He chooses not to. God loves us. he gives us free will that we can control our own lives. God is soveirgn, and He chose to give us the power to decide what we will do, whether we will sin, whether we will accept his grace, etc etc

[jasJis]

I can't believe I wasnt' reading this thread. I think it's fantastic. I've philosophically justified my faith over the years. It's basically how I consider lot's of things.

I think the biggest question is about the Elect, and God's participation.

Firstly, God's participation. God is omniscient and omnipotent. We are given Free Will. Does that make our final outcome pre-determined? If not, does that limit God's omniscience and ominipotence?

I think not. The key seems to be placing omnipotence before omnicience. If God can cause anything and know the outcome, He can easily provide us Free Will. We have control over our will, not omnipotence which is control over everything. We cannot change God's will wich is founded in His PERFECT omnipotence. God's omniiscience derives from His omnipotence. If you have complete power and control of that power, you would know the outcome because perfect omnipotence would also include having the power over having undersired effects that would damage your power.

As far as the Elect and Predestination. In God's perfect plan, we are all given the choice to accept Grace. God's omnisciece knows what we will choose. His perfect omnipotence allows us free will because it won't screw up His Will.

Since God knows who will accpet Grace, He provides more grace to carry out His will. Those who He knows will do so are the Elect. He created all of us with the potential to be one of the Elect, but knew only some would choose so.

[BLAZEr]

Ok . . . i understand what you mean by TULIP, but I don't think that's what Thomas Aquinas believes. St. Thomas believed very strongly that the knowledge that God exists is available to everyone throught he Natural Law. In fact, the entire Summa Contra Gentiles is a "catechism" on how to evangelize those who are unchristian by using the natural law to demonstrate that God exists.

You would have to point me to the actual statements in the Summa where Thomas makes these (TULIP) statements. Thomas was not one who believed in the complete corruption of the will . . . in fact Thomas believed that man would not choose the bad in and of itself, that man always chooses what he believes to be good. So the corruption of original sin affects the intellect (knowing what is good) as well as the will (choosing the good). The will is corrupted in as much as temptation and habit affect the exercise of our will.

Also, damnation comes from rejecting God's grace, how can someone be damned if God chooses to never offer them that gift, by "skipping over them."

This whole reading of St. Thomas seems fishy to me. Are you sure you're reading Thomas and not someone else who is telling you "what" Thomas taught?

Edited September 27, 2003 by BLAZEr

[Don John of Austria]

Okay I will try to be to the point here

Ithucus said-

Total inability - mans free will is damaged and is totally incapable of having faith in God unless God first gives him the grace to do so. (I believe that Canon III of the Council of Trent on Justification proves this, as well as various scriptural proofs)

The canon in question reads thus--

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

This does not say "totally incapable" but that he cannot" believe as he ought" this is a completely differant statement.

Ithicus said

"Unconditional Election - God unconditionally elects those who will be saved everlastingly. Note that Catholics are forbidden to affirm double predestination, i.e. that God actively predestines those who will be eternally reprobate, to reprobation since that would contradict the will of God that all be saved.

Instead, He simply passes over and does not elect those who will be reprobate, leaving them to beaver dam themselves by their own free choice.

This is not in keeping with the other canons of Trent at all

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

This shows without a doubt that one can refuse to coorerate with the gift of grace and can refuse it, thus one is not unconditionally predestine only offered the grace of salvation.

or canon XV

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

Thus even after justification one can CHOOSE to sin and thus not be saved.

Or canon XXXII--

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema

This agian shows us that one can fall and once justified by one own works fall and be damned " if so be, that he depart in grace,...." this tells us that one can not depart in grace even arfter justification.

Or pesky canon XXVII which speaks for itself with need of interpratation

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema

Thus again we are told that the justified can lose the grace given to them, this places it agian at the hands of the man involved.

No Grace is a gift freely given and offered to all it is up to us to Choose it or reject it , but God gives us all the oppertunity to be saved.

Blazer

Ok . . . i understand what you mean by TULIP, but I don't think that's what Thomas Aquinas believes. St. Thomas believed very strongly that the knowledge that God exists is available to everyone throught he Natural Law. In fact, the entire Summa Contra Gentiles is a "catechism" on how to evangelize those who are unchristian by using the natural law to demonstrate that God exists.

You would have to point me to the actual statements in the Summa where Thomas makes these (TULIP) statements. Thomas was not one who believed in the complete corruption of the will . . . in fact Thomas believed that man would not choose the bad in and of itself, that man always chooses what he believes to be good. So the corruption of original sin affects the intellect (knowing what is good) as well as the will (choosing the good). The will is corrupted in as much as temptation and habit affect the exercise of our will.

Also, damnation comes from rejecting God's grace, how can someone be damned if God chooses to never offer them that gift, by "skipping over them."

This whole reading of St. Thomas seems fishy to me. Are you sure you're reading Thomas and not someone else who is telling you "what" Thomas taught?

You beat me to it, but I couldn't havee said it any better, I don't get this from reading Thomas at all, in fact I have ussually been accused of being a Thomist, I agree that Thomas does not disregard free will or believe in a completely corrupted will and would love to see the passages that Ithicus is citeing.

[Don John of Austria]

Here are the Canons on Justification from trent for easy referance:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly inDouche and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called inDouche, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if inDouche the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Chris taught; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able inDouche to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

[BLAZEr]

Okay,

I just found James Akin's (from Catholic Answers) essay on Thomas' TULIP. I haven't had time to read it very carefully, but the skimming I gave it cast a different light on this TULIP than I had previously understood.

I can't say that I agree yet, but I will say that Mr. Akin seems to suggest that you don't have subscribe to this view of TULIP and that the no less than the great St. Robert Bellarmine (who pretty much authored Trent) didn't. Also, Francisco Suarez (another Jesuit, this time from Spain) is at odds with this view. My favorite Thomist, Prof. Fred Freddoso at Notre Dame has done some translations of Suarez, he might be able to shed some light, so I'm sending him an email.

All the same, here is Akin's Essay: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

Pax et Bonum! (that's an allusion to my real philosophical leanings)

[Aloysius]

what about my 'mollinist' T-CLIP?

any1 think it's correct? it's basically tulip only

The 'C' stands for 'Conditionally Elected' i.e. all are elected on the condition that they will accept it.

[ICTHUS]

LOL @ T-CLIP.

Conditional Election is the distinguishing feature of the Protestant version of Molinism, namely, Arminianism.

Which I dont like, because it makes God look like a weakling who isin't sovereign at all.

[Aloysius]

LOL @ T-CLIP.

Conditional Election is the distinguishing feature of the Protestant version of Molinism, namely, Arminianism.

Which I dont like, because it makes God look like a weakling who isin't sovereign at all.

protestant version!!!!!!!! uh oh, gotta fix that!

i don't deny God's soveirgty, i just believe He uses it the way He wants, and He wants to use it to allow us all to have free will to accept or reject Him.

i don't think im bein protestant. i better not be bein protestant. that would just make me cry.

by conditional i mean it's under the condition that we will accept it. I think that's still orthodox, isn't it?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Think about this:

What is the point of Jesus Christ's message of repentance and striving for the Kingdom if it is already predetermined who will enter Heaven?

[jasJis]

Think about this:

What is the point of Jesus Christ's message of repentance and striving for the Kingdom if it is already predetermined who will enter Heaven?

Exactly.

Also, what's more powerful? The ability to create something that does only what the creator wants it to, or the ability to create something so that the Creature can do wants to do and also be able to choose what the Creator wants it to do.