Sovereignty of God" verses the "Free will of Man

[francisdesales]

Would it be safe to say Molinism is commonly held by Roman Catholic theologians?

There are a number of "allowable" viewpoints on this question. I think many are, to some degree, Thomists. I believe that more people are Congruists, rather than Molinists, for those who fall on that side of the equation. This is a more refined version of Molinism.

Would it also be safe to say it’s formulation is largely a reaction to Reformation theology, aka Calvinism?

To a degree. But the Second Council of Orange had already ruled against "Double Predestination" - the idea that God predestines the reprobate (by the way, Catholics DO believe that God predestines the elect. We just don't know WHO those people are in this life). This Council also ruled against some of St. Augustine's more dire teachings that even his disciple, St. Prosper, disagreed with, esp. the notion that all infants who have not been baptized were condemned to eternal hell (mass damnatia).

Molina, it seems, tried to reconcile the sovereignty of God with semi-pelagianiam as taught by John Cassian

John Cassian didn't "teach" Semi-Pelagianism - this was a term that didn't come about for hundreds of years after Cassian's death. One must be aware that Cassian was more interested in writing pastoral and practical tracts for monks, rather than theoretical theological treatises. Thus, his words could LATER be construed as "semi-Pelagianism", but this term didn't come about until much later in the history of heresies.

By the way, I am new to this particular forum, but I am a veteran poster at Free Republic. I particularly enjoy the HTML tools, so I don't have to type them by hand.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

Glad to have you aboard St. Francis. :-D

 

[thessalonian]

Thess,

Would it be safe to say Molinism is commonly held by Roman Catholic theologians?

Well I have not polled them but it would be safe to say that some do and some don't hold to it. It is not considered heretical. However what I see in the Church is a mixing of thomism and molinism. Fr. Most's article linked above seems to be the prevailing tenor of the debate.

Would it also be safe to say it’s formulation is largely a reaction to Reformation theology, aka Calvinism?

Well from a reformer standpoint that would seem to be the case but rather I think it is a countering and an explanation of what was already held by many in the Church. I do not see Molina as coming up with Molinism.

I recommend this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

"The unprejudiced mind must acknowledge that this exposition is far from incurring the suspicion of Pelagianism or Semipelagianism. "

 

[JM]

Thanks guys.

To a degree. But the Second Council of Orange had already ruled against "Double Predestination" - the idea that God predestines the reprobate (by the way, Catholics DO believe that God predestines the elect. We just don't know WHO those people are in this life). This Council also ruled against some of St. Augustine's more dire teachings that even his disciple, St. Prosper, disagreed with, esp. the notion that all infants who have not been baptized were condemned to eternal hell (mass damnatia).

I've read the Council of Orange, do you have any links for the Second Council? The first agree with Augustine, did the second, flip flop on the issue? This is all I could find: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm

I understand Cassian wasn't labeled a semi-pelagian in his time, but is there a difference between what Catholics believe and teach and what is called semi-pelagianism?

Thanks,

jm

 

[francisdesales]

Glad to have you aboard St. Francis.

Thank you for your welcome, although I can only try to emulate the great Saint. I am a long way off still on how he expressed his love for others...

I probably am more similar to him in that I am reaching out to Calvinists...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I've read the Council of Orange, do you have any links for the Second Council? The first agree with Augustine, did the second, flip flop on the issue? This is all I could find:

You probably are thinking of the Second Council of Orange, as that is the one that refers to the question on grace. The First Council of Orange is relatively unknown and of little importance, at least in the eyes of people who are considering the subject of predestination and grace and free will. The First Council of Orange was 100 years before the Second and had nothing to do with free will.

"Their subject-matter was: the administration of the sacraments (canons i-iv, xii-xvii), the right of sanctuary (v-vi), mutual episcopal relations (viii-xi), catechumens (xviii-xx), bishops (xxi, xxx), the marriage of clerics (xxii-xxv), deaconesses (xxvi), widowhood and virginity (xxvii-xxviii), the holding of councils (xxix)." Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11266b.htm

Here is one site for the Second Council of Orange, although, you probably already have read this Council's canons: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/orange.htm

As far as I know, the Church did accept many of St. Augustine's definitions regarding free will and grace, but did not go as far as some of his teachings went. They went so far as to condemn several opinions that he had, esp. on the condemnation of unbaptized infants to eternal hell. I find this a bit interesting that he would take such a position, as previously, he defended the faith vs. the Donatists. In doing so, he clearly said that God was not bound by the Sacraments - but he forgot this position later regarding infants and Baptism when defending the faith vs. the Pelagians...

Regards

 

[JM]

In doing so, he clearly said that God was not bound by the Sacraments - but he forgot this position later regarding infants and Baptism when defending the faith vs. the Pelagians...

That's an interesting point...Augustine, from the works I've read, assumes God will have His covenant people under the sign of the covenant = baptism. If they were not baptized then they were not part of the covenant or God would have had them baptized.

I agree, he went too far on this.

 

[francisdesales]

I understand Cassian wasn't labeled a semi-pelagian in his time, but is there a difference between what Catholics believe and teach and what is called semi-pelagianism?

Sorry, I didn't realize I forgot to answer this question...

No, the Catholic Church does not teach what is called "Semi-Pelagianism".

At every stage, man REQUIRES, absolutely, God's abiding presence, grace, to do ANY good. What confuses many of my Protestant brothers on this subject, from my many many posts elsewhere, is an "either/or dichotomy". Either Catholics believe that man does a work or God does. It doesn't occur to them that when Christ abides in a person, it is BOTH of them doing the good deed. In Christ, I can do all. Without Christ, I can do nothing good.

Christ said that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. We agree - with the caveat that Christ is what enables us to be righteous in the first place. It is US who are going to be judged based on the good deeds we do, our faith working in love, not Christ. Thus, as the Catechism says, we cooperate with the work of God within us. Thus, Semi-Pelagianism, an effort to give man credit without giving God credit for His grace during a given work, is a heresy. While not formally refuted at Orange, later Councils quoted from it - in other words, the teachings were already present, just not fully comprehended by some who thought that certain works could be done without grace from above.

In summary, Catholics do believe that we can do NOTHING without God's grace. However, Catholics do believe we cooperate and are judged based on how we respond to His Graces (which ALSO, is a gift from God, as St. Augustine said!)

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

In summary, Catholics do believe that we can do NOTHING without God's grace. However, Catholics do believe we cooperate and are judged based on how we respond to His Graces (which ALSO, is a gift from God, as St. Augustine said!)

That was the point of my analogy of the father providing for his children above. God works in and through men. It is no less God providing because I go off to work and earn a paycheck that my wife spends for food, clothes, and housing.

 

[francisdesales]

God works in and through men. It is no less God providing because I go off to work and earn a paycheck that my wife spends for food, clothes, and housing.

Yes, that is something that we as Catholics have to get better at pointing out to our brothers so as to understand Scripture regarding faith and works in salvation. A cursory view of the Scriptures clearly point this out:

Who believes for one second that it was Peter who cured the blind man - but rather God working through Peter.

And this is how God continues to work - both Old and New Testament and today in our lives.

Regards

 

[JM]

No, the Catholic Church does not teach what is called "Semi-Pelagianism".

At every stage, man REQUIRES, absolutely, God's abiding presence, grace, to do ANY good. What confuses many of my Protestant brothers on this subject, from my many many posts elsewhere, is an "either/or dichotomy". Either Catholics believe that man does a work or God does. It doesn't occur to them that when Christ abides in a person, it is BOTH of them doing the good deed. In Christ, I can do all. Without Christ, I can do nothing good.

How is that different then what semi-pelagianism teaches? Does the RCC teach man can seek God and on what terms does man seek God?

Just trying to figure it out,

jm

---------------------------------

EDIT MADE

PS: Forget it fellas, I found what I was looking for from the Council of Trent. "Decree on Justification."

thx

 

[francisdesales]

How is that different then what semi-pelagianism teaches?

"Semi-Pelagianism" (known as Masillians during the Second Council of Orange) s the idea that the beginning of faith comes from the free will of nature, not God's grace, and that the essence of "prevenient grace" consists in the preaching of the Christian doctrine of salvation. Thus, the teaching claims that man can come to God without grace, but of a "good free will".

The Second Council of Orange (raised to the level of an oecumenical council, having full support of the Apostolic See) refutes that idea. In twenty-five canons "...the entire powerlessness of nature for good, the absolute necessity of prevenient grace for salutary acts, especially for the beginning of faith, the absolute gratuity of the first grace and of final perseverance, were defined, while in the epilogue the predestination of the will to evil was branded as heresy" (Source: cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 174-200)

This was further set down at the Council of Trent while defining the Church's belief on justification contra Protestantism:

Justification receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace. (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema"). By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive, but also forestalled the Jansenistic heresy regarding the impossibility of resisting actual grace. (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia on Justification)

Catholics hold simultaneously (not fully understanding the mystery of the mechanics) that God's grace is absolutely necessary at EACH step of Justification and Sanctification, AND that man CAN refuse this grace at any particular point. St. Paul makes this clear in the mysterious cooperation between God and man in Phil 2:12-13

"...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

God gives man commandments and expects us to obey them. This is the indication to the Church Fathers throughout the ages that man does retain free will and ability to refuse the graces of the Spirit.

Does the RCC teach man can seek God and on what terms does man seek God?

Yes, man is expected to seek out God. The Psalms mention this quite often, for example, Ps 9:10; 14:2; 22:26: 27:4 and so forth.

Here is an example: Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Amox 5:14

Naturally, one must take into account that God is somehow behind this "seeking", as it is God who moves our will and desire to seek Him. We don't know a mathematical formula to explain "how much does God do and how much do I do" or any such thing. We do know we do not seek Him without Him. As St. Augustine says, (paraphrasing), "God, who made man without man's help, nevertheless does not save man without man" Somehow, we are expected to NOT disdain His graces to move our will.

In summary, we are expected to seek God - but God in His love moves our will, which remains intact. Remember, Jesus said "without me, you can do nothing good" John 15:5. Thus, we do not believe that we can come to God without God. Thus, Catholics are not Semi-Pelagian.

Regards

 

[thessalonian]

FD,

I'll just chime in from time to time. Your doing great bud. :-D

 

[JM]

No, the Catholic Church does not teach what is called "Semi-Pelagianism".

At every stage, man REQUIRES, absolutely, God's abiding presence, grace, to do ANY good. What confuses many of my Protestant brothers on this subject, from my many many posts elsewhere, is an "either/or dichotomy". Either Catholics believe that man does a work or God does. It doesn't occur to them that when Christ abides in a person, it is BOTH of them doing the good deed. In Christ, I can do all. Without Christ, I can do nothing good.

How is that different then what semi-pelagianism teaches? Does the RCC teach man can seek God and on what terms does man seek God?

Just trying to figure it out,

jm

---------------------------------

EDIT MADE

PS: Forget it fellas, I found what I was looking for from the Council of Trent. "Decree on Justification."

thx

Did I write that?

: