Trent doesn't teach that! So Catholics aren't that bad after all! For example "...because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of his sons; and are, therefore, said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works merit the grace itself of justification; for if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works; otherwise, grace is no more grace" (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8)
"It furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace..." cf., Lamentations 5:21; Jeremiah 3:22; Zechariah 1:3 (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5
"If anyone shall say that man's free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby disposes and prepares itself to the obtain grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothign at all and is merely in a passive state; let him be anathema (Session 6, Canon 4)"
The Fathers taught that grace/predestination does not destroy free will; Irenaeus - Against Heresies; Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man; Gregory of Nyssa, the Great Catechism; Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Homilies on John, On Romans, On Ephesians, On Hebrews; Jerome, Against Jovinian, Commentaries on Jonah; Augustine, Letters, Sermons, Questions to Simplican, Debate with Felix, Forgiveness of sins, The Spirit and the Letter, and so forth; John Damascene, the Source of Knowledge. All of these Fathers and more talk about our cooperation with God's grace - which comes first and takes the initiative. Why do you think Semi-Pelagianism was also refuted at the 2nd Council of Orange? WE do not take the first step towards God. But with God's grace, we are enabled to begin repentance, to fear God, to hate sin. We are prepared by God for our justification. And when God justifies us, in His eyes, we are made righteous. Perfection is not needed, as we are adopted sons of God.
God saves man according to His good grace and elects those who He so desires by His sovereign choice. The scriptures are clear and the traces of this belief goes straight back to the apostles. I do believe a great many Christian brothers and sisters are in error over this.
The Catholic view on predestination are not defined. There are some in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas who believe in absolute predestination - and that God negatively reprobates men to hell (as opposed to positively reprobating - what some call double predestination). On the other hand, Molinists take a different view. But one that holds the tension of God reaching out to us first - and our cooperation - intact. One that keeps God's freedom of action and sovereignty intact, along with man's freedom to choose to use or reject the gift God has and continues to give him over his life.
I obviously don't believe that the Church believes in Semi-Pelagianism, either, because we have condemned that position. We do not say that WE can come to God first. Nor can we come to God on our OWN at any time. To be quite honest, Grace and Free Will are mysteries of God, and we probably will never know fully how they interact completely. But we do know that we cannot come to God without His gifts that allow us to repent, nor does God force us to repent and turn to Him.
If I might speculate, perhaps part of the problem goes much deeper. I believe it is the nominalist view that Protestantism took up in the 1500's that is behind much of the discussion on this and on salvation. Catholicism emphasizes the divinization of man by the infusion of God's grace, or the supernatural life, which enables us to actually become more like God. As a result, justification for Catholics is an internal act upon man. Nominalism (and Protestantism) does not believe this - but rather - that God imputes some sort of label on man, falsely calling man just. This external, legalist viewpoint is at odds with Catholic soteriology. I believe this is behind why we sometimes talk past each other. If man is totally depraved, he lacks free will and the ability to know what is right. Thus, God acts ENTIRELY for the sake of man, labeling him justified, even though he really isn't. This denial of free will is a key article of faith where Catholics and some Protestants must realize is critical to our continued separation. The denial of free will has not been the teaching of the Church.
Thanks again for the conversation
Brother in Christ
Trent teaches Aminianism-not Semi-Pelagianism.
Arminianism-“That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself…think nothing that is good…such as saving faith is…. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding”
There is not a dimes worth of difference between what Trent states and what Arminianism states.
So Catholics aren't that bad after all!
I haven’t posted any articles saying the Pope is the Anti-Christ and the RCC is Babylonia, have I? Well, not yet. (Oh, just kidding.) It’s not my place to judge anyone. I simply comment on things the way I see them. That being said there are a few “hot button” issues with me (mostly with the Protestants). You’ll know when you’ve hit one. It’s generally when I rent my clothes, point my finger and shout, “Woe to you…”. This is not one of those issue.
The Catholic view on predestination are not defined. There are some in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas who believe in absolute predestination… On the other hand, Molinists take a different view.
That’s what the article by Hodges states. The Molinist were Semi-Peligians who had a different soteriology from the western church. They have now evolved into the Arminians of the RCC. The Church has not taken a stand on predestination because it impossible under a synergistic belief. You end up with “God foreknew those who would choose Him, so those are the people whom He chose.” This logic does not make any sense to me (frankly its plain stupid IMO).
Catholicism emphasizes the divinization of man by the infusion of God's grace, or the supernatural life, which enables us to actually become more like God...Nominalism (and Protestantism) does not believe this - but rather - that God imputes some sort of label on man, falsely calling man just. This external, legalist viewpoint is at odds with Catholic soteriology.
Infusion/imputed grace are a peripheral issue one that is often touted by the RCC as the cause of the Reformation. It was not and wasn’t what the Reformation was about. Luther’s “The Bondage of the Will”, considered by Luther to be his great work and argument, was about man being bound in sin incapable of making a decision. He argued against “free will” in his most historic document-not the infusion/imputed grace.
Calvinism harkened back to Augustine and Luther and expounded on the “synergistic/monergistic argements. The creeds from the Council of Trent (while there were a number of them) focus a great deal of its attention on man’s “free will” and his right to exercise that will. Finally Arminianism that rose in the Protestant church shortly after the Reformation through the 5-points of the Remonstrant, supported most of Trent’s creeds even though it was in direct conflict with what was being preached by the Reformers. The Reformers felt obligated to publish the 5-points of what has become know as the TULIP.
History clearly shows the issue of the Reformation was over the issue of free will versus God’s sovereign rights. The western church has simply left Augustine’s monergistic view in favor of synergistic view of the eastern church. If you doubt what I’m saying please remember this every time you read an article of the joining of the EO/RCC/Protestants. It’s all the same thing.
Blessings to you this Lord’s day.