Congruism vs Molinism - what's the difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swiss_Guy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Swiss_Guy

Guest
Alright, so I understand that there is that Thomist/Molinist (Dominican/Jesuit) debate that’s been going on for ages. But within Molinism there is something called Congruism. I’ve been trying to figure out the differences between Congruism and ‘normal’ Molinism. Apparently Congruism embraces unconditional election (to salvation), but pure Molinism doesn’t. Is that the only difference between pure Molinism and Congruism, or are there more differences? And if so, can you be a Congruist but not believe in unconditional election (to salvation), and instead believe in election to salvation based on foreseen merits? So I guess my question is, what are the differences between ‘pure’ Molinism and Congruism? Just wondering.

Thanks. 🙂
 
I’ve been trying to figure out Molinism for a while, so I’m going to subscribe to this thread and see what happens. So far I haven’t been able to grasp how someone with a Molinist idea of how grace and the will interact could reject unconditional election.
 
Well, since no one else is piping up I guess I’ll give it a shot, with my first post serving as a caveat.

The best insight of Molinism in my opinion is that the relative strengths of different “pulls” on a person to make one decision or another do not determine the will’s actions infallibly. That is, if there is a stronger pull to do one thing and a weaker pull to do another, the will is still free to choose either.

So far so good, but the Molinists apparently felt the need to replace this very specific sort of internal determinism with a more general one. Thus they presume that despite the freedom of the will from determination by one’s impulses (including the impulses of grace), still a given person put in a given situation will inevitably react in a certain way. From this presumption flows the Molinist theory of scientia media, or specifically a scientia media that applies to humans (I think everyone can agree God knows what would happen if the moon were hurled into the sun at a million miles an hour or any other purely physical senario, but that’s not what we’re talking about.) If God is omniscient and human beings are determined by the combination of internal nature and circumstance, then God knows exactly how any given person would react in any given circumstance. To back this up Biblically they point out that Jesus declared how this or that ancient sinful people would have reacted to His ministry, though it could be countered that Jesus was talking about their actual, historical openness to God compared to those Jesus was addressing, not a greater openness that they would have had were they placed in a different situation.

Anyway, with this scientia media God would know under what circumstances a given person would accept a given grace and under what circumstances he or she would not. Thus, those who do in fact accept a grace were given it in a context and with a strength such that they would accept it. Those who do not in fact accept a grace were given it in a context and with a strength such that they would not accept it. This is how predestination works in the Molinist theory: both the elect and the reprobate are given sufficient grace for salvation and both have wills that are not determined by the relative strength or weakness of their natural impulses and grace, but the elect are given this grace in a context and with a strength such that they will accept salvation and the reprobate are given it in a context and with a strength such that they will reject it, both reactions being foreknown by God.

Does that mean God predestined the elect logically prior to any free decisions on their parts? This is where the difference between the subcategories of Molinism comes in. The Congruists, I think, emphasize the part about how God gives grace differently to different people according to His knowledge of how each will react in a different circumstance, and come to the conclusion that God predestines the elect prior to any previous merit. The classic Molinists, on the other hand, I think emphasize the will’s freedom from determination by impulses or by grace itself and that sufficient grace is given to all, and come to the conclusion that predestination is based on God’s foreknowledge of our free choices.

If these characterizations are accurate, then the difference would seem to be one of emphasis rather than substance on how grace, the will, and God’s foreknowledge interact, but one of actually opposite conclusions on whether election is conditional or unconditional.

If this is so it seems to me the Congruists would merely be the Molinists who hold all the elements of Molinist theory in their heads at the same time and come to the logical conclusion about predestination from it, and the rest of the Molinists are simply being irrational, not thinking about the implications of *scientia media * for God’s decisions to give grace in this way or that. But considering how many people have been and are today post praevisa merita Molinists I wonder if it’s merely my own understanding of Molinism that is at fault. That’s why I’d love if someone with greater knowledge than me clarified all this.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
But considering how many people have been and are today post praevisa merita Molinists I wonder if it’s merely my own understanding of Molinism that is at fault. That’s why I’d love if someone with greater knowledge than me clarified all this.
Click to expand...
A little late, heh heh, but it seems to me that most would be Congruist Molinist, since isn’t what the Society of Jesus holds to, and the SJ is where the Molinists live?
 
I get this was a long time ago… but… I would say that the difference between normal Molinism and Congruism is that Congruists can believe Romans 9 without performing a total reconstructive procedure on the text. Congruism is honest Molinism that realizes that, while Man is certainly responsible in human history, God is Sovereign over human history. And redeems us by the power of His many graces. We do not save ourselves. We coordinate with God to receive salvation, but that we could not, and would not do that unless God has called and drawn us to Himself… by shining His divine light upon our hearts, not withholding it, as in the case of Pharoah… As St. Paul writes in his Epistle to the Romans,

“And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac — before they had yet been born or had done anything, good or bad, in order that God’s elective plan might continue, not by works but by his call—she was told, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.” What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.” So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.” Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Will what is made say to its maker, “Why have you created me so?” Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one? What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction? This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory, namely, us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.” (‭‭Romans‬ ‭9:10-24‬ ‭NABRE‬‬)

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given him anything that he may be repaid?” For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans‬ ‭11:33-36‬ ‭NABRE‬‬)

It seems that only Congruism is truly fully Augustinian… while avoiding the traps of Jansenism, which are also the traps of Protestant Calvinism. (Which… I figure, many of who presently or in the past have held to the errors identified by Bull, Encyclical, or Council with those schools of thought pertaining to Divine Election do so out of ignorance that their rhetoric… I really would call it rhetoric… I would like to believe that most don’t know what they are saying… trespasses against the Holy Nature of God.

I thinkto resolve their errors, one has to return to the Fathers on the work of Christ on the Cross… there’s a complex metaphysical thing that happened there which atemporally opened up a lot of things… My explanation of this would be too long. Yes, even longer than this message so far. Perhaps.
 
Okay, fine, found it in my notes 😃 I’m excited. Please correct me if any of this is wrong… i read a couple things in the Fathers of the Church (those who are canonized as Saints in the Church), which also make this same case that I’m making… though it would be unlikely that I could find those exact excerpts and quotes easily… This is not something that has been a part of the discussion… though I certainly thing it should be, and definitely pertains to the subject matter.

In conquering death and the curse on the Cross in the Person of Christ, God, who exists outside of time, became King over death and over the curse—even over sin—thereby giving Him the sovereign authority to dispense these as the result of sin (in the last case, the dispensing of sin, God gives us over to the evil machinations of our own fallen nature, which is but a distortion of its original nature.)

Evil has no more substance than darkness, and only exists as the absence of good—as darkness is only the absence of light. God, who is full of light, can withhold His Light (His Love and Blessings), thereby creating (relative) darkness (the curse—death and suffering). But as death and suffering do have some sort of substance, and the human mind can register these things, God must be King over it… and so God who is life had to die, He who knew no sin had to become sin. The One who is Peace had to enter into War, Suffering, Pain. And by conquering them, our God became King over sin, death, darkness, and Hell, even though there is no darkness, sin, or death in Him. God remains uncorrupted… ritually clean, though on Calvary, bearing our sin, He became unclean and for three days His Flesh became corruption. On Calvary, God was cut off from God, thereby explaining the existence of Hell. God can only create what exists within Him, but God exists outside of time. So take the death Jesus conquered, and the curse that Jesus bore, and take that back in time, and then see Him, as the result of the sin of Adam and Eve, put it on them and on the whole created order. He does not remain uncorrupted, though He never sinned—for He bore our corruption and our sin on Calvary. But He rose Victorious over corruption and over death and over sin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High incorruptible. And He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And His Kingdom will have no end. (But remember, for some, death and pain and suffering will have no end. God is King over that too. Just like Aragon was technically King over Mordor when Sauron died in Lord of the Rings. If he chose to send anyone there as punishment, that would be his right. He owns it.)

The existence of evil is a mystery that the existence of victory over evil explains. The existence of death is a mystery that the existence of the Resurrection explains. The mystery of the reality of these mysteries and their end—which is good—is explained in the Cross, where God meets the absence of God, where holiness meets sin, where life meets death, where light meets darkness… But these were to be swallowed up in Victory. The Lamb would meet the Bride, sin would meet redemption, death would meet the resurrection, and darkness would meet bursts of color in light. Before, there was only black and white. Now, white is split into many different colors. Darkness and nihilism is dead; light and meaning (purpose) has won.

This is the Mystery of Reality. This is the Mystery of the Marriage of the Lamb. This is the Mystery of God—who is both just and merciful, and so much more. He is meaning beyond existence. (For existence without meaning is still nihilism.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top