Help! Question About Molinism

[RevDrNorth]

I have just become aquainted with Molinism (Jesuit Priest) and it is an orthodox Catholic belief and advocated by (at one time) the Jesuits.

I am looking at Calvinism - Arminianism - Open theism…so this is interesting. But in my quick read I coud not find an answer to the following issues:

i) Prayer. In Molinisitc understanding, what is the efficacy of prayer?

ii) According to this view God knows (middle knowledge) which circumstance will cause beleiver X to accept Christ (if that will happen). God therefore engineers those circumstances. How does the rest of that work in terms of disasters, drunk drivers and so on.

Please answer or provide a link answering if you can. I understand how Calvinism answers this (unsatisfactory) and Open Theism. All of these approaches have problems. I wanted to understand how Molinism (catholic) answers this. It is a concept I am struggling with in terms of free will and divine sovereignty.

Thank you in advance.

North

 

[RevDrNorth]

I have just become aquainted with Molinism (Jesuit Priest) and it is an orthodox Catholic belief and advocated by (at one time) the Jesuits.

I am looking at Calvinism - Arminianism - Open theism…so this is interesting. But in my quick read I coud not find an answer to the following issues:

i) Prayer. In Molinisitc understanding, what is the efficacy of prayer?

ii) According to this view God knows (middle knowledge) which circumstance will cause beleiver X to accept Christ (if that will happen). God therefore engineers those circumstances. How does the rest of that work in terms of disasters, drunk drivers and so on.

Please answer or provide a link answering if you can. I understand how Calvinism answers this (unsatisfactory) and Open Theism. All of these approaches have problems. I wanted to understand how Molinism (catholic) answers this. It is a concept I am struggling with in terms of free will and divine sovereignty.

Thank you in advance.

North

Please note this is NOT an attempt to bait anyone and pounce with an AHA…

I truly am struggling with this and found Molinism (Fr. De Molina) interesting. My seminary Systematic Theology was Calvinist and I no longer find that satisfying as an explanation. Arminianism has problems. The closest to answering many issues is Open Theism (Openness Theology).

North

 

[FCEGM]

Please note this is NOT an attempt to bait anyone and pounce with an AHA…

I truly am struggling with this and found Molinism (Fr. De Molina) interesting. My seminary Systematic Theology was Calvinist and I no longer find that satisfying as an explanation. Arminianism has problems. The closest to answering many issues is Open Theism (Openness Theology).

North

I know nooothing. But, have you seen this article from the online Catholic Encyclopedia? -

newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

 

[Tomster]

North,

I’ll give it shot.

It is a well known that the problems of Actual Grace have raised some acute controversies among Catholic theologians. The chief controversy bears upon the question of Efficacious Grace. By Efficacious Grace we understand a grace which is infallibly followed by the effect to which it tends; while Sufficient Grace - Merely Sufficient Grace, as it is sometimes called - is grace which is not followed by the effect to which it tends, although it carries with it the power of producing this effect. All are agreed that God gives graces which are infallibly connected with the effect, and the question arises: How are we to explain the infallibility of this connection?

One answer is that the infallibility of the connection is to be explained simply by the fact that God forsees that if this grace is given the recipient will most certainly use it. Looked at in themselves there is no intrinsic difference between an efficacious grace and a grace which is merely sufficient; the whole difference is this, that one grace will be used and the other will be rejected, and God knows all this beforehand. God, it is explained, altogether apart from any act of his will by which he decrees what shall come to pass, sees from all eternity what free creatures would do in every possible set of circumstances; thus he sees that if grace A is given to me I will use it, and that if grace B is given to me I will not use it; then he chooses an order of things in which the grace A is given, and by that very fact he knows that I will actually make use of the grace.

This is known as the Molinist explanation, deriving its name from a great Spanish Jesuit of the 16th century, and it is the theory held by Jesuit theologians. It was put forward in opposition to another theory known as the Thomist theory which is the official teaching of theologians belonging to the Order of Preachers - i.e., the Dominicans, who bear the name Thomist because they base their teaching on that of St. Thomas. In the great controversies between the rival schools there is often keen discussion about the real teaching of St. Thomas, each side claiming the authority of the great doctor. Theologians who do not belong to either of these great orders are divided on the point, some supporting one theory, some the other.

continued

 

[Tomster]

According to the Thomist school the infallibility of the connection between efficacious grace and its effect is due to something in the grace itself which infallibly brings about the result in question. Hence there is an intrinsic difference between Efficacious Grace and Sufficient Grace. The explanation runs much as follows. Before any creature can pass from inaction to action it must be acted upon by the First Cause. Thus there must be what is called a physical pre-motion. But this physical pre-motion must fix, as it were, the particular action which follows; otherwise we should have a secondary cause, which is dependent upon the First Cause for its action, arranging for a particular action independently of the First Cause. Therefore this physical pre-motion is called a physical predetermination; it is a movement produced in the secondary cause, and its influence cannot be affected by the being which receives it. When this physical predetermination is applied to supernatural action we call it Actual Grace - Efficacious Grace.

WHEW ! ! ! :hypno: :hypno: :hypno:

More to come. I need :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread: ! ! !

 

[Tomster]

Allright, where was I?:juggle: Okay, okay:

The great difficulty urged against this theory is that it seem to destroy all freedom; for if I am so acted upon by God that I cannot alter the movement which he produces in me and one particular act must follow, how (ask the Molinists) can I remain free? The Thomists admit that there really is a difficulty, but reply by saying that God is capable not only of producing an act in me, but also of producing a free act; or, more technically, he can produce not only the act, but also the “mode” of the act. This, no doubt, is hard to understand, but they claim that it is necessitated by the very nature of things; they assert moreover, that by thus attributing the determination of the free act of God we have a true explanation of that saying of the Apostle: “It is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.” (Phil. 2:13)

In their own turn the Thomists have serious objections to make against the Molinists, the principal being as follows. To leave to man the actual decision to correspond or not to corrrespond with a grace which is offered - to consent or not to consent - is equivalent to an admission that man can do something of himself towards his eternal salvation - which is Pelagianism. Moreover, the Molinist theory involves involves an impossible explanation of the divine knowledge; for the Molinist supposes that independently of his will God knows from all eternity what free agents ( and not Roger Clemens by the way ) would do in any possible circumstance. This is the so-called Scientia Media. But this knowledge, independent of the decrees of the divine will, the Thomist declares to be impossible - and the Molinist himself admits that it is a mystery. We can easily understand how God from the consideration of his own Being can see all things possible: but how can he see what would be done by free agents in all conceivable circumstances?

In place of the physical predetermination of the Thomists some theologians have suggested what is known as moral determination. The suggestion is that God acts upon the will of man not physically, but morally - that is, by way of moral inducement or encouragement - this action being of such intrinsic force that consent infallibly follows. A special application of this theory was made by St. Alphonsus, who postulated moral predetermination only in the case of very difficult actions.

I do not know if this helps you out or if it answers your questions. If it does not, maybe it can be a source for more investigation on your part.

 

[RevDrNorth]

WOW…thank you for all of that effort and information. You have given me a lot to digest. I have a feeling that all of these different sides will be left waiting to ask God how all of this works.

Are there any Catholic theologians who are adherents of the Open view (not to be confused with Process Theology)

North

 

[Tomster]

North,

Some additional information for you. Every Catholic is at liberty to take whichever of the two positions, that I have presented, he prefers, provided that he is always ready to submit to any decision which the Church may make.

The history of the discussions down through the centuries on this question shows very clearly that Catholics are allowed great liberty of speculation when God himself has not settled a point for us by revelation, and when the general welfare of the body of the faithful does not require that definite action should be taken. In the present case the freedom which has been allowed has certainly done no harm to the faith and practice of the faithful, and it given occasion for some really marvellous displays of genius. But if ever circumstances should arise which make it imperative for the custody of Catholic truth that these issues should be decided by the authority of the Church, we can be sure that the Church will speak; and if ever that day comes the world will see the wonderful spectacle of a great school of theology, with long and glorious traditions behind it, and the esprit de corps of a vast religious order to animate it, submitting in humble obedience to the word of Christ’s Vicar on earth. Far from being a proof that Catholics do not possess that unity of belief which they claim as one of their glories, the whole attitude of the rival parties shows in reality how strong is the principal of unity among us; for all are ready to submit if the Church calls upon them to do so.