Thomism, Molinism, & debates with blockheads

[Rob_in_Oregon]

I’m 59 years old and have been a supporter of Catholic Answers since it first started. I’ve been a This Rock subscriber since the very first issues. I have given This Rock subscriptions to friends and relatives whom I thought would benefit from them.

After about 30 years of apologetic debates with atheists, secularists, pagans, evangelicals, and weak Catholics, I’m weary of it all.

Thomism/Molinism: St. Thomas reasoned that God’s grace, not human free will, is the primary determinant of whether a person gets to Heaven. Molina (spelling?) reasoned that since all souls have sufficient grace to be saved, human free will is the primary determinant of whether the individual accepts that saving grace.

As someone practicing apologetics, I always thought the Molinist position made the most sense. If I could just lovingly present the irrefutable arguments for Catholic faith, people would see the good reasoning and make a decision for Christ & His Church.

In 30 years of these discussions, I begin to see the wisdom of the Council’s phrase, “invincible ignorance.” These people are so attached to their drugs, their sins, their radical politics, and their faulty ideas, that they’re not going to give them up, no matter how convincingly I argue.

Perhaps St. Thomas had the better idea. Perhaps the best thing I can do is say prayers and make offerings for them, in hope that God’s grace will break through their hardness of heart. My arguments and debates only increase their resistance, even when I’m being kindhearted in my presentations.

At least I know my own faith much better now that I have studied the reasons for it.

Sign me… “fed up for now.” God bless… - Rob in Oregon

 

[EphelDuath]

Thomism/Molinism: St. Thomas reasoned that God’s grace, not human free will, is the primary determinant of whether a person gets to Heaven. Molina (spelling?) reasoned that since all souls have sufficient grace to be saved, human free will is the primary determinant of whether the individual accepts that saving grace.

This is not an accurate representation of Thomas’ beliefs on grace. In either case, man can only do good by the grace of God; how man accepts God’s offer of grace is where Thomas and Molina differ. The former believed in “co-operative grace,” which means that whether or not man accepts God’s grace is based on a combination of his free will and divine providence, not exclusively either one.

 

[Call_Me_V]

After about 30 years of apologetic debates with atheists, secularists, pagans, evangelicals, and weak Catholics, I’m weary of it all.

These people are so attached to their drugs, their sins, their radical politics, and their faulty ideas, that they’re not going to give them up, no matter how convincingly I argue.

And you know this how? You’ve met these people outside of the internet, and or they’ve admitted they use drugs? It seems to me like this is just an angry personal attack.

Perhaps St. Thomas had the better idea. Perhaps the best thing I can do is say prayers and make offerings for them, in hope that God’s grace will break through their hardness of heart. My arguments and debates only increase their resistance, even when I’m being kindhearted in my presentations.

Sometimes people genuinely disagree with you. You shouldn’t take it personally when someone thinks your argument is flawed. I understand that you’re angry at them for not listening to you, and I don’t blame you, I have no doubt that the non believers you faced in debate presented bad arguments, and you were right to shoot them down (despite being a non believer myself, I’ve seen non believers make downright horrible arguments many times before). But I think that most people present an argument, and when their opponent argues against, they assume that their opponent simply doesn’t want to believe, when in reality, their opponent just sees (or thinks that he sees) a flaw in the other person’s argument.

Take someone who thinks that their spouse is cheating on them, and confronts them about it. The spouse that is believed to be cheating should not assume that because their spouse is accusing them of cheating, that means that the accusing spouse really wishes that they were being cheated on (that would be ridiculous). Oftentimes, the accusing spouse has genuine concerns, and is simply expressing them. Similarly, someone who criticizes your arguments may not want you to be wrong, they may have genuine concerns about the validity of your arguments.

I could be, and probably am, wrong. I have seen many non-believers who would rather do drugs and participate in orgies than go to Church. But speaking as someone who once loved his Catholic faith (though I doubt you believe me when I say that), but as someone who loved his Catholic faith, and left it even though my emotions, desires, social life, etc. were pulling me towards the Church rather than away from it, I hope you don’t lump all of us non believers together with the bad apples, just like you Catholics would not all want to be lumped together with Joe Biden and Nancy Pulosi.

Sorry this turned into kind of a ramble. Best wishes to you, and I don’t blame you for wanting to stop debating. Trying to change another person’s mind is the single hardest thing I have ever done, and I have basically concluded that it is nearly impossible if they’re not open to changing their mind in the first place. Just keep in mind that there are some of us who genuinely desire truth, and you might not want to give up on us so quickly. But I don’t blame you if you do. Peace

V

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

Hey, Call me V:

I’m a transit bus driver in Portland, OR. A lot of the people on my bus who denigrate the Church smell like recently smoked marijuana. That’s how I know they are drug users.

In my original post, I called them blockheads. That was going too far, I admit. I need to practice charity. I just get tired of non-intellectual (the kindest description I can muster) people on the bus spouting their views, and being so completely wrong. When I sometimes speak up to defend the Holy Father or explain Church teachings, I end up getting lectured by someone who can’t even count out change for the fare, or who is in his 40’s and has never had a job.

Also, there are Marxists at work who think they can lecture me into accepting their viewpoints. I repeatedly tell them I’d rather not discuss politics, but the lectures never stop. Every time I see them they start in again. They are like fundamentalist evangelists, and their religion is communism. They hate everyone who is financially well-off. It consumes their whole being. There are plenty of intelligent socialist Catholics (the American bishops?), but these guys are really way out there and won’t shut up about their envy.

I don’t know why you left the Church, but I hope I haven’t just contributed to the reasons.
Now that I’m getting near retirement age, I’d rather just get along with people than argue with them. I find a lot of older priests have this attitude, too.

Thank you for urging me to be charitable. I wish you the best.

God bless… - Rob in Oregon

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

Hey, EphelDuath:

I’m still fuzzy on the Thomist/Molinist thing.

The position you ascribe to St. Thomas sounds like the Church’s teaching, precisely. If that is so, what did the two of them disagree on?

Didn’t St. Thomas have to be corrected, as did Molina, when the Church settled the issue? Or did the Church completely side with Thomas and rebuke Molina?

Sign me: Still learning.

• Rob in Oregon

 

[anns82]

John Paul II responded to the challenges presented by modernism through a phenomenological approach to faith rather than starting with a reason statement and establishing it’s proof through arguments, as was traditionally practiced with philosophers. By studying the Truth in Love in his Theology of the Body, he explored the truth within human experience, thus showing the universal nature of truth. To paraphrase someone (I think it was Von Hildebrand, but I’m not sure), “love is bigger than understanding.” Anyone who has been in love, or is a parent and recognized the profound growth of love as a result of this new life, experienced a taste of the something that they struggle to put into words. I hate to sound all Hallmark-ian, but I am finding the phrase “God is Love” is more True than I had ever realized. This doesn’t necessarily make apologetics easier but it is an approach that I think simply helps someone to realize that there is something bigger than what science can explain.

Part of the challenge is our society no longer recognizes Natural Law. While modern science has done an incredible amount of good in helping people to be healthy and live through illnesses which would have been a death warrant only a few years ago, it has also been used to help people overcome their health in order to pursue their own “dreams” - encouraging people to hold onto adolescent narcissism rather than mature with the realities of life. I say this thinking primarily about the contraception mentality - viewing sex as recreation rather than the physical expression of love so profound that it is the mode through which life is created.

Essentially, I think our culture no longer adheres to Natural Law because people think that it no longer applies - science trumps nature - and drugs only works to further cloud the truth. Trying to get people to see the flaws of our culture and the truth that exists within human nature itself is quite a challenge. The nice thing though is that people are inherently thinking creatures (for as much as many try to fight it). They may not think to deeply about something when you first say it, but it might stick in their head for some time, and lead to something at a later point in their life. Luckily, God bestows grace on people even when they don’t want it. I hope some of my rambling helped. Keep on talking and praying.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m a transit bus driver in Portland, OR. A lot of the people on my bus who denigrate the Church smell like recently smoked marijuana. That’s how I know they are drug users.

If this is an example of the logic you use to reach a conclusion, I’m not surprised that you’ve been unconvincing in your arguments!

 

[TheQuestioner]

Hey, EphelDuath:

I’m still fuzzy on the Thomist/Molinist thing.

The position you ascribe to St. Thomas sounds like the Church’s teaching, precisely. If that is so, what did the two of them disagree on?

Didn’t St. Thomas have to be corrected, as did Molina, when the Church settled the issue? Or did the Church completely side with Thomas and rebuke Molina?

Sign me: Still learning.

• Rob in Oregon

Realize there can be slight differences in what St. Thomas taught and what Thomists believe.

Generally, Thomists believe God’s grace is sufficient for everyone, but not always efficacious. This is where God steps in and makes it efficacious, thus also making it irresistible, otherwise men would freely choose to disobey God every time.

However Molinists believe that God only gives efficacious grace to those who He knows will accept it (because of Middle Knowledge). Thus it is still by free will man accepts God.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Personally I have more Molinist leanings, however I believe the implication with middle knowledge is that if someone doesn’t accept God in this world, he would have never accepted God in every possible world (if his decision changed based on the world he existed in free will becomes null). Look up Trans-World Depravity (i better do this too ). However, only God knows what they will do.

Keep praying for others. God may grant grace to others because of your prayers, though He would also have foreknew you would pray for them (kinda of a divide by zero situation). Still, there is no telling what will happen if you stop praying for others.

Both beliefs assert that without the grace of God no man would ever come to God. In fact this is Catholic dogma, however the difference is in how this grace works itself out. Neither are dogma however, and one cannot call the other heresy.

 

[Call_Me_V]

I’m a transit bus driver in Portland, OR. A lot of the people on my bus who denigrate the Church smell like recently smoked marijuana. That’s how I know they are drug users.

Fair enough.

In my original post, I called them blockheads. That was going too far, I admit. I need to practice charity. I just get tired of non-intellectual (the kindest description I can muster) people on the bus spouting their views, and being so completely wrong. When I sometimes speak up to defend the Holy Father or explain Church teachings, I end up getting lectured by someone who can’t even count out change for the fare, or who is in his 40’s and has never had a job.

Ah. I assumed you were debating people on Catholic answers, my mistake. I can’t blame you for not wanting to debate people like that (I wouldn’t waste my time with them, I know that). The reason for your frustration is quite a bit clearer now

Also, there are Marxists at work who think they can lecture me into accepting their viewpoints. I repeatedly tell them I’d rather not discuss politics, but the lectures never stop. Every time I see them they start in again. They are like fundamentalist evangelists, and their religion is communism. They hate everyone who is financially well-off. It consumes their whole being. There are plenty of intelligent socialist Catholics (the American bishops?), but these guys are really way out there and won’t shut up about their envy.

Wow. I would’ve hurt one of those guys by now. I’m not a big fan of people who are constantly trying to get into arguments or attack other people’s beliefs (most of the religious people I interact with actually assume I’m religious because I’m very non vocal about my beliefs).

I don’t know why you left the Church, but I hope I haven’t just contributed to the reasons.

Lol, not at all, don’t worry.

Now that I’m getting near retirement age, I’d rather just get along with people than argue with them. I find a lot of older priests have this attitude, too.

Yeah, arguing with others is pretty pointless. I’m content with doing the best to try and figure out whether or not I’m right in my beliefs, but I’ve certainly given up on convincing others.

When I wrote my original post, I did not understand at all what you were going through, and I hope I didn’t sound preachy. Like I said, if I were in your position, several of those annoying people would have been taught a lesson, so I can’t blame you for being frustrated. Hope I didn’t offend you with my original post, all the best,

V

 

[EphelDuath]

Although I’m a theology major, I honestly haven’t studied the issue of grace all that in-depth thus far, so forgive me for deferring to somebody more knowledgeable than myself, John Salza, who himself is an avid Thomist:

St. Thomas teaches that God, who is the Prime Mover, grants man grace which moves man’s will toward the good. It is all God at this point. God makes the first move. Thomas calls this “operating grace.” At this point, man can resist or not resist the grace. If man does not resist the grace, it is the grace that is allowing his nonresistance and cooperation. Then, by using his freewill, man can actually move toward the good, and the grace strengthens and supports his will toward that end. This grace is called “cooperating grace.” Both operating and cooperating grace are the same grace, but they produce two effects. The first is to move the will (by virtue of the grace alone); the second is to will the movement of the will (by virtue of the same grace along with human freewill). This is why Paul says, “for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). God’s grace first moves the will to the good, and then leads the person to work the good. Thus, St. Thomas’ teaching is clearly based on the divinely Word of God as taught in Sacred Scripture.

The Molinist system is based on the teaching of the Spanish Jesuit Molina which says that God looks at future merits and demerits in determining how He grants grace. In other words, Molinists believe that God considers how a person is going to respond to the grace in determining how He grants the grace. The Molinists call God’s knowledge of these future contingencies his “middle knowledge” (scientia media). Molina came up with this system because he didn’t understand St. Thomas’ teaching in light of 1Tim 2:4, where Paul reveals that God desires “all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Molina couldn’t understand how God could reprobate certain people without considering their future merits or demerits. Molina thus (erroneously) viewed St. Thomas’ teaching as smacking of determinism. This is a complete misreading of St. Thomas.

St. Thomas is clear that God antecedently wills all people to be saved, which is consistent with 1Tim 2:4. As Prime Mover, God continues to grant man grace to save his soul. However, as we have learned, man can resist this grace. When man habitually resists God’s grace so that He places himself in opposition to God, God withdraws His grace and allows the person to fall away. Thus, God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned as a punishment for their rejection of grace, as His justice exacts. Thus, salvation and damnation come from the same immutable will of God, who wills to save all men, but who also wills to punish evil.

Source