By the way, can you summarise for me Saint Thomas Aquinas’ view of Predestination and how that differs with the Molinist view?
Hi Craig,
First of all I would like to say that this is probably the most difficult post I have ever done in the sense of trying to come to grips with the subtler issues.
Thank you for your question. It caused me to read up more on the subject ( I thought I had already put this to bed on the last thread
First a disclaimer. There is always the possibility that I may not have completely comprehended the Molinist and Thomist views so may not be presenting it correctly and the terminologies sometimes sound gobbledegook but there is just no getting around it.
Definitions :
Efficacious (irresistible) grace is a special gif of God by which a soul incapable by its own natural resources to perform an act conducive to eternal salvation, is given supernatural powers to freely perform said act.
Prevenient grace is divine grace which precedes human decision.(wikipedia)
The issue:
The question for both the Molinist and the Thomist is how to reconcile the efficacy of grace and the infallibility of its effect with the freedom of the human because they seem to be mutually exclusive.
When does the infallible effect of efficacious grace come into effect without impairing the freedom of the will?
There is also the subtler question of when does the will under the influence of grace, move from being a mere natural faculty to actuality.
The differences:
Thomists: start from the point of efficacious grace
Molinists: proceed from a clear concept of freedom.
Thomist: maintains that God gives the grace only to those He has chosen (the elect)
Molinist: believes that God bestows the grace on everyone.
Thomist: Grace is intrinsically efficacious
Molinist: Grace extrinsically efficacious
Thomis: The will moves from potency into act by will of God
Molinist: The will freely consents to prevenient grace and this consent renders the completely sufficient grace efficacious.
My comments:
Based on the documents I’ve read (which is far from extensive), it seems to me that the Thomist position is almost similar to the Calvinist, because it posits that the will is moved to act by grace. To my thinking, if grace is efficacious such that it’s effect is infallible, the response from the will is no longer free.
I incline towards the Molinist view because to my thinking, this is more reconcilable with a God who is Love (as revealed in Scripture). If we take the Thomist view, then damnation becomes the sole act of God and not contingent at all upon man’s response to grace. Since God is the creator and has infallible foreknowledge, the Thomist view paints a God that creates man for the sole reason of damning them (as explained by invincible ignorance).
The expressed view of the Church is that God created us for himself.
Unless I have misunderstood Thomism, its thesis could only be reconciled with a loving God who made us for Himself, if we posit that though there is a Hell, it is highly unlikely that anyone will end up there since grace is efficacious and God loves everyone equally.
I think however that grace is not always efficacious but always sufficient.
My biggest problem with the subject of predestination is that God’s Infinite Love, which should be one of the premises, does not seem to have been taken into consideration at all. To my mind, this should be the first premise and the other two (grace and free will) proceed from it.
Thomism’s objection to Molinism is that the latter, due to its over-emphasis on man’s freedom of will, diminishes the supremacy of God over His Creation.
However, I personally think that this objection is without basis because it can be argued that it is still God who wills that this is the way that grace and free will should play out. God is still the one who decided to effect salvation in this manner; that in pulling us out of the ravine, He would require us to place our hands on His, even though He could quite easily have yanked us out without our cooperation.
(continue on next post) 1/2
.