When it comes to the damnation/election of souls what makes more sense, Molinism or Thomism

[oliver109]

Basically Molinism presents a more passive God so to speak, he gives all sufficient grace and is essentially helpless in who ends up in Heaven or Hell, the reason regarding the persons damnation can basically be because they rejected all of Gods calls and that God foresees that they will not repent and so lets them choose Hell. In Thomism God gives two kinds of grace, sufficient and irresistible grace, he knows that those who are given irresistible grace will always persevere and those who are given sufficient grace will often choose between good and evil throughout their lives and should they die in a state of mortal sin they do not deserve any more chances at forgiveness as they deserve Hell, pure and simple. In Thomism God is presented as being able to save all but choosing not to as he has no proper reason to give all sinners saving grace on account of their many serious sins.

 

[porthos11]

Molinism does propose a little more “passive” God, but not totally. God gives sufficient grace, but lays out a particular and fixed order of grace. Molinism proposes that God, through his middle knowledge, knows all possibilites, all outcomes to all circumstances, and then out of his own sovereign will, lays out an order of grace. Since the order of grace is purely an action of God, his sovereignty is done no violence, and the order of intention (grace-glory) is the same as the order of execution (grace-glory) and predestination and reprobation are both post praevisa.

Thomism reverses the order of intention (glory-grace) and order of execution (grace-glory). While I like its proposal on election, where in God elects a person without consideration of foreseen merits and gives the graces he infallibly knows will secure the decree of election. I’m not too happy with its proposal on reprobation. They propose negative, non-election (God does not elect, and so just does not provide the efficacious graces although they should still be sufficient, that will lead to salvation), but I cannot read that in any way other than functionally equivalent to Calvinist positive reprobation.

For this reason, I lean towards the Molinist position, with the understanding that it too is not perfect.

 

[oliver109]

Well explained, i think the Molinist understanding does make more sense than that of the Thomists(who would even admit that what God does often is unable to be rationally explained) but the Molinist view suggests that some people are damned simply because Heaven would be a worse place if all were able to be saved?

 

[Vico]

…

To typical predestination views are ante prævisa merita and post prævisa merita.

There are different camps of Molinists, and also St. Thomas Aquinas did not have the same opinon as the various Thomists (they came later). Catholic Encyclopedia on predestination surmised that:

This theory [post prævisa merita] defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales “as the truer and more attractive opinion”, has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prævisa merita in two points …

This hypothetical decree [of post prævisa merita] reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit.

As to the dogmas:

Owing to the infallible decisions laid down by the Church, every orthodox theory on predestination and reprobation must keep within the limits marked out by the following theses:

a) At least in the order of execution in time (in ordine executionis) the meritorious works of the predestined are the partial cause of their eternal happiness;
b) hell cannot even in the order of intention (in ordine intentionis) have been positively decreed to the damned, even though it is inflicted on them in time as the just punishment of their misdeeds;
c) there is absolutely no predestination to sin as a means to eternal damnation.

Pohle, J. (1911). Predestination. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

 

[Gorgias]

In Thomism God gives two kinds of grace, sufficient and irresistible grace, he knows that those who are given irresistible grace will always persevere and those who are given sufficient grace will often choose between good and evil throughout their lives and should they die in a state of mortal sin they do not deserve any more chances at forgiveness as they deserve Hell, pure and simple. In Thomism God is presented as being able to save all but choosing not to

Hmm…

I was under the impression that Aquinas was saying that God gives irresistible grace to those whom He foreknows will have been saved. So, the Molinist position says that God lets us exercise our free will, and the Thomist position merely says that God, knowing how we would use that free will, provides irresistible grace to those He knows will have died in a state of grace. No?

 

[fhansen]

“…the Thomist position merely says that God, knowing how we would use that free will, provides irresistible grace to those He knows will have died in a state of grace.”

Boy, that still only ends up sounding like a convoluted way of saying that God just strictly predetermines man’s destiny.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

“…the Thomist position merely says that God, knowing how we would use that free will, provides irresistible grace to those He knows will have died in a state of grace.”

Boy, that still only ends up sounding like a convoluted way of saying that God just strictly predetermines man’s destiny.

I think (if I understand it and have described it correctly) that it’s meant to uphold both God’s sovereignty and humans’ ability to choose freely. In other words, it’s not that one or the other is the only thing in play.

 

[porthos11]

Gorgias:

“…the Thomist position merely says that God, knowing how we would use that free will, provides irresistible grace to those He knows will have died in a state of grace.”

Boy, that still only ends up sounding like a convoluted way of saying that God just strictly predetermines man’s destiny.

The Thomist/Banezan proposal does put more emphasis on God’s sovereignty, but still accounts for man’s free will. The Molinist puts a bit more onus on man’s free will but still without violating God’s sovereignty.

The Thomist proposes eternal glory ante praevisa merita, so yes, it can be said that if the elect are going to heaven, it’s because God has already willed it ahead of time.

Unfortunately, it leaves reprobation in an unsatisfactory position, because while the Thomists would say (correctly), “God does not (positively) predestine anyone to hell”, but only does not elect, that’s just a negative form of what is functionally equivalent Calvinist double-predestination but without the heretical notion of God reprobating people ante praevisa demerita. Non-election is not satisfactory for me because outside of heaven and hell, there is no third final state.

Hence, my favouring more of the Molinist position.

 

[Latin]

The Thomist/Banezan position, ante prævisa merita makes God responsible for damnation/ hell.

The Molinist position, the post prævisa merita designed on the foundation to make man the scapegoat for condemnation/ hell.
.
According to Catholic Soteriology, both position distorted at its core, because both disregards the following dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church and the infallible teachings of the Trent; God’s gift of final perseverance, etc.

.
I BELIEVE THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON PREDESTINATION AS FOLLOWS

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

Fallen man cannot redeem himself, (De fide dogma). – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.
.
Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification, (De fide dogma). – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by His grace of Final Perseverance.
.
Without God’s gift of Final Perseverance everyone would die in mortal sin, (THERE IS NO SALVATION WITHOUT IT) while the receivers of His gift of Final Perseverance NO ONE can die in mortal sin because this is an INFALLIBLE PROTECTION of the salvation of every receiver.

CCC 2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance.
.
The salvation of every predestined to Heaven is eternally protected by God’s gift of Final Perseverance, this is an INFALLIBLE PROTECTION of the salvation of every predestined to Heaven. – This is an infallible teachings of the Trent and formal teachings of the Catholic Church.

.
THE WAY GOD SAVES ALL OF US

COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8
. . . None of those things which precede justification - whether faith or works - merit the grace itself of justification.
.
CCCS 1996-1998; "Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.

This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will."
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma). – So, every (initially) justified person say yes with love; to God’s call to heaven.
.
CCC 1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
.
CCC 2022; The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
CCC 308 The truth is that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
The three Divine or Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused with Sanctifying grace, (De fide dogma).
.
God bless

 

[Wesrock]

Does St. Thomas actually use the term “irresistible grace”? It seems to simply be the case that if a person receives sufficient grace to be saved it is by default efficacious as God knows what would be effected. Ultimately a major issue with proposing “middle knowledge” is that it makes claims that there are eternal contingent conditions that God is presented with that either have no explanation or have an explanation outside of God.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

A Thomist interpretation of certain Scripture passages on grace makes sense. But you could argue a Molinist perspective for others.

What’s telling is that Augustine was the primary force behind unconditional election. No one before him believed this.