What are some of the key differences between Molinism and Thomism?

score:2

Accepted answer

Thomism. The philosophy and theology taught by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) and by those who respect his ideas and follow his basic principles. The body of positions contained in the Twenty-four Theses approved by Pope St. Pius X. this is the most concise and authoritative expression of Thomism as understand in the Catholic Church. The term is also sometimes used to identify the Banezian theory on the relation of grace and free will with its stress on physical predetermination to explain the efficacy of divine grace. (see THE 24 THOMISTIC THESES)

Molinism. The theory on grace and free will developed by the Spanish Jesuit theologian Louis Molina (1535-1600). It teaches that there is no built-in difference, but only an external accidental difference between sufficient and efficacious grace. God gives every person sufficient grace for all supernatural actions he is to perform. If one freely accepts the grace offered and coöperates with it, a salutary action is produced; this coöperation automatically makes a sufficient grace an efficacious one. If the free will refuses is coöperation, the grace remains sufficient only God from all eternity foresees the free consent of the human will by His infallible foreknowledge of what a person would do with whatever grace he received. Why God chooses to give the person the precise grace He does, foreseeing whether that person will accept or reject it, is left as a mystery in God.

Modern Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, S.J. Doubleday & Co., Inc. Garden City, NY 1980

(Quoted by James Hough on Quora.)

Upvote:1

The first thing to note is that "Thomism" when used in reference to the de Auxiliis controversy refers to a particular Dominican Thomist position on grace, often referred to as Bañezianism. It does not refer to the broader notion, according to which even Molina may be considered a Thomist.

Molinism and Thomism are two different approaches to predestination. In a nutshell the Molinists were keen to preserve man's free will and the Thomists were keen to preserve God's causal sovereignty, especially in the order of salvation. This means that the Molinists were often accused of Pelagianism and of undermining God's causal sovereignty, whereas the Thomists were often accused of positing an unjust God who transgresses man's free will in various ways.

The Molinist approach says that God first decides who is predestined and then consults his Middle Knowledge in order to fashion a world where they will infallibly be brought to salvation. "Middle Knowledge" is counterfactual knowledge of how a free agent will act in any given circumstance. Middle Knowledge allows God to know exactly how to bring a given individual to salvation.

The Thomist approach says that God first decides who is predestined and then gives them efficacious grace (which is similar to the irresistible grace of Calvinism) in order to infallibly bring them to salvation.

The Molinist-Thomist dispute is similar to the Arminian-Calvinist dispute in Calvinism (although Thomism is closer to Calvinism than Molinism is to Arminianism). Molinism and Arminianism share many of the same merits and problems, while Thomism and Calvinism share many of the same merits and problems.

Here are a few different summaries by Alfred Freddoso which may be helpful:

More post

Search Posts

Related post