RobE said:
I'm sure this is only a matter of perception....
Not when it comes to the issue of the intrinsic vs extrinsic nature of efficacious grace. God either determines or is determined. The issue surrounding scientia media is that it introduces a passivity in God that is inconsistent with his pure actuality. If he is determined by how person X will act in a given set of circumstances then not only does the good in person X (his consent to grace) does not comes from Him, but the very movement of the person by which it consents would have to be autonomous and independent of him. Thus, God would be dependent for his knowledge and action on the creature which is contrary to him being both immutable and the unmoved mover, to whom all creaturely movement must fall back to as it's first cause, as St. Thomas affirms. The power of God's grace is also diluted in this view, because as Molina maintains, a person with less grace can eventually perform more good than one with much more grace than the other. So the good in this case does not really comes from God's grace but from the person, who can carry the salutary act without any further help from God, as in the previous example I gave.
So you see that Thomists along with Infra-Calvinists see God's knowledge as a result of His decrees; whereas, Molinist's see God's decrees founded on His knowledge.
Here I think we need to clarify some things to avoid misunderstandings. Both Thomists and Molinists admit the following two distinctions in God's knowledge:
1) Knowledge of simple intelligence by which God knows all that is merely possible.
2) Knowledge of vision by which God knows all things actual.
Molinists add a third type of knowledge which they call scientia media (because it stands between the above two types) by which they claim God knows hypothetical facts that may never become actual but would if certain conditions obtain. So it is not quite accurate to say that Thomists see God's knowledge
in general as a result of his decrees because the particular order of things, the creation he actualized is a product of his knowledge. Thomist and Molinists both affirm this. The question around middle knowledge is concerned with the medium by which God knows the free actions of rational creatures. Molinists try to establish God's infallible foreknowledge of this by recourse to scientia media, Thomists consider the above two types of knowledge sufficient to account for this and seek to establish God's infallible foreknowledge by recourse to the divine predetermining decrees and physical premotion, which I explained in a previous post.
Well this might be true, but it would be more precise to say that God gives each man the amount of grace needed to be considered sufficient to the task of generating a positive response.
The question now becomes: why of two men being granted this grace to the amount needed to generate a positive response one performs the salutary act and the other doesn't? The Molinist view would need to admit that the man had some good above the other man that did not come from God and that this good lead him to carry the salutary act. The faculty of making the choice comes from God, that is granted, as he created our nature. But the question is about the choice that is actually made. It is certain that we cannot blame the failure to perform the salutary act on God, it is only the creature that it to blame. However, when the salutary act is done, we cannot credit the creature that did it, but God, because the actual response, which is a good, comes from Him. This is why the Scripture says:
"Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me." (Osee 13:9).
Absolutely not. Molinists accept predestination as fact and I explained above the 'physical premotion' of the Molinists.
Of course, Molinists accept predestination, it is a dogma of the faith. My comment was not aimed at the issue of predestination, which both Thomists and Molinists are bound to believe. But since you mention it, there is also another difference between both systems here. While some older Molinists affirmed predestination
ante prœvisa merita, that is, prior to any foreseen merits, as Thomists maintain. Molinists have traditionally affirmed that predestination is based on foreseen merits, something I think is the inevitable consequence of scientia media. The same goes for reprobation, they maintain that it is after foreseen demerits. Traditionally Thomists have upheld reprobation prior to any foreseen demerits, which is but the logical consequence of the decree of predestination prior to any foreseen merits. Some newer Thomists unfortunately have shifted from this position and departing from the teaching of St. Thomas now want to hold to the idea of predestination prior to any merits and reprobation after foreseen demerits without accepting scientia media.
Not to diverge too much into the issue of predestination (we can if you want to discuss more about it) but I will just point out that the unconditional reprobation of the Thomists differs from the positive reprobation of the Hyper-Calvinists.
I appreciate your teaching. Are we able to come to a concensus? I would say that the Church was correct in making both views acceptable and valid. Is there any reason to say that the Church was wrong in Her edict?
I appreciate dialoguing with you
Are we able to come to a consensus? While I do not agree with Molinism and have my reservations about it. I am bound by the judgement of The Church on this issue, who has prohibited Thomists and Molinists from condemning or accusing each other. So, I neither condemn Molinism nor it's adherents and respect it as being within the bound of orthodoxy. So we are free to agree to disagree as is said and still think of each other as Catholics in good standing.
Evo
