Thomist vs Molinist Predestination w/ Fr. Dominic Legge 

Ha, providence is wild. Was thinking yesterday "I wish Matt Fradd would talk to someone about the difference between Molinism and the Thomistic understanding of predestination". Well, here we go.

Noooooooooo how did I miss it!!!!!!!! Watching now, devastated I missed it live!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We had Aquinas 101 videos assigned to us in my Medieval Philosophy Class at Loyola Marymount University!!!!

From my readings of the Molinist position, I do not think that Molina ever holds that the creature is not moved upon by God. Francisco Suarez particularly emphasizes the concept of God's primary movement upon the person. I do not think that the Molinist position negates the issue of potency and actuality.

This was great! Please bring Fr. Dominic more often!

I’m reading “Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God” by Fr. William Most; he does a great job with dissecting both sides of the issue and figuring out what works and what doesn’t!

I feel Fr. Legge in several places mischaracterizes or misrepresents the Molinist position for example his comments around the 33 minute mark about Molina's conception of free will violating the act-potency distinction because it would make our wills capable of moving from potential to act without themselves being acted upon seems woefully ignorant of Molina's doctrine of general concurrence. As Kirk MacGregor points out in his book "Luis De Molina": "During the first and second trimesters of year three (1556 - 57), Molina read Aristotle’s Physica (Physics) and was influenced by his theory of causation. According to Aristotle, there are four types of cause: material cause, explaining what something is made of; formal cause, explaining the form or pattern an entity follows to become that entity; efficient cause, explaining the actual source of change; and final cause, explaining the intended purpose of change. Regarding efficient cause, Molina subdivided this notion into primary causation, particular (direct) causation, and general (universal or indirect) causation. Molina held that God is the primary cause of everything that occurs; in the words of Alfred Freddoso, God “created the original constituents of the universe ex nihilo, and no creature can exist or possess causal power through any interval of time unless God conserves it and its powers in being at every instant in that interval.”41 However, this does not mean that, for everything that occurs, God determines it or is morally responsible for it. Molina maintained that God is the particular or direct cause when God does determine something (for which thing he would be morally responsible) by producing an effect by himself, since God’s causal power by itself controls the specific nature of the effect.42 But Molina insisted that creatures possess authentic causal power as well and are therefore particular yet secondary causes. Nonetheless, for creatures to exercise their causal power, God must simultaneously and indirectly cooperate with them to produce the intended effect. When God so cooperates with creatures, God acts as a general cause of the effect, and Molina dubbed God’s simultaneous and indirect action his general concurrence (concursus generalis).43 The term general indicates that the specific nature of the effect (i.e., good or evil) is in no way attributable to God’s causal contribution, although that contribution is necessary in order for any effect to be produced at all. Rather, the goodness or badness of the effect is due solely to the creatures, who are the particular causes of the effect. To illustrate, Molina observed that the sun causally contributes to human acts of sin by providing heat and light on earth, without which humans could do nothing. Hence the sun is a general or indirect cause of human sin. Obviously, however, the sun is not morally responsible for human sin, for none of its causal input determined the production of sinful actions. Human beings freely choose to channel the sun’s causal input toward sinful actions and are therefore solely responsible for them.44" (MacGregor, 53-54) Thus Molina's conception of free will in no way contradicts the act-potency distinction. This becomes even more obvious when we note (as MacGregor does) that: "In the third trimester of year three, Molina turned to Aristotle’s De coelo (On the Heavens) and De generatione et corruptione (On Generation and Corruption). Chief among Aristotle’s cosmological works, De coelo supplied Molina with an argument for the existence of God from motion or change. Based on the reduction of potency to act, Molina perceived that if something is moved from one state to another, it must be moved by something already moving. But since an infinite regress is impossible, the thing, upon tracing back the causal chain, must ultimately be moved by an unmoved mover, who is God.51 On a related note, De generatione helped Molina perceive the distinction between contingent being and necessary being. Contingent being can come into existence and pass out of existence, while necessary being simply exists and can neither come into existence nor pass out of existence. In other words, it is logically possible for contingent being not to exist, but it is logically impossible for necessary being not to exist.52 This distinction enabled Molina to propose a second argument for God’s existence based on contingency and necessity. Molina reasoned that since contingent being, by definition, cannot bring itself into existence, there must be a reason why contingent being exists. Hence contingent being must have been brought into existence by necessary being, which Molina identifies as God.53 The conditional demands that which is absolute." (MacGregor, 55-56). As such it would be absurd for Molina not to have recognized that the act potency distinction (which he was thoroughly familiar with) was somehow at odds with his conception of free will, if it actually were. But as we saw his doctrine of concurrence shows there is no such problem. I would expect Fr. Legge to know this, which is why I would say he is mischaracterizing or misrepresenting Molina and the Molinist view.

From Dominican Republic I congratulate Fr Dominic and pray to God that help you to understand his will.

I don't understand how Father's description of predestination at the end doesn't naturally mean double predestination. To me this has always been the attraction of Molinism. I'm not interested in defending some radical modern view of freedom. Rather I'm trying to reconcile how the Thomistic vs Calvinist descriptions of predestination often feel like distinctions without real difference, and my understanding is that the rejection of Calvin is because of Double Predestination. I think the whole conversation also gets messy because it is the eternal God, outside of time, and his interactions with us living in this big ball of timey wimey.

I, a Calvinist pastor, really enjoyed this and agreed with everything that Fr. Legge said here about the topic.

I have heard Catholics often say how molinism and Thomism are both acceptable views on predestination within the church. However, whenever I tried to find out what the Thomist view actually is I end up confused. After watching this start to finish, I think I finally understand the Thomist view and I find myself utterly persuaded.

Matt I want you to know that the "sarcastic tone" joke was really funny, and I'm sorry it wasn't recognized at the time

I enjoyed this video and I think Fr. Legge was much more just to Molinism here than he was in the previous discussion on morality. That said, I have two criticisms. First, you can take this truth to the bank, "In discussions of free will and grace it is always easier to criticize another's explanation than to give your own." In these discussions everyone's boat is full of holes, and what often happens is that they keep pointing fingers at the other faulty boats while ignoring the fact that their own does not hold water. The gist of this video was Fr. Legge presenting Molinism and giving Thomistic criticisms. Crucially, he failed to address or even mention the (serious) problems with the "Thomist" position. Second, at various points he conflated Thomas with Bañez, and this is a common faux pas. Dominicans--particularly those of the Eastern Province--tend to follow a Bañezian interpretation of Thomas, but they often fail to mention that this is an _interpretation._ There are serious _Thomistic_ problems with the Bañezian position. There are many Thomistic critiques of the Bañezian position of physical premotion that Legge favors, including Dr. Matthew Diem's recent paper, "Why not to be a ‘Thomist’: A Critique of the Bañezian Reconciliation of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom."

Fr. Dominic Legge is almost a genius thank you

People don’t realize that classical protestants/Reformed Christian’s are completely Augustianian/Thomist in matters relating to predestination/free will/Soteriology

As a Calvinist myself, this conversation was very good. Thank you. Yes, I think Fr Dominc handles this subject very delicately. Grace is undeserved by defenition. On the Compatabilist view we may say that the Holy Bible teaches human responsibility and God's sogvereinty as both 100% true, and so all the time. One can see this as two true axioms from where Compatabilism might be deduced. Molinism, as an Libertarian Free Will Theodicy, are from the presupposition of Incompatabilism first and foremost. This commits them to all sorts of interesting exegetical problems in my view.Thank you for a great video and conversation. Soli Deo gloria.

I didn't even know Molinist was a thing. But hey you learn something new everyday. Great job guys!!

Fr. Legge is simply amazing.

The Aquinas 101 program is fantastic.

Watching from Brazil! God bless you, Matt.

It would have been interesting to have a Molinist to explain his view ... Not that Fr Legge did not explain it well, but he is clearly a Thomist.... Interesting presentation!

This is the best video you've ever made (that I've seen). Tough subject, but very, very important. Well done.

The fact that the guest of this show was unfamiliar with "compatibilism" and describes Molinism as God "foreseeing" people's decisions (as opposed to "conceiving") shows me that he is seriously deficient in his knowledge of the alternatives to Thomism for reconciling human freedom and divine sovereignty.

This should be one of your debates Matt.

🅱️olinist vs 🅱️homist debate when? 💪🏼

This seems like a very bad explanation of the Molinist position. Molina and molinists of course would recognize both that libertarian creatures are primarily moved by God and that what Molina calls prevenient grace, and therefore grace itself, is necessary to move souls towards salvation. The molinist position does not edge grace out of the equation of human acts by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the fact that Father's explanation of the Molinist position didn't include a single mention of middle knowledge or counterfactuals is a real problem for his "steel man" of molinism. Also, Mary for sure could *not* have sinned. It's not like she was a total pro at fighting temptation, she was perfected by grace. She could not have sinned in the same way that all the saints cannot sin. Please tell me how that last question doesn't just hit the nail on the head. The question was effectively, "how is your position not Calvinism?" and the answer was "Uhhh it's a mystery?"

Fr. Dominic Legge is a gigachad. Love his style so much.

The Thomistic view here as explained by Father Legge sounds like it contradicts the decrees at the Council of Trent. The decrees seem to be more consistent with the Molinist explanation regarding God's grace and free will. CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

For any who might be interested, at Catholic Critique (WordPress) see "Harmony and Differences on Predestination in Catholic Theology"

Matt - a quality summary of Molinism and salvation circa 26:06 - 26:30min.

Matt, would it be possible to have Dr. Tim Stratton, a leading Molinist and good friend of many Catholics in his local area (myself being one of them), on your show, with Fr. Dominic Legge, to respond to this (unintentionally, I hope) poor presentation of Molinism, and dialogue with Fr. Dominic about the similarities and differences between Molinism and Thomism?

Calvinist leaning protestant here, I really appreciate the Thomist approach. You have to be honest the language in the Bible points to predestination, if God knows the outcome, then in some existence it’s determined, if it’s determined I would prefer it’s by God then any outside force.

Wow please make a clip of Fr Dominic from the first 15 minutes explaining Freedom and Grace so clearly!! Thank you Matt and channel team!

I would highly recommend to read Father Most book about this topic. Neither Thomist nor Molinist, total game changer. Sadly, hard to find in paper, but available online. "In brief, the solution will be as follows. There are three logical stages in the process of predestination: 1) The universal salvific will, which is sincere and extremely strong. 2) The reprobation of all whom God foresees will gravely and persistently resist grace: Reprobation after and because of foreseen demerits. 3) Predestination of all others, in whom God does not foresee grave and persistent resistance.7 This decree of predestination is a continuation and positive carrying out of the initial universal salvific will. The cause of this decree is not human merits-up to this stage, God has not looked at human merits, for, in the logical series at which God looks, merits are neither a cause nor a condition-the sole cause of this decree of predestination is the goodness and generosity of the Father who from the beginning wanted to save all and, at this point, actually decrees the salvation of all who do not resist gravely and persistently. No positive condition needs to be placed by man in order that God may predestine, because the strong universal salvific will continues in its course by its own force. A grave condition would have to be placed by man to interrupt the course of this will, but, precisely because this will continues in its course by its own force, nothing is required from man that it may continue, and at the proper point, decree predestination. For without predestination, that salvation which God willed from the beginning and still wills to confer could not be had: Predestination before consideration of merits." www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=214

I love Matt’s cheeky dry humor

Really well articulated illustrations Father Legg. Thank you.

I think predestination to hell is the weak point of the Thomistic position. Of course, we are not owed grace nor going to Heaven. But, if God creates us as imperfect beings, and gives graces only to some people, we don't deserve eternal suffering either. Thomists and Calvinists want it to have it both ways: God has all the power but none of the responsibility, human beings have no power but the responsibility and the punishment. This position is not compatible with the New Testament, which says that God does not want anybody to be lost. I waited the entire interview to see how Thomism answers that. The question (which is the main point of discussion) was rushed at the end of the interview. The answer "it's a mystery" rings hollow, after an hour of Fr. Dominic explaining in detail how grace works and how God is and works, which assumes lots of extra-Biblical knowledge of God. This was not mysterious at all but suddenly, when the hard question appears, God is a mystery, only regarding this point. Very convenient.

This was epic I see a book I need to buy now Thanks for this awesome channel

Been waiting for this stream for so long. Let's go

Recently watched several presentations WLC has given. I still am confused about why his objection to Calivism and Thomism doesn't work? He states that if God is the source of every act of our will, then God would be the source and therefore author of evil acts, which is a logical incompatibility with God's goodness. And I still don't know how to answer that after listening to this

Loved this learned so much.

Fundamentally, we do not know all the answers in the dynamic relationship between divine grace and human freedom. This is one of the mysteries of God's action in the world.

This is not a criticism but If you want to hear a Catholic Dominican priest that talks like a Calvinist this is the show for you!

This is very interesting. Can we have a graphic (visual) representation of Thomist vs. Molinist vs. Protestant predestination?

I found no other place that defined Thomistic predestination. Thank you.

Interesting interview. I'd be interested in seeing him and a Jesuit professor on together to discuss this in even more depth. E.g., recreate the debates that the pope had to put a stop to!

question i have is in the Thomistic view what lesser good or other good could the angels haven chosen if they were perfectly infused with knowledge and they have a perfectly ordered will and intellect

If God just foresaw through simple foreknowledge that you would choose Him how is that truly PREDESTINATION? It seems that would just be redefining the term and performing mental gymnastics to try and make it fit a human reasoning system.

A friend told me this Catholic joke: Once there was an elderly woman riding on a train. Seated across from her were two priests, the first a Jesuit, the second a Dominican. The woman noted the vast difference in their official habits, and then went on to ask them in what other ways they differed. The Dominican responded: "My order was founded by Saint Dominic, and fought the Albigensian heresy." The Jesuit then added: "My order was founded by Saint Ignatius, and fought the Protestant heresy." The woman responded: "I see, and are there other differences?" The Dominican piped in: "Have you ever met an Albigensian?"

I don´t get this thing. According to St Thomas (as far as I understood it) God predestines some to eternal life without infringing their free will. But if he chooses some and reprobates others, he makes a distinction and loves some more than others. But so many times I hear, that God loves each one of us like a good father. And actually i really badly want that to be true. How does he really love us as a father his children, if he won´t bring the salvation of some to completion, even though he could do it without doing harm to my free will (according to this logic). How can I know for sure God loves me to the degree of 1. wanting and 2. bringing about my salvation? Please help!

Experienced that freeing of the will when I read Hans Urs von Balthasar's "Heart of the World", specifically Chapters 7 and 8. What a blessing. I recommend anyone who reads this to pick it up immediately.

Pro Tip: play the intro at 1.5x for maximum hype.

The part at the end about God's grace was quite profound at about 1:07:10.

This was a fantastic episode

Could we say that in Molinism, the free assent to the grace of God strengthens the will. All being contingent on assent without God reordering our free will for his ends, but instead us asserting to the nourishment and strengthening of our will to allow us to more efficaciously choose the good

Fr Dominic was once baptised Francis Arm and now he's on the run.

Thank you for answering the question. I loved the answer, although I disagree with his conclusions. As Scotus puts it in his Ordinatio, to paraphrase with a modern example, if you want to be a lawyer or something like that, you will choose the best path that happens. The intellect is what will be presented. You can get a better understanding of the medieval understanding of the medieval understandinf of free will: iep.utm.edu/freewi-m/. It's a scholarly source, and the citations from the bottom are a good amalgamation of well respected sources. Pax Tecum.

How great is this stream. Why did I wait for 3 years??

Hold up. If every actualization of the will comes from God first then that means God moved Satan's will to rebel. Isn't this extremely problematic? Am I missing something?

Thomism and molinism both seem to be fine when conciliating with free will, but the thing I think it is harder is with God’s salvific will. Francisco Zumel, who was a thomist contemporary to Báñez, I think, gives a very good answer to it, as far as I understood him. It is a similar, but not equal, position to Father Most’s view.

So we're fallen creatures and stuff...but according to the premises of the Thomistic view there shouldn't even be the possibility of the Fall happening and yet it happened and if it happened we must assume it is because WILLED it, not merely that he allowed it to happen but that he WILLED it. This is disastrous.

Not gonna lie, Joe rogan used to be my favorite podcast, but Matt Fradd has stolen that spot for me lol.

20:35 is a hilarious interaction 🤣

Matt! To elucidate the points made here, make a video about the difference of the thomist and a protestant predestination (especially calvinist, or the catholic heresy, jansenist). Thanks.

If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? Is that just?

Legge should debate Dr Criag. That would be really entertaining, a catholic thomist and a prot molinist

10 min in and I’m already excited!

8:11......"ok so by the time you get to the 16th century, so now we are talking 1582. There's been very important shifts, philosophical shifts. And now often the issue of human freedom is posed not in classic Augustinian terms where freedom is the power of our will to reach towards the good working for happiness, so think of the will as a faculty of loving or of desiring, ok. The shift is to start to think of the will primarily as the faculty of choosing, meaning to choose between contraries. Ok, so that's a very significant shift because for Augustine & for Aquinas it was a kind of given that your will reaches out for what is good. It's like a hungry man reaching out for food. Like you don't really deliberate about that, you just desire the food. And so the will, of course now the will is a rational appetite, so sometime it has to think about what is really good in this circumstance, or the intellect has to think about it & the will will then desire it. So, the point is THE WILL IS ALWAYS GONNA BE ORDERED TO THE GOOD in Augustinian/Thomistic (not sure what the word) & I think that's just true." (love it as it is so crucial to the issue at hand & what is freedom). later @ 15:24 "but really what freedom is about is the kind of trajectory of your life moving towards the good and you want to like consistently make your decisions so you are more & more realizing your potential. And as you do that, your whole scope of you life expands and grows. And so your decisions, your individual decisions now linked all together start to make sense and are leading you towards more firm perfection."

1:08:00 The claim Christianity makes isn't that God is a surly bureaucrat who can (even rightly) say , "I don't owe you any favors - to hell with you." The claim is we can positively call Him a loving Father. And it does no good saying, "He's also a just judge," because there isn't anything just about arbitrarily giving some children spiritual food, and then pardoning them, and then allowing others to starve and punishing them. And how could anyone be responsible for his sins, if we're all in this rigged game God plopped us into, where we cannot compete without a divine intervention? I have to feed my baby or I'm a neglectful wicked father. I can't go, "Well, baby, my food is a gift; you have no right to demand it of me."

I’m struggling to see the difference between Thomism and Calvinism, at least in some regards. It seems God decides who will and who won’t be damned by giving them grace or not giving them grace. Am I missing something?

As a Reformed Calvinist, I loved the discussion. At about the 12:00 mark the discussion of freedom is so important. In John 8:31-32, there is a reason why Jesus can say that it is the “truth” that sets us free. When we know what is truly good in every circumstance then we will choose it… we will be determined by the truth… and we will be totally free.

I think this raised more questions than it answered...

I remember Blaise Pascal made fun of molina and of the jesuits view of grace in his provincial letters, this, together with his simpaties with jansenists I believe are the reasons for why Pascal was never canonized by the Church.

Wow thanks you both that really helped me

I'm sorry but the response to this 46:35 is extremely disappointing. What greater good could come out of most of humanity ending up in Hell? Their souls are lost forever, they are not going to enjoy any of the "benefits" of their suffering. And to appeal to "God's mysterious ways" in order to adress it seems very problematic. Like, what's the point of apologetics if every religion can use this trick whenever there's any obvious contradiction in their theology?Imagine if I created the most heretical Christian denomination you could ever think of, and whenever people pointed out the contradictions between my teachings and the Bible, I simply said "well, it's certainly a mystery why God decided to add those apparently contradictory verses in the Bible, but I trust in His perfect judgement nonetheless", and it would be as legitimate of a response as the one in the video. Also, it seems weird that God apparently gave us intellects capable of understanding the complex metaphysical status of angels but not able to make the world morally intelligible to us, when the second issue is much, much more important than the first.

The Council of Trent also deals with the idea of people being predestined to heaven or hell. God gives _everyone_ sufficient grace in order to be saved, so in that sense we are all in a World God created where we can attain salvation. Some people just chose to not cooperate with God's grace of their own free will.

Matt gotta get a compressor dialed down on that mic to stop it clipping

What video editing software do you use Matt??? Is this a zoom chat?

Could someone kindly tell me whether I have correctly understood the key differience with how Aquinas understands the resistabillity of grace, contra Augustine? Augustine sees all grace as intrinsically efficacious (or irresistible), since the creaturely will has nothingness as its only independent source. Therefore the only thing that distingishes sufficient grace from efficient grace is the strength of the impulse from God. Aquinas, however, makes a real distinction between the nature of sufficient grace versus intrinsically effectual grace, since, following Aristotle, the creaturely will is actually informed by being, as opposed to the platonic notion that the creature is devoid of the actual substance of being. This means that sufficient grace must be cooperated with by the will (which has actually been informed by grace) in order for it to go from potency to act, thus grounding the responsibillity of the will to act. Augustine, on the other hand, places all the responsibility to act with the will of God alone. Have I understood this correctly?

Wonderful interview

So what chance does a joe-average guy like me have of believing in or not believing in predestination?

Maybe I missed this. But I wonder. Considering the agony in the garden where Jesus asks for the cup to pass, I do wonder, if God maybe went silent from the last supper forward. Now, I’m not suggesting the divinity of Christ isn’t true. But haven’t we all experienced dryness? I wonder, since, Him and the apostles could have ran to the hinterland, could we not say, his human nature chose to stay. Despite His human desire to avoid the pain? I can’t help thinking there was a very real choice here. Just as Mary chose to bear Christ, Christ in His human nature chose the cross, and that’s where the choice lied.

Why couldn't the will be moved from potency to act by God's bestowal of the ability to move from potency to act . God is the principle cause and holds all being in existence, but also provides man with a nature. So, why couldn't part of our nature be to operate our will freely?

In a choice with two goods, neither sinful, what is THAT choice determined by? Moral free will and free will tout cort are related but different problems and perspectives on free will. The “scientific debate” on free will focuses on the latter and the religious “salvific” questions of free will on the former. The problem of what determines choices versus what determines “THE CHOICE”. Also, from a middle knowledge perspective it can be said that a world where Christ did not obey the father totally was not feasible whatsoever. But it’s even more extreme than that. There isn’t even a POSSIBLE world where Christ does not obey the Father given the divine/human hypostatic nature of the substance making the choice. God could not even IMAGINE a world where Christ disobeys, he doesn’t even have to “reference” his middle knowledge to know this.

I think both positions (thomism & molinism) are legitime within the Catholic Church. The divine Grace works in mysterious ways. I think the molinist position is more atractive and especulative to modern way of thinking but the thomist position is more solid. If we believe that God is free in all his acts the concept of freedom in scholastic (the choosing to a greater good) is more convincent for me that the modern position of choosing between options

excellent discussion.

Oh, I think I know what this is a about. In Germany we simply call it the Grace Argument (if we are talking about the same thing - I have to watch the rest of the video first).

From around the 27 minute mark, how is this not a case of the Molinist moving the goalposts? If God arranges the circumstances such that to put person x in those circumstances is to make certain his salvation, then how does that evade the problem of negating free will? For God created both the person and the specific circumstance in which it was predetermined by God that person x would respond to grace. Adding possible realities or multiverse timelines does not substantially change anything, just throws dust into the air.

I kind of wish this was a debate, great video though

The microphone isn't set up as well as it was on the older setup. Whenever something is loud it sounds really bad and its not good in general.

Molinism is the way

8:30, 11:38

Great talk.

I agree that the Thomistic view on conversion is more plausible than the Molinist view as presented, but the Thomistic view does seem to become compatibilist about free will for non-conversions acts. I think a better alternative keeps something like pre-motion for final conversion, but not argue pre-motion for other actions since it infringes too much on free will (in my view).

As a Calvinist/Presbyterian, I must say that "God forces your will" is a caricature of Calvinism and equally applies to Thomism. The doctrine of "irresistible grace" (better, as RC Sproul wrote, to say "efficacious grace") is the healing and redemption of a broken, sinful will -- allowing it to choose the good/beautiful/true, aka true freedom, not enslavement to sin. Thomists need to stop with the ignorant caricatures of Calvinism. You should have Richard Muller (Calvin Seminary) as a guest.

Compatablism is a middle ground between libertarian free will and determinism.

Why don’t you link the thomistic institute in the description?

32:09 wouldn't that real change from potential to actual be both God's actualization of the world in which His grace will change xyz's heart and the moment in time and space when God pours out the grace that changes xyz's heart? From what I know, it's not just a domino effect.. God is still active in the world in Molinism

~38:25 WLC does not believe that here are two will’s in Jesus and takes issue with the traditional view espoused by dyothelitism. He believes, and I agree, that two wills results in two persons (Nestorianism). I think that WLC does hold to the view that Jesus was / is impeccable.

Additionally, would the choice of His human nature be more edifying for us? How could He ask us to pick up our crosses, if His human nature hadn’t done it?