Molinism- Middle Knowledge=Heresy?!?

[Seaioth]

hmmm... I know little about Molinism, but found it to be a distance counsin/ancestor(?) of Open-theism... Basically the "flavor" of mainstream semi-intellectual Christianity today. Albeit the theology-less, lovey-dovey/feel-good Arminians I know, I care for them dearily, yet am repelled by their evident cognitive dissonance. And then I know stuach Calvinists which so much as bat an eye and give a stern yet concerned gaze of that one is delving one dangerous grounds. I accept the five points as the points of Jesus, however shall personal refrain from labeling myself by -ist and -isms. Bible Christian will suffice... anyways before wrestling with the scriptures further, I was wondering if there be words of wisdom from fellow like-minded brethern =)?


http://blog.johndepoe.com/2004/11/human-freedom-divine-foreknowledge_08.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm
Catholics are Molinists... (and accuse Calvinists of being semi-pelagians and consider Calvin to be quasi-Macchaen) Most repelling...

Anyone professing to be reformed considers it heresey. Interesting notion, considering that the board in Biola is predominatly Molinsts.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm

To Him alone be the glory

 

[jbarcher]

I am explicitly not a Calvie, but this relates to my area of expertise...

Some Catholics are Molinists, just like some Catholics are Jesuits. Molinism is a kind of Arminianism if I understand what "Arminianism" is supposed to be. Thus, Molinism is only heresy if you consider Arminianism to be heresy.

FYI DePoe is not a Calvie. That much is clear from his writings. His orientation is a philosopher, "I think this is the best solution to the human freedom and divine foreknowledge dilemma."

Don't even think it's biologically related to OVT. Molinism's greatness is its analysis of divine foreknowledge, not it's denial of it. OVT can't take divine foreknowledge in the same boat as free will; Molinism can.

 

[frumanchu]

Molinism/Middle-Knowledge/Open Theism are simply philosophical attempts to reconcile Arminian philosophy with Scriptures that contradict it. It seeks to accomodate the portions of Scripture which weigh heavily against Arminianism by creating a purely philosophical explanation and then forcing all of the difficult passages into that paradigm.

It's simply a slightly more "intellectual" Arminianism

 

[jbarcher]

Why would you split Molinism and MK?

 

[CCWoody]

Some Catholics are Molinists, just like some Catholics are Jesuits. Molinism is a kind of Arminianism if I understand what "Arminianism" is supposed to be. Thus, Molinism is only heresy if you consider Arminianism to be heresy.

Faulty logic. A subset of Arminianism called Molinism doesn't mean that if that subset are heretics that the whole set must be heretics.

I have a basket of fruit. Some of that fruit is bad. That doesn't mean that all the fruit must be bad.

So, yes, one can consider Molinists to be heretics without considering all Arminians to be heretics.

Molinism's greatness is its analysis of divine foreknowledge, not it's denial of it. OVT can't take divine foreknowledge in the same boat as free will; Molinism can.

Sorry, but Molinism does deny aspects of God's foreknowledge as explicitly outlined in the Scriptures. It is not any where near as thoughtful as Molinists think.

 

[jbarcher]

Thanks for pointing out the logic error.

What Molinists do you know, out of curiosity? Your assertions are pretty lacking in argument but I can't fault you for that--arguing vs Molinism was not your intention. Molinism's answer to the soteriological problem of evil is impressive; if you wish to argue that it fails or whatever, make a topic in Christian Phil and drop me a PM. I'd be interested in your objections--assuming you'd try something other than the grounding objection.

 

[CCWoody]

Thanks for pointing out the logic error.

What Molinists do you know, out of curiosity? Your assertions are pretty lacking in argument but I can't fault you for that--arguing vs Molinism was not your intention. Molinism's answer to the soteriological problem of evil is impressive; if you wish to argue that it fails or whatever, make a topic in Christian Phil and drop me a PM. I'd be interested in your objections--assuming you'd try something other than the grounding objection.

Sorry, but I have no interest in discussing the answer of "evil" (whatever that means in the abstract). I would be willing to demonstrate that it is not possible for God to only posses a middle knowledge, but must also posses an exhaustive knowledge of all things. (Sorry if that gets in the way of the beloved invention of Libertarian free will, which I can also demonstrate can't be Biblical.)

As for how many Molinists I know. Well, they don't like me too much. Their arguments seem to fall apart around me and they can't do anything but cling to the ideas that "God is just not that way." But, I have spanked a few over the years.

 

[jbarcher]

Hm. Maybe, in the distant future, when I have time to take up these things with people I don't know, I'll get back to you on this.

 

[Jon_]

Sorry, but I have no interest in discussing the answer of "evil" (whatever that means in the abstract). I would be willing to demonstrate that it is not possible for God to only posses a middle knowledge, but must also posses an exhaustive knowledge of all things. (Sorry if that gets in the way of the beloved invention of Libertarian free will, which I can also demonstrate can't be Biblical.)

As for how many Molinists I know. Well, they don't like me too much. Their arguments seem to fall apart around me and they can't do anything but cling to the ideas that "God is just not that way." But, I have spanked a few over the years.

I'll bet you've given them a sound thrashing before, Woody. One of the problems with Molinism is, of course, that it confuses what knowledge in the sense of God means. Of course, I'm sure you've already got some outstanding arguments developed and I know would be edified with them. If JB doesn't want to engage, then I would be happy to play devil's advocate (for lack of a better term) if you had the time. For some strange reason (probably due to the rise in irrationalism), Molinism has been making comeback, so it would likely profit our brethren to discuss some of the basic problems with this philosophy.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[drstevej]

If God learns something, He ain't God.

 

[jbarcher]

Let me know where, if you guys go about it, you explicate your arguments. I'll make a note of them. I only am leaning towards Molinism for it's impressive apologetic uses, but have not (surprise, surprise) concluded anything.

 

[CCWoody]

Let me know where, if you guys go about it, you explicate your arguments. I'll make a note of them. I only am leaning towards Molinism for it's impressive apologetic uses, but have not (surprise, surprise) concluded anything.

Well, apologetics should not include apologizing that God is God. Therefore, I have no interest in learning how Molinists apologize for God permitting evil to thrive.

Molinism has 2 great errors:

#1. Their god is too small. God's knowledge is not limited only to a form of Middle Knowledge. That position is neither logically or Scripturally defendable, despite what Molinists claim.

#2. Man is too big. This unhealty clinging to Libertarian free will is also neither logically or Scripturally defendable.

Apart from those errors, I really have no problem with the theology of Molinia.

 

[Deer]

Well, apologetics should not include apologizing that God is God. Therefore, I have no interest in learning how Molinists apologize for God permitting evil to thrive.

Molinism has 2 great errors:

#1. Their god is too small. God's knowledge is not limited only to a form of Middle Knowledge. That position is neither logically or Scripturally defendable, despite what Molinists claim.

#2. Man is too big. This unhealty clinging to Libertarian free will is also neither logically or Scripturally defendable.

Apart from those errors, I really have no problem with the theology of Molinia.

Recently I have been researching varying views on Molinism and I stumbled upon this thread.
As a response to your first point, perhaps you see God as too small when looking through a Molinist viewpoint because you're assuming God is bound by time, "learning" what happens as choices are made and actions unfold. Of course, God doesn't learn anything. He sees and knows everything because He is outside of time. Potentially, an event in the future has already taken place in the eyes of God because His existence outside of time. Therefore, He already knows everything that will unfold as a result of the actions, and nothing appears as new or previously unknown to God.

What I have observed is that a Molinistic view on foreknowledge reconciles God's sovereignty with man's free will, sacrificing neither and accepting both in their fullest sense. The Calvinistic view on God's sovereignty that has been argued to me in the past seems to fall apart when interpreting the text through the original Greek or Hebrew.

I haven't gotten into the very exacts of the doctrine of Molinism, and I am sure that there would be a few small points I would disagree with, but it certainly doesn't seem to be heresy from a strictly Biblical viewpoint.

 

[Soyeong]

hmmm... I know little about Molinism, but found it to be a distance counsin/ancestor(?) of Open-theism... Basically the "flavor" of mainstream semi-intellectual Christianity today. Albeit the theology-less, lovey-dovey/feel-good Arminians I know, I care for them dearily, yet am repelled by their evident cognitive dissonance. And then I know stuach Calvinists which so much as bat an eye and give a stern yet concerned gaze of that one is delving one dangerous grounds. I accept the five points as the points of Jesus, however shall personal refrain from labeling myself by -ist and -isms. Bible Christian will suffice... anyways before wrestling with the scriptures further, I was wondering if there be words of wisdom from fellow like-minded brethern =)?


http://blog.johndepoe.com/2004/11/human-freedom-divine-foreknowledge_08.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm
Catholics are Molinists... (and accuse Calvinists of being semi-pelagians and consider Calvin to be quasi-Macchaen) Most repelling...

Anyone professing to be reformed considers it heresey. Interesting notion, considering that the board in Biola is predominatly Molinsts.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm

To Him alone be the glory

There are various ways to understand how the concepts of predestination and God's foreknowledge interact that can be useful to wrap our brains around, but we run into trouble the moment that we try to put God in a box and say that He must work in a certain way while everything else is heresy. I think Molinism makes sense, so it works as a good way to think about God, but if it turns out that God works differently, then it is no skin off my back.

 

[stenerson]

Molinism is a ridiculous Papist attempt to counter the biblical truths/realities that the Reformers rediscovered. That is salvation by grace alone and the helpless fallen, rebellious nature of man.
Their God is basically a big, smart computer that frantically does what he can to create a world where the largest percentage of people can be saved.. He does what he can, carefully tiptoeing around our unenslaved libertarian free wills. What foolishness !
Why is it making a comeback?.. Maybe because Calvinism/Reformed Theology is gaining ground in some circles and the free will worshipers are scrambling to find a paradigm where their worldview can stand. They can't find it in scripture of course so they find it in the blasphemous ramblings of a papist monk.

 

[AMR]

Craig and others refer to the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CFs): Knowing what any possible agent would do in any possible circumstances, God can have complete providential control over the events that occur by knowing how the history of the world would go given any creative decision He might make about which circumstances to cause to be actual, and by then making that initial creative decision. Yet human libertarian freedom is obviously also maintained.

But, foreknowledge is grounded in something that actually happens, and it is the occurrence of that future event that sanctions the foreknowledge of it. On the other hand, whatever grounds the truth of counterfactuals of freedom is something other than an actually occurring event. The indeterminateness of counterfactual states of affairs in virtue of which counterfactuals of freedom are true is therefore of a wholly different order from the indeterminateness of future states of affairs in virtue of which future factuals of freedom are true. Though the latter are not yet determinate, they nevertheless will be.

Even granting that there are some CF’s with actual (i.e., true) antecedents whose truth might in principle be determined by actual agents it seems to be such that God could not know them pre-volitionally, if He must directly perceive their grounds. For until God decides which agents and which circumstances to cause to be actual, there aren’t any actual decisions that God could in principle know as the grounds of these CF’s. Since middle knowledge is meant to be the aid by which God determines the actual world, and yet it seems as if He could not have this knowledge logically prior to determining the actuality of a particular possible world, “middle knowledge” seems both incorrectly described and unhelpful for providential creation decisions.

I believe that the Molinist view of providence should be rejected because there are good reasons to think that there are not any (and certainly not enough) true counterfactuals of freedom. According to Molinism, foreknowledge is nothing more than the causally impotent byproduct of God’s creative act of will.

 

[twin1954]

I think it would be extremely useful in this discussion to grasp and remember that the Scriptures never use the word foreknow or foreknowledge is the context of what happens. The word is always connected to people. God foreknows people He foreordains things. That is the language of the Scriptures.

 

[TaylorSexton]

...we run into trouble the moment that we try to put God in a box and say that He must work in a certain way while everything else is heresy.

We run into trouble when we say that those who insist that God acts according to his own Word (i.e., he tells the truth about himself) are therefore "putting God in a box." I tire of that sentiment; it is simply not valid. What else are we allowed to say about God except what he says in his Word? If I say that God is incapable of lying, am I "putting God in a box" or describing him accurately according to his self-revelation given to me?

 

[JM]

At the very least...Arminianism tries to make sense of scripture, Molinism is a false teaching because it's philosophical and not scriptural. There is little or no attempt to gleam from scripture it's foundation.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[twin1954]

The idea of God seeing the past present and future all at the same time is not much different than the theory that open theism propounds. It makes little to no difference as to when or how God sees He still learns what happens and reacts to it accordingly. That, once more, makes God to change because He learns and reacts. That is the situation man finds himself in and such nonsense makes God to be little more than a man.

God does not see what is happening, has happened or will happen. He determines all things before He ever spoke this world into existence. If He didn't then He has no control over how it all turns out in the end. Yes I am aware that He could turn bad events into good and use them to fulfill His purpose but that still makes Him to learn and change. There is no way around that truth.

The only Biblical and necessary answer is for God to determine and bring about all things according to His wise and gracious purpose. Nothing else will agree with the language of the Scriptures( the revelation of God), logic and plain common sense.

(Rom 11:33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

(Rom 11:34) For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

(Rom 11:35) Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

(Rom 11:36) For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.