Molinism

[Benefactor]

So, from the man who used to cry "The Bible. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else". And now, when we want you to supply some support for your view, you try to make us look unreasonable for wanting support. Doesn't seem very consistent.


But here is the problem. If the position were so clear, in the book or otherwise, you would be jumping up and down to show the scriptural support. Just think...you could actually shut me up and make me look bad. There are only a few who have read the book. What about the others? Are they just supposed to trust that the passages you use have some sort of scriptural support in the book?

Plus, with over 250 references, you should have ready access to your needed proof. So instead of bemoaning how mean we are, just show us the proof.

You are still beating your drum and not paying attention to I have said. It seems that your goal is to play games.

 

[Benefactor]

I never said there was no scriptural support for anything. There just isn't any for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world to achieve the most saved people.

There is no disagreement as I stated "middle knowledge" is a Theological-Philosophical issue.

Do you agree that counterfactual data in Scripture Exist?

Yes or No

No more rabbit trails please just a Yes or No

 

[Hammster]

You are still beating your drum and not paying attention to I have said. It seems that your goal is to play games.

No, my goal is to find any kind of Scriptural support for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world in order to ensure the most possible amount of people saved. That way it can be scrutinized. You don't seem to have any problems doing that for your other arguments, but for some reason you keep deflecting on this one.

 

[Hammster]

There is no disagreement as I stated "middle knowledge" is a Theological-Philosophical issue.

Do you agree that counterfactual data in Scripture Exist?

Yes or No

No more rabbit trails please just a Yes or No

Yes.

 

[heymikey80]

Thought it'd be interesting:

Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The term "counterfactual" first appeared in 1946 -- what's that, 400 years after Molina? It's obviously not a well-developed concept, certainly not intrinsic to Molinism.

The first attempt to integrate counterfactuals into logic was in the 1840's.

David Lewis' later philosophy of counterfactuals has undergone extensive revision over its 30 year lifespan.

 

[Benefactor]

No, my goal is to find any kind of Scriptural support for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world in order to ensure the most possible amount of people saved. That way it can be scrutinized. You don't seem to have any problems doing that for your other arguments, but for some reason you keep deflecting on this one.

Hammster: That last time "Middle Knowledge it a Theological Philosophical issue. ​

Now you answer my question and stop the run a round

Do you acknowledge that, as I have posted over and over again, that counterfactuals are Scriptural?

Yes or NO

 

[nobdysfool]

No, my goal is to find any kind of Scriptural support for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world in order to ensure the most possible amount of people saved. That way it can be scrutinized. You don't seem to have any problems doing that for your other arguments, but for some reason you keep deflecting on this one.

I agree. and I believe the flaw in the argument is the idea that God would have to shuffle through various scenarios to find a world in which the most number of people get saved, as if that were not something that He had direct control of anyhow. It presumes libertarian free will and God self-limiting Himself with regard to that free will. And that's part of the end-game being played here, to get Calvinists to agree to something which is opposed to what they actually believe.

The bottom line is, for all the claims against Calvinists, the clear FACT is that the OP has not, despite a myriad of requests, provided any meaningful Scripture or Scriptures that can categorically prove Molinism. Zero, Zip, Nada. Duck and weave all he wants, he has not, and I believe CANNOT prove Molinism from Scripture, and all of the appeals to Dr. Keathley are weak arguments, because he doesn't provide that much either, and there is certainly no in-depth exegesis of Scriptures to nail down Molinism as a viable theological doctrine. The OP has failed, and failed miserably, and the end-game has been exposed.

 

[Benefactor]

Yes.

Thank you

 

[Benefactor]

Two fact are established

Counterfactuals are biblical

Middle Knowledge is a Theological Philosophical Issue

 

[nobdysfool]

Two fact are established

Counterfactuals are biblical

Middle Knowledge is a Theological Philosophical Issue

Neither of which is theologically significant

 

[Benefactor]

I agree. and I believe the flaw in the argument is the idea that God would have to shuffle through various scenarios to find a world in which the most number of people get saved, as if that were not something that He had direct control of anyhow. It presumes libertarian free will and God self-limiting Himself with regard to that free will. And that's part of the end-game being played here, to get Calvinists to agree to something which is opposed to what they actually believe.

The bottom line is, for all the claims against Calvinists, the clear FACT is that the OP has not, despite a myriad of requests, provided any meaningful Scripture or Scriptures that can categorically prove Molinism. Zero, Zip, Nada. Duck and weave all he wants, he has not, and I believe CANNOT prove Molinism from Scripture, and all of the appeals to Dr. Keathley are weak arguments, because he doesn't provide that much either, and there is certainly no in-depth exegesis of Scriptures to nail down Molinism as a viable theological doctrine. The OP has failed, and failed miserably, and the end-game has been exposed.

And as always your opinions are noted. While middle knowledge is a theological philosophical issue, let me point out that aside from that the doctrine of limited atonement does not have Scriptural support when all the passages are taken into consideration, atonement is universal. The more extreme view in Calvinism is amiss in this regard and has no, in my opinion, Scriptural basis what so ever.

As well, the bible is clear that God commands everyone everywhere to repent. We know form a study of “faith and repentance” that saving faith is married to repentance. Sometimes we only have “believe” or “faith” or “repentance” etc. and when we find these by themselves it does not mean that the other is absent for it is understood form the Bible that they are married together and the author assumes this is understood. Having clarified this we are firm in our view and it is biblical that for God to command everyone everywhere to repent he is saying or commanding everyone everywhere to “repent and believe” the Good News.


As Calvinist do you or some of you deny this?

 

[Hammster]

Two fact are established

Counterfactuals are biblical

Middle Knowledge is a Theological Philosophical Issue

Is there more?

 

[Benefactor]

Is there more?

STOP

 

[Benefactor]

Molinism (middle knowledge by William Lane Craig)

Philosophical arguments. Finally, I think that we also have good philosophical grounds for thinking that a doctrine of middle knowledge is correct. We may argue as follows:
(1) If there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, then God knows these truths.
(2) There are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
(3) If God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, God know them either logically prior to the divine creative decree or only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
(4)Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom cannot be known only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
From (1) and (2) it follows logically that
(5) Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
From (3) and (5) if follows that
(6) Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom either logically prior to the divine creative decree or only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
And from (4) and (6) it follows that
(7) Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree

Which is the essence of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge.

Kindle for PC 57% locations 1706-8 of 3003 “Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

 

[drstevej]

Molinism (middle knowledge by William Lane Graig)

Philosophical arguments. Finally, I think that we also have good philosophical grounds for thinking that a doctrine of middle knowledge is correct. We may argue as follows:
(1) If there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, then God knows these truths.
(2) There are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
(3) If God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, God know them either logically prior to the divine creative decree or only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
(4)Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom cannot be known only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
From (1) and (2) it follows logically that
(5) Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
From (3) and (5) if follows that
(6) Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom either logically prior to the divine creative decree or only logically posterior to the divine creative decree.
And from (4) and (6) it follows that
(7) Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree

Which is the essence of the doctrine of divine middle knowledge.

Kindle for PC 57% locations 1706-8 of 3003 “Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

William Lane Craig

... more philosophical unscrewing the inscrutable.

 

[heymikey80]

Two fact are established

Counterfactuals are biblical

Middle Knowledge is a Theological Philosophical Issue

Counterfactual items can be identified in Scripture. But the philosophy addressing counterfactuals didn't come into existence until at least 1800 years later -- and didn't get coherent until the 1940's at least.

The presumption that this new philosophical concept is what Scripture is talking about is extremely doubtful.

Middle knowledge is a concept a few hundred years earlier.

The idea of second causes -- is at least contemporary in Greek thought. Judaism was heavily Hellenized by the First Century, so there's no surprise that second-cause philosophy would exist in early Christian thought, and thus the Scriptures.

Unfortunately, Calvinism is also based on second causes.

 

[Hammster]

Therefore, God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree

Where is the Scriptural evidence that God used this knowledge to create a world which would result in the most people saved?

 

[Benefactor]

“………..while not explicitly taught by the biblical text, the doctrine of divine middle knowledge is certainly compatible with it, which cannot be said of at least some of its competitors. Middle knowledge redounds to the glory of God and illuminates biblical truth in a sizzling way. Moreover, we have good theological and philosophical grounds for affirming middle knowledge. Theologically, middle knowledge enables us to explain both the compatibility of divine foreknowledge with future contingents as well as the basis of divine foreknowledge and, more importantly, to provide an intelligible account of God’s providence over a world of free creatures. Philosophically, omniscience by definition entails knowledge of all truth and, since counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are true logically prior to God’s creative decree, they must therefore be known by God at that logical moment. Therefore, we should affirm that God has middle knowledge.” Kindle for PC – Divine Foreknowledge: Four View, 60%-Locations 1799-800 of 3003.

 

[Hammster]

Is there anyone here arguing AGAINST middle-knowledge?

 

[nobdysfool]

“………..while not explicitly taught by the biblical text, the doctrine of divine middle knowledge is certainly compatible with it, which cannot be said of at least some of its competitors. Middle knowledge redounds to the glory of God and illuminates biblical truth in a sizzling way. Moreover, we have good theological and philosophical grounds for affirming middle knowledge. Theologically, middle knowledge enables us to explain both the compatibility of divine foreknowledge with future contingents as well as the basis of divine foreknowledge and, more importantly, to provide an intelligible account of God’s providence over a world of free creatures. Philosophically, omniscience by definition entails knowledge of all truth and, since counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are true logically prior to God’s creative decree, they must therefore be known by God at that logical moment. Therefore, we should affirm that God has middle knowledge.” Kindle for PC – Divine Foreknowledge: Four View, 60%-Locations 1799-800 of 3003.

So What??? What difference does it make? It does not affect Calvinism AT ALL!!!