Molinism

[FaithfulPilgrim]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.

 

[Received]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.

I think in an important technical philosophical sense, Molinism has its justification for those who reject classical conceptions of God as eternal (which, to my knowledge, Craig does, calling him "omnitemporal"), and tries to see the world from God's perspective assuming a non-eternal (time as chronological/linear) perspective.

So if you're down with classic conceptions of eternity, I don't think Molinism is really needed. But part of the appeal of Molinism, I think, is to some people it's better to have a grasp on God's "perspective" by holding a non-eternal conception of God with Molinism as an explanation for how God's foreknowledge exists without contradicting freedom, rather than hold to classic conceptions of God as eternal with some of the mystery this necessarily involves seeing how, you know, we're not eternal.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.

I only have a cursory understanding of Molonism.

My problem with it is the same problem I have with Calvinism, free-will vs future-knowledge isn't adequately answered in my opinion.

I like Open Theism better, but again, I'm not an expert and haven't had the time just yet to really nail down the intricacies.

The most obvious and important attributes of God that I feel need preservation are Free Will and Love (omnibenevolence). Open Theism defend these the best IMO.

 

[Received]

I only have a cursory understanding of Molonism.

My problem with it is the same problem I have with Calvinism, free-will vs future-knowledge isn't adequately answered in my opinion.

I like Open Theism better, but again, I'm not an expert and haven't had the time just yet to really nail down the intricacies.

The most obvious and important attributes of God that I feel need preservation are Free Will and Love (omnibenevolence). Open Theism defend these the best IMO.

It helps me to realize that by definition the epistemic always depends on the ontological, whether we're talking about "regular" knowledge or foreknowledge. This means no matter if God "foreknows" (or "perceives" from eternity), his knowledge is dependent on our actions that are being "foreknown". Another way: because nothing ever is caused to be by knowing, so nothing is ever caused to be by foreknowing.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I think we need to be concerned with what's biblical—period.

 

[Received]

I think we need to be concerned with what's biblical—period.

Terms in the Bible need interpretation and contextualization, as you well know. Now, I'm not going to argue election with you on this point (unless you want to, I'm down), but individual election isn't the only game in town theologically; there's also corporate election, which arguably fits better (at least in terms of consistency) in terms of New Testament in relation to Old.

Other terms, like foreknowledge, ordination, predestination, etc. (but mostly these three) can pretty easily be put into a non-Calvinist interpretation (which isn't necessarily Molinism) without changing the rules that Calvinists use apropos this debate. Saying we should just stick with what's biblical, though, says either nothing (which I know you're not intending), or assumes that people who interpret the terms in question differently are doing so according to different rules (e.g., exegesis, contextualization, etc.) than Calvinists.

Now, maybe you're arguing for a face value reading as best from a sort of pragmatism, which can definitely be a reasonable approach, but I think in this case is a weak response, seeing how face value, if consistently applied Biblically, would get you into contradictory waters -- e.g., Biblical literalism as taking things at face value meaning God is an omnipresent spirit but also (per Psalm 91:4) that he has wings.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Terms in the Bible need interpretation and contextualization, as you well know. Now, I'm not going to argue election with you on this point (unless you want to, I'm down), but individual election isn't the only game in town theologically; there's also corporate election, which arguably fits better (at least in terms of consistency) in terms of New Testament in relation to Old.

Other terms, like foreknowledge, ordination, predestination, etc. (but mostly these three) can pretty easily be put into a non-Calvinist interpretation (which isn't necessarily Molinism) without changing the rules that Calvinists use apropos this debate. Saying we should just stick with what's biblical, though, says either nothing (which I know you're not intending), or assumes that people who interpret the terms in question differently are doing so according to different rules (e.g., exegesis, contextualization, etc.) than Calvinists.

Now, maybe you're arguing for a face value reading as best from a sort of pragmatism, which can definitely be a reasonable approach, but I think in this case is a weak response, seeing how face value, if consistently applied Biblically, would get you into contradictory waters -- e.g., Biblical literalism as taking things at face value meaning God is an omnipresent spirit but also (per Psalm 91:4) that he has wings.

The only thing I am saying is that we should only be concerned with what the biblical data presents as truth about God, not what any philosophical system says God should or must be like.

Whatever that means for anyone here is their decision.

 

[Received]

The only thing I am saying is that we should only be concerned with what the biblical data presents as truth about God, not what any philosophical system says God should or must be like.

Whatever that means for anyone here is their decision.

Right, but this assumes that philosophical underpinnings aren't intrinsically part of theology. They are. It makes sense to speak about biblical data in a raw sense (that's a really useful metaphor, I think), but when it comes to theology, which by definition entails interpretation, which in turn by definition entails philosophical and other underpinnings (e.g., exegesis, which arguably itself has a necessary philosophical flavor), you can't speak of it on the one hand and philosophy as a separate, detachable sphere on the other.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Right, but this assumes that philosophical underpinnings aren't intrinsically part of theology. They are. It makes sense to speak about biblical data in a raw sense (that's a really useful metaphor, I think), but when it comes to theology, which by definition entails interpretation, which in turn by definition entails philosophical and other underpinnings (e.g., exegesis, which arguably itself has a necessary philosophical flavor), you can't speak of it on the one hand and philosophy as a separate, detachable sphere on the other.

Whatever Scripture says about God is what we are bound believe about God, not to that which a philosophical system says God must conform.

 

[Received]

Whatever Scripture says about God is what we are bound believe about God, not to that which a philosophical system says God must conform.

So are you saying that there is no interpretation and (more technically and necessarily) no exegetical process needed to make the most sense of what the biblical data say?

 

[TaylorSexton]

So are you saying that there is no interpretation and (more technically and necessarily) no exegetical process needed to make the most sense of what the biblical data say?

No. I am saying that our only concern should be what Scripture says about God, not what a philosophical system says God must be like.

 

[Received]

No. I am saying that our only concern should be what Scripture says about God, not what a philosophical system says God must be like.

If we understand philosophy as thinking deeply about core concepts (a legitimate paraphrased definition by many contemporary philosohpers), how do you distinguish that from theology and/or being concerned about what scripture says about God?

 

[TaylorSexton]

If we understand philosophy as thinking deeply about core concepts (a legitimate paraphrased definition by many contemporary philosohpers), how do you distinguish that from theology and/or being concerned about what scripture says about God?

Whatever faithfully represents what God says about himself in his Word, I accept; whatever does not, I reject. I am bound to believe only what God says about himself in his self-revelation. My concern is not to seek what system I think best tickles my fancy about God, but to seek out what he says about himself in his Word, to the exclusion of everything that is contrary.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.

My thoughts center more on how the theology came into being than on what it teaches.

I'm suspicious of the thought of an intellectual exercise that attempts to integrate what a person has chosen to accept from disparate theologies.

The first step is a pick-and-choose what is true (which why would we be able to have confidence in his accurate assessment in each case?) ... and secondly, when seeing that various aspects don't make logical sense together, trying to develop a system to force the chosen elements to fit together.

Have I got that right? I may not, and forgive me please if I am wrong - I took your description then added a bit of conjecture.

And please further forgive me, I purposely stated it in somewhat less than positive terms.

I fully accept free will and God's foreknowledge ... simply in that knowing what will happen does not necessarily represent a cause of the outcome. I don't think God pre-DETERMINES anything with regard to human free will.

And if this is an unwelcome post, please forgive me. I am happy to discuss, but have no interest in arguing. It seemed an interesting question though.

God be with you.

 

[Received]

Whatever faithfully represents what God says about himself in his Word, I accept; whatever does not, I reject. I am bound to believe only what God says about himself in his self-revelation. My concern is not to seek what system I think best tickles my fancy about God, but to seek out what he says about himself in his Word, to the exclusion of everything that is contrary.

Now we're getting somewhere. What evidence do you have that "divine philosophy" doesn't itself result from a careful evaluation of scripture? Scriptural data, like all data, need theories in order to make sense, and this is part and parcel of interpretation. What separates theology as theory from theological philosophy (or philosophical theology) is (by definition of what philosophy is) a matter of attention to detail in coming up with a theory.

I know you're not against the idea of paying close attention to scriptural data in coming to a theological (theory) conclusion. So it's apparent here (even in your own words) that you're creating a straw man by defining philosophy as superfluous stuff created by man not supported by the biblical data in a serious and attention-to-detail sense.

ETA: you would have more of a point if we were talking about the field of philosophy of religion, which far from always bases its philosophical questions and attempts at answers on scriptural data. But we're not talking about philosophy of religion here.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Now we're getting somewhere. What evidence do you have that "divine philosophy" doesn't itself result from a careful evaluation of scripture? Scriptural data, like all data, need theories in order to make sense, and this is part and parcel of interpretation. What separates theology as theory from theological philosophy (or philosophical theology) is (by definition of what philosophy is) a matter of attention to detail in coming up with a theory.

I know you're not against the idea of paying close attention to scriptural data in coming to a theological (theory) conclusion. So it's apparent here (even in your own words) that you're creating a straw man by defining philosophy as superfluous stuff created by man not supported by the biblical data in a serious and attention-to-detail sense.

Whatever God tells me about himself is what I am bound to believe. That is all I am concerned about.

 

[Received]

Whatever God tells me about himself is what I am bound to believe. That is all I am concerned about.

Then don't exclude philosophy, unless it clearly results in superfluous theories that aren't based on scriptural data. Molinism, getting back, is just another philosophical-theological theory that draws on the data of scripture. You can say that the data are misinterpreted, or that any reasoning leading to conclusions are invalid or unsound, but you can't just assume philosophy is superfluous stuff and can't, instead, be incredibly useful and enlightening in coming to theological conclusions about God -- not to mention being intrinsic to many theological processes in trying to make sense of scripture.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Then don't exclude philosophy, unless it clearly results in superfluous theories that aren't based on scriptural data. Molinism, getting back, is just another philosophical-theological theory that draws on the data of scripture. You can say that the data are misinterpreted, or that any reasoning leading to conclusions are invalid or unsound, but you can't just assume philosophy is superfluous stuff and can't, instead, be incredibly useful and enlightening in coming to theological conclusions about God -- not to mention being intrinsic to many theological processes in trying to make sense of scripture.

The OP asked what people's opinion of Molinism is. My opinion is that we be concerned only about what God says about himself in his Word, rather than shopping for philosophical paradigms. The same opinion transfers to Calvinism, Open Theism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Universalism, Annihilationalism, Unitarianism, etc.

We should be concerned only with what God says about himself in his Word.

 

[Received]

The OP asked what people's opinion of Molinism is. My opinion is that we be concerned only about what God says about himself in his Word, rather than shopping for philosophical paradigms. The same opinion transfers to Calvinism, Open Theism, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Universalism, Annihilationalism, Unitarianism, etc.

We should be concerned only with what God says about himself in his Word.

Right, but what evidence do you have that the person who wrote the OP or anyone who is responding to it seriously aren't concerned about what God says about himself and his Word?

 

[TaylorSexton]

Right, but what evidence do you have that the person who wrote the OP or anyone who is responding to it seriously aren't concerned about what God says about himself and his Word?

I never accused anyone of such. I merely stated my own opinion: we should be concerned only with what God says about himself in his Word.