Molinism

[Received]

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.

Ok, but what would inspire you to bring this up in the first place? I wouldn't think you're going around saying this in all subfora in such an unsolicited way.

Going to bed. Goodnight, T.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Ok, but what would inspire you to bring this up in the first place? I wouldn't think you're going around saying this in all subfora in such an unsolicited way.

The thread solicited the opinion of Molinism, and I responded with the opinion that we should only concerned with believing what God says about himself in his Word, not adhering to a philosophical system, evaluating them on their own merits apart from what God says about himself and his works in his Word.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

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.

Here's my problem though.

God does not know His own future:
1. God knows the total-future
2. Therefore, God knows His own future
3. God is free to do as He pleases
4. Therefore, God is not constrained by His own future
5. Therefore, God does not know His own future

So if God does not have total foreknowledge (because He doesn't know His own future actions) then He doesn't have foreknowledge in this universe either because He interacts with us.

God does not have foreknowledge regarding this universe:
1. God does not know His own future actions
2. God interacts with us
3. Therefore God does not have foreknowledge in the earth

I think this simply debunks both Calvinism and Molinism and leaves Open Theism as the only rational option.

Some extra bits that relate:
A. God can still prophesy future actions by ensuring they happen, but without controlling the whole universe like a puppet master, or knowing exactly what each human will choose.
B. Predestination is the predestining of groups; individuals can choose which group they enter.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Doesn't all of this presuppose that God encounters time as we do?

What if time is a created thing, and time as we know it has a beginning and an end?

What if God is present before the beginning, and after the end, and in the present?

I see no necessity that knowledge of an event causes it to happen.

It is a poor example (I cannot think of a better one) but I can see an ice cube on a hot day and know with 99.9999999999999% certainty that it will melt (barring some strange cosmic event - and being God He would know about those, so He could have 100% knowledge). But I didn't CAUSE it to melt.

There is no free will in my example, but the principle is the same. And if God knows because "He is already there" then His knowledge is necessarily perfect.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Doesn't all of this presuppose that God encounters time as we do?

What if time is a created thing, and time as we know it has a beginning and an end?

What if God is present before the beginning, and after the end, and in the present?

I see no necessity that knowledge of an event causes it to happen.

It is a poor example (I cannot think of a better one) but I can see an ice cube on a hot day and know with 99.9999999999999% certainty that it will melt (barring some strange cosmic event - and being God He would know about those, so He could have 100% knowledge). But I didn't CAUSE it to melt.

There is no free will in my example, but the principle is the same. And if God knows because "He is already there" then His knowledge is necessarily perfect.

You are right in that your example doesn't deal with free will. It deals with "robots" well.

Any view outside of Open Theism that I know of, puts God in total responsibility for every single evil thing that ever happens. Why? Because He already saw it would happen this way (He is outside of time, as you say) yet continued to create free-agents anyway. Open Theism solves this because there was a chance that there would be no evil or suffering. God took a risk in this view, and we/evil-agents acted against His desire. In theory it sounds nice to say "the reward is worth more than the evil" and so God chose to go ahead with the evil, but in practice, with young people tortured etc. I don't think it holds much weight. I thinks it's more correct to lay the responsibility for evil on the Devil and our own bad choices, than on God. But who knows, as I spend time pondering these things my views often ebb and flow All these things are quite difficult to comprehend, really.

 

[Radagast]

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

Augustinianism, Calvinism, Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all attempt to do that, in various ways.

Other systems, like Open Theism, simply toss God's sovereignty (and omniscience) out the window, of course.

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.

Oh, please! That's not true. Luis de Molina was not a Reformer: he was a Jesuit. The Jesuits were ardent foes of the Reformation.

In fact, at a simplistic level, Molinism is a Catholic version of Arminianism, while Thomism and Jansenism are Catholic versions of Calvinism.

A Molinist/Thomist controversy raged in the Catholic world from about 1594 onwards. In fact, I'm not sure it was ever really formally resolved; the Jesuits eventually wound up winning by default since their influence became greater.

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

Some would say that makes Craig a semi-Pelagian.

 

[Radagast]

Doesn't all of this presuppose that God encounters time as we do?

Which He doesn't, of course: God is outside time. That means that it's easy to write English sentences about God that are simply nonsense, because they implicitly assume that God is subject to time.

I see no necessity that knowledge of an event causes it to happen.

Well, there are two relevant implications of God's knowledge:

(1) Irrespective of causes, knowledge of an event that to us is in the future means that the event has to happen that way; no alternative is possible. Since God knows the future perfectly, that means that the future must be fixed. It's like we are characters in a book: we don't know what the next chapter holds, but God does.

(2) God created this Universe (out of all possible Universes) knowing how it would turn out. In a sense, that means that God, by creating the Universe, caused all events that have taken place or will take place.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You are right in that your example doesn't deal with free will. It deals with "robots" well.

Any view outside of Open Theism that I know of, puts God in total responsibility for every single evil thing that ever happens. Why? Because He already saw it would happen this way (He is outside of time, as you say) yet continued to create free-agents anyway. Open Theism solves this because there was a chance that there would be no evil or suffering. God took a risk in this view, and we/evil-agents acted against His desire. In theory it sounds nice to say "the reward is worth more than the evil" and so God chose to go ahead with the evil, but in practice, with young people tortured etc. I don't think it holds much weight. I thinks it's more correct to lay the responsibility for evil on the Devil and our own bad choices, than on God. But who knows, as I spend time pondering these things my views often ebb and flow All these things are quite difficult to comprehend, really.

Hmmmm. I can see what you mean. But it looks like a contrivance to get God "off the hook".

In the case of someone who is hurting, and maybe for whatever reason NEEDS to let God off the hook in order to be able to trust Him, well, who am I to take that away from them?

I don't agree that it is accurate though.

I still place the responsibility for evil on those who chose to do it. To me, that really makes logical sense, to make any free agent responsible for their own choices. That ought to be the price of freedom.

And I don't have a problem judging God for allowing it all. It's a little premature, since we don't actually know how it will all play out. We are talking about eternity, and we are told we can't even imagine what things will be like. So with that in mind, if we try to think of an analogy that we can relate to, (and remembering that Scriptures say this life is fleeting, and not worthy to compare) ... what if we imagine a long, healthy, and happy life lived by a person at the cost of an injection that saved their life in infancy. That shot might have hurt the baby, made him cry, might have been a terrible painful injection even. But ask him when he's 85 and having had a wonderful life if it was worth it? It's possible that in the end, we might regard this age of suffering and evil as being of no more import than that painful injection, by comparison.

Of course, you might not comfort suffering youngsters with such a thought. Or maybe that's just the kind of thought they need. I don't know.

But really, how can God know enough to offer prophecy through the ages if He had no idea man would sin? And what sense is the "Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world"?

I am leery of arriving at explanations because they placate our human understanding. It has served me better to consider everything from a more eternal perspective, as much as I can conceptualize it, and then nothing needs explaining away.

Forgive me if I sound dismissive, or condescending, or offensive in any way. As I said, I'm up for discussion, but it is not my intent to argue, so if I come across that way, please forgive me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Which He doesn't, of course: God is outside time. That means that it's easy to write English sentences about God that are simply nonsense, because they implicitly assume that God is subject to time.



Well, there are two relevant implications of God's knowledge:

(1) Irrespective of causes, knowledge of an event that to us is in the future means that the event has to happen that way; no alternative is possible. Since God knows the future perfectly, that means that the future must be fixed. It's like we are characters in a book: we don't know what the next chapter holds, but God does.

(2) God created this Universe (out of all possible Universes) knowing how it would turn out. In a sense, that means that God, by creating the Universe, caused all events that have taken place or will take place.

I think I see your point, Radagast, but again, in the case of number 1, it seems to confuse God being subject to time.

If I start with God and try to explain it, that is a difficult task. But if I turn it around, forget God for a moment, and imagine a history where everything happens in time as a result of choices (not fixed), perhaps as an atheist imagines the world to progress ... then keeping that in mind, take a step back and imagine that I am no longer in time, is it still possible for the events to happen/have happened just as they were/did before, even though I can now perfectly observe?

My observation, from God's perspective, does not necessarily interact to force actions.

Unless I'm missing something.

 

[Radagast]

I still place the responsibility for evil on those who chose to do it. To me, that really makes logical sense, to make any free agent responsible for their own choices. That ought to be the price of freedom.

The Bible agrees with you. For example, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was punished for the evil choices he made. But the Bible also speaks of God planning it all. Or consider Matthew 18:7: "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!"

... what if we imagine a long, healthy, and happy life lived by a person at the cost of an injection that saved their life in infancy. That shot might have hurt the baby, made him cry, might have been a terrible painful injection even. But ask him when he's 85 and having had a wonderful life if it was worth it? It's possible that in the end, we might regard this age of suffering and evil as being of no more import than that painful injection, by comparison.

A good analogy.

Romans 8:18: "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."

Romans 8:28 "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."

Of course, you might not comfort suffering youngsters with such a thought.

I think that one comforts them by telling them to trust Father. Father loves you.

It has served me better to consider everything from a more eternal perspective, as much as I can conceptualize it, and then nothing needs explaining away.

I think that's valid. Many of the apparent problems in discussion seem to come from not considering the eternal perspective.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I think that one comforts them by telling them to trust Father. Father loves you.

Agree.

Forgive me if I sound dismissive, or condescending, or offensive in any way.

You don't

Can I ask, which of these points you disagree with?
1. God knows His own future
2. God is free to do as He pleases

The two are incompatible, they contradict one another, don't they?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Agree.


You don't

Can I ask, which of these points you disagree with?
1. God knows His own future
2. God is free to do as He pleases

The two are incompatible, they contradict one another, don't they?

I'm sorry, but I don't see them as incompatible.

We are necessarily limited, and things can come up, but I might plan to do thus-and-such tomorrow. I'm perfectly free to choose to do it. And barring any unforeseen circumstances (which God could see), I will do it. Knowing my future doesn't make me unable to have chosen it.

Again, doesn't that constrain God to time? If you tie God to time, it becomes a bit chicken-and-egg ... God couldn't know UNTIL He decided? But again, if God doesn't experience time as we do, but is ever-present, that's a different reality, isn't it?

 

[Radagast]

I think I see your point, Radagast, but again, in the case of number 1, it seems to confuse God being subject to time.

Goes to illustrate my point that it's so easy to write nonsense. I was careful to write "an event that to us is in the future," but then later on I should have said "our future," not "the future."

As you say, God is not subject to time.

That's where the book analogy works, imo. To the character in chapter 7 (or to the reader reading chapter 7), chapter 8 is "the future." To the Author who wrote the book, the book is one completed whole. The author is outside the timeline of the book.

(In the case of God, however, there is one exception: God becomes a character in his own book. God the Son is not subject to time, but through the mystery of the Incarnation, Jesus was.)

Some of these issues get explored in film in interesting ways. I liked the ending of Terminator 3, for example, where the future is known because people and robots come back from the future to describe it.

The film ends: "By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown. The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would. Judgment Day, the day the human race was almost destroyed by the weapons they'd built to protect themselves. I should have realized it was never our destiny to stop Judgment Day, it was merely to survive it, together. The Terminator knew; he tried to tell us, but I didn't want to hear it. Maybe the future has been written. I don't know; all I know is what the Terminator taught me; never stop fighting. And I never will. The battle has just begun."

That is, the future may be written, but there is still a moral imperative to choose well in the here-and-now.

 

[JoeP222w]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

It is utter nonsense and it denies the sovereignty and omniscience of God. It has absolutely no Biblical basis, but is based solely in man's flawed philosophies.

 

[Radagast]

Can I ask, which of these points you disagree with?
1. God knows His own future

We have a past and a future. God is outside of time; He does not.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We have a past and a future. God is outside of time; He does not.

Ugh ... I've been up for 24 hours (and a bit under the weather) ... I missed that very simple point when replying.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I like the book analogy to a point (as an explanation regarding knowledge and time) ... but ... the author did perfectly cause everything that happens in the book, so for the purposes of this question (of causation) it doesn't work for me ...

And I remember how that part of Terminator caught me and made me think about it. That was an interesting little circular scenario.

Goes to illustrate my point that it's so easy to write nonsense. I was careful to write "an event that to us is in the future," but then later on I should have said "our future," not "the future."

As you say, God is not subject to time.

That's where the book analogy works, imo. To the character in chapter 7 (or to the reader reading chapter 7), chapter 8 is "the future." To the Author who wrote the book, the book is one completed whole. The author is outside the timeline of the book.

(In the case of God, however, there is one exception: God becomes a character in his own book. God the Son is not subject to time, but through the mystery of the Incarnation, Jesus was.)

Some of these issues get explored in film in interesting ways. I liked the ending of Terminator 3, for example, where the future is known because people and robots come back from the future to describe it.

The film ends: "By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown. The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would. Judgment Day, the day the human race was almost destroyed by the weapons they'd built to protect themselves. I should have realized it was never our destiny to stop Judgment Day, it was merely to survive it, together. The Terminator knew; he tried to tell us, but I didn't want to hear it. Maybe the future has been written. I don't know; all I know is what the Terminator taught me; never stop fighting. And I never will. The battle has just begun."

That is, the future may be written, but there is still a moral imperative to choose well in the here-and-now.

 

[Radagast]

Ugh ... I've been up for 24 hours (and a bit under the weather)

Ouch! Get well soon!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Ouch! Get well soon!

Been trying to do that.

Going to log off and sleep in a minute though. It's tomorrow.

 

[Light of the East]

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.

Which means that you cannot be a Calvinist in any sense of the matter since the clearest definition of God is that God is love and Calvinism describes Him as a monster without feelings.

And BTW - Calvinism is a philosophy and a system of interpreting the Bible.