wryan,
I wouldn't be sure where to start. Molinism as a whole seems to be a route that those - at least speaking today - take if they reject the eternality of God. And in my opinion, the eternality of God, and His being outside of time or not, matters little to me. In my mind, it seems logical to claim that God is
both; in time and outside of it, for time is measured by the relation that matter has with change, and 'before' the creation of the cosmos there was not even any space for matter to take place in - there wasn't even a nothing! And God, being 'before' this (I use the quotes because before implies time, which God was not a part of, for time started with the creation of the cosmos), would be outside of it, as well as within space, for,contrary to popular belief, God is not occupying the third heaven only, but the heavens period - He is everywhere - ""Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?" declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:23,24).
I choose Molinism primarily for the idea of Middle-knowledge, not saying that this is exactly how things are done, but at least a step in a better direction. William Lane Craig wrote a book where he includes his ideas on Molinism in "The Only Wise God". He also has articles concerning this, holding to his 'omnitemporal' position, rather than strict timelessness that many have held in the past. I believe this is something along the lines of what I believe. Here are his articles - they are rather difficult:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html
FluviusNeckar,
I don't think an emotionless God is a bad thing; though I certainly thought otherwise when I first read Aquinas. I believe the reason He is impassible is not because He
cannot have emotions - that is, He refuses to -, but because He
is the fulfillment of emotion - He is infinite love. When humans get 'emotional', it can be said that they are acting in a way more passionately than usual; that is, they are not professing the
real person they are, but elevating it for a certain occasion - and there is nothing wrong with this at all, considering that it isn't done every second of the day (I am against this type of Romanticism). God cannot do this, for infinite love has no room for elevation. He simply
is. Negative emotions, like wrath and anger cannot be found in Him intrinsically, though external surroundings may cause Him to be this way. He would not be having emotions because He is not expressing Himself any further than necessary; He is acting out the foolish and heartless acts of man in perfect accordance with their rebellion through punishment. If it were a step further, it would be emotion. But this is not the case, for God cannot 'overdo' it - He is over the over! Many who hold divine impassibility claim that God's 'changing His mind' in passages such as Exodus 32 and Isaiah 38 are mere metaphor; I would disagree. God's relenting in these passages has not to do with His own doubt, but with the power of
prayer. Though it is difficult for us to grasp, I think it is incorrect to claim that His relenting is mere metaphor. Compassionate passages such as Hosea 11 would not deal with emotions, but with feelings. God hates the idea of punishment - the scripture says He takes no joy in the death of the wicked - and to such can be reconciled with an omnipotent, eternal deity.
All emotions that are negative in themselves cannot be found in God's character, but only through the rebellion of man. Love, on the other hand, can be worked in a number of ways, for love is a feeling, a state, rather than an extended or elevated proliferation of a person's character for a limited amount of time. Anselm asked how it was that he felt God's mercy when He could not give mercy, and the answer was that God's love given in the specific situation that Anselm was in registered
as mercy. Love is love, and God is love (1 John 4:8). There is no other virtue that God is
called in the bible as He is with love. When our loved ones are down, and they need our help even though they may have been rude to us, we simply
love them regardless and they feel not only love, but mercy, for their guilt given their situation is given rest, wheras this would not be the case with one who is not in a similar position. We cannot choose the subgroups of love as we wish when dealing with people; we are not commanded to. We are to simply love, and so it is with God - a thinking (meditative) being, who loves us all differently, planning each of our paths accordingly. To go into this doctrine any further would simply be folly - we must leave this to wonder.
