Featured Divine Foreknowledge: Circumstances, Possibilities, Volitional Options and Truth

Benjamin, I believe the 'great watershed divide' for Christians is between the ideas of creaturely free will -vs- meticulous providence over creatures. That is, 'What kind of world did God create?' So, that being the case, I am generally sympathetic to various views on the 'free will' side: Simple Foreknowledge, Open Theism, and Molinism (not Process Theism though... maybe this can be talked about in another thread... I don't think there are any PT's on the board to represent). In my quote above, I used the term 'classical arminian', while still hitting the mark, I meant it in the sense of 'Simple Foreknowledge'. In the attempt to chew and savor the meat of ideas, cracking the nut of Molinism seems more difficult than those of SF or OT. So, maybe you can help me. I will say that it takes me longer to come to a point of absurdity considering Molinism than it does Simple Foreknowledge. Yet, all the while it seems I can hear a haunting, distant sound approaching… as though it were the sound of an ancient friar slowly but steadily honing. I may have a misunderstanding of Molinism but in the end, God's use of MK in an instantaneous, exhaustive and final deliberation before creating as proposed by Molinism, is still meticulous and manipulative and seems to me, just above the basest means of ensuring that He wins in the end. (Can that be taken as a compliment?... lol... that sounds a harsh description for such a thoughtful and respectable attempt at rescuing theology from desparaging God's character!)

However, rest assured that I am open to understanding Molinism and would be willing to accept it as my settled opinion on the matter if it makes a stronger case than SF or OT. I hope that you as well, regardless of how settled your opinion may be, will be open palmed about your and my view, unless you are just here to instruct me, which is fine, I'll consider it for what it's worth.

Before I get into the matter more, I would like to address the relationship that you seem to promote between CCFs (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom), Middle Knowledge and Molinism. It seems that you are saying that if I want to buy the first and/or the second then that would require buying the third, or that the third comes free and that without the third I cannot buy the first or second. I don't see CCF or Middle Knowledge requiring Molinism. So, at this point, you will NOT have to convince me of the truth/existence of CCFs or Middle Knowledge but I may need some convincing that CCFs and Middle Knowledge were used to determine which world God would actually actualize, which is what I understand Molinism to propose. You will have to convince me that the following is false: Molinism is the description of God's exhaustive deliberation and meticulous selection of this world before creation and was God's way of preserving creaturely freedom while still ensuring God's Sovereignty and resulting in God getting the exact world he chose to actualize with not even the slightest deviation of atom or creaturely thought.

Sshhhhhhhhhh.... listen real close... do you hear that sound...?

 

Would say that most calvinists would hold that God is fully sovereign, but in that He has allowed/permitted his creations to be able to choose what they want to do...

Its just that by very natures, bound/limited to what they can actual choose to do, and in all situations, the Lord still has control over all things, through determining what came to pass, or allowing others to decide what comes to pass, all in his predestined palns and purposes!

 

--Time-out!-- I'm not sure if you think I am a Calvinist or not... sorry... --Time in--...

I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're saying that Calvinism's view is that God foreknows because he predetermines, correct? I agree that that's what Calvinism's view is. It also sounds like you're saying that God can allow creatures to be free while still knowing what the future will bring and He can interact with these creatures, and thereby accomplish His will for them, correct? I agree with that assessment and that comports with my view as well... so far nothing new or exclusive to Molinism...

Yes, and infact I believe this is more congruent with my view than with Molinism. It seems that once the middle knowledge deliberation is completed just prior to creation, that there is nothing more for God to do (a Molinist on this board wHoSe name I'll not mention admitted such ;-) ). It seems that He would just follow the script He chose and act only where and how He knew He would act during deliberation... So, with Molinism we have God knowing what He will certainly do and thereby not able to act/think differently while the script is being played out until the end when He is finally free. For if He did act differently than he knew He certainly would during his MK diliberation, then how could His deliberative knowledge have been certain? This is just one thing I find absurd... I basically have the same complaint regarding man being able to act differently than how God knew he certainly would. And if these complaints stand, then how in the multi-world could God be genuine in his pleadings for man to change? And if you somehow make the case that God is genuine in his plea to change, why would God frustrate Himself with desiring something that He knows he would certainly never get? It seems that all possibilities are logically expired once God finished deliberating in the MK and chose to actualize a world. This seems like a mighty fine strawman I've created. I do hope it is a strawman. I look forword to your reply.

I'll address the situation with Saul, David, and the men of Keilah shortly.

 

I prefer to not argue about the interpretation of this passage being in support of Molinism until I have a better understanding of the view, or at least how you see it. I definately have responses but I really would like to get some feedback from you on the above questions I've asked and claims I've made about Molinism. I await your response.

 

Yes, I'm sure you did set sail years before I did. I set sail this way just about three months ago and I definitely see your smoke signals. I am visiting an Island, and maybe you were here once... it seems that many are here and that many would like to visit. It is surely the bad rumors that are being bantored about and boogy-man warnings that have scared off would-be visitors. There's a certain degree of victory people can achieve by calling other people bad names. This appears to have worked so well for them that that's their SOP for many things other than this island. You may have therefore been too early in arriving... now that I seem to understand it I feel I see where people have misunderstood. I for one don't see what the big deal is, so I'm camping out here for now...

I can definately appreciate the time it takes to organize thoughts, consider the audience, rearrange, correct typos, and put forward a meritorias or at least respectable argument. This can be a difficult task indeed... I think maybe we should just start posting scripture with an attitude of "Ha, take that! Defeated by my deft manouvering from ctl-c to ctl-v! No explanation needed in that scripture!" and then victoriously exit making a shout-out to God's sovereignty.

Yes, I share your concern you referenced about the logical conclusion of Molinism.

I recognize the attempt but I think it fails due to being a quasi-determinism, and seems to make God to be disingenuous and/or self-frustrating as I described earlier in this thread. (I am willing to be wrong about my understanding though.)

The problem for me is that with Molinism, the MK can only be prior to the act of creation. The scripture above, to me, does not necessarily show a MK as described by Molinism that is pre-volitional... that is, I would say that you are making an assumption that Saul or the men of Kelaiah hadn't already decided in their hearts that they would do the things that God tells David they will do. In this case all that God would have to do is know what is in Saul's and the men's hearts and minds at the present, which God obviously can do. So, for God to be able to truthfully tell David what the others would do in no way would require a crystal ball to look into the future nor would it require that God know what was certainly going to happen in the future (besides, that wouldn't make a difference if He were to tell David what was certainly going to happen to him in the future).

Well, I think the SF people think the same thing. But, how can they answer the obvious rebuttal in a logically sound manner without a contradiction of terms?

For me, because MK's utilization is exhasted prior to the act of creation, the big picture is exactly what Molinism gets wrong. While the shawmen are still obfuscating, trying I do think that there's more real reasoned information now than when you last visited the island.

 

So that's how it is? Go on vacation for a week and then this!!! :smilewinkgrin:
Actually, reading this thread...I wonder what you mean by this..

I think I recall what you are referring to...but I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. What are you referring to?

<--- very creative BTW :thumbs:

 

I hope you had a good vacation! I could tell you needed it! ;-)

Per this thread, the answer given to the question of whether God uses his Middle Knowledge after the act of creation was, "Only prior to the creative act....It is essentially pointless afterwards, after the creative act...It is His Free Knowledge that results in exhaustive foreknowledge."

 

Thought that was the one....You said however that God needs to DO no more...and I took that to mean God is now the God of Deism, and he is not subsequently interactive with his creation. Acc. Molinism, God's Free Knowledge is essentially the basis of his foreknowledge of actual events...vis a vis SFV.

If by DO you meant that there is no more for God to Know then, I think, you would be more or less correct. There are of course, no probabilities, in a Molinist account, only true propositions. There is raw logical possibility per LFW...this is what I think turns off Cals and OT's alike...sometimes even those who believe only in SF. Raw logical possibility is insufficient for them to adequately ascribe legitimate LFW. To the Molinist, the Free Choice of the creature is logically prior to any decree...even only a potential counterfactual one. To the Molinist, this is sufficient for LFW.

The creatures choice is free.....he just can't escape being seen making it, so to speak.

 

Correct, we're each pickin' up what the other's throwin' down...

I love the honesty! That is how I understand Molinism as well! So, since there are no probabilities, and since there is no such thing as a possibility with a zero probability, then there are no true possibilities, only true propositions, correct?

So, the raw logical possibility is not a real possibility, it's just a theoretical possibility, an illusion maybe, like this?

He can't escape the necessity that he choose the choice that he is known to choose, correct?

So... I have such tremendous questions for you. They are the same I'd ask a determinist (calvinist) and a Simple Foreknowledge proponent:

1) How is God being genuine in His plea to change when He knows His plea will certainly not make a difference?
2) Why does God expect people to change when He knows they certainly will not? How could He possibly be genuinely disappointed?
3) Why does God inflict frustration on Himself for thousands of years in pleading with people whom He knows will certainly not change? How could this possibly be genuine frustration?

 

No, it is as real (ontologically real) a possibility as any choice. The LFW exists prima facie and is understood no differently as it is in any system which accepts LFW. It is a real Choice...it is simply that God can know that choice infallibly prior to its actualization.

Necessity is transferred mistakenly here I believe, and it is the same mistake I believe is made by Calvinists who debate against Molinism and consider it determinism as you seem to. The choice is free.....God necessarily knows the choice. Necessity is not transferred to the content of the choice itself. The choice might very well have been otherwise, but the content of what God knew is still contingent upon the choice the moral agent makes. It is only necessary that God knew it, not that it was what it was. Remember this : http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1825241&postcount=35

To your questions:

He is genuine in that his honest desire is that ALL would come to Christ. God grants sufficient grace (prevenient type if you like) for any to honestly come to him if they choose. He is as active in his pleas in a Molinist account as he is in any. Part of the "Plea" to Salvation or the "enabling call" is as much a part of the "circumstances" relevant to Molinism as anything else. To a Molinist, God does all of this, he simply does not labour under a mistaken or false assumption that his enabling calls will in fact be actualized as positive choices for Christ.

"Expect" is probably the key word here. He does not "expect" it will occur, in the sense of fallaciously believing that it will occur, but he honestly desires that it will, and his call is sufficient to enable it as well, and he is as willing to be frustrated in his attempt as he is in any LFW system....if it were not so, then he would be unjust.

He is genuinely disappointed whether it is chronologically and/or logically prior to the creative act or post the creative decree. The moment God chooses to allow LFW, then the list of "feasible" worlds there are that he might possibly create becomes severly limited. There is simply NO POSSIBLE world he can create wherein all creatures given free will accept him. Thus he suffers (as it were) his dissapointment prior to the creative decree as much as he does in conjunction with it. (The Molinist I think takes the same view of divine timelessness as any orthodox view). The choices are the choices, and there is essentially nothing he can do to change them, while at the same time preserving LFW.

For the exact same reason he does in any system which believes in LFW. The same question might be asked of an OT no? You (I think, correct me if I am wrong) believe that there are presumably those whom God infallibly knows that there is a 99.5567% probablility will not accept him. Why then would God create them? I think any system is subject to this criticism. Why would God (given OT) create those whom he infallibly knows that there is say.....an 88% probablility that they will not accept?
The problem has never been merely THAT such beings exist....it is that God has chosen to CREATE them in the first place. Does the OT maintain that the only created beings are those whom God infallibly knows have a 96.5% probablility of accepting God's call to Salvation? The answer I give is, I think, the same as yours:

Because of the necessity of his nature....He is necessarily perfect Love.

Perfect Love will always, by definition, pour out itself (or HIMSELF) as the Scriptures teach....to give without regard for one's personal desires to the object of Divine Love. Love will always spill itself and be wasted for the benefit of the object of Love's desire and affection, and perfect Love will do so whether it is unrequited or not. It is utterly immaterial to perfect Love whether the object of perfect love responds with the returned affection. Perfect Love simply has no choice. There are many options which God, in his ultimately Sovereign nature, is simply UNABLE to take, because of who and what he is.

 

HoS, before I explain further I'd like to discuss the idea of possibilities that both of our systems of thought rely on. In both of our views, I think it's important for us to try to understand the incredibly large numbers we are dealing with. With either view we cannot even begin to imagine the amount of possibilities that are being considered by God - I doubt that even if every human's lifetime was spent considering the possibilities and each picking up where the previous left off, I doubt that we'd come close to thinking of all the possibilities that God was able to prior to creation. I believe this to be your understanding as it is mine. I just wanted to bring it up to increase our appreciation for how and what God deliberated.

As I understand the Molinist view, God considered all possibilities and each possibility that differed with another possibility is described as a 'world' such that there are as many worlds as there are possibilities. Every world is identical to the world closest to it except for the single variant, that being the unique possibility. Therefore, it can be the case as you proposed above, that prior to creation God knew with not just 99.5567% but 100% probability the occurance of any specific event, including the final status of belief of every particular person. (You would accept of course that my response here is in a world and solely because of my response, it is one of those worlds, and ha! is in the very world that God actualized! Correct?)

As I understand OT, the same can not be said of God. It seems that there would be no significant probability for any one specific event to occur and that only those events that He predetermined had a 100% probability of occuring. So, while you deftly maneuvere like Carlos Gracie, I don't think your jiu jitsu hold with which you have managed to pin all other theological views will be as effective on OT. The OT view of God seems to afford God more of a reason for not not creating the world (yes, for lack of a better term I used a double negative). In other words, the other views seem to give God a better reason not to create in the first place.

The explanation, as I understand OT to teach would be that prior to creation He knew all possibilities and those possibilities, as you referenced above, had a probability associated. However, at the time of creation, the probability that you are referenced above did not exist as such. In this line of thinking, it would be hard for me to imagine any significant probability for any one specific thing to occur. At the point prior to creation, the probability for any one specific possibility to be eventually actualized was incredibly insignificant. (This is not speaking to the things which God knew with certainty to be actualized in the future, ie. things he predetermined.)

Prior to the act of creation, God knew as a certainty that mankind (a group) would need a savior. He did not as a certainty know the final belief status of any one individual. In the case that any one specific individual were to exist He did know all of the possibilities and probabilities associated to their final belief status. Allow me to state this in short form:

Prior to creation:
The probability of the group needing a savior: 100%
The probability of a specific event (including an individual's belief) among all of the other possibilities: incredibly insignificant

(This concept is similar to the insurance industry. The industry does not know with certainty which individual will make a claim but they know with some level of incredibly high probability that a claim will be made by someone in the group. In the case above, God, prior to creation, having a perfect knowledge of the reality of free will would be able to know with certainty that mankind would need a savior, while also being able to definitely know as a very small probability an individual's final belief status.)

 

UGHH!!

Although your explanation is at least philosophically adequate....(IMO). I must confess that I (personally) do not believe that there is sufficient Theological reason to accept the OT view. I believe there is enough Biblical evidence against the OT view such that if a different explanation were satisfactory...I would not adopt it. Given what I think you expressed above...despite the obvious mathematical probability to the contrary, God still is NOT in any way ASSURED that ANYONE will believe in him. This is not acceptable IMO. Given OT (as I think you have explained it) God might very well believe that the probablility of someone accepting Christ is 888.5 billion to 1....but it is no sure thing. And yet, every individual still remains an individual do they not? Are they not entitled to their own choice regardless of odds or probabilities? Is their choice not some variant of merely:
1.) Choose God
2.) Choose against God?

What variables are there with which God might deliberate? Theoretically, God might have created a Universe wherein (given OT).........inexplicably........No ONE accepts him right? I do not think an OT explanation has solved any problems so far....If you take my meaning. Given insufficient Biblical evidence to the contrary, I do not think that an OT view is yet tenable as you have explained it so far. I further think that (although not popularly adopted) the Molinist view is still sufficiently grounded in Theological Orthodoxy to remain a legitimate Theological viewpoint.

In my view, the Calvinists are simply too CORRECT that there is indeed such a thing as an individual call and election and pre-ordination to Salvation expressed in Scripture for me to discount it. I do not of course think that that means that there is no such thing as LFW..........inasmuch as I think that LFW is more Scripturally obvious than the Calvinist claims are.......Nonetheless, I cannot run from them, nor explain them away, the Chosen were the chosen, and the elect the elect, and it was according to his Sovereign purpose......that is what I feel must be accepted and explained.

 

This is not an attempt to aswer you reply but: Do you think unbelief is a rational choice? Was Adam's choice a rational one? Considering all that God had done for Adam, do you think Adam had good reason to disbelieve God? If not, assuming that this was his first opportunity to disobey, would you say then that Adam's disobedience was highly unlikely?

Hmm, how does Molinism regard this incident? In any possible world, could it be that Adam's sin at this particular occasion was highly unlikely? Highly likely? Certain? Possible but with indeterminant probabilities? Cometely random?