Neo-Molinism

[Van]

The idea of middle knowledge is a construct of philosophical speculation, and includes all of the possible choices of all autonomous creatures. For example, if Van was given the choice of suffering torment for his many sins, or trusting that Christ would deliver him from his deserved punishment, Van will choose to trust in Christ. Therefore if God actualizes that world of possibilities circumstance, then God knows beforehand that Van will choose to trust in Christ.

What neo-Molinism does is to claim middle knowledge also includes "might counterfactuals." For example, if Van was given the choice of suffering torment for his sins, or trusting that Christ would deliver him from his deserved punishment, Van might choose to trust in Christ.

This moves the actual choice from the meta-physical to the actual reality we experience, but removes the fixed and foreknown aspect of the future. However, this removal then inserts the decision agent's responsibility for his or her sinful decisions and their consequences.

 

[Benjamin]

Neo-Molinism

The idea of middle knowledge is a construct of philosophical speculation,…

"Philosophical speculation"...

The “idea” of titling this thread as “Neo-Molinism” is based on a construct of philosophical “speculation” by one who believes he has the only alternative (Neo-Open Theism), which unfortunately rests on the heretical position that God cannot know all things, as the “only logical” answer to the detrimental doctrines related to Hard Deterministic views, therefore he is apparently strongly motivated to “*argue*” against a position of any other viewpoint of divine knowledge which does work to maintain all the attributes of God and the human attribute of volition while refuting Neo-Calvinist predestination.

At the root concerning “philosophical theory” which the Op calls “philosophical speculation” and says he wants to address, He would first need to understand there must be the goal to pursue primary principles and their implications through honest critical evaluations and explanations being this is the aim of the true philosopher which is not that his conclusions belong to any particular school of thought but whether or not his conclusions are true.

Unfortunately being the opening poster has proved himself irrational time and again in his methods of *argument* especially during his efforts to avoid being pinned to his reasoning, failure to even try to comprehend the issues while also avoiding and ignoring the arguments against him there is no point in pursuing the claims he is attempting to raise in this sequel thread.

* There is a difference in types of “argument” meaning whether it is meant in the sense of dispute or controversy or in the sense of "arguing to make case for or against a conclusion” based on philosophical principles.

Therefore, I won’t begin to construct any philosophical reasoning for the Op in support the issues of Molinist’ thought because obviously the Op’s agenda is merely to engage in meaningless disputes in his hopes to justify his holding to a heretical closet position of Neo-Open Theism which I see no reason to tolerate considering the rhetorical claim of “speculation” and his failure to honestly recognize the issues already repeated addressed which he continues to demonstrate will be ignored in opening this discussion.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2085074&postcount=54
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2085007&postcount=50
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2084720&postcount=42
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2084718&postcount=41
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2084078&postcount=17

Nuff said, I was advised to ignore this opening poster by others who also recognized his irrational debate tactics in the last prematurely closed thread about Molinism and I think I’ll take that advice and not waste my time on this.

And frankly, I have little interest in having to work around the “secret” theological position which denies that God knows all things at its core being that is a base premise upon which one would begin arguing for Molinism and normally would expect such a premise to be accepted by his opponent as true at the onset of such a debate.

 

[Van]

Neo-Molinism is an effort to restore human autonomous decisions, and discard exhaustive determinism. It comes closer to fitting the reality presented in scripture, i.e. people make choices between alternate outcomes.

1) Can God know all things? Yes

2) Does Molinism discard exhaustive determinism? No But Neo-Molinism does discard that unbiblical view.

3) Is Neo-Molinism a biblical view? No, because the philosophical construct of "middle knowledge" is found nowhere is scripture. But as Arminism comes closer to scripture than Calvinism, Neo-Molinism comes closer to scripture than Molinism.

 

[Van]

Neo Molinism insight of Inspiration.

If God actualized a selected circumstance from the worlds of possibilities in the realm of meta-physics, then the person actualized would choose as God knew he would because God arranged the circumstance that resulted in the desired choice. Why would God not choose to inspire all of the writers to write in His style and use His vocabulary, and His figures of speech? Why do we find differences in style? Because the dictation theory of inspiration is unbiblical.

In order for biblical inspiration to be confluent, i.e. the merging of God’s message with an individuals manner of expression, the person must make choices concerning the words and phrases and figures of speech used, which result in the exact message God is inspiring. Exhaustive determinism, the dictation model, simply does not work.

Verbal Inspiration refers to God choosing each and every single word in the inspired text. God did not provide thought by thought inspiration, but word by word inspiration. But did God dictate each word, or bring to the author’s mind a word the author would use to express the idea. Thus God would actualize a possible world where it was feasible for the human author to express the message within his communication ability and predilection.

Plenary Inspiration simply means that not only are all the individual words inspired, they all fit together, with nothing missing and nothing extra.

However, if we pour all three, confluent, verbal and plenary, into our theological bowl, we get what appears to be an inconsistent mush. How could all three be true? Enter Neo-Molinism. God actualized a possible world where the author could pick and choose from among is vocabulary and manner of expression, but the end result was the inerrant word of God.

Now is Neo-Molinism necessary for this outcome? Nope, God could use His intimate knowledge of His inspired writers and create a circumstance with the same result. But the exercise does illuminate inspiration to a degree.

 

[Van]

The Wurlitzer model of Molinism

One poster presented a model of molinism, not as accurate but reflecting his understanding and desiring those knowing more on the subject to correct and refine the model.

Picture the metaphysical worlds of possibilities as CD’s in a modern Wurlitzer. God has knowledge of each and every one. He selects one, and plays (actualizes) that CD, that world of possibilities. Now when the music was recorded, laid down, the sounds reflected the choices of the agents involved, thus the music reflects the autonomous choices of the individuals.

However, once the CD is selected and played, the course, i.e. the future that will be played, is hardwired and unalterable. This is not necessarily a deist view, because the CD contains interventions by God to alter the outcomes of some of the autonomous choices of the agents.

Thus the future can be foreknown, preserving the “truth” of the doctrine of Total Omniscience, yet still reflecting the autonomous choices of individuals.

What is wrong with this Model? First the world actualized might be a composite of many worlds, this circumstance for this decision, but another world for that decision. Second, the people that populate this actualized world are merely actors on a stage, speaking their lines. All the choices they experience are actually non-choices, because the CD was laid down and fixed before creation. And third, nothing occurs by chance, everything that occurs happened with a known outcome before it was actualized, and so even though chance events were actualized, the outcome was predestined.

Neo-Molinism answers all these objections to the model, but it sacrifices the “truth” of total omniscience, and restores the responsibility for the autonomous choices because they could be otherwise.

 

[Van]

If a chance event happened in the past, say you found a twenty dollar bill in a parking lot, and someone had recorded that chance event; would it be chance if every time that tape was played, you found that twenty dollars? No, of course not. So if God actualizes a supposed chance event that occurred in the metaphysical realm of probabilities, the result ceases to be chance, and becomes predetermined. Thus Molinism is a closed theology, just as Calvinism's exhaustive determinism. Thus it too is unbiblical, and a mistaken view of the reality presented in scripture, where things do happen by chance.

 

[Yeshua1]

The idea of middle knowledge is a construct of philosophical speculation, and includes all of the possible choices of all autonomous creatures. For example, if Van was given the choice of suffering torment for his many sins, or trusting that Christ would deliver him from his deserved punishment, Van will choose to trust in Christ. Therefore if God actualizes that world of possibilities circumstance, then God knows beforehand that Van will choose to trust in Christ.

What neo-Molinism does is to claim middle knowledge also includes "might counterfactuals." For example, if Van was given the choice of suffering torment for his sins, or trusting that Christ would deliver him from his deserved punishment, Van might choose to trust in Christ.

This moves the actual choice from the meta-physical to the actual reality we experience, but removes the fixed and foreknown aspect of the future. However, this removal then inserts the decision agent's responsibility for his or her sinful decisions and their consequences.

3 BIG problems for that view!

God already has fixed the future from eternity past to future, so all things are already known to as being done to him, just needs to happen to us in real time and space!

manking has no full free will right now

manking will not decide based upon rational facts, but as determined by our sin natures!

 

[Van]

3 BIG problems for that view!

God already has fixed the future from eternity past to future, so all things are already known to as being done to him, just needs to happen to us in real time and space!

manking has no full free will right now

manking will not decide based upon rational facts, but as determined by our sin natures!

If the future is fixed, then our choosing to sin has been fixed by God, making Him the author of sin. Why does the Calvinist God punish people in Hades and Gehenna for the sins He compelled them to do?

Molinism teaches man has no ability fo make autonomous choices, but simply acts out the predetermined world God actualized. That view is wrong.

Molinism teaches man does not make decisions based on anything, but simply acts out the predetermined world God actualized. It it simply exhaustive determinism in disguise and a lot of lip stick.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The idea of middle knowledge is a construct of philosophical speculation, and includes all of the possible choices of all autonomous creatures. For example, if Van was given the choice of suffering torment for his many sins, or trusting that Christ would deliver him from his deserved punishment, Van will choose to trust in Christ. Therefore if God actualizes that world of possibilities circumstance, then God knows beforehand that Van will choose to trust in Christ.

What neo-Molinism does is to claim middle knowledge also includes "might counterfactuals." For example, if Van was given the choice of suffering torment for his sins, or trusting that Christ would deliver him from his deserved punishment, Van might choose to trust in Christ.

This moves the actual choice from the meta-physical to the actual reality we experience, but removes the fixed and foreknown aspect of the future. However, this removal then inserts the decision agent's responsibility for his or her sinful decisions and their consequences.

That represents a misunderstanding of the concept of God's foreknowledge. God knows Van will choose Christ. However, we don't. Too often in the discussion of so-called "middle knowledge" -- man's name for it, since God didn't bother to discuss it with us -- we want to look at a future counterfactual junction from our perspective, because that is the only way we can look at it. But God sees the junction ahead and already knows the route we will take, even though (quite obviously) we don't. To us, it is metaphysical. To God, it's future history.

 

[Van]

Speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine. To inform others of God's perspective, based on our finite mind's speculation, may be fun but doubtful.

There are several schools of thought concerning Divine Knowledge of the future, but most fall on one side of the fence or the other; the future is completely fixed, i.e. exhaustive determinism and Molinism, and the future is not completely fixed, thus mankind makes autonomous choices that affect the outcome of our lives. The second range of views fits (including Neo-Molinism) with the biblical model that we are responsible for our choices, and God will punish us, if we do not obtain mercy through seeking God and trusting in Christ.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine. To inform others of God's perspective, based on our finite mind's speculation, may be fun but doubtful.

Then stop doing it.

 

[Benjamin]

Then stop doing it.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

:laugh:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

:laugh: <-- agreed. LOL

Get to a Royals game out there for me, Benjamin. I won't get to see them in spring training this year. Gotta wait for the season, I guess.

 

[Van]

One of the amazing behaviors on this forum is for someone to present what they say is God's view, and then charge others with doing the same thing.

Too often in the discussion of so-called "middle knowledge" -- man's name for it, since God didn't bother to discuss it with us -- we want to look at a future counterfactual junction from our perspective, because that is the only way we can look at it. But God sees the junction ahead and already knows the route we will take, even though (quite obviously) we don't. To us, it is metaphysical. To God, it's future history.

Exhaustive Determinism and Molinism both present the future as totally fixed, and therefore each and every murder, rape, and evil thought were predestined and caused directly or indirectly by God.

Neither view has any connection with the reality presented in scripture. On the other hand, things happen by chance in scripture, and God sets the choice of life and death before us, not death only for some and life only for others.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Exhaustive Determinism and Molinism both present the future as totally fixed, and therefore each and every murder, rape, and evil thought were predestined and caused directly or indirectly by God.

You really don't have a clue, do you? :BangHead:

Hint: Right about the first, completely off base with the second. More research, grasshopper, more research.

 

[Van]

Personal attacks, i.e. you do not have a clue, rather than facts is all you offer? I provided quotes to demonstrate Molinism is simply a form of exhaustive determinism, where God causes directly or indirectly whatsoever comes to pass.

"But, almost surely, a Molinist God can get any sequence of outcomes he wants by tweaking the circumstances appropriately. If a coin is to be flipped a million times, a Molinist God can make them all come out heads not by intervening in the flips, but by ensuring that the conditions C in which the flips happen are such as to make true appropriate conditionals of the form "C→heads"."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Personal attacks, i.e. you do not have a clue, rather than facts is all you offer? I provided quotes to demonstrate Molinism is simply a form of exhaustive determinism, where God causes directly or indirectly whatsoever comes to pass.

I would suggest you read this in order to understand Neo-Molinism. I don't agree with everything Boyd says, but he is right about your view being an anthropomorphic view of God, which is exactly what I said it was, minus the $4 word. By the way, you started this thread. It's up to you to view both sides of the issue before chiming in against someone else's resistance to your viewpoint.

 

[Van]

I addressed Molinism, and you address Neo-Molinism. Give me a break.

And again, you claim to be a mind reader (your view being an anthropomorphic view of God) because I do not dismiss scripture as meaningless because the truth is illustrated anthropomorphically. That would be the charge of those that nullify scripture.

Bottom line, you seem not to understand Molinism, Neo-Molinism, and the truth God reveals Himself using illustrations we can understand and apply to our lives.

But, thanks for the link, it made basically the same argument I made in the opening post.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I addressed Molinism, and you address Neo-Molinism. Give me a break.

And again, you claim to be a mind reader (your view being an anthropomorphic view of God) because I do not dismiss scripture as meaningless because the truth is illustrated anthropomorphically. That would be the charge of those that nullify scripture.

Bottom line, you seem not to understand Molinism, Neo-Molinism, and the truth God reveals Himself using illustrations we can understand and apply to our lives.

Interesting, given you don't understand Molinism or Neo-Molinism, that you would pretend you can identify someone else as not understanding them. This is just like your stance on slavery, I can see. You don't hear, see, read or care about anything anyone else says. What Van posts is the only truth there is. Done here, done with you. Have a blessed life, brother.

 

[Van]

Personal attacks and slanderous charges abound from those lacking understanding. I presented in detail my understanding of Molinism, and nothing other than "taint so" has been offered to adjust or correct that view. I presented in detail my understanding of Neo-Molinism, and nothing other than "taint so" has been offered to adjust or correct that view.

How about this counter-factual, "If Van was shown where he misrepresented either view, then Van might say thanks and adjust his view accordingly."