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

I think Moilinists believe God actualized a world with LFW and it happened.

Source please that shows a Molinist, according to "his" theory, there are no "real" possibilites for the creature to have volition according to his own will.

Molinist are proposing a solution to what seems to be a contracition that God can have foreknowledge and yet provide for creaturely volition. It seems that you have given up on that idea and concluded that God just doesn't know.

Molinist believe there are no alternatives available, or "you" believe they fall short of proving alternative exist?

Are you willing to accept the above? Is the above unfair? If either you or HoS or any other Molinist would take my words above and modify them to more accurately reflect a more accurate picture of Molinism I would be much appreciative.

Hos seems to have a bit of different take on the conclusions of Molinists than I believe that they arrive strive to at. Where I would modify your thinking is that Molinists, in fact, do believe real alternatives exist. They do not have to prove exactly how this happens for it to be true. All they need to show is that divine foreknowledge and creaturely volition are achievable (compatible) through some type of middle knowledge and point to in the scriptures that that truth is seen as a factural truth. Hos may attribute that determinism factors into the foreknowledge part of the forementioned equation, I don't know, but I believe in the compatibilism of divine foreknowledge and creaturely volition, and I do not believe that compatibilism of devine foreknowledge and determinism need necessarily be true.

Hope that helps. Cuz I have no intension of pulling off my gloves and defending Molinism through the logic of determinism existing to hold to divine foreknowledge. I wouldn't want the Determinist seeing my combat styles so that they could be used against at a later date. :smilewinkgrin:

Yes, and they are messed up in how they arrive to their conclusions because they forego divine foreknowledge. They have taken the easy way out. The little scardy-cats :smilewinkgrin:

 

Simply, outside you buying into that the mechanics work there is evidence in the scripture that some kind od special (middle) divine knowledge exists.

You certainly have a right to that opinion but seem to have a habit of attributing to the Molinist which appears to lead to a strawman. HoS may have had some difficulty explaining “possibilities” to you in the past while attempting to explain the Molinist’s system, but apparently he does believe “real” possibilities exist to provide for creaturely volition. Personally, and not being a Molinist, I believe their mechanics to have some difficulty, but I also believe they are on the right track in that God having a special (middle) type of knowledge throughout the scriptures in evident.

I know of no bonafide Molinists believing that there are no real alternatives available. On the second point, the scripture I have offered is widely used by the Molinist to prove that alternatives exist as the circumstances are seen to be changed through human volition apart from what God said, in truth, would happen; therefore an alternative existed.

Well, if I were you I wouldn’t laugh too hard because I think the Molinist bar is set much higher than that of OVT in that it stands on attempting to “explain” the mechanics of divine special (middle) knowledge which can be seen to exist at a minimum and I’ll refer you to what I am about going to address with HoS in my post below about whose bar is at a more respectable height.

My post below speaks of similarities while addressing your claim that OVT believes such and makes a comparison on which system’s “explanation” is stronger or if the OVT’s “explanation” even exists or has any strength to its arguments?

Nowadays they may claim to be a proponent of divine knowledge, but their “explanation” is very weak in logically maintaining that position at best. Actually, I do not believe they even really have any viable mechanics to begin with to “explain” it. Thus, in fairness, aren't I allowed to claim they own the consequences of not proving the mechanics as I'm about to address below? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Well, then, if I’m seeing this correctly, HT seems to be arguing that “he” cannot understand the mechanics of how some kind of special (middle) knowledge, which Molinist use to “explain” how God foreknowing all things during divine creation can coincide with allowing for LFW throughout time. HT holds that divine foreknowledge & LFW being compatible cannot be shown to be true with the Molinists’ “explanation”. He insists that since it is not shown to be true to his satisfaction then Molinists must own determinism due to the “explanation” not being proved logically, which would be needed to separate determinism from divine foreknowledge. Therefore, HT claims Molinist own determinism and thus must sacrifice all the divine attributes associated which such a belief. :tear:

Meanwhile HT believes God allowed for LFW and claims that OVT holds to divine foreknowledge. But, he has yet to even try to offer an “explanation” how God having divine foreknowledge can be separated from determinism during the act of creation. So while HT argues that he cannot understand the mechanics of how divine foreknowledge can be separated from determinism during creation he still attempts to rest on the claim it is true. I guess we are supposed to give OVT a “gimme” on that???

So anyway, we could agree both sides are arguing that DF & LFW are compatible and Determinism and LFW are not compatible. Okay, if he is correct that Molinism does not have satisfactory evidence to support “special” middle knowledge then we are on only equal terms on believing that determinism is not true (with the gimme) but one side has offered up an attempt to “explain” how that can work and the other has not. IOW’s we are not on equal terms that divine foreknowledge is true because HT’s system does not explain the mechanics of how determinism cannot be while maintaining divine foreknowledge.

Further, in OVT not offering up the mechanics of how divine foreknowledge can escape determinism it still attempts to rest on that divine foreknowledge is true (supposedly) so at best that system is weak on defending LFW against both determinism and foreknowledge. Therefore, it is only fair that OVT at a minimum owns the sacrifice of foregoing the divine attributes associated with not having maintained an argument that divine foreknowledge is true. Isn’t that fair?

Obviously, the Molinist’ system has one up on OVT system no matter how one slices it because it offers an argument for both against determinism and for maintaining divine foreknowledge.

Molinism may not be able to explain the mechanics as well as HT would like but it can show through the scriptures that divine foreknowledge and LFW are compatible through some type of special (middle) knowledge. But, OVT offers no explanation of how divine foreknowledge can accomplish and be compatible with LFW while still having maintained “some kind” of a valid argument to defend against determinism. It sounds like OVT has a problems to me…

IOW’s HT insists divine foreknowledge cannot be prove with its mechanics to be compatible with LFW on the grounds of a “special” type of knowledge, he avoids or disagrees on the issue that at least some kind of special (middle) can be seen in the scriptures and also is left to discount or deny there is a type of counterfactual knowledge, yet he attempts to hold to that LFW is “somehow” compatible with divine foreknowledge (and attempts to claim OVT holds to DF without any support either logically or through evidence in the scriptures of a special type knowledge) and it is in fact his system that does not cover these issues even nearly as sufficiently as Molinism. I think that about “explains” the differences between the systems and goes to show which is superior, don’t you? :thumbs:

 

Usually when one speaks of compatibilism they are speaking of "Free Will and Determinism".

So we are speaking of three different kinds of compatibilism here then. In what seems today to be the rare event that a Calvinist would even bother to resort to compatibilism, usually only to temporarily avoid theological fatalism when the heat is on, they are trying to hold on to a type of compatibilism which is totally illogical to begin with to support their system which to maintain each and every points of TULIP is vitally dependent on determinism alone. (see my signture)

 

Okay, now I'm confused! You say the mechanics do not work and say so while claiming to own above?!?

I mean I'm glad you would, but...

Qeuestion: If they own middle knowledge (which you say the mechanics of don't work) WHY do they prefer to call themselves OT? What is the differences and do those differrences mean?

BTW, are the OVT in the habit of stealing the ball and saying this is our game now? :laugh:

 

I predict the answer to that question will lead right into WHY they have a problem holding onto divine foreknowledge.

 

Humblethinker, I think it’s starting to look like you should put that skinny OVT system to the side and get more into a union with a system with some meat on it bones. A guy like you, with his thinking skills and strong iron in his sword, might be able to pump up those muscles even better if he were to start working with a more decent framework. Whadaya say?

 

If you believe OVT owns MK you're gunna have a lot of explaining to do. Now, I remind you I gave you chance hop the fence beforehand.

In acting as a proponent of OVT you’ve been saying throughout this tread that you can’t buy into the mechanics of middle knowledge? You have laid out several (strawman) on Molinism saying how you see it does not add up to allowing for alternatives through MK, thus either determinism or NO divine foreknowledge according to that you believe MK doesn’t allow for alternatives. I’ve been addressing your problems in denying MK (post 29) and have a multitude of contradictions to you or the OT system claiming to own MK.

But first have you heard of these guys?:

Basinger writes, "However, proponents of the open view do not believe that God possesses middle knowledge--that God always knows beforehand what would happen, given each option open to us. In fact, we do not even believe that God always knows beforehand exactly how things will turn out in the future--that God possesses simple foreknowledge. " (The Openness of God, p. 163). He continues on the same page, "But since we believe that God can know only what can be known and that what humans will freely do in the future cannot be known beforehand, we believe that God can never know with certainty what will happen in any context involving freedom of choice."

Sanders writes, "Open theists find middle knowledge unattractive due to the philosophical problems and questions surrounding its practical usefulness. " (John Sanders, The God Who Risks, p. 220).


Before I bother to go futher on this subject it may be benficial the task to get the below out of the way first.

 

I’m really not sure what your trying to get at here or who (if you heard a Molinist say such or in what context, or if this is simply how you interpreted what was said, or how it plays into your understanding the mechanics, or how it hangs you up) but by your understanding I think the whole idea needs to have in consideration two things: 1) on the basis that God’s knowledge is unlimited, therefore there would be no limit to possibilities of worlds. If you are trying count possible worlds you are trying to count to infinity. You can’t put a % on how much infinity there is nor can you narrow it down. Okay, I shouldn’t get into this, but, I'll add a little of my own view here... As for us, we have a starting place; a beginning in the world God spoke into creation, at that instant time began, interaction between God and man began; the Way that happened was through Jesus, the Only begotten, the Second Person of the Trinity miraculously came into the world, first as the Word, then as our Savior and He provides that mediation between God and His creatures within time. (John 1) This Trinitarian event accounts for a type of "middle" knowledge for within time and divine foreknowledge. Stopping there...

2) As for worlds being identical to the closest world to it, considering that we are within time at the instant we make a choice the present existing world we live in is going to begin to change or head into the new direction our choice takes it, however insignificant or significant of an impact our choice may have played in changing of the environment in which we live. Therefore, it only seems to only make sense that at a specific instant in time our worlds are going to be much more similar/identical than compared to a world that is a years, months, weeks, days or even minutes away as time progresses, things evolve as choices are made.

Another thing to consider is that world doesn’t evolve just around us, other people close to us, before us, after us might make a change or pick a direction that could affect us or influence our decisions, and all along we might respond to influences from God who is interacting with us, or we might not, which might affect us in certain ways such as He might bless us or chastise us according to our responses. God is still in control, but that does not mean we cannot move freely about according to our nature and His plan which allows for our knowledge and judgments and as per His divine design of the world to allow for us to do so.