Divine Foreknowledge: Circumstances, Possibilities, Volitional Options and Truth

[humblethinker]

To me there is no, can not be, any doubt to His foreknowledge just as there can be no doubt that He provided for freedom of choice within real time beginning at creation. [/FONT]

It seems then that a Molinist has to accept the following as fact: The current world can be no different than the one God actualized which necessitates that in this world events cannot really happen any other way than the way they actually happen, which is the way God knew they would happen before creating this world. Please let me know if you disagree with this.

According to Molinism this world has no real possibilities, in fact, no world had real possibilities. Other unactualized worlds existed but in the same way they had no real possibilities, and these worlds were only theoretical ideas of worlds that could not be actualized since God can only do what is best. Since the idea of 'best' is real and therefore God only does what is best, there was no other world that could possibly be actualized.

It seems as though your are proposing a contradiction, that possibilities truly exist but that God knows they really don't exist. It seems that you should say instead that in this world possibilities truly appear to exist but that God knows the reality of the matter.

According to Molinism God currently knows only one set of true possibilities for this world and that set is only what will definately happen. There are no alternatives available. There were, however, alternative worlds available at the time of God's deliberation prior to creation but they were not actualized. In none of those alternative worlds could there be a possibility for any event to occur differently.

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. I am not looking to win a knock-out fight. I'm trying to clearly define views and discuss the reasons for valueing certain ideas diffferently than others and identifying the areas where views step beyond reason.

According to the Open View, this is the only world and this world has possibilities. The idea of "other worlds" can only be considered as such from a theoretical perspective. I don't think it is fair to imply that the Open View doubts God's foreknowledge. First, it makes no claim to doubt God's foreknowledge, on the contrary it states that God knew and knows all things as they are. God's knowledge is entirely consistent with reality. Since, in this world, reality is such that possibilities ontologically exist then God knows them as such. When the possibility ceases to be a possibility then God knows it as such. It is His choice that they exist and by His choice he allows them to remain. Do you see what I've said in this paragraph as being incompatible with the Open View?

 

[Benjamin]

It seems then that a Molinist has to accept the following as fact: The current world can be no different than the one God actualized which necessitates that in this world events cannot really happen any other way than the way they actually happen, which is the way God knew they would happen before creating this world. Please let me know if you disagree with this.

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

According to Molinism this world has no real possibilities, in fact, no world had real possibilities.

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.

It seems as though your are proposing a contradiction, that possibilities truly exist but that God knows they really don't exist. It seems that you should say instead that in this world possibilities truly appear to exist but that God knows the reality of the matter.

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.

According to Molinism God currently knows only one set of true possibilities for this world and that set is only what will definately happen. There are no alternatives available.

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.

I am not looking to win a knock-out fight. I'm trying to clearly define views and discuss the reasons for valueing certain ideas diffferently than others and identifying the areas where views step beyond reason.

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:

According to the Open View, this is the only world and this world has possibilities.

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:

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

I think this difference of explanation summarizes in a nutshell the entire controversy. But most Calvinists (at least on the BB) claim not to be determinists. Most non-Cals on the BB hold unquestionably to divine foreknowledge. So aren't these two groups compatible at this most basic point of friction?

As to salvation, I would hope that most non-Cals, like myself, would hold to human depravity and that salvation is wholly of God, him convicting and enabling the depraved soul to bring it to the point of belief and obedient action or continued unbelief and disobedient action. Otherwise we would all be damned, for there is none that seeketh after God, no not one.

 

[humblethinker]

It seems then that a Molinist has to accept the following as fact: The current world can be no different than the one God actualized which necessitates that in this world events cannot really happen any other way than the way they actually happen, which is the way God knew they would happen before creating this world. Please let me know if you disagree with this.

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

Okay, so, if that is the Molinist view then what are the mechanics that describe the substantiation of such a claim? Outside of simply saying, "this is the case", I do not see how they logically get to that point. Maybe I have a misunderstanding about Molinism as you seem to allude to next...

According to Molinism this world has no real possibilities, in fact, no world had real possibilities.

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.

Sorry, I misspoke. I should have worded it "IMO, according to Molinism…". I know of no Molinist that besides possibly HoS that admits to this. So, besides simply denying what I claimed and asserting their claim, how would the Molinist show the mechanics that allow them to deny such?

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

I think the first is an accurate representation, however, I could be wrong and am hoping that a Molinist would speak to the matter as to whether they believe there are no 'real' alternatives available in the current world. The second point is correct as well, except that I am not aware of attempts them proving that alternatives exist in this world. Any citation of such would be much appreciated.

Hos seems to have a bit of different take on the conclusions of Molinists than I believe that they arrive strive to at.

"Would the real Molinist please stand up!"… j/k

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.

Do they believe that they exist in this world or did they only exist during God's deliberation and even then only in the form of alternative worlds?

They do not have to prove exactly how this happens for it to be true.

That makes me laugh. Well, now that bar is so low it's barely conceivable that I could stub my toe over it.

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 factual truth.

Then Molinism and OT apparently meet this criteria. Contrary to what you seem to believe, OT does believe in divine foreknowledge. God knows all possibilities including the ones that will be actualized and is already prepared for all possibilities so that nothing surprises Him or catches Him off guard.

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:

I hear you…

According to the Open View, this is the only world and this world has possibilities.

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:

I think that your statement is inaccurate and/or incomplete. They are a proponent of divine foreknowledge. I think the 'easy way out' is the path of least resistance from their own and others' inhibitions.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

NOOOOOO!!!!! He does not, I assure you. HT believes that Molinism is deterministic.....I have been doing my dead level best to submit the opposite. I am not a compatibilist....I do not believe that determinism and moral accountability are compatible....I believe very much in LFW

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It seems then that a Molinist has to accept the following as fact: The current world can be no different than the one God actualized which necessitates that in this world events cannot really happen any other way than the way they actually happen, which is the way God knew they would happen before creating this world. Please let me know if you disagree with this.

Yes, they CAN happen differently....or more accurately, it "could" have been otherwise...it is simply that it WON'T be any different. The creaturely free choice is logically prior to the creative act.

According to Molinism this world has no real possibilities, in fact, no world had real possibilities.

It does....those "possibilities" are realized by the fact that they were the onus upon which God deliberated prior to creation.

Other unactualized worlds existed but in the same way they had no real possibilities, and these worlds were only theoretical ideas of worlds that could not be actualized since God can only do what is best. Since the idea of 'best' is real and therefore God only does what is best, there was no other world that could possibly be actualized.

I am not sure I would say this....it seems true enough, if by "best" we mean that which most ably reflects the intents of God's necessary attributes....but I don't think that to be unique to Molinism....God, I think, has volition himself though....This just sounds too much like Dr. Pangloss to me.

but in the same way they had no real possibilities,

To a Molinist....they all do, in fact, it is the differing outcomes themselves which (in part at least) serve to designate one world from another. To a Molinist it is not required that God be unsure of certain outcomes for them to be real....they can be very real....and God can also know them infallibly.

It seems as though your are proposing a contradiction, that possibilities truly exist but that God knows they really don't exist. It seems that you should say instead that in this world possibilities truly appear to exist but that God knows the reality of the matter.

The possiblilities absolutely "exist"....it was upon those very "possibilities" that God deliberated prior to the creative decree....they are the variables which identify the difference between one "world" and another. Counterfactuals of C.F. simply do not exist in the absence of real possibilities.

According to Molinism God currently knows only one set of true possibilities for this world and that set is only what will definately happen.

Yes, except for "possibilities" which should probably read: "outcomes" or "results"

There are no alternatives available.

They will not come to pass....but they were the real factors upon which God deliberated.

There were, however, alternative worlds available at the time of God's deliberation prior to creation but they were not actualized.

Yes

In none of those alternative worlds could there be a possibility for any event to occur differently.

All of those alternative worlds contained possibilities, in the same way this one does....Things "COULD" be otherwise....God simply knows they "WON'T. This is the belabored hang-up (I think) which causes you to reject Molinism for the most part.........And what probably caused Benjamin to suggest I hold to some form of DETERMINISM!!! If I believed Molinism to be deterministic I would not be one.

 

[humblethinker]

This is the belabored hang-up (I think) which causes you to reject Molinism for the most part.......

HoS, maybe this understanding of mine is where the hang-up is:

As I understand the Molinist view, God considered all possibilities and each possibility that differed with another possibility is described as a 'world' [or rather 'constituted a new 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.​

(I posted this in post #17 on this thread, btw.) In other words, the only thing that makes one 'world' different from another world is the slightest variation to the closest world next to it, such that the two 'worlds' closest to each other are identical except for the singular variant. Please correct as you see fit.

 

[Benjamin]

Okay, so, if that is the Molinist view then what are the mechanics that describe the substantiation of such a claim? Outside of simply saying, "this is the case", I do not see how they logically get to that point. Maybe I have a misunderstanding about Molinism as you seem to allude to next...

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

Sorry, I misspoke. I should have worded it "IMO, according to Molinism…". I know of no Molinist that besides possibly HoS that admits to this. So, besides simply denying what I claimed and asserting their claim, how would the Molinist show the mechanics that allow them to deny such?

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.

Originally Posted by Benjamin http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1856944#post1856944
Molinist believe there are no alternatives available, or "you" believe they fall short of proving alternative exist?

I think the first is an accurate representation, however, I could be wrong and am hoping that a Molinist would speak to the matter as to whether they believe there are no 'real' alternatives available in the current world. The second point is correct as well, except that I am not aware of attempts them proving that alternatives exist in this world. Any citation of such would be much appreciated.

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.

That makes me laugh. Well, now that bar is so low it's barely conceivable that I could stub my toe over it.

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.

Then Molinism and OT apparently meet this criteria. Contrary to what you seem to believe, OT does believe in divine foreknowledge. God knows all possibilities including the ones that will be actualized and is already prepared for all possibilities so that nothing surprises Him or catches Him off guard.

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?

I think that your statement is inaccurate and/or incomplete. They are a proponent of divine foreknowledge. I think the 'easy way out' is the path of least resistance from their own and others' inhibitions.

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:

 

[Benjamin]

NOOOOOO!!!!! He does not, I assure you. HT believes that Molinism is deterministic.....I have been doing my dead level best to submit the opposite. I am not a compatibilist....I do not believe that determinism and moral accountability are compatible....I believe very much in LFW

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:

 

[Benjamin]

I think this difference of explanation summarizes in a nutshell the entire controversy. But most Calvinists (at least on the BB) claim not to be determinists. Most non-Cals on the BB hold unquestionably to divine foreknowledge. So aren't these two groups compatible at this most basic point of friction?

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)

 

[humblethinker]

-time out!!!-

...there is evidence in the scripture that some kind od special (middle) divine knowledge exists.

...they are on the right track in that God having a special (middle) type of knowledge throughout the scriptures in evident.

...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 ….

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”...

…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?

Benjamin, above are excerpts from only two posts and there are more I'm sure in previous posts that make the case that you seem to have a misunderstanding of my view of Middle Knowledge. Let me state, as I understand Middle Knowledge, the points below. These were taken from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

1. It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
2. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom

Let me say this as best as I can, as I said earlier in this thread (I think it's this thread), OVT is a proponent of Middle Knowledge. In the above quotes I've snipped, with emphasis added, they each indicate that you think OVT rejects MK - THIS IS A FALSE BELIEFE! While it is true that "Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina…" it is very safe to say that Molinism DOES NOT OWN Middle Knowledge! Just because your name is written on the basketball does not mean that all basketballs are yours! ;-) OT is the MJ of MK, so DOUBLE DUNK ON YOU! ;-) Framing the idea around the immortal words of Walker Bobby, "OVT made that Middle Knowledge it's b-" Well, I think you know what I mean. What I want to say is that OVT would be unable to exist in a coherent manner without the idea of Middle Knowledge. (HoS, you may have stolen Leibniz from me but you don't get MK! ;-) )

Benjamin, I appreciate your arguments and I'm sure that they have points that should be addressed but it seems that the wrapping around your argument is the idea that OVT rejects Middle Knowledge. It seems that the last couple of posts are hard for me to respond to without having to say each time that OVT promotes MK… So, do you mind kindly rewording all of the arguments thusly wrapped so I can reply more efficiently? ;-) j/k Maybe I can attempt to reply to what I think you would have meant if you were to acknowledge OVT's assumption of Middle Knowledge.

Does this change anything at all for you or have I somehow misunderstood your 'wrapping'?

(If y'all would ALSO address my post #27 this also may clear up a misunderstanding or two!!!)

 

[Benjamin]

1. It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
2. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom.

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...

Does this change anything at all for you or have I somehow misunderstood your 'wrapping'?

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:

 

[Benjamin]

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?

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

 

[Benjamin]

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.

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?

 

[humblethinker]

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?

Lol, I'd say that one of us seems quite confused about what OT and/or MK is or what we're each trying to say to each other. This seems like providing computer support over the phone to someone and after some time of trying to communicate with each other, I realize that they have a Mac... but at least it then clicks and everything makes sense. I'm going to think about where we're not sync'd up in our understanding. This would help me though, I again ask for the THIRD TIME for clarification or confirmation per my last post:

(If y'all would ALSO address my post #27 this also may clear up a misunderstanding or two!!!)

Help a brutha out! Please address that post!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

As I understand the Molinist view, God considered all possibilities and each possibility that differed with another possibility is described as a 'world' [or rather 'constituted a new 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.

I guess it is something like this....only somehow I feel that if I were to affirm it, you would conclude something about it which I don't....(like that I am a determinist again). Most likely, It is because you are using the word "possibilities" and I am not sure whether you mean "possibilities" of human volitional response (which Molinists see as not mere possibilities, as I think OT does, but more like erstwhile actualities) or rather "possible" sets of circumstances-which would be according to God's decrees...which serve to providentially set the stage for the exhaustively known choices. Does this help?.....No, prolly not, I think I am asking for more clarification.

Every world is identical to the world closest to it except for the single variant, that being the unique possibility.

This part I would agree with....again depending on what you mean by "possibility".

 

[Benjamin]

Let me say this as best as I can, as I said earlier in this thread (I think it's this thread), OVT is a proponent of Middle Knowledge. In the above quotes I've snipped, with emphasis added, they each indicate that you think OVT rejects MK - THIS IS A FALSE BELIEFE! While it is true that "Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina…" it is very safe to say that Molinism DOES NOT OWN Middle Knowledge! Just because your name is written on the basketball does not mean that all basketballs are yours! ;-) OT is the MJ of MK, so DOUBLE DUNK ON YOU! ;-) Framing the idea around the immortal words of Walker Bobby, "OVT made that Middle Knowledge it's b-" Well, I think you know what I mean. What I want to say is that OVT would be unable to exist in a coherent manner without the idea of Middle Knowledge. (HoS, you may have stolen Leibniz from me but you don't get MK! ;-) )

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.

 

[Benjamin]

(If y'all would ALSO address my post #27 this also may clear up a misunderstanding or two!!!)

Help a brutha out! Please address that post!

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.

 

[humblethinker]

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?

Before we go further I think I see where some of the misunderstanding is at, that is, the actual definition of middleknowledge AND when it exists/existed. I hope to elaborate later.

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."[/FONT][/SIZE]

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).

Yes, I am familiar with them. This may speak to me misunderstanding MK or they may be referring to the use of MK in the way that Molinism requires. I suspect that I would be the one in the wrong and not them in the use of terms though, obviously.

It may be that the definition I posted in a previous post on this thread is not a complete definition. HoS once confirmed my thought that MK was in use only once, in the deliberation before creation and not only has not been used since but was not available for use up to now. That is still how I see Molinism using the idea of MK and which would make sense why Sanders, Basinger, et al would reject it, as I would too for the same reasons. I understood MK to be 'the place' where God knows CCF's and if that's the case then of course OVT would claim that God had MK at the deliberation and since then as well. Maybe you and HoS can clarify whether God currently uses His MK or not: it seems you say yes and he says no.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Maybe you and HoS can clarify whether God currently uses His MK or not:

By definition...."Middle Knowledge" almost cannot be "used" post the creative decree....His knowledge is now his "Free Knowledge". God has no more need to deliberate.