-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is not Molinism...
- Thread starter R. Lawson
- Start date
If one considers several of the major proponents it would make sense that there is a tinge of Reformed accommodation.
I do think you're trying to push a neo-Reformed perspective on a thought system that seems unrelated to determinism. The idea of middle knowledge isn't about God ordaining a circumstance so much as God knowing that circumstance exists and will exist. Given the idea of counterfactuals the Molinist claim isn't about determining the outcome of future events but is more line with knowing all the routes and the predilections of agent X to freely choose actions A because of circumstance O.
Some have suggested it is a passive form of determinism but I think that charge is not accurate. As it stands God's knowledge of all events (past, present, and future) is complete via His atemporality. Thus God' middle knowledge is a requisite for action within creation.
It isn't that God is ordaining events. Ordaining, or determining events has an active force that isn't reflected in Molinism. Rather God is allowing His sovereignty to guide those individuals in this world who choose to follow His ways and His will. I find the Molinism proposal rather profound and the best way to reconcile several aspects of free moral agency.
If one considers several of the major proponents it would make sense that there is a tinge of Reformed accommodation.
I do think you're trying to push a neo-Reformed perspective on a thought system that seems unrelated to determinism. The idea of middle knowledge isn't about God ordaining a circumstance so much as God knowing that circumstance exists and will exist. Given the idea of counterfactuals the Molinist claim isn't about determining the outcome of future events but is more line with knowing all the routes and the predilections of agent X to freely choose actions A because of circumstance O.
Some have suggested it is a passive form of determinism but I think that charge is not accurate. As it stands God's knowledge of all events (past, present, and future) is complete via His atemporality. Thus God' middle knowledge is a requisite for action within creation.
It isn't that God is ordaining events. Ordaining, or determining events has an active force that isn't reflected in Molinism. Rather God is allowing His sovereignty to guide those individuals in this world who choose to follow His ways and His will. I find the Molinism proposal rather profound and the best way to reconcile several aspects of free moral agency.
:thumbsup: Thank you. I bought a book (Kindle 3) on Molinism but have not read it yet. I'm still working on Eugene Peterson's (the author of The Message) "Eat This Book" (I highly recommend it BTW. It's one in a series of four.)
More comments are most welcome! :thumbs:
quantumfaith
Active Member
I still "jostle" intellectually with molinism, but as I understand it one could say this, but with an asterisk *. In molinism, God does indeed "determine" which "existence" among all possibilities, but the sentient free creatures still have (as far as they are concerned) free will. See Dr. William Lane Craig for a more detailed definition and explanation.
quantumfaith
Active Member
R Lawson,
For a great "integration" of the philosophical position of molinism with theology, I recommend Salvation and Sovereignty by Dr. Kenneth Keathley. Great read,.....from my perspective. Available in Kindle and Nook format. I use a Nook. Sure do wish more of the books I want to read came in this format. Would be nice to have a common, non-proprietary, digital format.
For a great "integration" of the philosophical position of molinism with theology, I recommend Salvation and Sovereignty by Dr. Kenneth Keathley. Great read,.....from my perspective. Available in Kindle and Nook format. I use a Nook. Sure do wish more of the books I want to read came in this format. Would be nice to have a common, non-proprietary, digital format.
quantumfaith
Active Member
If one considers several of the major proponents it would make sense that there is a tinge of Reformed accommodation.
I do think you're trying to push a neo-Reformed perspective on a thought system that seems unrelated to determinism. The idea of middle knowledge isn't about God ordaining a circumstance so much as God knowing that circumstance exists and will exist. Given the idea of counterfactuals the Molinist claim isn't about determining the outcome of future events but is more line with knowing all the routes and the predilections of agent X to freely choose actions A because of circumstance O.
Some have suggested it is a passive form of determinism but I think that charge is not accurate. As it stands God's knowledge of all events (past, present, and future) is complete via His atemporality. Thus God' middle knowledge is a requisite for action within creation.
It isn't that God is ordaining events. Ordaining, or determining events has an active force that isn't reflected in Molinism. Rather God is allowing His sovereignty to guide those individuals in this world who choose to follow His ways and His will. I find the Molinism proposal rather profound and the best way to reconcile several aspects of free moral agency.
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
That's the same book I purchased on my Kindle 3. :godisgood: I'll get on it when finishing Peterson's book (90% done).
Robb
I started the book...man, it is truly "an hard saying." (KJV)
I'm already confused.:laugh: I DO like the "ROSES" acronym. Clever!
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Tell me what you think of his description of the "ambulatory model" of salvation. When you get to it.
Brother, I'm only in 4 pages so far. I'm trying to understand what the author is articulating. Doh!
Robb
There are some different views within MK, some containing compatabilism views (usually not of determinism and free will but of Divine providence and creaturely free will), some claim a form of Determinism/FW compatabilism but Molinism is typically used as an explanation against this.
Reading too much of the philosophies of Molinism at one time will literally give me a headache at times.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/
Reading too much of the philosophies of Molinism at one time will literally give me a headache at times.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Jarthur001
Active Member
I know you have said this many times, but why? I do not see it in your post. You are closer to free-willer than anything....that is going by your post.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Jarthur
You are more than welcome to make any assessment of me that "tickles your fancy". I believe I told you all the "sprinkles" that make up my composition. When I "jostle" I am being intellectually honest as to either not Having all the answers and I will NEVER take the posture that I do regardless of my confidence. I am confident (as one can be) that I do not share your view of God and His interaction with creation. Not being combative, just honest.
Fascinating read. Thanks for the recommendation. The first 40 pages may be read here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uD...&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
quantumfaith
Active Member
If you have a Nook, I think there is a way Nook Books can be loaned.
I don't have a Nook. The closest thing I have is a Kindle App on my Droid 2 smart phone.
I'll search for it in our library systems, if not available I'll probably buy the print edition from Amazon.
More on compatibilism:
In agreement with the last sentence in the above quote, I will add that most atheist (who are Determinists) love to attribute evil to our Holy God. IMO, logically, if one is a Determinist there can be no other conclusion and I find that very troubling for those who hold to the Calvinist position as a Hard Determinist. I much rather hear them claim soft determinism/compatibilism than witness them desperately falling into the heresy of attributing evil to God.
Personally, I find determinism and free will to be logically mutually exclusive. I believe more and more theologians and philosophers are coming to the same conclusions about “compatibilism” no matter how “soft” the determinism and so fewer are making the claim, but I also believe that if one is claiming Calvinism he best be claiming soft determinism/compatibilism along with it or he unwittingly falls into fatalism by logically attributing evil to God.
In agreement with the last sentence in the above quote, I will add that most atheist (who are Determinists) love to attribute evil to our Holy God. IMO, logically, if one is a Determinist there can be no other conclusion and I find that very troubling for those who hold to the Calvinist position as a Hard Determinist. I much rather hear them claim soft determinism/compatibilism than witness them desperately falling into the heresy of attributing evil to God.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I agree with you (and Keathley) about "determininsm", however, the christian theist can and should argue that this determininsm originates with God, whereas the atheist/agnostic will claim that this determinism is a necessary property of a deterministic and completely natural universe. For me, and a good deal of natural scientists, the determinism of Descartes died in the 20th century with the advent of quantum physics and mechanics.