Modeling Molinism

[humblethinker]

Benjamin, thank you for your replies. I am taking this conversation seriously (as I do most… maybe all?). If I do not answer an argument/statement it may be due to thinking that it is not germane to the immediate discussion (not that it's not important… I hope you my intent is coming through here, it's often difficult to express oneself nonverbally but still in a succinct, accurate manner). Sometimes it seems you express that I'm being evasive because my argument (whatever it is we are talking about) is weak. I do not intend to be evasive but rather I'd like to keep this discussion very focused. In pursuit of such I make the following comments. If you feel I have not addressed an important issue, please let me know.

Now in case you missed it, LOL: Once again, here is my reply being contrary to your objection which has been demonstrated to be true:

“Ah, but (A) Divine foreknowledge and LFW is NOT ONLY a possibility, but IS necessarily true according to (B) –neglected key point- “the Molinists’ supported view and thereby its argument” - which sets forth to “demonstrate” that this possibility NEED necessarily be true and THAT can in fact (C) be OBSERVED as being necessarily true!”

Let me state that I believe and always have believed that Molinists believe in LFW and that Molinism teaches that LFW is and must be true. I have not denied nor neglected this point - I have assumed it to be the case. (In fact, Molinism was helpful prior to and through my struggle with Calvinism.) I agree that Molinism attempts to demonstrate such, and it is here where we have a differing opinion: I don't think that Molinism convincingly demonstrates such especially compared to competing views. I hope that you get this point and that you do not accuse me of thinking something that I do not: Molinism posits and upholds LFW. It IS on the correct side of the great divide.

What I believe we (LFW adherents) have the challenge of doing is to present a model that best represents how a world of moral responsibility is created by an omniscient triune God who intends to have genuine, loving reciprocal relationships with his free creatures.


I'll be back… off to take my daughter to school…

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Then it is possible to be lost in one world and saved in another with God selecting which one it will be.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SNtuo7kGro&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Only in this particular version of White's. But, then again, White's version may not be the correct one. Of course, that might be so, but, I doubt it. Molinism can take several different directions at certain points. Having watched that video before (twice) I honestly can tell you that I still don't understand what (precisely) White's objection is.....other than....it isn't Calvinism. But so what.

It is entirely possible (for instance) that the World God has actualized (this one) contains absolutely ZERO people who would have been saved in another world; or conversely, ZERO people who would NOT have been saved in another "World". God has chosen not merely which "World" but, possibly, which particular people he has actualized. In which event....that possibility certainly would not exist at all.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That seems pretty accurate to me. What is the reason that the ccf's won't happen.

Because the "creature" to whom the counterfactual pertains has chosen otherwise.

Because God determined that they won't?

ALL determinations are determined by, well, the determiner.......and when it comes to a creaturely free decision....that determiner, was the creature, not the creator.

If such is the case

It isn't the case.

then how can they truly be counterfactuals available to a creature?

They are available to the creature....it's just that the creature has essentially already MADE THEM. The creature made the determination logically prior to God's actualizing the world. The creature is now living out that determination IN TIME....but, the CCF exists timelessly.

The creature can only select the outcome God desires.

No, the creature selected the outcome they desired, logically prior to God's decision to actualize and God's awareness of that decision exists temporally prior to the creation of the world.

This seems to eliminate true lfw.

Molinists do not think that for LFW to truly exist, that God must hold either false beliefs about what decisions a person would or will make, or be ignorant of them.

 

[humblethinker]

"Might and might nots" are not only theoretically possible…

I agree with your assessment that 'might and might not' truth statements must exist in order to ethically hold man morally accountable. I also agree that the 'might and might not' statements must have ontological reality, not just theoretical.

Molinism Ontologically argued?...

In this paragraph, I can agree in that Molinism posits that God is omniscient and that man has LFW. You needn't try to further convince me of such.

How does He do it, both? I know you are VERY concerned with this! :saint: Well, first you need to remember to ask at this stage in the game, "Is it more important to show precisely HOW it is true or more important to show that it MUST be true?"

This might be where we are missing each other. That God is omniscient is one idea that I do not reject but rather posit and uphold. So, neither of us should argue against the other whether God is omniscient, nor whether he 'must' be. We both agree that he does have omniscience.

I don’t see why you are so bent on trying to prove that Molinism cannot be possible when I show that both: God’s foreknowledge and LFW MUST be possible.
…<snip>
1) Molinism can be observed to demonstrate it arguing that both: God’s foreknowledge and LFW are true. All Molinist claim both are true.

I'm not trying to prove that Molinism cannot be possible. We both agree that foreknowledge and LFW are true. I say again, I can agree in that Molinism posits that God is omniscient and that man has LFW. You needn't try to further convince me of such.

Yet, it seems you ignore that I can easily show that if Open Theism is possible that both: God’s foreknowledge and LFW must not be possible. (Foreknowledge is forfeited.)
…<snip>…
2) Open Theism cannot be observed to demonstrate it arguing that both: God’s foreknowledge and LFW are true. All Open Theist claim Divine foreknowledge is not true.

3) On those grounds which doctrine would you rather be observed be trying to support as truth based on what the Bible reveals about these Divine and creaturely attributes? Or on what grounds would you argue that OT is true and Molinism is not?

I don't want to ignore anything, I just don't want to discuss it in this thread. I don't believe you can easily show that OVT renders God's foreknowledge and LFW incompatible. Let's discuss this in a different thread and I prefer after this thread (there's only so much to which I can give quality focus in one thread).

My question to you that I hope you won't ignore:

Will you put your ability to reason "HOW" over your ability to reason to maintain it "MUST?

I accept and posit that God is omniscient and that he has foreknowledge, that he knows all truths and is convinced of their ontological status.

The difficulty I have with Molinism is that "might and might not" were only true prior to prior to creation and that God is the only decider as to which world gets actualized and therefore how the 'might and might nots' would obtain. Once he actualized the world all 'might and might nots' became 'will and will nots' since they could not be otherwise. The caricature of such is, "I decided to actualize this world and now, being judgement time, your just reward for your existence in this world I chose to actualize awaits you... thank you for your participation... Goodbye forever." This caricature, I'm sure you agree, does not look like Jesus, and one thing I do not want to compromise is that God looks like Jesus.

The greater question is not, "What kind of God is he?", but rather, "What kind of world has he created?". Is this not the remaining task of Theology?

 

[humblethinker]

ALL determinations are determined by, well, the determiner.......and when it comes to a creaturely free decision....that determiner, was the creature, not the creator.

It isn't the case.

They are available to the creature....it's just that the creature has essentially already MADE THEM. The creature made the determination logically prior to God's actualizing the world. The creature is now living out that determination IN TIME....but, the CCF exists timelessly.

No, the creature selected the outcome they desired, logically prior to God's decision to actualize and God's awareness of that decision exists temporally prior to the creation of the world.

Molinists do not think that for LFW to truly exist, that God must hold either false beliefs about what decisions a person would or will make, or be ignorant of them.

HoS, some of your propositions seem to have serious flaws in them.

Because the "creature" to whom the counterfactual pertains has chosen otherwise.

Your use of 'chosen' here is past tense. As I understand Molinism, there is only one actual world. Also, the truth of the counterfactual is grounded in a world that does not exist, cannot now exist and only could have existed prior to free creatures existing. In my view of reality it is the case that with everything I do, there are many, perhaps tens, hundreds or thousands of determinations I might make. Many of them are sinful. Proof of this possibility is grounded in the fact that I have indeed done some shameful things. According to Molinism though, it may turn out that this world is the world in which I murder, steal, commit adultery, kidnap, or other terrible things. Then again, it may turn out that this world is not the world where such obtains. So, a logical extension of Molinism is that I am being judged and/or accepted for what I did in the world he chose. An argument can be made that Molinism is a poor attempt to describe a God who, desiring to share his triune love, wanted to have a world in which free creatures could have a genuine, loving, reciprocal relationship with him and other created beings for which God would hold all morally accountable.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin, thank you for your replies.

You're welcome.

Sometimes it seems you express that I'm being evasive because my argument (whatever it is we are talking about) is weak. I do not intend to be evasive but rather I'd like to keep this discussion very focused.

I understand that I can have the tendency to be impatient in trying to get on the same page with another person in a line of thought; and I know some of that is because I'm just plain weird in how my thoughts jump all over the place when I'm trying to focus on a certain issue, or maybe better put from my perspective, several "certain" issues. It's a long story... :smilewinkgrin:

I don't think that Molinism convincingly demonstrates such especially compared to competing views. I hope that you get this point...

Actually, I think, and you may be surprised to know how much, I really do understand how you feel as I have been in similar shoes; I think that’s what motivates me to respond. Upon forming my soteriological views after rejecting Calvinism and it determining factors I feverishly searched for truth in how all the attributes of God and the nature of man which demonstrates free will both naturally and Biblically and how could all biblical truth including His Powerful Nature and judgments could be maintained. I spent some time reading Open Theist views and I liked a lot of what it said being that it freely and readily recognized and demonstrated biblically the difficulties of determination and a lot of it sounded really good to me but the bottom line I kept coming to was that ultimately had to go back to hinging on that God did not know some things.

So I found them on the right track and was impressed with their defenses against determinism but I began to believe they had taken the easy way out through sacrificing a very important attribute (knowing all things) that to me made God who He is. In my heart I knew there had to still be a way to maintain all the truths that were before me in God’s written Word because He was Truth. So, later in my studies of Molinism, like you I would stop and say, “wait a minute, that doesn’t quite add up” and still see difficulties with some of the ways they come to their conclusions, but recognizing their struggles and motivations I began to see myself walking in the same shoes as them trying to explain how all these necessary truths could be maintained.

Therefore, I have a great respect for Molinism’s approach and although not agreeing with all their reasoning in their attempts to explain the depth of God knowledge I do agree with them that the answers to how all these things can be true is in trying to understand the depth of God knowledge; a daunting task to be sure. But, one thing I’ve come to understand is that Molinists are my best and closet soteriological buddies in this adventure! See my point?

What I believe we (LFW adherents) have the challenge of doing is to present a model that best represents how a world of moral responsibility is created by an omniscient triune God who intends to have genuine, loving reciprocal relationships with his free creatures.

Totally agree about the challenge, all these truths and more must vitally be maintained in strict consideration to avoid sliding into any fatalistic theological downfalls and even though I may not have all the answers I would like to I will forever continue to fight the good fight for Truth, because God IS Truth in all His ways is a surety and that is a hill I'm willing to bleed on and die for.

I'll be back… off to take my daughter to school…

Been spending way to much time on the computer waiting while pushing back beginning my new physical therapy career because of also waiting for the plans and to take the oppotunity to do one more large very lucrative cabinet job...ugh! Going stir crazy in the meantime! It helps to find someone to poke at sometimes, hope you'll understand. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[humblethinker]

I spent some time reading Open Theist views ...a lot of it sounded really good to me but the bottom line I kept coming to was that ultimately had to go back to hinging on that God did not know some things.

I can surely appreciate this concern. I too had this concern, specifically about OVT. I remain aware of it and vigilant against the idea that there are knowable things for which God is unaware. While I am aware of some OVT's that propose that there exists things for which God is unaware, I don't think this is at all the main-stream thought of its adherents. It is, however, an outdated caricature of their detractors. This is why I think that it is better to address the question of "What kind of world did he create?" We can agree on what kind of God he and yet disagree on our description of the world he has created. Perhaps we can soon discuss the merits and difficulties of Open Theism, but in another thread.

...the answers to how all these things can be true is in trying to understand the depth of God knowledge; a daunting task to be sure. But, one thing I’ve come to understand is that Molinists are my best and closet soteriological buddies in this adventure! See my point?

A daunting task indeed. (Had I been able to bill for all the hours I've spent thinking about the issue I'd be able to go on sabbatical all of next year, which is another reason why I want to get past caricatures and obfuscation, and rather learn and address the real issues of the matter. I have a vested interest beyond comfort - if that's possible - to come to a settled opinion on the matter.) I do see your point and I don't blame someone for believing what they do... surely, if it's important to them they've made a good faith attempt to understand what they believe. I don't doubt you have. The thing that just doesn't click with me is that I hear you make statements that indicate that your understanding of Molinism (and OVT for that matter) is different than mine. In fact, your expression of Molinism seems different than what I've heard from others, including HoS. Your describe Molinism in ways that do not seem to be congruent with it. This is why I was/am wanting specific sourcing to the teaching of leaders in the ideology.

Totally agree about the challenge, all these truths and more must vitally be maintained in strict consideration to avoid sliding into any fatalistic theological downfalls and even though I may not have all the answers I would like to I will forever continue to fight the good fight for Truth, because God IS Truth in all His ways is a surety and that is a hill I'm willing to bleed on and die for.

I respect that and I feel like I can agree even if I were to hold to OVT.

Been spending way to much time on the computer waiting while pushing back beginning my new physical therapy career because of also waiting for the plans and to take the oppotunity to do one more large very lucrative cabinet job...ugh! Going stir crazy in the meantime! It helps to find someone to poke at sometimes, hope you'll understand. :smilewinkgrin:

Haha, I was once a carpenter as well (rough framing carpenter) and switched careers like you... We'd probably have a good time talking shop over a nice beverage and cigar... (hmmm... that'd be mio flavored water and no tobacco for me but don't let that stop you) and trade some stories (I still have all my digits and appendages, you?) Sometimes I think most people on this board would treat others differently if they knew the others personally or were face to face... at least the good people would. I wish you good success on your last cabinet job... may you make lots and lots of money!

 

[Benjamin]

In this paragraph, I can agree in that Molinism posits that God is omniscient and that man has LFW. You needn't try to further convince me of such.

That is good, but the issue remains of you rejecting Molinism because of not fully understanding the "how". There is only one way that is centerally different between this view and OT's view that makes the difference for you on the "how" and I think you know what that diffeerence amounts to about the "how" is...

That God is omniscient is one idea that I do not reject but rather posit and uphold. So, neither of us should argue against the other whether God is omniscient, nor whether he 'must' be. We both agree that he does have omniscience.

You keep saying that and that is why I poke at you about simply just jumping the fence then. Because it is clear that the Open Theist view is neither upholding the view of God’s Omniscience nor in even attempting to in many cases, outright denying it others and certainly logically failing to uphold God's Omniscience in the remainder as far as I ever seen and like I've said I've been all over that system.

Originally Posted by Benjamin http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1931451#post1931451
My question to you that I hope you won't ignore:

Will you put your ability to reason "HOW" over your ability to reason to maintain it "MUST?

HT:
I accept and posit that God is omniscient and that he has foreknowledge, that he knows all truths and is convinced of their ontological status.

Yet, it seems you attack the only view which argues to strictly uphold that God has foreknowledge while seemingly favoring the Open Theist which does not. I don’t get that at all…

HT:
The difficulty I have with Molinism is that "might and might not" were only true prior to prior to creation and that God is the only decider as to which world gets actualized and therefore how the 'might and might nots' would obtain. Once he actualized the world all 'might and might nots' became 'will and will nots' since they could not be otherwise. The caricature of such is, "I decided to actualize this world and now, being judgement time, your just reward for your existence in this world I chose to actualize awaits you... thank you for your participation... Goodbye forever." This caricature, I'm sure you agree, does not look like Jesus, and one thing I do not want to compromise is that God looks like Jesus.

Seems to me we’re right back to my question of whether “you” put fully understanding the “how” above fully maintaining that God’s knowledge is able or MUST (a point I seriously tried to flag as to not have it ignored) have the attribute of foreknowledge? It seems you are answering “yes” that you would put the “how’ before the “must” while rejecting Molinism on that premise. If so, I find that to be very problematic for you to logically support your insistence that you uphold God's forekowledge.

The greater question is not, "What kind of God is he?", but rather, "What kind of world has he created?". Is this not the remaining task of Theology?

He created a world that all things (His Nature, His judgment, His interactions with the creatures that He created, and Him knowing it all beforehand how it would come down) ARE possible. And whether we can fully understand “how” He accomplishes all these truths or not doesn’t seem as important to me as to defend that all, and I mean ALL, is true. This is what Molinism does: yet it seems you are against this system which tries to explain the “how” on the principles that “you” don’t fully understand the “how” in disregard to what “must” be defended to actually in truth and absolutely necessary in order to be upholding all these important attributes mentioned above and not to exclude His foreknowledge - which “must” be separated from “any” conclusion that rest on determinism which is ultimately fatalistic because it fails to uphold necessary truths.

I don’t mean to be overly personal but I would think that “if” you appear to be holding the “how” above the “must” because of this agenda to discount Molinism on the grounds of not explaining the “how” good enough to suit you that you are being contradictory in what is most important to you?

Sorry about the long sentences, but got to run.

 

[Cypress]

Because the "creature" to whom the counterfactual pertains has chosen otherwise.

No, he may have chosen many ways

ALL determinations are determined by, well, the determiner.......and when it comes to a creaturely free decision....that determiner, was the creature, not the creator.

Not really, the Creator manipulated the creature into the desired response

It isn't the case.

It now is the case again.

They are available to the creature....it's just that the creature has essentially already MADE THEM. The creature made the determination logically prior to God's actualizing the world. The creature is now living out that determination IN TIME....but, the CCF exists timelessly.

The creature may have made them and a host of others.

No, the creature selected the outcome they desired, logically prior to God's decision to actualize and God's awareness of that decision exists temporally prior to the creation of the world.

They selected the outcome they desired based on the influences exerted in the imaginary or trial world.

Molinists do not think that for LFW to truly exist, that God must hold either false beliefs about what decisions a person would or will make, or be ignorant of them.

Okay.

 

[Benjamin]

While I am aware of some OVT's that propose that there exists things for which God is unaware, I don't think this is at all the main-stream thought of its adherents. It is, however, an outdated caricature of their detractors. This is why I think that it is better to address the question of "What kind of world did he create?" We can agree on what kind of God he and yet disagree on our description of the world he has created. Perhaps we can soon discuss the merits and difficulties of Open Theism, but in another thread.

The problem is in this thread your focus to misrepresent the model of Molinism is based on OVT thought.

"It" (the sacrifice of foreknowledge) is merely rhetorically and falliciously claimed to be outdated. OVT offers very weak and unconvincing evidence which by all my observations can eventually and usually quite obviously, easily and immediately be seen logically denying Divine foreknowledge at best and outright denying it at worst. They have nothing, and I mean NOTHING to support LFW that does not logically fall on surrendering God’s foreknowledge without finding that answer from within the type of knowledge God possesses (which Molinism strictly argues to be the key) and they are certainly not driven to retain foreknowledge within any other explanation they offer regarding His knowledge.

Also it should be observed that OVT make the claims they do against the Molinist on the same grounds that I have been trying to explain to you which are in fact inconsistent with a belief of logically upholding foreknowledge.

It seems to me you have got caught up in OVT’s rhetorical arguments which really have no grounding objections to Molinism which does not in effect condemn their own view through these arguments logically forfeiting foreknowledge because of being hinged to theories that determination would have to apply from creation on if foreknowledge is maintained; thereby OVT uses self-defeating strategies while engaging in trying to defend their one-upmanship agenda against Molinism.

On that note, personally, in my previous walk through these issues I outright rejected Open Theism but when I did I also knew that if I had to decide between Open Theism views and Calvinism Determinism views there would be no hesitation to go with Open Theism (that is where I relate to you, BTW) because of them maintaining far more biblical truths necessary to uphold LFW. But I didn’t have to make that choice because I saw past the difficulties of how God could know all things during creation and not have pre-determined the outcomes of the world in which we live because of grounding that issue to be more important, because of basing it on the truth that He “must” have. As far as I’m concerned that leaves me with one viable option that God has special, deeper, “middle” type of knowledge that would allow all necessary truth to be true; that is what Molinism argues.

Again, personally, since then, and having put much deep thought into Molinist arguments, which again some I agree with and others I find difficulties with, I have noted many comparisons between God’s Trinitarian Nature and the type of knowledge which would reflect Him to have a “Mediating/Middle” type of knowledge allowing this “miraculous” and yet true Nature to his knowledge. In fact, if I was asked to “label” my view the best I could come up with is, “A Molinist Middle Knowledge type of view with a Trinitarian Twist”.

In regards to that, my Trinitarian factor presents a whole other set of difficulties in maintaining One God in 3 distinctions involving the Homeostatic Union and traditional Nicaea council elements, trust me! If I ever get it all figured out and write the book I’ll let you know, but I suspect it would take someone much more academically and intellectually inclined along with having better abilities to express their thoughts than I.
:tonofbricks:

Regardless, I would say I am convinced that through observing the “type” of Divine knowledge God has is the only path toward coming to better understand “how” this (necessarily true conclusion of foreknowledge in creation which excludes determination) can be found and I emphatically object to any notion from any view in which His foreknowledge is forfeited.

It is, however, an outdated caricature of their detractors.

IOW’s “It” as I have observed while also keeping an eye on OVT’s evolution, it has only been in recent times that they’ve rhetorically began claiming this issue to be “outdated” while in fact such a claim rests simply on them “begging the question” as per the true results regarding an insurmountable issue that I would suggest is in mere desperation to not have their view rejected and ignored because of their own insight to it logically forfeiting foreknowledge and becoming theologically fatalistic in the process.

The thing that just doesn't click with me is that I hear you make statements that indicate that your understanding of Molinism (and OVT for that matter) is different than mine. In fact, your expression of Molinism seems different than what I've heard from others, including HoS.

Okay, I’ve explained above and in other posts how and why my view is “somewhat” (Disclaimer: I am willing to add in some of “my” views on “how” these things “can/must” be along the way, so shoot me! :saint different as well as very similar. Now, are we really going to go back to you making HoS your sacrificial scapegoat again?! :laugh: I’ve also explained to you “why” those of the Molinist view are my best soteriological buddies in another post so if you try to beat on him with any “OVT building up through knocking down Molinism threads” while, as in, trying to misrepresent the model of Molinism I’m going to be on you like white on rice!

(I still have all my digits and appendages, you?)

Oh, and yes, after 30 years of using the type of equipment I do I am proud to say that the only thing I'm missing is the very end of one digit (my thumb) which is pretty much un-noticeable after several years of healing.

 

[humblethinker]

The problem is in this thread your focus to misrepresent the model of Molinism is based on OVT thought.

Rather, OVT has helped me distinguish some of the problems I've always felt about Molinism's use of EDF.

In your interpretation of Molinism, you seem to be making a hybrid of Mo and OVT. In your model of Mo you depict God adjusting his previously known responses to free creatures in real time, after the needle has dropped. This is not Molinism. It sounds more like a version of OVT that accepts EDF. Would you admit that in this world all of God's actions from the big bang to the eschaton were such that they could not be other than God knew they would definitely be? Also, we could make further progress if you would admit that in this world every action you make cannot be other than what God definitely knew, prior to creation, that you would make. Maybe you have already affirmed this? Yet the model you offered has God modifying what he knew his own actions would be such that they are different than what he knew prior to creation. This does not reflect mainstream Mo. (If I am wrong about mainstream Mo please point me to some sources that teach and show that I understand incorrectly.)

God has actualized a world in which nothing can be other than the way it is. There are other worlds theoretical for which any 'other' action can be found, but those records (worlds) have a complete definite history of their own in which there is no deviation. At specific times God grieves over sinful events in this world, because in the other worlds that don't actually exist the actors did not sin in the 'same' event. God grieves yet he knew and knows that it could not be otherwise.

I grant you that Mo upholds LFW, it's just secured in imaginary worlds that each have a complete history of their own. In each of the worlds I can only do that which is true in that world. I can only do what is true, and what is true is that there were no options for anyone in each of these worlds. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just want to admit the dissonance in my mind before I accept it in my heart. I have a hard time seeing how I can be held accountable for imaginary worlds and my belief or acceptance of such would be only because LFW is a 'must'. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I just want to be clear to myself where I'm accepting something that lacks coherence.

As far as I’m concerned that leaves me with one viable option that God has special, deeper, “middle” type of knowledge that would allow all necessary truth to be true; that is what Molinism argues.

What is necessary truth? Does it logically lead to the idea that God knows that 'possibility' does not exist? Which is God convinced of, that possibilities exist or that they don't? If he is convinced that they do exist then why should we disagree and require that he know that they don't? If possibilities don't exist in this world and God is content with holding me accountable for what would happen in imaginary worlds, then what good is it to disagree? If it's possible that I may be able to commit an untold number of sins (which, I believe to be true for all of us) then there are imaginary worlds in which I commit one of those sins. So, if we were analyze all of the possible worlds in which I exist, we would see that I have committed all sins that were possible. I had no control over which world God chose to actualize. I guess I just got lucky that he chose this world, right? (hmmm... lucky so far anyways). How does Mo manage this tension? Please address this issue. Perhaps it would help me to understand Mo.

Now, are we really going to go back to you making HoS your sacrificial scapegoat again?! :laugh: I’ve also explained to you “why” those of the Molinist view are my best soteriological buddies in another post so if you try to beat on him with any “OVT building up through knocking down Molinism threads” while, as in, trying to misrepresent the model of Molinism I’m going to be on you like white on rice!

I reference HoS because his response is more in line with what I understand to be Molinism. Offer me someone who thinks differently. Surely there is someone or someones out there whose writings would best reflect your understanding (or Molinism's teaching). Surely you've already addressed the concerns I've voiced and read from these people how they deal with these difficulties. Just point me to their verbage and this would all be easier. I've gotten mostly replies of diversion.

 

[Benjamin]

Humblethinker, do you really want to talk about “diversion” in by claiming my view not relationally in line with Molinism’s??? While at the same time trying to divert away from my recognition that your argument is an old failed illogical attempt (an Open Theist strategy) to misrepresent the Molinist view?! My arguments of your premise resembling common OVT motives and being an avoidance of CCFs “necessary” truths and are in fact a fallacy because of resulting in a misrepresentation of the Molinist model. I got news for you is you don’t already know it; my argument against your premise has been singing side by side in chorus with the head honcho of Molinism, and my good buddy Bill all along the way in putting down your argument! But first:

First, Necessary truths would be observed as things that uphold the True Nature of God, in this case His Divine knowledge with all its attributes, and certainly not to excluded knowing all things (“foreknowledge”) and that is part of the premise that WILL not be ignored.

Second, it is rather fallacious to attempt to discount my presentation of Molinist thought (Middle Knowledge) on the premise of being a hybrid because I am willing to get into more detail of “how” that Middle Knowledge can otherwise be observed while giving a personal notation. It does not change the direction of the argument in any way other than the added explanation of “how” this Middle Knowledge (Molinism’s base) can “also” be Biblically observed. I am 100% in line with Molinism’s argument which I have laid out for you in detail that Molinism does not forfeit foreknowledge, maintains LFW, and does this through a type of Middle Knowledge and therefore going to show your model fails when avoiding to maintain these foundational beliefs. My/Molinism’s argument against “your” common attempt (MO) to place either forfeiting foreknowledge or adding determinism concerning Molinism holding to its logically based argument rooted in CCFs is the exact way Molinism argues to substantiate that logical “truth”.

As per “my” MO of pinning “your” (Open Theism’s) common attempts to fly by CCFs and misrepresent the Molinist system with things such as trying to turn “counterfactuals” which maintain both foreknowledge and LFW into “might and might not counterfactuals” is not an original MO coming from me to support Molinism.

I am also 100% accurate in my statement concerning “your” attempts (MO) to tear down Molinism is a method which is rooted in common Open Theist thoughts and agendas. Not only am I riding in harmony with Molinism defense of “your methods” here but I am fully aware of where they came from, thus my statement:

“It seems to me you have got caught up in OVT’s rhetorical arguments which really have no grounding objections to Molinism which does not in effect condemn their own view through these arguments logically forfeiting foreknowledge because of being hinged to theories that determination would have to apply from creation on if foreknowledge is maintained; thereby OVT uses self-defeating strategies while engaging in trying to defend their one-upmanship agenda against Molinism.”

Need I confirm “how” the above words ring true and that I do in fact have understanding of the origins of the argument you make here and have pointed to “your” MO so accurately that the above applies that this OVT strategy might as well be tattooed across your forehead?! :laugh:

Okay then! Please do see below:

 

[Benjamin]

Ah, yes! Greg Boyd (the Open Theist), who once referred to his view as Neo-Molinist, title now abandoned, attempting to “borrow” Molinism’s use of counterfactuals to support his Open Theist position, who went about calling “might and might not” propositions “counterfactuals” as part of Greg’s strategy of which “he” engaged in the past (in an agenda to support OVT view while putting down Molinism) . But, as my ole buddy Bill (AKA WLC) has pointed out: “He came to see that attempting to define open theism as a kind of “Neo-Molinism” was in the end not possible.” (sound familiar to my "non-Molinism" arguments?)

Here is some of Craig’s comments on this washed up subject pertaining to Greg raising his “might or might not” issues with his “Neo-Molinism” schema of trying to rest on propositions containing “might-counterfactuals” to which he was BUSTED playing illogical semantics with “would-counterfactuals” to which both logically collapse together. Yes, many moons ago Greg (the Open Theist) tried unsuccessfully and as would be expected got caught “as usual” holding the bag of forfeiting Divine foreknowledge in that “might-counterfactuals” logically collapse to “actual meaning” of “counterfactuals”! (IOW’s Greg/ and you attempted to misrepresent Molinism’s base argument of CCFs which maintain foreknowledge) (sound familiar?):

Craig:
I would not refer to ‘would’ and ‘might’ counterfactuals, for I now see that this way of speaking presupposes there’s a settled future that is factual which these statements are ‘counter’ to. I would thus rather speak of ‘would-factuals’ and ‘might-possibilities’.”

Unfortunately even this qualification requires some explanation. The point we made in 2006 was that ‘might and might not’ propositions are as factual as any other sort of proposition. Or if one is describing the states of affairs themselves, ‘would’ and ‘might/might not’ are both equally grounded in actual states of affairs. So to speak of ‘would’ props as ‘factual’ in a way that ‘might and might not’ props are not (because they posit possibilities) essentially misses the point we argued in 2006. But not a lot of people have taken notice of this added footnote on Greg’s Neo-Molinism paper.

Craig:
By exploiting His middle knowledge of such might-counterfactuals, God is able to plan how He would Himself respond to any choice which any person might make in any set of circumstances. Thus, although God gambles in creating a world of free creatures, in that He knows neither how creatures would choose were He to create them, nor how they will choose in the actual world, nevertheless, He is never caught off guard or unprepared for their choices, for He has already decided how He would respond to any action they might take.

Craig:
Moreover, He is so intelligent that He knows that however creatures might choose He will so respond as to ensure the realization of His ultimate purposes.

Craig:
If Boyd means to capture this intuitive sense of “might,” then by admitting the truth of might-counterfactuals logically prior to the divine decree, Boyd seems to have quietly abandoned the most common and forceful objections to the doctrine of middle knowledge (aka CCFs, sound familiar?), namely, objections based on the lack of grounding of such propositions.

Craig:
Boyd doesn't seem to appreciate that on the Molinist view would-counterfactuals logically imply might-counterfactuals, so that both are true and known to God.


Craig:
Boyd is fundamentally mistaken if he imagines that Molinism aims “to restrict God's middle knowledge to knowledge of would-counterfactuals, or, what comes to the same thing, to conclude that all might-counterfactuals are false.” The Molinist maintains that both kinds of counterfactuals are true and known to God via His middle knowledge.

Craig:
It is Boyd, then, who is trying to restrict God's knowledge by limiting it to might-counterfactuals.

Craig:
But, having abandoned the typical objections to middle knowledge, what justification does Boyd have for this restriction? If he claims that would-counterfactuals are incompatible with creaturely freedom, then he has forgotten the difference between what one could do and what one might do in any set of circumstances. Freedom requires only that in a given set of circumstances one be able to refrain from doing what one would do; it is not required that one might not do what one would do.

Craig:
Boyd seems to confuse the ordinary language use of “might,” which is fraught with connotations of freedom, with its technical meaning in counterfactual semantics, which has no bearing at all on the freedom of the choices made.

Craig
: (In fact this conflation of what one could do with what one might do is a confusion that runs throughout Boyd's writings.) If Boyd is willing to accept true might-counterfactuals, then I see no reason remaining to deny the truth of would-counterfactuals as well.

Craig
: Hence, Boyd's apparent move toward Molinism turns out to be a mere feint. Since might-counterfactuals collapse to counterfactuals about what someone could freely do, God knows nothing more than mere possibilities prior to His creative decree —exactly what traditional open theism claims.


:tonofbricks: eh? :laugh:


If you "really" want to hold onto Divine foreknowledge you're not going to do it with these OVT guys HT; humbly "think" about it and jump the fence dude! :laugh:

 

[humblethinker]

Benjamin,
Could you address this from my previous post?:
If it's possible that I may be able to commit an untold number of sins (which, I believe to be true for all of us) then there are imaginary worlds in which I commit one of those sins. So, if we were analyze all of the possible worlds in which I exist, we would see that I have committed all sins that were possible. I had no control over which world God chose to actualize. I guess I just got lucky that he chose this world, right? (hmmm... lucky so far anyways). How does Mo manage this tension? Please address this issue. Perhaps it would help me to understand Mo.

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,
Could you address this from my previous post?:
If it's possible that I may be able to commit an untold number of sins (which, I believe to be true for all of us) then there are imaginary worlds in which I commit one of those sins. So, if we were analyze all of the possible worlds in which I exist, we would see that I have committed all sins that were possible. I had no control over which world God chose to actualize. I guess I just got lucky that he chose this world, right? (hmmm... lucky so far anyways). How does Mo manage this tension? Please address this issue. Perhaps it would help me to understand Mo.

Once again, "simply", in a nut shell, Molinism rests on CCFs truths which Biblically prove that foreknowledge and LFW are both necessarily true. And Again, the "how" He does it is miraculous for sure, but not fully understanding the "how" in our finite minds does not void the logic which Molinism holds to that CCFs proves that such truth (necessary truth) IS possible. That is the Molinist argument, that these things are possible. Further, they do not claim to exactly explain the "how" but do claim it "must" be done through His special type of knowledge defined as "middle knowledge" .

Bottom line OVT does not hold these things are possible and Molinism does. Irregardless of fully understanding the "how" the logic holds that it is possible and that is the base premise which cannot be overlooked, that's what makes the Molinist argument better.

BTW, this is why I used OVT failures to demonstrate the similarities of their common fallacious reasoning which always ends up in the same ole results which always logically denies foreknowledge. Basically OVT tries to make the argument you have made here and I'm afraid gotten caught up with through reading them which amounts to, in the long run, no matter how long "it", the "how" (your question of "how") is drawn out, that T (possible) + F (not possible) = T, their "fallacious conclusion" being -therefore foreknowledge and LFW exists. But Molinism is T (possible) + T (possible) = T therefore foreknowledge and LFW exists. Can you not see this difference? Do you yet not see that your argument then is based on the "how" which we may never fully know (other than that His knowledge does in fact somehow allow for it) instead of the "must"?

I sincerely hope that helps.

 

[humblethinker]

Once again, "simply", in a nut shell, Molinism rests on CCFs truths which Biblically prove that foreknowledge and LFW are both necessarily true. And Again, the "how" He does it is miraculous for sure, but not fully understanding the "how" in our finite minds does not void the logic which Molinism holds to that CCFs proves that such truth (necessary truth) IS possible. That is the Molinist argument, that these things are possible. Further, they do not claim to exactly explain the "how" but do claim it "must" be done through His special type of knowledge defined as "middle knowledge" .

Bottom line OVT does not hold these things are possible and Molinism does. Irregardless of fully understanding the "how" the logic holds that it is possible and that is the base premise which cannot be overlooked, that's what makes the Molinist argument better.

BTW, this is why I used OVT failures to demonstrate the similarities of their common fallacious reasoning which always ends up in the same ole results which always logically denies foreknowledge. Basically OVT tries to make the argument you have made here and I'm afraid gotten caught up with through reading them which amounts to, in the long run, no matter how long "it", the "how" (your question of "how") is drawn out, that T (possible) + F (not possible) = T, their conclusion being -therefore foreknowledge and LFW exists. But Molinism is T (possible) + T (possible) = T therefore foreknowledge and LFW exists. Can you not see this difference? Do you yet not see that your argument then is based on the "how" which we may never know instead of the "must"?

Your answer above hardly addresses the question. So, let me put it this way... If you were to be confronted with this problem by an athiest well versed in scripture and christian baptist culture if he were to propose the following problem, what would you say to him?

If it's possible that I may be able to commit an untold number of sins (which, I believe to be true for all of us) then there are imaginary worlds in which I commit one of those sins. So, if we were analyze all of the possible worlds in which I exist, we would see that I have committed all sins that were possible. I had no control over which world God chose to actualize. I guess I just got lucky that he chose this world, right? (hmmm... lucky so far anyways). How does Mo manage this tension?

 

[Benjamin]

Your answer above hardly addresses the question. So, let me put it this way... If you were to be confronted with this problem by an athiest... ?

I am going on the presumption that one believes God exists and therefore that His Word (which includes CCFs in this matter) is necessarily true. If facing an atheist my argument would then have to step back to that God exists and is Truth. It is two different arguments and this being so does not void the Molinist argument to be true and stand as is.

BTW, this goes to show that the Truth in the matter cannot always be found in the "how" because sometimes we cannot fully understand all the ways of God other than to know they exist in truth as He exists in Truth, but as believers we "must' believe Him and all His ways to be True, (thus this specific argument as spelled out in a nutshell above must "necessarily" begin with the premise that God is True)...

 

[humblethinker]

I am going on the presumption that one believes God exists and therefore that His Word (which includes CCFs in this matter) is necessarily true. If facing an atheist my argument would then have to step back to that God exists and is Truth. It is two different arguments and this being so does not void the Molinist argument to be true and stand as is.

BTW, this goes to show that the Truth in the matter cannot always be found in the "how" because sometimes we cannot fully understand all the ways of God other than to know they exist in truth as He exists in Truth, but as believers we "must' believe Him and all His ways to be True, (thus this specific argument as spelled out in a nutshell above must "necessarily" begin with the premise that God is True)...

Let me put it this way... If you were to be confronted with this problem by a believer, if he were to propose the following problem, what would you say to him?

If it's possible that I may be able to commit an untold number of sins (which, I believe to be true for all of us) then there are imaginary worlds in which I commit one of those sins. So, if we were analyze all of the possible worlds in which I exist, we would see that I have committed all sins that were possible. I had no control over which world God chose to actualize. I guess I just got lucky that he chose this world, right? (hmmm... lucky so far anyways). How does Mo manage this tension?

 

[Benjamin]

Let me put it this way... If you were to be confronted with this problem by a believer, if he were to propose the following problem, what would you say to him?

If it's possible that I may be able to commit an untold number of sins (which, I believe to be true for all of us) then there are imaginary worlds in which I commit one of those sins. So, if we were analyze all of the possible worlds in which I exist, we would see that I have committed all sins that were possible. I had no control over which world God chose to actualize. I guess I just got lucky that he chose this world, right? (hmmm... lucky so far anyways). How does Mo manage this tension?

We’ve been over this as being presented to believer and you seemingly are unaware of this by now merely asking me to repeat myself. All arguments presented by you beginning with a premise to misrepresent Molinist argument have been addressed as well as your insistence about the “how” which does not in any way discount Molinism’s "actual" grounding argument. (Described in a nut shell, post #35) There is no tension regarding Molinism’s “actual” grounding argument, that it is more than possible to be true, it has been shown through CCFs that it must be logically true. The only tension you are truly seeing then is in the “how” it is possible. To that my best answer is because God is able to do what He says He can do in Truth.

First, God is able (Omnipotent) to do anything His Word says is true. That premise for this argument must be accepted on faith as a “necessary truth”. If you now want to step back on that premise on the claim “it” (His Omnipotence) is false to defend the present argument, well, …again that is a WHOLE other ball of wax. This argument is formed on the belief that God exists and is Truth in all His ways is accepted as a “necessary truth”. Rather a desperate measure to attempt to win this argument by stepping back on that premise, don’t you think??? It amounts to a fallacious attempt to invalidate the conclusion being demonstrated as previously spelled out on such grounds (denying a grounding necessary truth) at best and at worst, while considering the consequences of that, I can only suggest that such a debate would not be suitable in this format here and now.

To recap: I have demonstrated how and why your model misrepresents Molinism. Putting the Molinist model in proper perspective I had demonstrated Molinism’s argument to come to a logically true conclusion. Further, I have explained the difficulties of the common OVT strategies you have presented and demonstrated their conclusions to be false, unavoidably forfeiting foreknowledge, and based on fallacy. In the meantime, I have expressed my concerns of your following this OVT line of thought and having explained the consequences of such thought as well as how they will always logically arrive to those false conclusions and it doesn’t seem to matter to you. That is why I took the liberty to questioned your reasoning regarding personal priorities of importance concerning the “how” and “must”. We would all like to know exactly “how” God accomplishes all the things He says He can do but we accept the truths of God on faith anyhow.

It doesn’t change the grounding truths concerning foreknowledge and LFW seen in CCFs to be logically true, which must not be ignored IS the conclusion upon which Molinism’s argument rests; it then follows that God has the Divine ability (to sustain this necessary truth) through accomplishing it from within the type of knowledge He has. That is the grounding truth, it is after that the explanation of “how” this type of knowledge which maintains that grounding truth might work, which is through God’s possessing a type middle knowledge. If you’ve got a better explanation which “maintains” these rooting established necessary truths I would like to hear it. OVT certainly does not. Once more, to attempt to change Molinism’s argument by misrepresenting it is purely fallacious, nor can this established necessary truth which in fact is demonstrated by Molinism’s “actual” argument be dismissed on the grounds of man’s inability to exactly explain all the “how’s” concerning how God’s infinite Divine knowledge IS able to do this through a type of middle knowledge. The point is that it cannot be ignored that it does happen in truth. To reject the truth that is does on the bases of you can't fully understand the "how" is rather silly and will unavoidably lead you into theological fatalism due to being left with only determinism or as maybe what you would prefer "forfeiting the Divine attribute of foreknowledge", take your pick between the two or jump the fence is the only options I see that you have.

I think we’ve gone full circle here, man.

 

[humblethinker]

And you still didn't answer the question.