Featured Modeling Molinism

which

Let it not be said that I have not given every opportunity I can think of for the opponent to come clean or that I am unwilling to help him with his “problem”. Let’s try it this way:

First regarding your question, which revealingly assumes “if” God foreknows all things He must have determined all things and thereby this belief “causes” a tension for the opponent, tell me, “What is the truth that the Molinism argument is grounded on and that they stand on?”

1) On exactly “how” God can foreknow all things and not determine them because of this truth being logically presented as true through CCFs and thereby resting on His ability to do this through His knowledge while He maintains the attributes of both foreknowledge and LFW?

Or

2) On that God “does” foreknow all things and not determine them because of this truth being logically presented as true through CCFs and thereby resting on His ability to do this through His knowledge while He maintains the attributes of both foreknowledge and LFW?

If (1) you have used a fallacy in attempting to demand an answer to this question to your satisfaction of understanding “how” and are using this to make your conclusion that the argument of Molinism cannot be true based on a misrepresentation of the Molinist argument and are ignorantly or disingenuously asking this question while trying to appear to win the argument.

If (2) then you have once again disregarded the topic of this thread in asking this question which is to accurately reflect a model of the Molinist argument, your interest in “how” is noted and understandable, but the answer to your question being to your satisfaction has no bearing on whether or not the actual Molinist ground argument is true or not because your question does not apply to the grounding argument itself. It is a merely a fallacious demand which is intended to imply the Molinist argument does not stand in truth based on a misrepresentation of the Molinist argument.

If you honestly address my question showing you recognize the differences between your model and what your demands amount to pertaining to the actual Molinist grounding argument which they stand on and then I will give you an “explanation” of “how” God foreknowing all things and Him not determining all things “could” be true relating to the “actual” Molinist grounding argument which is logically proven to be true and thereby admitting your question is only following the presentation of the true Molinist grounding argument and true conclusion to that argument. I will then help a believer with his “problem”. Otherwise, I believe I will be inclined take your question as a none other than part of a continuous attempt to fallaciously win the argument through a misrepresentation you have made against Molinism and will not waste anymore time.

 

I would begin by pointing out it's flaws:

1.) That simply doesn't follow....It MAY be the case, that there is a world in which you did...but there might not be
2.) You use of the word "imaginary" is telling...It seems to reveal that you believe that the actions of free creatures are conceived of in God's mind, rather than the mind of the creature themselves. What God "imagines" are the circumstances...What the creatures "imagine" are their own actions.

Perhaps if you could analyze all those possible worlds, but, you can't...so you don't know that at all. It may not even be a reasonable assumption to make. There may indeed be no possible World wherein you EVER make that decision, or ever commit those sins.

No...You only control your own actions in the world that he DID actualize. What World you find yourself in is God's choosing...What you do in that World is YOUR choosing.

"Luck" is only meaningful when we assume complete randomness...Neither God's choice of "World" nor your individual actions have anything to do with "Luck".

By demonstrating that the "tension" does not exist.

 

I’m going to step back as I’m obviously not getting my points across, but will offer the below from notes hitting on % and possible worlds (being most of rest is in my words I'll leave that be as they seems to be mostly adding difficulties to the present directions desired here ) thinking them relevant to discussion at hand concerning “sovereign control” in possible worlds pertaining to the Molinist’ model in contrast to other models which hold to a “deterministic sovereign control” as a necessarily truth or related and thus relevant alternatives regarding forfeiture of foreknowledge. By what should be HT confirmed authentic Molinist:

William Lane Craig explains, "It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves."

Keathley explains a scenario that fits in with the above using the ambulance analogy. “Imagine you wake up and discover that you are in an ambulance being transported to the emergency room. You clearly require serious medical help. If you do nothing, you will be delivered to the hospital. However, if for whatever reason you demand to be let out, the driver will comply. He may express his concern, warn you of the consequences, but he will abide by your wishes. You receive no credit for being taken to the hospital, you receive all the blame for getting out. This is a picture of the Molinist view of salvation.”

 

This is bizarre. All the logical hoops jumped through to explain the mere possibility that molinism and other possible worlds are true,when they should be easily understood from scripture. Why would we ever surmise about other possible worlds that God considered unless our system required them. It certainly is not warranted from scripture IMO.

 

Scripture shows through Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedoms that that all things are not pre-determined according to God's foreknowledge in creation as being logic. Molinism is merely expressing these things (LFW) are logically possible within the type of knowledge God has (not to exclude Him knowing all things) and giving explanations how this (logical conclusion) can be observed.

 

Oh, and in case you missed it, I believe us to be in agreement that it is rather bizarre that LFW and Divine foreknowledge aren’t accepted on "face value" since the sciiptures show both true. That’s good enough for me as the ole saying goes, “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!” I guess “some people” just like to be difficult and want it explained logically. Pertaining to that, the second point I believe being missed by my opponent is that Molinism then stands on the grounds (model) that if it is logically true that it is seen in CCFs and if God exists and His Word is true then it follows that it is logically true that LFW and foreknowledge exist, again, that seems that also that would be enough to logically to except standing on the model and all that is left is trying to explain how it (this proven logic necessary truth) “could” or one might say “must” logically follow to be true that this true miraculous feat of God’s is related to His type of knowledge.

BTW, it seems you are understanding the point I’ve been trying to make about sticking to model according to what it is based on as true (scriptural CCFs) and if so, thanks, I then appreciate hearing someone was getting what I’ve been trying to explain and this makes me very happy that my time has not been completely wasted trying to put it into words! :smilewinkgrin:

 

In the ambulance model it is confirming LFW it also dispels determinism. That fact that the “driver” expresses his concerns and warns of the consequences confirms that he knows what things will happen due to the patient changing the circumstances (CCFs) thereby maintaining foreknowledge while allowing for LFW…These things (LFW + foreknowledge w/o determinism) distinguish the Molinism model from other views. Seems to me the model is complete.

 

Does the Sovereignity of God as per the biblical model allow for ANYTHING that ver happens to either outside of His direct control though, or else permitted by his will to happen?

 

First, are you talking about true Biblical Divine sovereignty which shows "God’s Providence and Sovereign Control over Divinely Designed LFW creatures" and Him genuinely allowiing for things to happen as per the Molinist model ...or the Calvinist/Determinist systematically forced "biblical interpretations" which insist on their beliefs that God could only be sovereign through practicing “Determinist Sovereign Control” according to the Determinist model that God causes all things to happen which leads to theological fatalism?

 

can anything ever happen that he either did not determine to happen? that he either did it Himself or else permitted it, and could have stepped in to stop it any time?

 

That is a good question. If you go back throguh the thread (which the topic of is, "Modeling Molinism") CCFs have been discussed which relate to your question demonstating that things do happen which are not pre-determined and how that (CCFS) applies. Several times, as a matter of fact.

.

Now, I see you diregarded my question which related to yours and had prurpose. It seems you might have missed how it relates. I'll explain; it was a hint that this thread in about "Modeling Molinism" not "Modeling Determinism".

This thread has managed to stay on topic for 6 pages. Knowing your habits to disregard the topic to input your agenda of Determinism which commonly leads into derailing threads; I was "heading you off at the pass" meaning giving you a friendly reminder that if you would like to "present" and "discuss" another model of God's sovereign control the right thing to do is start another thread on the subject or you could simply take your practice elsewhere as far as I am concerned.

I would like to keep this thread on topic. Do you now understand what I am saying to you and why I am saying it?

 

we seperate the predetermined Will of God though into that which he decreed and determined to be done, and that which he has permitted and allowed...

Do you see anything tht ever occurs without him still retaing soverengty over it?

 

It seems to me that the idea of trying to divide the knowledge of God through some exercise of logic is asinine. Is this simply an attempt to justify the doctrine of "freewillism"?

 

What difficulty is that? That if God foreknows all things he must have determined all things and OVT doesn’t have that difficulty because they forfeit foreknowledge? If not, how does OVT keep these “difficulties” from “arising”??? Rhetorical question...

The Molinist model maintains LFW (self identity), it does not disregard God’s sovereignty which is a view centers on God’s “provident control” (“management” of your LFW through His influences to draw you to Him, but not in disregard of your LFW) so “your self” is not violated through being placed in any certain world, God’s plan is to genuinely give you the Light you need to respond to His influences. His judgment in the matter of what world “you” end up in is on-going and His judgment at the end of the matter will righteously be just in that “you” have had the opportunity to accept His gift of salvation, freely.

So no, you do not have the kind of freedom to choose your own world. The kind of Divine sovereignty Molinism presents is that God “providently controls” (- with the purpose to influence you, not determine you) the worlds while you freely choose within those worlds. God’s judgment (provident sovereign control) is on-going in the matter:

William Lane Craig explains, "It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves."

Maybe if applied how you think "your self" would not be maintained according to Keathley's Molinist model I could find specific reading on the the type of world view you are looking for.

Ahh, here's a thought: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805431985/?tag=baptis04-20 I want this book myself having read clips from it.

 

Maybe you have a better explanation of how does all He says He does while you maintain all His attributes, including that of foreknowlwdge? ...nevermind, this thread isn't about the "Determinist Model! Call it what you will, this action of yours doesn't discount the Molinist model in any way.

No, it is a system which works to maintain all of God's atributes, His "genuine" judgment of LFW creatures, and Provident Sovereign Control in the world.

 

Good for you and your Determinist Model.

Probably best to just ignore your post, but I'll try to explain once more, but:

Please do not continue to neglect my careful explanation and request for you to show some simple respect for maintaining the subject of this topic:

Again, “Molinism” (the subject of the topic) maintains "God’s Providence and Sovereign Control over Divinely Designed LFW creatures" and Him genuinely allowing for things to happen as per the Molinist model”.

So by what should be clearly obvious if you bothered to read the thread, No, as per the Molinist’ model view of God’s sovereignty.

Now, once again, if you would like to discuss how the Molinist Model maintains “its” view of God’s sovereignty I would be glad to point you to prior posts which do so. BUT!!! If you are intent on “presenting and discussing” the “Determinist’ Model” in disregard of the topic of THIS thread those “trolling” types of “presentations” are NOT welcome here in this thread!

Why have you again disregarded the purpose of this simply put request?:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1933879&postcount=60