Modeling Molinism

[Benjamin]

Why make this all so complicated though? NOTHING exists that god is not in control over fully,...

The Molinist Model maintains LFW the Determinist Model does not. If the Molinist Model too complicated for you and you’re not interested in discussing it that is fine. FOR THE 4TH TIME this thread is about the “Molinist Model”.

Now,…FOR THE 4TH TIME…I will ask you to respect the topic of this thread. FOR THE 4TH TIME…If you would like to impose and discuss the Determinist Model of sovereignty feel free to start your own thread!!! You have ignored my request to respect this thread and not attempt to derail it…and I’ve asked to stay on topic 4 TIMES NOW!

Do you comprehend what I am saying to you and why I am saying it???

 

[humblethinker]

Just a quick note, that question is intreresting!!! coming from you, because I remember a thread you started some time ago where I was arguing on the side that God could be logically known against opponents who thought otherwise. Not sure if you were on my side on this one. Think you bugged out. But I would contend that logically knowing God in truth is a necessary truth. You???

First of all I don't recall but don't dispute your claim regarding the existence of such a thread. I would need to understand what you mean by the term 'know' vs 'believe'. First off, only that which is real can be said to be ligitimately 'known'. This is why God's knowledge is congruent with reality. When it comes to matters of certainty I like to consider 'knowledge' as ones and zeros. I like to consider 'faith' in between these two certainties but never either one of the two. I am of the opinion that once faith is realized then it exists no more and that faith fulfilled (a 1) or flattened (a 0) becomes knowledge. So, with this understanding, to know something means that I don't have faith any longer about it. My opinion of my knowledge is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct then it is justifiable and explainable; if it is incorrect then my knowledge is just presumption. Since we are to live by faith and not by certainty it is my desire to claim that I objectively 'know' only what is justifiable or explainable. I think an opinion I may hold can be considered 'living by faith' when that opinion is the genesis of and motivation to an action/decision of which case God is convinced (afterall, talk is cheap, we all have opinions and whatever God believes is true an real).

Maybe to address your point more directly as I think you meant it, I believe that God's existence is a matter of faith for which there is enough evidence (at least a preponderance (I include a link to the definition not because you need it but just because I like the word)) for God to hold man accountable for his unbelief. The 'knowledge' we boast of here is usually an inductive knowledge. It seems that a Cartesian (deductive) type of knowledge might result in something close to what DeCarte proposed. I liken the 'inductive' form of knowledge to living by faith. Living by deduction is for the lazy and naive (I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek). When it comes to trusting in anything much more than the essentials I prefer something closer to the abductive approach to truth with God's revelation serving as the framework and control belief for all I 'know' to be truth. I don't even know if that should completely answer your question but I am confident that it's enough to distract this thread.

SO, I'm curious to hear what you think on this in regards to your question because you have seemed to often be arguing about what is a "necessary truth" in this thread. I feel the circles I've been chasing you in may very well be rooted to going back that far (Is God known as logically Truth)? If so it makes no sense to me to argue logically against an opponent who would step back that far to avoid accepting logical necessary truths in the discussion. I have yet to see any agreement from you on any of what I've referred to as "necessary truths", only avoidance on the issues and believe that is how circular arguments stay circular. Doesn't leave room for any progress to made concerning logically drawing out the truth in an argument if the opponent doessn't believe logical truth can be known. ...Know what I mean?

I believe in LFW. I believe that a good, triune God exists. I have not introduced any argument that posits otherwise when disagreeing with you. Maybe this will help: I don't think it is possible for a good God to create beings initially in the process of becoming who have the ontological quality of being distinctly 'other' than God without them having the ability to express the self-determination that God gave them. Something has to give in such a scenario: either God does not exist, God is not good, the beings are not distinctly 'other', the beings are not sentient... something has to 'give' there. So, I think it is reasonable, especially for the sake of this argument, for you to accept this as though I believe it is a necessary fact. God does exist. He is good. We are beings who are distinctly not God. We do have LFW.

Well!, ...then! ....to start with "Provident Sovereign Control" IS a Molinist phrase. So that shoots down your belief that in Molinism there is no "managment of worlds" as well as your suggestion that I part from them on this issue. Hmm, doesn't it now? :smilewinkgrin:

Haha... that in no way shoots down what I proposed. You actually misrepresented what I was saying. I was saying that all providential decisions and decisive management of worlds was completed at the start of this world. This is mainstream Molinism. When God sets himself to actualize this world, all that is left is the actualization of the providence and management that was already determined. My point stands in spite of your non-attempts to challenge it.

Sheesh! Managing of possible worlds within God's Divine knowledge and maintain LFW through CCFs is what Molinism is all about!

Yes, and it all was a done deal but the actual occurance of it.

Seems you are out to deny the system exists, that I am not in mainstream, and are actually still in the process of misrepresenting the Molinist so you can then argue against a strawman. Hmmm. I tire of that circle for sure!

I keep calling 'goose!' to this repetitive 'duck-duck' and you say I'm calling 'gander!' instead?

 

[humblethinker]

The Molinist Model maintains LFW the Determinist Model does not. If the Molinist Model too complicated for you and you’re not interested in discussing it that is fine. FOR THE 4TH TIME this thread is about the “Molinist Model”.

Now,…FOR THE 4TH TIME…I will ask you to respect the topic of this thread. FOR THE 4TH TIME…If you would like to impose and discuss the Determinist Model of sovereignty feel free to start your own thread!!! You have ignored my request to respect this thread and not attempt to derail it…and I’ve asked to stay on topic 4 TIMES NOW!

Do you comprehend what I am saying to you and why I am saying it???

:thumbs::thumbs:
Yeshua, please comment but don't derail. What we think in regards to the answers to the questions you offered should be obvious to you now. If not, then can you create a new thread?

 

[Yeshua1]

:thumbs::thumbs:
Yeshua, please comment but don't derail. What we think in regards to the answers to the questions you offered should be obvious to you now. If not, then can you create a new thread?

Not trying to 'derail" the thread, but am seeking to see why this 'model" is being discussed so long without really any biblical support to the notion?

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin
Well!, ...then! ....to start with "Provident Sovereign Control" IS a Molinist phrase. So that shoots down your belief that in Molinism there is no "managment of worlds" as well as your suggestion that I part from them on this issue. Hmm, doesn't it now?

Haha... that in no way shoots down what I proposed. You actually misrepresented what I was saying. I was saying that all providential decisions and decisive management of worlds was completed at the start of this world. This is mainstream Molinism. When God sets himself to actualize this world, all that is left is the actualization of the providence and management that was already determined. My point stands in spite of your non-attempts to challenge it.

Where do you find actualizations “already determined” in the Molinist Model again??? Hmm, I must be totally missing Molinists making that a claim?!? You merely present an objection to the Molinist Model but that objection obviously does not represent the Molinist Model, therefore, to say that these things are part of it is clearly a “misrepresentation” of the Molinist Model according to what it stands on (Middle Knowledge and CCFs) which preserves LFW and not determinism.

“A doctrine of divine middle knowledge supplies the key to understanding God's providence over the world mediated through secondary causes.”~ William Lane Craig

“At the moment of creation, God comes into the relation of causing the universe or at the very least that of co-existing with the universe, relations in which He did not before stand. Hence, even if God remains intrinsically changeless in creating the world, He nonetheless undergoes an extrinsic, or relational, change, which, if He is not already temporal prior to the moment of creation, draws Him into time at that very moment in virtue of His real relation to the temporal, changing universe. So even if God is timeless sans creation, His free decision to create a temporal world constitutes also a free decision on His part to enter into time and to experience the reality of tense and temporal becoming.” ~ William Lane Craig

Molina proposes to furnish an analysis of divine knowledge in terms of three logical moments. Although whatever God knows, He knows eternally, so that there is no temporal succession in “God's knowledge, nonetheless there does exist a sort of logical succession in God's knowledge in that His knowledge of certain propositions is conditionally or explanatorily prior to His knowledge of certain other propositions. In the first, unconditioned moment God knows all possibilia, not only all individual essences, but also all possible worlds. Molina calls such knowledge "natural knowledge" because the content of such knowledge is essential to God and in no way depends on the free decisions of His will. By means of His natural knowledge, then, God has knowledge of every contingent state of affairs which could possibly obtain and of what the exemplification of the individual essence of any free creature could freely choose to do in any such state of affairs that should be actual.

In the second moment, God possesses knowledge of all true counterfactual propositions, including counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Whereas by His natural knowledge God knew what any free creature could do in any set of circumstances, now in this second moment God knows what any free creature would do in any set of circumstances. This is not because the circumstances causally determine the creature's choice, but simply because this is how the creature would freely choose. God thus knows that were He to actualize certain states of affairs, then certain other contingent states of affairs would obtain. Molina calls this counterfactual knowledge "middle knowledge" because it stands in between the first and third moment in divine knowledge. Middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that such knowledge does not depend on any decision of the divine will; God does not determine which counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are true or false. Thus, if it is true that If some agent S were placed in circumstances C, then he would freely perform action a, then even God in His omnipotence cannot bring it about that S would freely refrain from a if he were placed in C. On the other hand, middle knowledge is unlike natural knowledge in that the content of His middle knowledge is not essential to God. True counterfactuals are contingently true; S could freely decide to refrain from a in C, so that different counterfactuals could be true and be known by God than those that are. Hence, although it is essential to God that He have middle knowledge, it is not essential to Him to have middle knowledge of those particular propositions which He does in fact know.

Intervening between the second and third moments of divine knowledge stands God's free decree to actualize a world known by Him to be realizable on the basis of His middle knowledge. By His natural knowledge, God knows what is the entire range of logically possible worlds; by His middle knowledge He knows, in effect, what is the proper subset of those worlds which it is feasible for Him to actualize. By a free decision, God decrees to actualize one of those worlds known to Him through His middle knowledge.”
~ William Lane Craig

“Some of these effects God desired unconditionally and so wills positively that they occur, but others He does not unconditionally desire, but nevertheless permits due to His overriding desire to allow creaturely freedom and knowing that even these sinful acts will fit into the overall scheme of things, so that God's ultimate ends in human history will be accomplished. God has thus providentially arranged for everything that happens by either willing or permitting it, yet in such a way as to preserve freedom and contingency.” ~ William Lane Craig


Would you like to recant that actualization of possible worlds has already been determined is not a misrepresentation of the Molinist Model on your part (or should I say your buddy’s part)? Consider “your” statement “is” that “actualization of the worlds was completed and these worlds were already determined” as thoroughly and officially challenged…

Now:

Avail your self of such OVT thoughts; all your buddy’s attempts to object to Molinism through “explanatory priority with respect to the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom” have all failed in light that true creaturely freedom exists, thus these human freedoms are not “already determined” according to the Molinist Model:

“In short, neither Adams nor Hasker has been able to explicate a sense of explanatory priority with respect to the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which is both transitive and inimical to human freedom. Given that the objections against a Molinist doctrine of providence thus fail, the theological power of such an account ought to prompt us to avail ourselves of it.” ~ William Lane Craig

I keep calling 'goose!' to this repetitive 'duck-duck' and you say I'm calling 'gander!' instead?

Your goose you keep bring in the kitchen has long been cooked.:tongue3: You merely attempt to present your misrepresentation of the Molinist Model to contain determinism which you then try to begin your argument from that perspective; simply, you just haven’t given up trying to use that fallacious attempt yet is all. Not going to buy into chasing an argument which you intend to attempt to start with a false premise pal. Time to give that one up!

 

[Benjamin]

Not trying to 'derail" the thread, but am seeking to see why this 'model" is being discussed so long without really any biblical support to the notion?

My guess is that you want the opportunity to begin presenting scripture to support Determinism and after rudely ignoring my repeated requests to stay on topic are now complaining that we haven’t started on an agenda which you would hope would give you your chance to begin defending your “Determinist Model” with scripture to support “Determinist Sovereign Control”. Isn’t that so???:saint: Thought you could trick me into biting, eh? You just don’t seem to get it that this thread is about the "Molinist Model" and I'm on to your MO. ...But, I will be glad to present some scripture that pertains to the roots of our discussion in this thread and how it relates to this topic.

It has been presumed the scriptural evidence for a type of middle knowledge (called Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedoms) was already known by my opponent. But, if you are interested in what we are referring to, scripturally, when mentioning CCFs here it is:

CCF Scripture

I'd posit that without MK (or at least a sufficient alternative), these passages would make no sense. Molinists wants to stay true to whatever the Bible has to say about God’s Knowledge and uses that to maintain LFW.

Mat 11:20-24 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: (21) Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (22) But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. (23) And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. (24) But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

Here, we see Jesus speaking of what we'd call counterfactuals (basically, what could be true, but isn't). If His miracles were done in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, they would have repented. Now, how could Jesus know these things? Molinism explanations is that He had access to Middle Knowledge, and it informed Him what those people would have done if they had access to the miracles that Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum witnessed.

1Sa 23:9-13 And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. (10) Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. (11) Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down.

(12) Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up.

(13) Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.

This is like the Matt. passage, only it is reflective of future events, not of past events. David leaves Keilah (and if we read further, we find that he eludes Saul) and Saul doesn't come. However, God informed David that if he stayed, Saul would come there, and the people would deliver David to him. Again, we see evidence of counterfactual knowledge.

Joh 15:22-24 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. (23) He that hateth me hateth my Father also. (24) If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Once again, we see what Molinist call Counterfactuals in that, basically, (what could be true, but isn’t); thus showing a type of Divine Knowledge which Molinism refers to as “Middle Knowledge”.

 

[OldRegular]

Not trying to 'derail" the thread, but am seeking to see why this 'model" is being discussed so long without really any biblical support to the notion?

I believe Molinism is a prelude or invitation to "open theism". It is beyond ridiculous to try to divide the knowledge of God just as open theism is a heretical disregard of the teaching of Scripture. It is one thing to fail to understand the teaching of certain Scripture. It is totally different to question the nature and character of God!

 

[Benjamin]

I believe Molinism is a prelude or invitation to "open theism".

That’s because you're hyperistically biased and ignorant about what Molinism maintains, you’re stuck in a systematically forced deterministic box, and haven’t a clue about the differences between Molinism and Open Theism.

It is beyond ridiculous to try to divide the knowledge of God just as open theism is a heretical disregard of the teaching of Scripture.

It is beyond ridiculous to try to assume God’s knowledge is limited and to base your theology on the principles that since God foreknows all things that He must have had to determine all things in complete disregard of the teaching of the scripture.

It is one thing to fail to understand the teaching of certain Scripture.

Says the systematic Calvinist/Determinist/DoG follower…

It is totally different to question the nature and character of God!

Then don’t do it! Molinism clearly argues to preserve all of God’s True Nature and Characteristics.


Now, is there anything you would like to discuss about the Molinist Model or did you just drop in to throw some of your clan's typical childish dogma?


.

 

[humblethinker]

Where do you find actualizations “already determined” in the Molinist Model again??? Hmm, I must be totally missing Molinists making that a claim?!? You merely present an objection to the Molinist Model but that objection obviously does not represent the Molinist Model, therefore, to say that these things are part of it is clearly a “misrepresentation” of the Molinist Model according to what it stands on (Middle Knowledge and CCFs) which preserves LFW and not determinism.

<snip>
Would you like to recant that actualization of possible worlds has already been determined is not a misrepresentation of the Molinist Model on your part (or should I say your buddy’s part)? Consider “your” statement “is” that “actualization of the worlds was completed and these worlds were already determined” as thoroughly and officially challenged…

Now:

Avail your self of such OVT thoughts; all your buddy’s attempts to object to Molinism through “explanatory priority with respect to the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom” have all failed in light that true creaturely freedom exists, thus these human freedoms are not “already determined” according to the Molinist Model:

I don't know who you are referring to when you say, "buddy".

<snip>
Your goose you keep bring in the kitchen has long been cooked.:tongue3: You merely attempt to present your misrepresentation of the Molinist Model to contain determinism which you then try to begin your argument from that perspective; simply, you just haven’t given up trying to use that fallacious attempt yet is all. Not going to buy into chasing an argument which you intend to attempt to start with a false premise pal. Time to give that one up!

It seems that you deny that this world already had a complete history prior to creation. Can you give this a simple 'correct' or 'incorrect' reply: Molinism posits that our world had a complete history prior to its actualization.

 

[Benjamin]

I don't know who you are referring to when you say, "buddy".

THAT was a completely sorrowful and rather childish example of evading the issues which I spent my good time directly addressing in detail, but at least with such a tactic you are in like company with your OVT “buddies” – ( A person or group you have become friendly with and spend time with.)

It seems that you deny that this world already had a complete history prior to creation. Can you give this a simple 'correct' or 'incorrect' reply: Molinism posits that our world had a complete history prior to its actualization.

Right after you give me a simple yes or no to: ‘Have you stopped hitting your wife yet?”.

Give me a break! With an attempt at semantics on this issue in which you are using the same exact tactical objection (as your buddies try to do, by which their own reasoning logically pin themselves to forfeiting foreknowledge by what they would like to concluded from their objection, BTW) …which is to attempt to insist on “explanatory priori” because of God’s Knowledge being unavoidably rooted to foreknowledge while neglecting that they are in disregard to respect of the truth of “Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedoms” which rejects that all things are "aleady determined".

First, above, I have clearly demonstrated from their own words that Molinism is not dependent on things being “already determined” in that they explain the God possesses the type of Knowledge that would maintain libertarian creaturely freedom because of CCFs.

Yet, you still attempt to use “your” (OVTs) objection by insisting on “explanatory priori” which has already been answered and shown to FAIL. Not only that, but you “beg the question” and then assume your objection is not misrepresenting the Molinist Model, that is ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to build a fallacious strawman to which you then hope to start your argument.

Second, if “explanatory priori” were to uphold as a truth that creaturely freedom could not be maintained through God possessing a type of knowledge that allows for foreknowledge of all things, then simply the only conclusion “you” and “OVTs” objection could ever come to avoid all things being determined is that God does not have foreknowledge! Welcome to the reality of OVT’s failing logic!

Simply, the only way OVTs objection could hold is if they themselves forfeit foreknowledge to avoid all things being determined. How ridiculous then that they would deny forfeiting foreknowledge while holding to that objection to Molinism!

Thus, you have merely bought into and are repeating OVTs (your buddies’) “explanatory priori” objection which leaves you no alternatives other than to either except all things being determined or forfeiting Divine foreknowledge, thus thereby your/OVT’s logic has been shown to FAIL to uphold ALL of God’s Truths. Whatever floats your boat I guess… :laugh:

My buddy, its beginning to seem to me as if you don't want to get to the logical truth in this matter?

 

[humblethinker]

THAT was a completely sorrowful and rather childish example of evading the issues which I spent my good time directly addressing in detail, but at least with such a tactic you are in like company with your OVT “buddies” – ( A person or group you have become friendly with and spend time with.)

Right after you give me a simple yes or no to: ‘Have you stopped hitting your wife yet?”.

Give me a break! With an attempt at semantics on this issue in which you are using the same exact tactical objection (as your buddies try to do, by which their own reasoning logically pin themselves to forfeiting foreknowledge by what they would like to concluded from their objection, BTW) …which is to attempt to insist on “explanatory priori” because of God’s Knowledge being unavoidably rooted to foreknowledge while neglecting that they are in disregard to respect of the truth of “Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedoms” which rejects that all things are "aleady determined".

My question: "Can you give this a simple 'correct' or 'incorrect' reply: Molinism posits that our world had a complete history prior to its actualization.
My question is a fair question. Why are you expressing discomfort at being asked that question? Are you saying that to answer that question in the affirmative would be to admit that there is no LFW? I don't think so but you seem to think so.

First, above, I have clearly demonstrated from their own words that Molinism is not dependent on things being “already determined” in that they explain the God possesses the type of Knowledge that would maintain libertarian creaturely freedom because of CCFs.

Prior to creation all events are determined in that free creatures have already determined their responses and God has already determined his. If one was to be able to compare the world as it actually occurs with this world before it was created there would be no difference, even down to the subatomic level, despite implications of quantum physics. This includes the conscious and subconcious thoughts of all beings. Are you uncomfortable with granting this? If you were to grant this do you think that it would necessarily be the case that LFW does not exist for humans? I don't think I've made that claim.

Yet, you still attempt to use “your” (OVTs) objection by insisting on “explanatory priori” which has already been answered and shown to FAIL. Not only that, but you “beg the question” and then assume your objection is not misrepresenting the Molinist Model, that is ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to build a fallacious strawman to which you then hope to start your argument.

Second, if “explanatory priori” were to uphold as a truth that creaturely freedom could not be maintained through God possessing a type of knowledge that allows for foreknowledge of all things, then simply the only conclusion “you” and “OVTs” objection could ever come to avoid all things being determined is that God does not have foreknowledge! Welcome to the reality of OVT’s failing logic!

You have made several claims about OVT which I have not addressed. I believe the logic of OVT is reasonable and think that 'failing' is far from an accurate portrayal.

Simply, the only way OVTs objection could hold is if they themselves forfeit foreknowledge to avoid all things being determined. How ridiculous then that they would deny forfeiting foreknowledge while holding to that objection to Molinism!

I disagree with your representation and assessment of OVT.

My buddy, its beginning to seem to me as if you don't want to get to the logical truth in this matter?

Yes, I want to get to the logical truth in this matter of this thread, which is about Molinism, not about OVT.

So, if you will not answer up or down on whether Molinism posits a complete history of this world prior to creation, can you tell me why you think it is an unfair question. I don't think the affirmation of this question is disputed by Molinists. I think what is disputed are claims that such an affirmation necessarily indicates loss of LFW. I think that LFW is an argument that can be made by the Molinist even after answering my question affirmatively. Do you not think so?

 

[Yeshua1]

THAT was a completely sorrowful and rather childish example of evading the issues which I spent my good time directly addressing in detail, but at least with such a tactic you are in like company with your OVT “buddies” – ( A person or group you have become friendly with and spend time with.)




Right after you give me a simple yes or no to: ‘Have you stopped hitting your wife yet?”.

Give me a break! With an attempt at semantics on this issue in which you are using the same exact tactical objection (as your buddies try to do, by which their own reasoning logically pin themselves to forfeiting foreknowledge by what they would like to concluded from their objection, BTW) …which is to attempt to insist on “explanatory priori” because of God’s Knowledge being unavoidably rooted to foreknowledge while neglecting that they are in disregard to respect of the truth of “Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedoms” which rejects that all things are "aleady determined".

First, above, I have clearly demonstrated from their own words that Molinism is not dependent on things being “already determined” in that they explain the God possesses the type of Knowledge that would maintain libertarian creaturely freedom because of CCFs.

Yet, you still attempt to use “your” (OVTs) objection by insisting on “explanatory priori” which has already been answered and shown to FAIL. Not only that, but you “beg the question” and then assume your objection is not misrepresenting the Molinist Model, that is ridiculous and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to build a fallacious strawman to which you then hope to start your argument.

Second, if “explanatory priori” were to uphold as a truth that creaturely freedom could not be maintained through God possessing a type of knowledge that allows for foreknowledge of all things, then simply the only conclusion “you” and “OVTs” objection could ever come to avoid all things being determined is that God does not have foreknowledge! Welcome to the reality of OVT’s failing logic!

Simply, the only way OVTs objection could hold is if they themselves forfeit foreknowledge to avoid all things being determined. How ridiculous then that they would deny forfeiting foreknowledge while holding to that objection to Molinism!

Thus, you have merely bought into and are repeating OVTs (your buddies’) “explanatory priori” objection which leaves you no alternatives other than to either except all things being determined or forfeiting Divine foreknowledge, thus thereby your/OVT’s logic has been shown to FAIL to uphold ALL of God’s Truths. Whatever floats your boat I guess… :laugh:

My buddy, its beginning to seem to me as if you don't want to get to the logical truth in this matter?

God has ALL knowledge, so God would both foreknow and foresee and be sovereign over what comes to pass!

god cannot be God If he was not all knowing!

 

[Benjamin]

God has ALL knowledge, so God would both foreknow and foresee and be sovereign over what comes to pass!

Yes, we agree that "God is Sovereign"; the Molinist Model presents His Sovereignty as Providential Control rather than Deternministic Control and it seems you fail to recognize this difference in our Models and I am not interested in your Model here in this thread, nor has this thread ever been the about topic of the Determinstic Model.

god cannot be God If he was not all knowing!

I agree. The Molinist Model sets out to maintain this as well as LFW and all of God's other attributes of Truth which exclude determinstic characteristic to His Nature. Once again, That is what this thread is about: Supporting the Molinist Model.

I must say I'm rather surprised that this thread not been constantly under attack with the kind of interuptions you keep trying to bring into this topic to attempt to derail it as my question to OldFar...err...Regular once again addressed: "Now, is there anything you would like to discuss about the Molinist Model or did you just drop in to throw some of your clan's typical childish dogma?"

But I'm done here so have fun, you're a credit to your race and carry on. I won't ask you not to be rude and attempt to act like a troll and derail the thread with your well-known MO anymore, okay?

 

[Benjamin]

My question is a fair question.

I have answered and all these things have been well covered over and over and I would suggest you go back through and see how it all adds up being summed up nicely in my last post, which BTW, shows why Molinisms’ Model “is the best "game" (Model) in town”. But, I find it meaningless to continue arguing against your continued evasions and perceptible demonstrations that you seemingly only desire to persist on trying to win your argument against the Molinist Model through misrepresenting its Model by repeating failed typical fallacious OVT tactics which have been nailed to the wall and has been noted from the beginning of this debate.

These tactics don’t speak well for your choice of forum name nor your preferences to lean toward OVT and in consideration of my perception of your refusal to “humbly” and rationally “think” this out and deal with your opponent’s arguments pointing out how your objection is fallacious and is merely a misrepresentation of the Molinist Model; and since it has been clearly demonstrated your attempts amount to nothing more than a strawman based on fallacies I am obliged to suggest that next time you use a more fitting name such as “PridefulThinker” that would better suit your methods of operation which I have observed throughout this debate.

That said, I do believe I’ve wasted enough time and efforts trying to explain and to get you to accept the inevitable conclusions to “your” (OVT’s) objection to the Molinist Model while you have continued to use this tactic to beg the question and attempted to misrepresent it.

You are free to disagree, as well as I am free to rest on my belief you have not been humble enough to accept that your premise has been thoroughly enough demonstrated as being defeated, we are only going in circles now and that to further pursue and as far as I concerned to try to explain this matter to you will continue to be proven to be a waste of my time other than bringing me back into my studies of Molinism and thereby providing me a little exercise in the subject, but I’ve had enough for now.

It has been…”interesting”. Thanks for the exercise! No hard feelings.

Peace out.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, we agree that "God is Sovereign"; the Molinist Model presents His Sovereignty as Providential Control rather than Deternministic Control and it seems you fail to recognize this difference in our Models and I am not interested in your Model here in this thread, nor has this thread ever been the about topic of the Determinstic Model.



I agree. The Molinist Model sets out to maintain this as well as LFW and all of God's other attributes of Truth which exclude determinstic characteristic to His Nature. Once again, That is what this thread is about: Supporting the Molinist Model.

I must say I'm rather surprised that this thread not been constantly under attack with the kind of interuptions you keep trying to bring into this topic to attempt to derail it as my question to OldFar...err...Regular once again addressed: "Now, is there anything you would like to discuss about the Molinist Model or did you just drop in to throw some of your clan's typical childish dogma?"

But I'm done here so have fun, you're a credit to your race and carry on. I won't ask you not to be rude and attempt to act like a troll and derail the thread with your well-known MO anymore, okay?

the problem with supporting your model is much same though as supporting Open theism, neither can get supported via the bible

 

[Benjamin]

the problem with supporting your model is much same though as supporting Open theism, neither can get supported via the bible

As I said:

...your clan's typical childish dogma.

Bye now :wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

As I said:



Bye now :wavey:

Interesting that when one tries to use the bible as the foundation for their model of god, its childish, but when one looks to vain philsophies of man its a good thing!

 

[Benjamin]

Interesting that when one tries to use the bible as the foundation for their model of god, its childish, but when one looks to vain philsophies of man its a good thing!

:laugh: At least I get the satisfaction of having you admit to your trolling efforts to take this thread off topic along with you giving a great example of the methods I spoke of I was trying to "head off at the pass" regarding you and your clan's typical childish dogmatic agenda here on this board to not allow the Determinist Model to be ignored and to purposely attempt to interrupt any others with it.

:godisgood:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Humble-Thinker:

If you genuinely think, as you stated that Cypress raised a good point here:

Cypress has a good point: "What is the reason that the ccf's won't happen. Because God determined that they won't? If such is the case, then how can they truly be counterfactuals available to a creature? Aren't they only available to the creator. The creature can only select the outcome God desires. This seems to eliminate true lfw."

Than IMO....your numerous threads seeking to "understand" Molinism have been fruitless for you...You have apparently learned little or nothing about the Molinist model.

You don't have to believe it, you don't have to accept it, God knows.......neither Benjamin nor myself are so very married to it that we will die if it doesn't ultimately hold true........

But, if you don't accept it, just admit it and move along and cease with pretensions of legitimate curiosity.

Nearly every single question you have ever raised has been answered:

That is except for your passion for your "true-self" thingy, which is new to this particular thread..........
By that, I think you are arguing something about maintaining this critical thing that I term "haecceity" which you keep calling "homogeneity" of the self or something like that. And truth is, I don't have much of an answer for you about that. Someone else might.
Does that render the Molinist model wrong??? No.....It might merely mean that there is more to the whole conundrum than is presented in the model.

By now though......much as I appreciate Cypress, and his input......you have now been given enough info to respond to Cypress's statement and to demonstrate how very inaccurate it is.

Ben is, I think, probably quite right........You have no legitimate interest in learning.......but merely wish to place semi-loaded "trap" questions.
Just debate people as a confessed "Open-Theist" (wear the mantle proudly) and stop pretending to remain truly curious because...if you have paid attention, between myself and Benjamin.....ANYTHING you have ever asked has been explained ad nauseum........minus your haecceity hang-up, which, I think, if you truly cared to know about......you could find for yourself the info to answer, because honestly, I don't know. I've considered it before.......I simply have yet to figure that one out for myself. I also have quandries about how Molinism seems to commit oneself to a "pre-existence of souls" too!!! I don't know if that is acceptable to believe or not, and if not, whether Molinism commits oneself to it or not.
But, honestly.......you are generally going around in circles, and little or nothing you ask has not already been answered for you to the nth....... Just dig the fact that you aren't a Molinist and move on no?

 

[humblethinker]

Humble-Thinker:

If you genuinely think, as you stated that Cypress raised a good point here:

Cypress has a good point: "What is the reason that the ccf's won't happen. Because God determined that they won't? If such is the case, then how can they truly be counterfactuals available to a creature? Aren't they only available to the creator. The creature can only select the outcome God desires. This seems to eliminate true lfw."

Than IMO....your numerous threads seeking to "understand" Molinism have been fruitless for you...You have apparently learned little or nothing about the Molinist model.

It sounds like you are saying that a quest to understand Molinism is only fruitful if I agree with it. I would disagree. I don't think that's what you would mean though but it seems that is what you have expressed. Compared to what I thought I knew I can say that I have learned from this/these threads. I have read the philosophical back-and-forth between WLC and Zimmerman. I've read WLC, Rhoda, Hunt, Basinger, Boyd, Padgett, Wolterstorff, Helm, Tuggy, et al What I have not done is conversed with them (except for two of them… very short dialogue) about Molinism / foreknowledge for obvious reasons. What I was hoping to get here on BB was a dialogue to put my questions to people who were informed or held to Molinism.

You don't have to believe it, you don't have to accept it, God knows.......neither Benjamin nor myself are so very married to it that we will die if it doesn't ultimately hold true........

But, if you don't accept it, just admit it and move along and cease with pretensions of legitimate curiosity.

Here you are unfairly attributing motives to me. They are not correct.

Nearly every single question you have ever raised has been answered:

By you, I feel they have. By Benjamin… I don't think they have adequately been answered. I am fine with an, "I don't know" or a "I'm still working on that" or "I haven't finished processing that yet". However, none of this is what I'm getting from Benjamin.

That is except for your passion for your "true-self" thingy, which is new to this particular thread..........
By that, I think you are arguing something about maintaining this critical thing that I term "haecceity" which you keep calling "homogeneity" of the self or something like that. And truth is, I don't have much of an answer for you about that. Someone else might.
Does that render the Molinist model wrong??? No.....It might merely mean that there is more to the whole conundrum than is presented in the model.

I appreciate your answer. I would not and do not use this as a club with which to beat you over the head. I hope that you will get back to me when you have an informed opinion because I would really like to know how Molinism addresses that issue. However, to not accept that critique of Molinism (or one's incomplete understanding of it) and then proceed to answer in what amounts to avoidance is not helpful to the conversation.

By now though......much as I appreciate Cypress, and his input......you have now been given enough info to respond to Cypress's statement and to demonstrate how very inaccurate it is.

I said Cypress had a good point, I didn't say that it was a defeater. Cypress basically raised the grounding issue, and if one does think that that is an issue then what other opinions would logically follow?

Ben is, I think, probably quite right........You have no legitimate interest in learning.......but merely wish to place semi-loaded "trap" questions.

I can only say that this is not the case. I am disappointed that you feel this way.

Just debate people as a confessed "Open-Theist" (wear the mantle proudly) and stop pretending to remain truly curious because...if you have paid attention, between myself and Benjamin.....ANYTHING you have ever asked has been explained ad nauseum....

Explained and answered by you, I think so. The ad nauseum has been with Benjamin and his insistence on not answering some of my questions.

....minus your haecceity hang-up, which, I think, if you truly cared to know about......you could find for yourself the info to answer, because honestly, I don't know. I've considered it before.......I simply have yet to figure that one out for myself. I also have quandries about how Molinism seems to commit oneself to a "pre-existence of souls" too!!! I don't know if that is acceptable to believe or not, and if not, whether Molinism commits oneself to it or not.

This is fair enough. I accept this as an answer and hope that you will get back with me about it. Though if I were a Molinist already it may not give me reason enough to abandon the view, not being a Molinist I feel that it may be an issue that would keep me from accepting the view. Does that make sense? I want to believe what is our best answer to the greatest questions. What is the most efficient and thorough theology that best explains and is most congruent with the revelation of God's word and the world.