Modeling Molinism

[HeirofSalvation]

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

Ok...I cannot accuse you of those motives if you deny them. I do enjoy interracting with you. If (and I must assume I am) incorrect, then, I apologize. :flower:

To be honest with you I also have two signifigant quandries about Molinism and you have mentioned one on this thread:

1.) What I call haecceity or this homogeneity of the self:
2.) Molinism seems to commit oneself to a sort of belief in the pre-existence of souls.

Generally, I am only at a point where I think two things:
1.) Although they may seem to be something we don't like... I don't know that our generally negative reaction to them is warranted. Maybe we can't guarantee this homogeneity of the same "self" in a trans-world sense! How can I be SURE I have a right to demand it??? I am sure someone else has a much better answer for that...Maybe this would be a good "Qestion of the Week for WLC!!" It is a legitimate question, and a good one.

2.) I DO know that I have in passing read WLC and some others deny that Molinism commits oneself to a belief in the pre-existence of the soul....but, I only noted their denial and not really their reasoning. Of course, again, as above, I am not sure we can DEMAND that either one of those not be the case (I know I am not expressing myself well here...I hope you understand me.) It may just make it a harder pill to swallow.

 

[Cypress]

Humble-Thinker:

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

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?

Since I was mentioned here, might I add a question? Is God involved sequentially and relationally in how creatures freely respond to situations . If so, this conditions subsequent responses as in ovt models. So the analogy of a movie would fit quite nicely with molinism since it is in the can for God. We are on the reel.
You guys are quite intelligent and have rejected ovt at least for it's lack of edf. No problem. Point taken. But you, WLC ,and others have done nothing as a defeater to ovt, only an alternate possibility wich requires a split m.o. for God's relation to time.
Enough from me, suffice it to say that smugness is unseemly and examining our hearts is always wise when seeking truth.:love2::thumbs::love2::thumbs:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Since I was mentioned here, might I add a question? Is God involved sequentially and relationally in how creatures freely respond to situations . If so, this conditions subsequent responses as in ovt models. So the analogy of a movie would fit quite nicely with molinism since it is in the can for God. We are on the reel.

I don't understand your question. Could you be more specific about what you mean by God's being "sequentially and relationally involved"?

You guys are quite intelligent

Thank you...you are as well.

and have rejected ovt at least for it's lack of edf. No problem. Point taken. But you, WLC ,and others have done nothing as a defeater to ovt, only an alternate possibility wich requires a split m.o. for God's relation to time.

I have not tried to debate nor defeat OVT on this thread...or really any other thread.
Could you explain what you mean by "edf"?

Enough from me, suffice it to say that smugness is unseemly and examining our hearts is always wise when seeking truth.

If you are referring to how I responded to HT about your objection with a sort of "hand-waving" dismissiveness, than mea culpa....that might have been seen as smug. If this is what you are referring to than I apologize... :flower:

I was sort of "dismissive" not because I think your objection to be invalid or not worthy of response (and we have failed to respond to it, and that is our fault)...but only because, in HT's case....I believe we have covered such objections FOR HIM before. So I was exasperrated to think that since I believe such ground has been covered with HIM before, that I was annoyed that he would second your objection YET AGAIN (in my mind). But, not having discussed these topics WITH US as much as HT has...your objection is certainly a reasonable one which deserves a reasonable answer.
That was why I spoke like that...but, I still shouldn't have. You didn't ask to be brought into it like that....I'm sorry.

 

[Cypress]

No worries, I am more guilty than most at least in my heart if not openly. I try to have as few illusions as I can about the uprightness of my character. Have a great day.... Full plate in my lap. Ttyl

 

[humblethinker]

Ok...I cannot accuse you of those motives if you deny them. I do enjoy interracting with you. If (and I must assume I am) incorrect, then, I apologize. :flower:

To be honest with you I also have two signifigant quandries about Molinism and you have mentioned one on this thread:

1.) What I call haecceity or this homogeneity of the self:
2.) Molinism seems to commit oneself to a sort of belief in the pre-existence of souls.

Generally, I am only at a point where I think two things:
1.) Although they may seem to be something we don't like... I don't know that our generally negative reaction to them is warranted. Maybe we can't guarantee this homogeneity of the same "self" in a trans-world sense! How can I be SURE I have a right to demand it??? I am sure someone else has a much better answer for that...Maybe this would be a good "Qestion of the Week for WLC!!" It is a legitimate question, and a good one.

2.) I DO know that I have in passing read WLC and some others deny that Molinism commits oneself to a belief in the pre-existence of the soul....but, I only noted their denial and not really their reasoning. Of course, again, as above, I am not sure we can DEMAND that either one of those not be the case (I know I am not expressing myself well here...I hope you understand me.) It may just make it a harder pill to swallow.

Thank you. I appreciate your irenic tone and hope that I maintain it as well.

I appreciate your concerns about Molinism. I think that all of our theologies/theodicies leave us with some level of uncertainty... at least they should. Because of this I feel that 'certainty' is the enemy of faith. It seems too many people (believers and non) are on a quest for certainty, and because of that they have a tendency to bend their intellect, emotions and will into the beliefs they already have. For me personally, the past three years have been like farmland being tilled. All that I was and thought has been tilled and I've been forced to re-examine and re evaluate everything. (I could tell you more privately, but I digress...) While I would love to have a feeling of certainty about theology/theodicy I know I have to reach a point at which I am content with accepting what I do believe as just a matter of faith instead of a matter of certainty in order to live in faith and enjoy a reciprocal loving relationship with God. Because of the tilling though, I feel like I am more able (than I was previously) to consider that I just might be wrong about the things for which I was so certain. Even still though, I am willing to be convinced other than I think now, I just need to understand the things that I am expected to accept. An example (one that should offend very few on this board) might be that the KJV corrects the Greek. If I believed that then the past three years has helped me to confront that idea and through reason reject it. I don't think I actually believed that but then again I hadn't had a situation where someone actually made that claim that I recall. There are too many people who DO believe that. Why do they believe that? There are various reasons why and they don't all include that person being deceitful. My point is, it's too easy to not ask the hard questions. If someone expresses certainty about a subject then I would like to ask them some questions and reason with them because they might know or understand something I don't. I am attracted to certainty (aren't we all? maybe some more than others though). Before, I allowed human authority to have too much of an influence over my thoughts and beliefs. Some of these people would be considered a fundamentalist's 'fundamentalist' (I do not mean an offense here... I hope you know what I'm intending... there are other times when I might have enjoyed saying that too much though... I'm working on thatraying. It might be said that the past three years I've been in a "moratorium" stage regarding several areas of my life - occupational, theological, local church and even family. It's like a perfect storm... welcome to my world ;-). (maybe this is why I came up with the question about the 'self'.) I've shared much with this board here, and thereby with the world... which is one reason I use a moniker instead of my actual name. The moniker is what I aspire to, it's not a claim, and originally it was more of an admittance (see when I created this BB account?).

Anyways... this thread has served its purpose. I'll do some more reading and inquiring separately from this board but I think I've got a working model with which to further build my understanding of Molinism. I feel I have the same with OVT. (I wish there was more than two Molinists on this board that were interested in this discussion.) I've always believed in Simple Foreknowledge, then transitioned to/tacked on Molinism and then confronted Calvinism and then OVT presented itself and so, this is where I'm at... I'm comfortable with being a non-calvinist who is looking for defeaters of OVT... until then I'm comfortable with leaning into OVT. Claims about it in this thread (and others) so far have not been convincing - none of the arguments have presented a case that I haven't already considered in the past year and many representations are strawmen. I am now happy to engage in discussion of the subject though.

*EDF: exhaustive definite foreknowledge (the issue for OVT's is what one means by 'definite' and that because there are possibilities and that God's knowledge is exaustive and accurate then he knows them as such. So, OVT's would propose that God has created a single world of multiple branching possibilities and he knows all of them and so his knowledge is exhaustive (and imo in a sense it could be said 'definite' as well). God would not consider a potential event a 'possibility' when he knows it as a 'certainty'. What is real is what God believes to be real. This is the OVT view... right or wrong. So, the controversy is not about God as much as it is about what is real. What ever is real we all agree that God knows it. One's view of time and God's relatedness to it is also important regarding the subject.)

 

[Cypress]

I don't understand your question. Could you be more specific about what you mean by God's being "sequentially and relationally involved"?

/quote]

In the molinist model, does God respond to human actions as they occur,or iow in the sequence that they occur (i.e.divine intervention, answers to petitionary prayer,miracles, etc.) before he chooses to actualized the world we know. In other words it seems He would only know middle knowledge accurately that includes His activity and influence.

 

[Benjamin]

HoS,

I think you know that I don’t mind talking about the Model of Molinism but it is clear to me HT has simply set out with a ploy to misrepresent the Molinist Model (I should state that this could be being done in ignorance and he does not recognize the tactic I refer to as being a fallacy) and as I've Ad nauseum tried to explain to him he’s done that through the use of a well-known OVT objection to the Molinist Model. Once I became aware of this maneuver happening I pointed to it and not only that after I clearly recognized the roots of this objection, I also demonstrated how HT is mimicking it:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1931912&postcount=32

And I also show WLC dealing with the objection:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1931913&postcount=33


“explanatory priority with respect to the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom”

I even later not only put a title to the objection but began to demonstrate how this OVT objection is also purely fallacious and show how WLC proves it to fail while showing it pins a forfeiture of foreknowledge on those who attempt to use it:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1934516&postcount=85

I then while pointing to his HT failure to recognize his evasive tactics, sarcastically point to his semi-loaded loaded question, point to his semantics in asking the same question, point to how it all goes to begin his argument on a misrepresentation of the Molinist Model. I attempt to explain in my own words how I have just shown him and how I am in agreement with WLC that his (OVTs) non-sequitur objection is fallacious on two fronts. It does not pertain to the Molinist Model and it forfeits a belief of foreknowledge on the part of the one making it while they deny the truths of CCFs!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1934780&postcount=90

His objection to the Model’s proficiency does not change the Model in any way. His (fallacious) conclusion based on his objection does not change the Model in any way. Him asking the same questions rooted to the same objection by using different semantics each time over and over Ad nauseum does not change that he is merely disagreeing through objecting to the Molinist Model and NOT to what Molinist Model itself claims!

I don’t mind HT trying to object to the Molinist Model itself. I have no problem dealing with the objection OVT makes against Molinism outright as a separate topic; that would actually be fun because it makes OVT look stupid for making it, Haha. But, WHAT I do mind is HT trying to use that objection (which amounts to nothing more than a commonly known and thoroughly dealt with OVT fallacious ploy to put down Molinism and simultaneously supposedly build up OVT’s view; I have pointed to this issue Ad nauseum!), and even after him being shown that his diagram to that non-sequitur objection, which contains a fallacious conclusion due to a "false premise" (it goes against the truth contained in CCFs, it pins OVT into forfeiting Divine foreknowledge, and it denies the component of Molinism’s “Middle Knowledge” as if it doesn’t exist which in fact both: preserves foreknowledge and dispells things being "already determined") ...THEN after being in the mind thought of this objection HT goes forward Ad nauseum with questions that consist of the component of: “demanding an explanation from the Molinist Model before recognizing the explanation of the Molinist Model to exist” meaning HT does not give “respect to the truth CCFs and Molinism’s explanation that Middle Knowledge exists and by their reasoning all things are not determined” and then HT thinking, "Ahh, I got you now!", asks his questions to the effect of, “Since Molinism believes all things are “already determined”…yada, yada, yada…

:BangHead:

HT is obviously not here to learn of the Molinist Model, I think you suspect that too, but me being more blunt, I believe what he is doing amounts to nothing more than he is here to put down the Molinist Model by using that stupid OVT objection every time of the Molinist Model instead of actually dealing with what the Molinist actually consists of which is Middle Knowledge based on CCFs which works to retain Divine foreknowledge and put down Deterministic views!

HT’s attempts to change the Model and assign components to it from within his (OVTs) conclusions regarding its proficiency pertaining to that objection are what is troublesome. It is painfully obvious to me HT wants to take “his” personally re-reconstructed “Model of Molinism” with “his” components added in that do not belong to the Molinist Model and then go forth to argue that the Model is not logically sound. I’m simply not interested in arguing to support “his” own personalized custom “Molinist Model” against whatever it is that he can now very “conveniently” come up with to show it not logical. Do YOU hear what I a saying?!?

:BangHead:

I don’t mind arguing either philosophically or scripturally to support the Molinist Model. But, I have no interest in arguing against this invention of HT’s which he has clearly shown he intends to insist is the Molinist Model. I don’t want to get into his motives either, for all I know he may actually believe he is presenting valid argument. Unfortunately, if you misrepresent the opponent’s argument by using a false presume to assign to the opponent’s argument then it is OBVIOUSLY not the opponent’s argument you are arguing against! Duh!

Whatever it is he seems to think he is gaining by using this ploy and seems to also think it is fair to start an argument on such a premise; He has continued to insist his version which “he” built from nothing but an objection to the Molinist Model. I’m sorry, but that’s just ridiculous to think I should be interested in defending against his contrived efforts to build a strawman.

Further, I find it troublesome that HT says he wants to learn about the Molinist Model but yet refuses to let go of this OVT objection to even let explanations begin on how the true Molinist Model can logically work! This asking to explain the Molinist Model has turned into nothing more than a game of “try to defeat HT’s strawman Molinist Model by first defeating HT’s (OVT’s) objection to the Model!" Thus my reference to "explanatory priori" fallacious objection...

HT: Okay, let’s begin, the Molinist Model says these things are “already determined prior” these things are “historically determined prior”, “all events are determined prior” yada, yada. yada….

I’ve asked, “Where do you find actualizations “already determined” in the Molinist Model again??? I show things are not “already determined” while dealing with his suggestions that “I” am not accurately presenting the Molinist Model so I quote from WLC that Molinism does NOT believe things are “already determined”:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1934516&postcount=85

Ht comes back and asks, “What do you mean by “buddy”? In disregard of what I just covered and then, HT: Okay, let’s begin again another way, the Molinist Model says these things are “historically determined prior”…

Do you see what I have been trying to put a lid on here since the beginning of HT asking “us” to present the Molinist Model while he continually goes about to misrepresent it?

:BangHead:

If so, can you maybe explain the “PROBLEM” here better than I have managed to?

:BangHead: