Molinism Differentiated from Calvinism

[humblethinker]

What separates molinism from calvinism/determinism? I mean, besides the idea that LFW exists? Is it the case that according to molinism God did almost everything he could but be the cause of everything so that he could ensure exactly what he wanted? What more could God have done before creation to better ensure that he'd get what he wanted while still preserving LFW?

Is there a theology that is between Calvinism and Molinism? Is molinism closer to Calvinism than Arminianism?

 

[12strings]

What separates molinism from calvinism/determinism? I mean, besides the idea that LFW exists? Is it the case that according to molinism God did almost everything he could but be the cause of everything so that he could ensure exactly what he wanted? What more could God have done before creation to better ensure that he'd get what he wanted while still preserving LFW?

Is there a theology that is between Calvinism and Molinism? Is molinism closer to Calvinism than Arminianism?

I'm bumping this to the top because I went and read the Wikipedia article on molinism, and would like someone who know more than I to elaborate.

It seems to me that in many ways a Molinist and a Compatibalist Calvinist are saying very similar things...since in a very real sense in both systems, God arranged situations in such a way that the decisions of free creatures that he wanted to be made, would be made.

Andy experts want to disagree?

 

[Van]

Both views are "moving the goal posts" arguments. Rather than God causing us to choose this or that, i.e. exhaustive determinism, we make choices according to our "programing" which moves the goal post but not the reality. If God arranges circumstances that will produce the desired outcome because of our programing, that is like blaming the bullet or the gun, rather than the person aiming and firing. It is a canard.

 

[preachinjesus]

Not a lot of time to post here, but I will say this:

Molinism is closer to Reformed Theology than Arminian theology. It provides the corrective tool, via Libertarian Free Will, over and against the Deterministic view of Reformed theology.

I think Molinism, particularly in recent developments (ala WL Craig, Al Plantinga, etc) is a helpful system overall. Not just from a theological viewpoint but also an apologetic standpoint.

 

[Revmitchell]

We want to be able to explain what is clearly spoken in scripture and there is no doubt that we will do it in terminology that we can understand. Far to many doctrines and systems of theology are created by reading into scripture what is not clearly delineated. We end up with Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism. and God forbid Open Theism just as a few examples.

Why is it not ok with man that we understand that God opens up the heart and some men receive Him, by whatever means, and some do not. Why is it not ok with man that we just do not understand some things of God in detail? When its not we end up with false explanations of a break down of regeneration before salvation which scripture never indicates. We end up with God not knowing somethings either by choice or inability.

Sometimes I get the idea that man has more confidence and need for his own intellectualism than he does in just accepting scripture at face value. These so called intellectualists have been railing against anti-intellectualism for years. But I believe that both sides of that coin have gone way to far.

Personally I hold to a middle ground on all of this. God is always sovereign, He has given men the free will to receive the gospel, and some men do and some do not.

Outside of that I just do not know the details of how all that works because scripture does not tell us. And I am ok with that.

 

[12strings]

Personally I hold to a middle ground on all of this. God is always sovereign, He has given men the free will to receive the gospel, and some men do and some do not.

Outside of that I just do not know the details of how all that works because scripture does not tell us. And I am ok with that.

This sounds like a description of Calvinism to me!!!

 

[12strings]

Personally I hold to a middle ground on all of this. God is always sovereign, He has given men the free will to receive the gospel, and some men do and some do not.

Outside of that I just do not know the details of how all that works because scripture does not tell us. And I am ok with that.

This sounds like a description of Arminianism to me!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

This sounds like a description of Arminianism to me!!!

Of course. If it makes you more comfortable to define it that way then help yourself.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

What separates molinism from calvinism/determinism? I mean, besides the idea that LFW exists?

Little, or nothing....Theologically, most tenents are essentially the same...So also those of Confessional Arminianism too!!!!

Is it the case that according to molinism God did almost everything he could but be the cause of everything so that he could ensure exactly what he wanted?

God's "DOING" something...is kind of missing the point with Molinism...There is NOTHING (to a Molinist) God could have "done" in order to insure his desired out-come... A Molinist believes in "Free-Will" in EVERY DETAIL...like the purest "Open-Theist" does...I think this is the source of confusion....Somehow, I think that there is a dis-connect between what an "Open-Theist" might consider "True Free-Will" and what a Molinist might think there is...There is NO difference at all. Molinists are merely obsessed<---and that is almost too weak a term, with God's Omniscience...God wouldn't "DO" something in order to insure out-come, He simply is genius enough to know what woul occur in any given circumstance...Other than THAT major tenent...there is nothing esoteric about it...It truly isn't the "esoterically-sexy" ideology that some of us think it is..It's MUCH more simple than most people think...

Here's the problem.....Molinism's explanatory capacity leads people to think that it MUST "re-define" basic notions like "free-will" (as Calvinism does). But, it simply doesn't. Molinism assumes the ACTUAL and REAL and INTELLIGIBLE meanings of all basic words........Unlike Calvinism...which (as we all know) tends to re-define basic terms into meaninglessness. Molinism isn't "PERFECT" folks...It's just a tool.

What more could God have done before creation to better ensure that he'd get what he wanted while still preserving LFW?

NOTHING....

Is there a theology that is between Calvinism and Molinism?

"Molinism" isn't a "Theology"...and when anyone who undersands that simple truth....lambasts my "failed Molinistic ideas"...I will take them seriously.

Is molinism closer to Calvinism than Arminianism?

No...it really isn't "closer" to either...it assumes what seems true of "BOTH" and it's merely a tool to make them logically reconcilable....The unique thing about "Molinism" is that...you can take what you "like" from it, and discard everything else...There is no esoteric secret with it. It's a "tool". WLC..may have done "Molinism" the greatest possible turn when he described it as:
"The greatest Theological 'tool' of the last 1,000 years"...Take what you like from it...discard the rest. It is that simple really.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm bumping this to the top because I went and read the Wikipedia article on molinism, and would like someone who know more than I to elaborate.

It seems to me that in many ways a Molinist and a Compatibalist Calvinist are saying very similar things...since in a very real sense in both systems, God arranged situations in such a way that the decisions of free creatures that he wanted to be made, would be made.

Andy experts want to disagree?

I am not what I would consider an “expert” in explaining Molinism, but I would caution that while exploring Molinism it is common to come across many poor conclusions about what it argues. So, if I may offer some clarification concerning the issue of God maintaining both Divine sovereignty and creaturely free will, one might think of it as that God makes judgments along the way through time according to our volitional actions and actualizes possible worlds in real (our) time, but these infinite number of possible worlds are not “pre-determined” upon us before our free choices.

Molinism gets real complicated but it does not, as Van seems to be mistakenly suggesting, rest on theories that ultimately or inevitably amount to a form determinism; it is clear that Molinism argues for true creaturely volition whether Van can understand the process or not. Therefore, to say Molinism is just “moving the goal post further” and is still relying on determinism clearly either amounts to misunderstanding of what Molinism argues for or is presenting a strawman.

Molinism does not argue that “God arranges circumstances that will produce the desired outcome because of our programing” it argues in effect that God arranges possible worlds according to our volitional actions and to help understand this I think it should be examined in conjunction with God making “judgments” according to our volitional actions within time which in fact maintains free will, it is not another theory of determinism. IOWs, God does not force His desired outcome on us and we are not pre-programmed according to the arguments of Molinism.

There is a huge difference between Calvinist -> Determinism and Molinism which maintains and argues for Creaturely volition, but where you could make a comparison is that Calvinist Compatibilist also argues to maintain at least some form of free will.

I’ve previously offered some explanations for understanding Molinism here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1858933&postcount=48


http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=79130

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Both views are "moving the goal posts" arguments. Rather than God causing us to choose this or that, i.e. exhaustive determinism, we make choices according to our "programing" which moves the goal post but not the reality. If God arranges circumstances that will produce the desired outcome because of our programing, that is like blaming the bullet or the gun, rather than the person aiming and firing. It is a canard.

I recognize your in-ability to differentiate between a determinists' "programming" and God's capacity to simply "know" (via his omniscience) an un-programmed volitional creature's response to any given environment or stimuli...but YOUR incapacity to know the difference doesn't demostrate God's inability to know it.
Would you provide for us the argument which demonstrates that God is equally limited? Would you please inform us how that works? I am fully aware that YOU...don't know what it is..but, what is your argument that GOD doesn't???? Please tell us...

Provide, Please, the logic, and Scriptural proof that God is EXACTLY as STUPID and ignorant as YOU and I are...
This, sir, is sheer ignorance on your part.

All your argument boils down to is...If "Van" doesn't or "can't" know something...Than obviously God can't...Prove THAT premise!

It's o.k. if you don't know how God can understand something...(I don't either). But "Open Theists" seem to think that if they aren't equally as intellectually capable as God is, than God is obviously a moron...Maybe God is simply smarter than you think??? Guess what, He's God, you aren't, He's smart, we aren't, and NOT only does he "know" things you don't...but he also might be CAPABLE OF KNOWING things, that you cannot possibly know. It isn't difficult. You miss the whole forest for the trees.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I'm bumping this to the top because I went and read the Wikipedia article on molinism, and would like someone who know more than I to elaborate.

It seems to me that in many ways a Molinist and a Compatibalist Calvinist are saying very similar things...since in a very real sense in both systems, God arranged situations in such a way that the decisions of free creatures that he wanted to be made, would be made.

Andy experts want to disagree?

It is different in that it ASSUMES true "libertarian free-will" in the same sense as any Arminian or "Open Theist" or anyone else you want to conjure up sees true "free-will"..
There is ZERO difference in a Molinist's understanding of "Free-Will" as there is anyone else's...
Molinists use God's "Omniscience"....not his "Sovereignty" per se to explain how God can fore-ordain all which comes to pass without appealling to "force".
Molinists AREN'T concerned with preserving man's "free-will" they are concerned with preserving "Sovereignty"....
It's rather simple really:
They assume Two things:

1.) God is ULTIMATELY Sovereign over ALL of creation in even it's most minor details (and this includes the "election" of those who are, or will not be, saved).
2.) TRUE and real "Libertarian free-will" is something God has given to all of his creatures, and that God would not have chosen, or wanted to choose otherwise.
3.) BOTH statements above are true: (Explain)?????

Molinists appeal to God's Omniscience, and not his Omnipotence...<----Truth be told...that is all any Calvinist appeals to.
Calvinists may USE a word like: "Sovereignty"...all they want. But all they really mean is "Omnipotence"...The Basic definitive facet of God that he has supreme power and force.

That is all they appeal to there...and that is all they appeal to later. God uses "force".
Calvinists have taught us that God's use of mere "force" is called his "Sovereignty"....and that there is no distinction...and that to accuse God of using mere brute "force" is not accurate, or correct, or representative of a loving Deity...He uses his "Sovereignty"....not "force."

Molinists accept BOTH notions...God's Sovereignty, and true Libertarian Free Will....They simply use God's "Omniscience" and not his "Omnipotence" as the key attribute.

Want a synopsis??

God Knew prior to his creation of the Universe, (and world) as it is, what any possible combination of "free creaturely-responses" would be....and he chose to "create" or "actualize" the particular world he did in accordance with the sum total of all possible creaturely responses that he deemed best...and that was (most probably)......which-ever one resulted in the maximal number of creaturely responses to the gospel...Thus, God has truly "fore-ordained" all things what-soever shall come to pass..but he allows all of his creatures to make their decisions...God: "Stacked-the-Deck"....I repeat: God "Stacked-the-Deck"...He didn't create circumstances which were (as a Compatabilist assumes) necessary for a particular response. He just simply KNEW which response would be forth-coming...In any possible set of circumstances, and then created that world accordingly..God created the world given said knowledge...That's all.

It's simple.
It's ingenious.
It may describe reality
Or it very well might not....

But, it's the NOBLEST effort I have ever seen...to make sense of a Creator we cannot possibly comprehend, with the revelation as He has revealed it to us...
Take it, or leave it.

 

[12strings]

Want a synopsis??

God Knew prior to his creation of the Universe, (and world) as it is, what any possible combination of "free creaturely-responses" would be....and he chose to "create" or "actualize" the particular world he did in accordance with the sum total of all possible creaturely responses that he deemed best...and that was (most probably)......which-ever one resulted in the maximal number of creaturely responses to the gospel...Thus, God has truly "fore-ordained" all things what-soever shall come to pass..but he allows all of his creatures to make their decisions...God: "Stacked-the-Deck"....I repeat: God "Stacked-the-Deck"...He didn't create circumstances which were (as a Compatabilist assumes) necessary for a particular response. He just simply KNEW which response would be forth-coming...In any possible set of circumstances, and [U]then created that world [/U]accordingly..God created the world given said knowledge...That's all.

It's simple.
It's ingenious.
It may describe reality
Or it very well might not....

But, it's the NOBLEST effort I have ever seen...to make sense of a Creator we cannot possibly comprehend, with the revelation as He has revealed it to us...
Take it, or leave it.

1. Could you explain the difference further between compatibalism and the molinist idea that God created the world that he knew would have the desired outcome?

2. Also... is the above synopsis compatible with this:

God wouldn't "DO" something in order to insure out-come, He simply is genius enough to know what would occur in any given circumstance

(because it sounds like you just said God DID do something to ensure a certain outcome...he created this world, and not another possible world.

and also this...

(BENJAMIN): Molinism does not argue that “God arranges circumstances that will produce the desired outcome because of our programing” it argues in effect that God arranges possible worlds according to our volitional actions.

I understand that molinism would reject the programing aspect, but it still sounds very much like God "stacking the deck" has the same effect as what a compatibalist would say.

 

[12strings]

[/U]God Knew prior to his creation of the Universe, (and world) as it is, what any possible combination of "free creaturely-responses" would be....and he chose to "create" or "actualize" the particular world he did in accordance with the sum total of all possible creaturely responses that he deemed best...and that was (most probably)......which-ever one resulted in the maximal number of creaturely responses to the gospel...Thus, God has truly "fore-ordained" all things what-soever shall come to pass..but he allows all of his creatures to make their decisions...God: "Stacked-the-Deck"....I repeat: God "Stacked-the-Deck"...He didn't create circumstances which were (as a Compatabilist assumes) necessary for a particular response. He just simply KNEW which response would be forth-coming...In any possible set of circumstances, and then created that world accordingly..God created the world given said knowledge...That's all.

Reading this paragraph again, I think I may see the difference between Comp. & Mol. (though you can certainly respond if you like)

I do have one big question, which basically boils down to a "which is it" question:

1. Would a molinist say that once God chose to create creatures with free will, he was limited in choosing between worlds where varying numbers of these creatures freely chose his way of salvation?

OR...

2. Would a molinist say that infinite possibilites before him, God COULD have chosen a world in which all chose to be saved, but decided not to for some reason?


if 1, does that raise questions of God's omnipotence?

if 2, does that raise questions of God's goodness, not really giving any more answer than a calvinist could give?

 

[Van]

Pitchback

I recognize your in-ability to differentiate between a determinists' "programming" and God's capacity to simply "know" (via his omniscience) an un-programmed volitional creature's response to any given environment or stimuli...but YOUR incapacity to know the difference doesn't demostrate God's inability to know it.
Would you provide for us the argument which demonstrates that God is equally limited? Would you please inform us how that works? I am fully aware that YOU...don't know what it is..but, what is your argument that GOD doesn't???? Please tell us...

Provide, Please, the logic, and Scriptural proof that God is EXACTLY as STUPID and ignorant as YOU and I are...
This, sir, is sheer ignorance on your part.

All your argument boils down to is...If "Van" doesn't or "can't" know something...Than obviously God can't...Prove THAT premise!

It's o.k. if you don't know how God can understand something...(I don't either). But "Open Theists" seem to think that if they aren't equally as intellectually capable as God is, than God is obviously a moron...Maybe God is simply smarter than you think??? Guess what, He's God, you aren't, He's smart, we aren't, and NOT only does he "know" things you don't...but he also might be CAPABLE OF KNOWING things, that you cannot possibly know. It isn't difficult. You miss the whole forest for the trees.

Note my view was not addressed. Rather a strawman argument, i.e. Van thinks God's mind is no greater than the mind of man, is put forward. Sheer fiction calculated to disparage me rather than address my view.

And folks, it does not matter how God knows our response to a given circumstance, if God then arranges a circumstance so that we "freely choose" to do as God desired, its simply a "moving the goal post" argument, a canard. Do not be taken in by the clever stories of men.

And to bring us back to scripture, the issue is whether God causes our selections and is therefore the author of sin, or whether we make autonomous choices within the limits God allows, i.e we make plans but God directs our feet.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm bumping this to the top because I went and read the Wikipedia article on molinism, and would like someone who know more than I to elaborate.

It seems to me that in many ways a Molinist and a Compatibalist Calvinist are saying very similar things...since in a very real sense in both systems, God arranged situations in such a way that the decisions of free creatures that he wanted to be made, would be made.

Andy experts want to disagree?

12strings, I "think" that most "molinist experts" (Craig, Plantinga etc) would say so with a caveat, that being that God initiated creation in such as way as to optimize (maximize) the numbers of those who would freely choose Him. FTR, I am no "expert" (of anything) including my life's work in mathematics.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Great sets of questions!!! I wish I were a better example...but, I'll try to ansxer what I can/

1. Could you explain the difference further between compatibalism and the molinist idea that God created the world that he knew would have the desired outcome?

First: We have a tendency on this board (all of us) to somewhat mis-use the term "compatibilist". Strictly defined, "Compatibilism" doesn't necessarily mean that men's actions are determined by "Their greatest desires" etc...That is an explanation of HOW a compatibilist justifies the claims of
1.) God essentially not permitting LFW
2.) God being justified in holding creatures without LFW accountable

Compatibilism is the belief that those two are compatible...it is usually explained by men "choosing" based upon their Greatest desires et. al......Calvinists are "compatibilists" Arminians, O.T.'s, Molinists et. al are not.

The essential difference though...is that facet of LFW. No set of circumstances are sufficient guarantors (due to the creatures desires) of a certain choice in Molinism....
To a Calvinist: creaturely decisions are necessary due to their desires...
To a Molinist: those decisions are simply known to be incidentally true, not necessarily true. God simply happens to know which decision will be made...but it isn't based upon their desires and "programming"....
2. Also... is the above synopsis compatible with this:

(because it sounds like you just said God DID do something to ensure a certain outcome...he created this world, and not another possible world.

In that sense...yes, he did "Do" something.

I understand that molinism would reject the programing aspect, but it still sounds very much like God "stacking the deck" has the same effect as what a compatibalist would say.

It does have the same "effect".... :smilewinkgrin:

The key is that the decisions are not necessary...just "fore-known"....Calvinist compatibilism renders those decisions necessary....It COULD NOT have been otherwise. In Molinism it COULD HAVE.....God just knows it WON'T.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Reading this paragraph again, I think I may see the difference between Comp. & Mol. (though you can certainly respond if you like)

I do have one big question, which basically boils down to a "which is it" question:

1. Would a molinist say that once God chose to create creatures with free will, he was limited in choosing between worlds where varying numbers of these creatures freely chose his way of salvation?

OR...

2. Would a molinist say that infinite possibilites before him, God COULD have chosen a world in which all chose to be saved, but decided not to for some reason?

Although one could be a Molinist and NOT answer this way....Most would say it is something like #1....God COULD NOT create a world wherein ALL creatures "choose" to freely obey him....Well not a very populated world anyway!!
Option #2 is POSSIBLE....but is usually thought unlikely in that the available options were limited (to pick a number at random) to say....a world of 45 total people!!! (If you take my meaning). There simply was no possible World with millions and millions as it were...

if 1, does that raise questions of God's omnipotence?

To a Calvinist....yes, to a Molinist...no!!! More seriously, a Molinist would say that it is logically impossible to grant true LFW and also move beyond the scope of what it would allow. Given LFW it would simply be a fact that not EVERYONE will choose as you wish. Could God NOT have given LFW? Sure, but once he has chosen to, than he has chosen to permit the limitations of those who would reject him...Most Molinists would then say that the world which "IS" is the one with the maximal number of those who are saved...Or, more precisely, the one with the most favorable ratio of saved and unsaved.

Now, there May have been a possible world wherein more are ultimately saved...but, God might have chosen THIS WORLD, because it is the one in which all who are ultimately lost are those who would not EVER choose Christ in any set of circumstances... If ( and yes, it's a pretty big if) there are these three types of folks:
1.) Those who would choose Christ in ANY set of circumstances
2.) Those who would choose Christ in certain circumstances and not others
3.) Those who would NOT choose Christ in ANY set of circumstances...

It is possible that the world which is, is one in which there are only types 1, types 3 and the circumstances which God actualized are those in which all type 2 people choose FOR Christ...

It makes (if true) a perfect solution to the "What about those who never heard" thing....Maybe "those who never hear"...are all "type 3" people anyway!!!!

Obviously, there is conjecture with a lot of this, but it would make sense, and truth be told...this is the only answer I know of, which makes God perfectly JUST and GOOD!!! I think both classical Arminianism and Calvinism run into serious problems when they answer that question. If my possible explanation is true...Than Molinism provides a perfectly reasoned explanation which upholds God's goodness, and his justice!!! :thumbsup:

You are posing GREAT QUESIONS?? I hope my answers are helpful....

 

[humblethinker]

...one might think of it [molinism] as that God makes judgments along the way through time according to our volitional actions and actualizes possible worlds in real (our) time, but these infinite number of possible worlds are not “pre-determined” upon us before our free choices.

Benjamin, I know of no documentation that communicates such about molinism. Can you direct me to any such teaching by an expert on molinism? As HoS said in a previous post in this thread that there is very little that separates calvinism/determinism from molinism. I have not read ANY molinism advocates describing it as you have done above. Hopefully I'm wrong, I would be pleasantly surprised.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Benjamin, I know of no documentation that communicates such about molinism. Can you direct me to any such teaching by an expert on molinism? As HoS said in a previous post in this thread that there is very little that separates calvinism/determinism from molinism.

O.K.....You are not going to get away with this....You are welcome to spend the last three days defending the insane notions that Theologically, Open Theism is a legit form of Arminianism....and Molinism is "little" different from Calvinism. But you aren't using MY words to do it.....Molinism is MASSIVELY different in its precepts and Theology from Calvinism, but the end results may not be.
That is a MAJOR difference. Calvinism insists on "Limited Atonement" for instance and Molinism doesn't. Is that an insignifigant difference to YOU????
Molinism insists on Libertarian Free Will, Calvinism doesn't...Are these mere minor tertiary issues??? Are they insignifigant?
How cute that the rest of the quote was edited:

HOS: ...So also those of Confessional Arminianism too!!!!

So.........I was essentially stating that "Calvinism" and "Molinism" and "Confessional Arminianism" are not ALL so very different....but my statement only holds true, if
1.) Arminianism is included in the comparison
2.) You fail to put it into the context of your ALREADY supplying the (not insignifigant) caveat of: "Other that LFW"....

Heck that's about like saying:
Other than the fact that there is freedom to choose via a democratic voting process who their leaders are, and also subjecting everyone from leadership on down to "rule of law" and not man........What difference is there between
"A democratic-Republic like the U.S."
and
"A tyrrannical regime like North Korea""

I respond: "not much"
And you THEN use MY QUOTE to mis-construe the argument!!!!!
For shame..........

I am starting to think you aren't attempting honest conversations, and are throwing things against a wall....not to see if they stick....but to see if you can quote someone else making a statement that you can twist into an indefensible notion you couldn't demonstrate without our help. I hope I am wrong....But, frankly, quoting someone like that is fightin' words....and I am calling "Bull" on this.