Molinist Evolutionary Theory

[Archie the Preacher]

Benjamin

Thanks for the synopsis. I appreciate it. I'll have to read it a couple times, but I can see the minute differences - which would warmly be claimed as major by the proponents - that all add up to almost the same thing.

I'm beginning to think we should impose a seven-day waiting period on theologians in general.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hi QF, you imply I provided no "grounding objection." That implication of course is utterly false. OTOH, I ask you to address each of the objections I have specifically addressed.

You have not articulated any objections, Van.
You've sort of scoffed and thrown some mud at it...

But you haven't posed either a Biblical or logical objection. Nor posed an argument which demonstrates that a Molinist explanation either is incoherent, self-defeating or false in any one of it's given premises.

Your "specific objections" have been something akin to saying "yo' mama", "says who" or "twaddle". But nothing coherent. If so, where were they? I haven't seen one.

Try a syllogism maybe.

 

[Van]

Obviously personal incredulity does not discuss theology. All these "finding fault" disparagements are devoid of any on topic content.

Rather than discuss the topic, they present generic complains, i.e. no grounding objection. Then when a grounding objection is restated, they say they "haven't seen one." Thus an argument from personal incredulity.

Speculation is the mother of mistaken doctrine. If something is not taught in scripture, it should not be asserted as doctrine. For example, does God manipulate all circumstance so that we naturally choose the outcome God desires? God doing so some of the time is certainly found in scripture, but all of the time? Jesus says things happen by chance, not by the appearance of chance.

 

[percho]

Folks, it appears to be nonsense. Does God arrange circumstance to bring about specific plans and purpose? Yes. Does scripture teach God arranges all circumstances such that His specifically foreordained outcome occurs? Nothing in scripture teaches this science fiction.

If "chance events" are manipulated by God, they cease to be chance events, but only have the appearance of chance events. No matter how much lip-stick you put on "god of the gaps" theology, it still will not wash.

This thread reminds me of the following. What think you?

From: No Country For Old Men

Anton Chigurh: What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: Sir?
Anton Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.
Gas Station Proprietor: I don't know. I couldn't say.
[Chigurh flips a quarter from the change on the counter and covers it with his hand]
Anton Chigurh: Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Call it?
Anton Chigurh: Yes.
Gas Station Proprietor: For what?
Anton Chigurh: Just call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well, we need to know what we're calling it for here.
Anton Chigurh: You need to call it. I can't call it for you. It wouldn't be fair.
Gas Station Proprietor: I didn't put nothin' up.
Anton Chigurh: Yes, you did. You've been putting it up your whole life you just didn't know it. You know what date is on this coin?
Gas Station Proprietor: No.
Anton Chigurh: 1958. It's been traveling twenty-two years to get here. And now it's here. And it's either heads or tails. And you have to say. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Look, I need to know what I stand to win.
Anton Chigurh: Everything.
Gas Station Proprietor: How's that?
Anton Chigurh: You stand to win everything. Call it.
Gas Station Proprietor: Alright. Heads then.
[Chigurh removes his hand, revealing the coin is indeed heads]
Anton Chigurh: Well done.
[the gas station proprietor nervously takes the quarter with the small pile of change he's apparently won while Chigurh starts out]
Anton Chigurh: Don't put it in your pocket, sir. Don't put it in your pocket. It's your lucky quarter.
Gas Station Proprietor: Where do you want me to put it?
Anton Chigurh: Anywhere not in your pocket. Where it'll get mixed in with the others and become just a coin. Which it is.
[Chigurh leaves and the gas station proprietor stares at him as he walks out]

I hope you have actually seen the scene.


Why does the coin come up as it does?

 

[Van]

Scripture says things happen by chance. Now some deny scripture, but I accept it, so I say those that say everything is arranged by God providentially such that His foreknow outcome occurs, even though we freely choose are selling hogwash.

As far as Percho's question, the answer is: F=MA

Could God intervene and alter or determine the outcome? Sure. Does He do so all the time? Not a chance.

 

[percho]

nevertheless not my will,
but thine, be done.


Was this a contradiction of two wills or was it the will of the stronger of One's self over the weaker of One's self?

 

[Van]

Why change the subject? The coin came up heads. The reason, F=MA, i.e. natural law rather than divine intervention.

There is a basis in scripture for God at times intervening and bringing about a circumstance so that His purpose and plan are carried out. Christ being put to death according to God's predetermined plan and foreknowledge springs to mind.

But Jesus said a man was traveling a certain way by chance not by a predetermined plan or under carefully arranged circumstances to assure an outcome.

 

[quantumfaith]

Certainly, things happen by chance (or at least by our understanding of chance). But do all things, I think not. The problem for us, is that we do not possess the "wisdom" or omniscience to identify which things happen by chance, and which had some divine intervention. We can understand when scripture clearly says that "this or that" was intentionally brought about by God

 

[Inspector Javert]

Scripture says things happen by chance.

I agree....

But this is what I mean when I say you aren't leveling any real objections.

Nothing about Molinism denies chance. How are you defining chance?
How about this:

Something happens by "chance" only if it is not necessitated either by natural Law or by divine decree.

Let's try a roll of the dice:
Presumably, there's no natural law which will necessitate what the results will be: (at least prior to x amount of energy being placed into dropping those die at a given angle on a certain surface etc...)

Similarly, we'll assume that God couldn't care less what the results are such that he doesn't cause the roller of said dice to drop it in any particular way....

Thus, we can say the results are purely a result of "chance"....

Now, does anything about Molinism deny those possibilities????
NO.

Furthermore....let's assume that Van has the power to travel forward or backward in time. In increments of 5 mins or less.

Now, during his Parcheesi Game, Van travels exactly two minutes forward in time in order to witness our particular roll of those dice. Thus, he now knows the future result of that die roll because he has witnessed it. Once he travels back in time,

does the fact that he happens to know the result of that die roll now mean it was necessitated either by Natural Law or Divine Decree?

Is it no longer "Chance" simply because Van is aware of it???

I say no, and therefore you have not successfully posed any argument which defeats Molinism.

I am assuming your view says "yes".

Do you say my argument is wrong? O.K. Why don't you articulate a real objection with a defined argument which states why my argument fails to respond to your objection:

"some things happen by chance."

So, I encourage you to articulate an actual argument rather than say:

"Van say 'hogwash' "
"Van say 'twaddle' "

Because your complaints are, and have been little more meaningful than the above.

I know you are fully capable of articulating a real objection. And you have not so far.

 

[Van]

The Bible presents us with a picture of reality. Now some science fiction writers try to interpret it using time travel. Hogwash redux.

Lets leave divine knowledge aside, as it cannot be discussed biblically on this forum, leadership having ruled that their view is the only view allowed.

Molinism is a construct to claim God knows what we will choose (God is outside of time) but His knowledge does not predestine that outcome. He arranges circumstances so that we will freely (as opposed to being predestined) choose according to His foreknowledge. So picture a room with one door. God puts us in that room and we "freely choose to use that one door." This is hogwash.

Lets say the room has two doors. Now God knowing we will use one of those two doors does not predestine our choice. But if you say, "no," He knows which of the two doors we will use because He knows us intimately and has arranged circumstances so we will choose that door, we are back to the room with one door and the outcome is predestined.

 

[Van]

Hi Qf, we agree, somethings happen by chance rather than according to exhaustive determinism.

And yes, we do not know when we experience life, if the circumstance befalling us was the result of chance or someone's autonomous choice (including our own) or the result of God provincially arranging the circumstance.

Everyone agrees with all that.

Has Molinism resolved the issue to us making autonomous choices that alter the outcome of our lives, and God arranging the circumstance such that the outcome is predestined? Nope.

 

[Van]

The expression up a creek without a paddle describes both Calvinism and Arminism. The Calvinist says God predestines everything, but is not the author of sin. The idea here is we choose from various sins, so the sin we choose is our choice, but in reality, its the room with one door leading to death all over again.

OTOH, the Arminian says (using the Molinist argument) God providentially arranges circumstance where we could go either way, thus the opportunity for salvation is real. But God knows, given those circumstances, which way we will go, thus predestining our choice. So we have paddled back into the room with one door.

Now there is an answer to this dilemma, but neither group is able to turn loose of what 400 years of theologians have declared as doctrine.
So instead they turn to time travel and sophistry.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The Bible presents us with a picture of reality. Now some science fiction writers try to interpret it using time travel. Hogwash redux.

We are not arguing the viability of Time-travel.

Molinism is a construct to claim God knows what we will choose (God is outside of time)

Molinism does not presuppose God is outside of time.
Interestingly, it's most articulate present advocate (W.L.C.) quite openly and regularly denies that God is "outside of time".

You appear to not quite understand the Molinist view-point as well as you might think you do.

but His knowledge does not predestine that outcome.

It's not to say it doesn't "predestine" the outcome (depending on how we define "predestine"). It doesn't NECESSITATE the outcome, though.

Therefore, since the outcome is not causally necessitated by anything, it can therefore be free. That's the view.

He arranges circumstances so that we will freely (as opposed to being predestined) choose according to His foreknowledge.

Well, he arranges circumstances such that he gets the ULTIMATE outcome he desires based upon what his knowledge is of what your choice would be. The same way he does in any non-determinist schema. God doesn't get his perfect will in every circumstance....he uses our imperfect decisions to reach His ultimate outcome.

So picture a room with one door. God puts us in that room and we "freely choose to use that one door."

That's simply inaccurate and blatantly so.
I wouldn't even argue that Determinism presents only ONE DOOR.
Having only ONE possible choice isn't even an accurate descriptions of Calvinist Determinism.
What Determinism does is present numerous actual doors but causally necessitates that only one particular door is the one chosen:

Molinism presents the same number of doors and presents no necessity for any given door be chosen at all, but that God (knowing which door is chosen) presents the next room with certain options accordingly.

None of those is anything close to a room with only one door.

This is hogwash.

Oh, o.k.....
Van says so, so we'll all abandon the idea.

Lets say the room has two doors. Now God knowing we will use one of those two doors does not predestine our choice.

We're with you so far.

But if you say, "no," He knows which of the two doors we will use because He knows us intimately and has arranged circumstances so we will choose that door,

NO, that's Compatibilist Determinism...not Molinism, Van.
God's knowing us infinitely doesn't necessitate any given choice in Molinism. That's compatibilism.

Molinism does not describe God as having assured any choice we make.
It describes how God's ultimate desired outcome is realized in accordance and subsequent to the choices we make.
God reacts to man's choices which are necessitated by nothing in Molinism (the same way he does in the O.T. View you seem to espouse).
You seem to think Molinism describes God as using his knowledge in order to guarantee our choices...he doesn't, he uses his knowledge of our choices to inform which set of circumstances he will actualize next.

we are back to the room with one door and the outcome is predestined.

The same number of doors exist whether you are a Determinist, Molinist, or S.F. View Arminian, or Open Theist.

The number of doors changes in none of those schema's. What changes is whether your choices are necessitated or not. Only Determinism has necessitated "choices".

 

[humblethinker]

If I correctly understand this article, Pruss says that Molinists say that God selects all of the random outcomes in the universe. As far as I know, that must be a given in Molinism.

 

[Van]

Folks, does anyone else care to defend Molinism? If you are going to redefine words and doctrines, no need to post more hogwash.

If God puts you in a circumstance where He knows with certainty what you will choose, your choice is predestined, necessitated and compelled.

Here is how Calvinist Compatilism works. We are fallen. That condition controls us such that we will always choose to sin over seeking God and trusting in Christ. So we choose from a bunch of doors, but they all lead to death. Thus we are not allowed to choose between life and death, but death only.

This has nothing to do with Molinism, where, given the right circumstance, we might autonomously in our fallen condition choose life.
God providentially provides that circumstance, but because He knows us intimately, He knows with certainty what we will choose. Thus given our known behavior and the arranged condition, we are compelled to choose what God foreknows we will choose because He predestined it when He arranged the circumstance based on His intimate knowledge.

 

[Van]

"But, almost surely, a Molinist God can get any sequence of outcomes he wants by tweaking the circumstances appropriately. If a coin is to be flipped a million times, a Molinist God can make them all come out heads not by intervening in the flips, but by ensuring that the conditions C in which the flips happen are such as to make true appropriate conditionals of the form "C→heads"."

For those that did not bother to actually read the OP link.

 

[InTheLight]

If God puts you in a circumstance where He knows with certainty what you will choose, your choice is predestined, necessitated and compelled.

Not from our perspective. From our point of view it was free will.

 

[humblethinker]

Not from our perspective. From our point of view it was free will.

Ahh, but now we know the truth.

 

[Van]

Lets consider an alternate view. What if the circumstances we encounter are usually random, thus in one circumstance we have the opportunity to seek God and trust in Christ, but in another we do not. So instead of being compelled to choose death by our fallen nature, we are given repeated chances to choose life or death. Given this reality, then scripture could say "I have set life and death before you, and I beg you to choose life." This view then would be consistent with being influenced by our past experiences such as the witness of believers, and being influenced by our "old man" nature. But neither of these influences necessitates, predestines or compels our choice. Nah, too biblical rather than philosophical.

 

[Inspector Javert]

If God puts you in a circumstance where He knows with certainty what you will choose, your choice is predestined, necessitated and compelled.

Wrong.

Here is how Calvinist Compatilism works. We are fallen. That condition controls us such that we will always choose to sin over seeking God and trusting in Christ. So we choose from a bunch of doors, but they all lead to death. Thus we are not allowed to choose between life and death, but death only.

Right.

This has nothing to do with Molinism, where, given the right circumstance, we might autonomously in our fallen condition choose life.
God providentially provides that circumstance, but because He knows us intimately, He knows with certainty what we will choose.

Wrong. That's not how or why he knows with certainty what we will choose. Your are conflating compatibilist philosophy with Molinism. That is simply not accurate.

Thus given our known behavior and the arranged condition, we are compelled to choose what God foreknows we will choose because He predestined it when He arranged the circumstance based on His intimate knowledge.

If I misunderstood Molinism as much as you do, I would call it hogwash too.

It's fine if you don't care for Molinism...
It's fine if you think it's "hogwash"...

But, you don't understand what it is you are so against. So, your posts are generally going to fall into the "not-particularly-informative" category. You should seek to understand it more thoroughly before you debate it.