Molinist Evolutionary Theory

[Benjamin]

Chance?!?

Let’s look at just one element – the beginning of creation – in consideration of the Op and how the Open Theist define an overboard necessity of chance

...:smilewinkgrin:...(equating to that God is NOT all knowing) tsk tsk.

Did the universe which supports life happen by chance? The Atheist would say yes. The Open Theist would have to conclude that God didn’t know what would happen (by their assumed necessary degree of chance). The Molinist would say God fine-tuned the possibilities fully knowing that life (human volitional creatures) would exist.

From that point (creation) did the human creature/and subsequent human creatures which have the attributes of sense, reason and intellect (and therefore possessing volitional abilities) happen by chance? No, they were purposely created with the special gift of these attributes and the cycle (with God's fine tuning) continues. At any time could probabilities exist that these creatures, which were brought into the world with this special (miraculous) nature, be left to chance to allow them the freedom to choose? Yes, and could God still be fine-tuning possible worlds in which by His judgment they are without excuse (Romans 1:20) for not choosing in love of the truths which are revealed to them to “freely” (as per their aforementioned nature) accept their Creator as their Lord? Yes, He can and does all these things (create volitional creatures, providentially provide the just circumstances whereby they freely choose, knows all, influences all, righteously judges all and does so in love for all He created).

Knowing that His creatures would fall short He is longsuffering in His ongoing work to provide the circumstances by which they will be held accountable for not responding to the Divine influences He offers according to His judgment. Will these judgment be in truth and righteous upon volitional creatures? Yes. Would God have to go back and change the nature of the creatures He designed, as if He made a mistake, for them to be able to freely choose Him? No. God in His loving grace from before the foundation of the world prepared the way and God’s work is ongoing in the world, He interacts with creatures, He infinitely provides conditions and circumstances (the worlds) by which His creatures can choose to accept His free gift within the volitional nature He created them.

God’s work in creation is perfect, all His ways in the matter are judgment, He is righteous, just and He does all these things in truth. God gets all the credit for His creatures choosing Him and the creatures get all the blame for not responding in love of the truth from the conditions and circumstances he gives them.

In pride some resent being under the judgment of a Higher Power (Romans 9:17-23) who provides the circumstances by which they will they will be judged. They find fault with God’s ways because of “thinking” they should be as God (like Adam and Eve, Gen 3:22) and that they should be chooser/the judge of the worlds in which they exist, this describes the Open Theist desired standard of freedom.

Others recognize God’s Sovereign control over the worlds in which they exist and rather than respond in love of truths of freedoms/attributes/and being thankful for their creation they resentfully claim they have no choice, this describes the Determinist. But God knows the hearts of the volitional creatures He created and whether they have received His counsel whereby they did freely willingly humble themselves, repent of the desire to be as God and take of the gift of life.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Open Theist’s theology forfeits that God can know all things, they typically do not think it possible to have “LFW” (“their” definition of what creaturely freedom should be) for they believe if He did He would have to have predetermined the outcome of volitional creatures, thus logically voiding "their" volition. They rightfully reject pre-determinism but wrongly insist either God’s foreknowledge must be limited or their freedom to choose is limited. Again, and this is sad because it amounts to a complaint of being a created being and not a God (Romans 9:17-23).

Pre-existing History?!?

I would reject this Open Theism justifying claim as it presents a strawman on the bases of a false premise being there is no history to One who is beyond the limitations of time while also attempting limit divine foreknowledge. A miraculous truth that came about in creation is that God came into the world as a Mediator (think Trinity) between God who is not within time limitations and humans which are. Amazing and miraculous, but true! Seems the Open Theist believes these abilities in truth are beyond God’s capabilities.

God came into the world and works with us within it, it is true!

Deu 5:24 And ye said, Behold, the LORD our God hath shewed us his glory and his greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire: we have seen this day that God doth talk with man, and he liveth.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth

“Since the hallmark of intelligent agency is choice, one has thus shown that the best explanation for the occurrence of the event is an intelligent agent. “

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-...nce-through-small-probabilities#ixzz2slcv5fQS

 

[Benjamin]

:type:

“Chance” comes and goes for us within time as per God’s Providential Sovereign Control over the creatures He created with sense, reason and intellect according to His ongoing judgments of their responses to His influences.

NEWS FLASH: To my Closet Open Theist friends: Determinists do not have a monopoly on the phrase that “God is Sovereign!” which they simple-mindedly attach Determinism to and by which you simple-mindedly deny His being as All-knowing by (A big H - No! No!) while you both ignore His complexities of knowledge and by doing so fail holding to all His Attributes in truth.

He created the world and this did not happen by the kind of chance you COTs (Closet Open Theist)

apparently desire to have control over to consider yourself to have totally free will – or in other words (same mistake as Adam and Eve) your desire to be as God. Your chance(s) comes from God as did all creation, the Divine Design of the world He alone set forth as per His plans which included YOU who was created in His likeness and image but NOT to be one’s own judge or God over the conditions He providentially controls. He does ALL THE THINGS He said He did and does it in TRUTH.

All have a choice and all will be without excuse for not choosing Him. God does not predetermine your outcome, He will truthfully judge all (volitional creatures) and He truthfully does know all things!

Back toward the original topic of creation, in recognition that the Op …mistakenly?... made a play off a view to discount that did not come from a Molinist but another’s diluted view of how Molinism relates to creation. These apologetics relate to the type of “chance” being expounded upon as supposedly necessary to have LFW by the COTs here:

By WLC:

Design from Fine-Tuning

That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist.

…SNIP…

In addition to these constants, there are also the arbitrary quantities which serve as boundary conditions on which the laws of nature operate, such as the level of entropy in the early universe, which are also fine-tuned for life. If one may speak of a pattern, it would be that fine-tuning, like a stubborn bump in the carpet, just won’t go away: when it is suppressed in one place, it pops up in another. Moreover, although some of the constants may be related so that a change in the value of one will upset the value another, others of the constants, not to mention the boundary conditions, are not interdependent in this way. In any case, there’s no reason at all to suspect so happy a coincidence that such changes would exactly compensate for one another so that in the aftermath of such an alteration life could still exist. It appears that the fine-tuning argument is here to stay.

…SNIP…

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design. The contemporary debate is over which of these is the best explanation of the observed fine-tuning. Carrier seems to prefer either of the alternatives to the fine-tuning argument’s design conclusion.

Physical necessity is the hypothesis that the constants and quantities had to have the values they do, so that the universe is of physical necessity life-permitting. Now on the face of it this alternative is extraordinarily implausible. It requires us to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible. But surely it does seem possible. If the primordial matter and anti-matter had been differently proportioned, if the universe had expanded just a little more slowly, if the entropy of the universe were marginally greater, any of these adjustments and more would have prevented a life-permitting universe, yet all seem perfectly possible physically. The person who maintains that the universe must be life-permitting is taking a radical line which requires strong proof. But there isn’t any; this alternative is simply put forward as a bare possibility.

…SNIP…

So what about the alternative of chance? This is the “multiple universe” hypothesis mentioned by Carrier. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. (The more spins of the roulette wheel, the better the chances of your number coming up!) The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation. But is the multiple universe hypothesis as plausible as the design hypothesis?

…SNIP…
Moreover, while we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God, which I have defended elsewhere.

…SNIP…

Or again, if our universe is but one random member of a world ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiple universe hypothesis. Penrose concludes that multiple universe explanations are so “impotent” that it is actually “misconceived” to appeal to them to explain the special features of the universe.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning#ixzz2slkQFBYj

 

[Van]

Does the Bible say everything happens by chance? No. Does the Bible say God created the heavens and the earth by chance? No.

Does the Bible say God created the earth, the oceans, the climate, plant life, animal life and man by chance? No. Does the Bible say God arranged the circumstances such that man would arise from the dust? No

Molinism is simply an effort at what is called an "enabling scenario." Say you have a theory, for example the earth is 5 billion years old, give or take a little. Someone points out it would no longer have active plate tectonics because over 5 Billion years, the heat from formation (accretion) would have dissipated. Rather than say oops, you concoct unknown, perhaps nuclear, heat sources within the earth that could provide that heat for 5 billion years. Never-mind there is not a shed of evidence for those invented heat sources, their non-existence cannot be proved either, and so a perfect "enabling scenario" to support the fiction the earth is 5 billion years old.

Unfortunately, for Molinism, there is evidence of non-existence, i.e. the word of God which says we have the choice of life and death set before us, not the circumstance where God knows with certainty what we are compelled, necessitated and predestined to choose.

 

[quantumfaith]

Does the Bible say everything happens by chance? No. Does the Bible say God created the heavens and the earth by chance? No.

Does the Bible say God created the earth, the oceans, the climate, plant life, animal life and man by chance? No. Does the Bible say God arranged the circumstances such that man would arise from the dust? No

Molinism is simply an effort at what is called an "enabling scenario." Say you have a theory, for example the earth is 5 billion years old, give or take a little. Someone points out it would no longer have active plate tectonics because over 5 Billion years, the heat from formation (accretion) would have dissipated. Rather than say oops, you concoct unknown, perhaps nuclear, heat sources within the earth that could provide that heat for 5 billion years. Never-mind there is not a shed of evidence for those invented heat sources, their non-existence cannot be proved either, and so a perfect "enabling scenario" to support the fiction the earth is 5 billion years old.

Unfortunately, for Molinism, there is evidence of non-existence, i.e. the word of God which says we have the choice of life and death set before us, not the circumstance where God knows with certainty what we are compelled, necessitated and predestined to choose.

The earth is in fact reaching the 5 billion year age, in another 500 million years or so. This is not fiction, it is a close to fact as we can currently arrive at.

 

[Van]

Just because you believe in the enabling scenario, does not make it so.

How about another. Lets say you believe the earth is 5 Billion years old, give or take a little, but if you plot the moon's behavior, moving a little farther from earth as it orbits, back in time you see it has not been in orbit for more 2 billion years. So we need another enabling scenario. If we move the land masses to the poles, so that the enormous tides do not impact the continents, the regression is less, buying time to allow for a 5 billion year old earth. What are the odds of that? Nil. But never mind, defense of the theory is more important than truth.

 

[Van]

Biblical Support for Middle Knowledge

Molinists have concocted an enabling scenario to resolve the conflict between God knowing the future with certainty, and humans exercising autonomous choices.

It is a given that if God knows with certainty what will occur, that outcome will occur and no other possible outcome will occur. To avoid making God the author of sin, it is necessary for man to have the capacity and willingness at times to sin less or not to sin.
Exhaustive determinists (God causes directly or indirectly whatsoever comes to pass) attempt to resolve this conflict by saying it is a mystery. But that dog will not hunt.

Arminians, at least some of them, have concocted at least two resolutions, time travel and Molinism. In the first defense, God knows the future by looking at it as past, so we freely chose life or death, but God knows our choice as if it had happened in the past, although for us in time, it is a future event.

The Molinist offers a more philosophical view. God has “middle knowledge;” He knows what any person would do in any circumstance as part of His “middle knowledge.” He had all this knowledge before creation, as it part of His divine eternal knowledge. Thus it is not based on intimate knowledge of us subsequent to our creation.

Now within the endless possible worlds, every human experiences opportunities to accept Christ, and sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. God knew who did before creation based on His middle knowledge.

To bring this construct home, God chose before creation to “actualize” the circumstances of those who chose Christ in the realm of possibilities before time began. Yes, time travel in a Lexus.

So while in the reality we are experiencing, our choice is predestined, necessitated and compelled, it is still our free choice because we made that free choice in one of the worlds of possibilities. Too clever by half.

 

[InTheLight]

Lets say you believe the earth is 5 Billion years old, give or take a little, but if you plot the moon's behavior, moving a little farther from earth as it orbits,

Arminians, at least some of them, have concocted at least two resolutions, time travel and Molinism.

Now within the endless possible worlds, every human experiences opportunities to accept Christ, and sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. God knew who did before creation based on His middle knowledge.

What in the world are you banging on about? You're arguing with yourself.

 

[Van]

A word of explanation, in post 30 I said God knows what we will do given a specific circumstance because of His intimate knowledge of us subsequent to our creation. But in post 46, I explained that the Molinist "middle knowledge" is not based on His intimate knowledge of humans subsequent to their creation.

In post 30, I was presenting the biblically supported view of God knowing what we will choose given a circumstance, which differs from the philosophical view held by Molinists.

Let's look at Exodus 13:17, "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them along the road to the land of the Philistines, even though it was nearby; for God said, “The people will change their minds and return to Egypt if they face war.” (HCSB)

Note that God knows what the folks would do given a circumstance. But the people in view are subsequent to their creation, and thus the knowledge could stem from His intimate knowledge of those whose hearts He has looked upon.

And again, if we look at 1 Samuel 23:11-12, we see God knowing what individuals and groups would do given a circumstance. But again created people are in view, people God could have intimate knowledge of without "middle knowledge."

Jeremiah 23:22, "If they had really stood in My council,
they would have enabled My people to hear My words
and would have turned them back from their evil ways
and their evil deeds. HCSB Here again we see God knowing what people would do given a circumstance, but again the people are existent and known by God in time.

See a pattern?

 

[Van]

Hi In the Light, I was attempting to explain "enabling scenario" to QF, sorry if I confused you by mixing the explanation in with the bogus view called Molinism.

 

[Benjamin]

Molinists have concocted an enabling scenario to resolve the conflict between God knowing the future with certainty, and humans exercising autonomous choices.

Open Theist take their understanding and abilities of knowledge and attempt to limit God’s divine knowledge to the Classical Theist boxed in position:

If God knows all things then He must have predetermined all things.

Unfortunately the above reasoning goes no further for the simpleminded who are not interested in maintaining ALL of God’s truths above what they can fully comprehend about the necessary depth of divine knowledge which enables Him to interact with free knowledge with His volitional creatures.

(A) The Open Theist conclusion is: God does not determine all things, therefore God does not know all things. The truth of Divine foreknowledge is sacrificed.

(B) The Calvinist conclusion is: God knows all things, therefore God determines all things. The truth of Human volition is sacrificed.

(C) The Molinist conclusion is: God knows all things, therefore within His knowledge He is able to maintain the truths of human volition without predetermining all things. No truths are sacrificed.

Molinism attributes a knowledge of God that is capable maintaining the truths of human volitional nature, as they were divinely designed, by explaining God’s knowledge as having a form of prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

This type of knowledge is seen Biblically and thus demonstrates its existence and thereby testifies to God’s capability to maintain Divine Providential Sovereign Control of the world in which Human Volitional Creatures exist.

Middle Knowledge is a descriptive term to explain how God interacts with volitional creatures who are independent of God’s will. Thus, Middle Knowledge is made of truths which allow for free knowledge and natural knowledge which refer to God being all knowing of what would be the case if various states of the affairs of His creatures were to obtain.

It is a given that if God knows with certainty what will occur, that outcome will occur and no other possible outcome will occur.

Is it now?

We are back to square 1 concerning simplemindedness and the sacrifice of all necessary truths. You have merely taken the Open Theist position (A) that God cannot know all things. tsk tsk...

To avoid making God the author of sin, it is necessary for man to have the capacity and willingness at times to sin less or not to sin.

True, it is necessary to maintain the attributes of volitional human creatures to avoid theological fatalism (B). Tell me something I do not know…

Exhaustive determinists (God causes directly or indirectly whatsoever comes to pass) attempt to resolve this conflict by saying it is a mystery. But that dog will not hunt.

I agree that “cause and effect” and “influence and respond” are logically mutually exclusive. And yes, Determinist simply dodge this reasoning by claiming mystery yet they forfeit human volition and reach theological fatalism, but that might even be better than resting on the heretical theological reasoning that God does not know all things. Molinist, on the other hand, attempt to explain how all truths are maintained through His Divine Knowledge and hold to that He is able.

Arminians, at least some of them, have concocted at least two resolutions, time travel and Molinism. In the first defense, God knows the future by looking at it as past, so we freely chose life or death, but God knows our choice as if it had happened in the past, although for us in time, it is a future event.

Still better than the two alternatives (A or B) mentioned above.

The Molinist offers a more philosophical view. God has “middle knowledge;” He knows what any person would do in any circumstance as part of His “middle knowledge.” He had all this knowledge before creation, as it part of His divine eternal knowledge. Thus it is not based on intimate knowledge of us subsequent to our creation.

Now within the endless possible worlds, every human experiences opportunities to accept Christ, and sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. God knew who did before creation based on His middle knowledge.

God is amazing, isn’t He?!

To bring this construct home, God chose before creation to “actualize” the circumstances of those who chose Christ in the realm of possibilities before time began.

Yes, time travel in a Lexus.

You’re getting warmer, but unfortunately you are trying to put a limit on infinite possible worlds and knowledge available to God to bring about His plan of free gracious redemption for His miraculously designed human volitional creatures as if He is unable to do so in the TRUTH of His ongoing judgment of them.

So while in the reality we are experiencing, our choice is predestined, necessitated and compelled, it is still our free choice because we made that free choice in one of the worlds of possibilities. Too clever by half.

That (strawman) is your “reality” in that it still insists on predetermination as the only possibility IF God were all knowing. That is NOT TRUTH or the reality a Molinist claims.

 

[Van]

Hi Benjamin, I am not addressing Divine Knowledge.

It is a given that if God knows with certainty what will occur, that outcome will occur and no other possible outcome will occur.

Calling that view simpleminded does not alter its logical necessity.

1) I do not limit the infinite number of possibilities God could know. That is not what is unbiblical about Molinism. God sets before us the choice of life and death, and begs us to choose life. If God had arranged the circumstance such that we would choose life or choose death, He would not ask us to choose otherwise.

2) Predetermination requires that God knows what He has predetermined. That too is a logical necessity that is not diminished by calling it simple minded.​

Bottom line, saying in so many words, "taint so and you are simple minded for saying so" demonstrates Molinism cannot be defended logically or Biblically.

But Benjamin, one truth certainly emerges from your post, one of us has sacrificed truth on the alter of doctrine.

 

[OldRegular]

The world and fact of quantum probability has indeed given us a keenly intellectually interesting universe.

Thanks for sharing the blog. Will have to digest a bit more later.

I believe Einstein rejected quantum theory saying in effect: "God does not roll dice!"

You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-theory-albert-einstein-quotes.htm

 

[OldRegular]

Another example of the Molinist conundrum: Molinist Evolutionary Theory

Pruss does a good job of identifying the problem (kudos to him since He's a Molinst, I think), however I found the comments even more insightful.

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2008/08/molinist-evolutionary-theory.html?m=1

If one creates their own God they can have him do all sorts of things.:thumbs:

 

[Benjamin]

Hi Benjamin, I am not addressing Divine Knowledge.

Van, you say this then quote yourself:

It is a given that if God knows...

What on earth are you addressing if not "divine knowledge?!?

Calling that view simpleminded does not alter its logical necessity.

1) I do not limit the infinite number of possibilities God could know. That is not what is unbiblical about Molinism. God sets before us the choice of life and death, and begs us to choose life. If God had arranged the circumstance such that we would choose life or choose death, He would not ask us to choose otherwise.

2) Predetermination requires that God knows what He has predetermined. That too is a logical necessity that is not diminished by calling it simple minded.​

Bottom line, saying in so many words, "taint so and you are simple minded for saying so" demonstrates Molinism cannot be defended logically or Biblically.

But Benjamin, one truth certainly emerges from your post, one of us has sacrificed truth on the alter of doctrine.

Getting a few things through your head might help.

1. God did not prearrange circumstances to predestine the events to determine what His volitional creatures choose. You merely demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Molinist position and deny it simply based on YOUR belief that their is no other way than by limiting God's to do all things in truth.

2. Your "2)" goes right back to prove my claim (A).

3. The "bottom line" is that God can and does everything He says He does while maintaining foreknowledge and human volition - you can put that in your logical pipe and smoke it or make the "logical" sacrifices of forfeiting that God knows all things to avoid predetermination. This is your free choice of reasoning...

We've been through this before and you refused to be pinned to your reasoning then, I don't expect anything has changed now. This MO is clearly demonstrated above with your first claim. I'm not into your type of circular reasoning. Good luck with it...

 

[quantumfaith]

I believe Einstein rejected quantum theory saying in effect: "God does not roll dice!"

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/10-einstein-didnt-grok-his-own-revolution#.UvltSPldWSo

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_completeness/

 

[quantumfaith]

If one creates their own God they can have him do all sorts of things.:thumbs:

I think we can all be accused of this at times. Despite the notion that NONE of us would admit so.....because we all think ourselves to be correct.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Van, you say this then quote yourself:



What on earth are you addressing if not "divine knowledge?!?



Getting a few things through your head might help.

1. God did not prearrange circumstances to predestine the events to determine what His volitional creatures choose. You merely demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Molinist position and deny it simply based on YOUR belief that their is no other way than by limiting God's to do all things in truth.

2. Your "2)" goes right back to prove my claim (A).

3. The "bottom line" is that God can and does everything He says He does while maintaining foreknowledge and human volition - you can put that in your logical pipe and smoke it or make the "logical" sacrifices of forfeiting that God knows all things to avoid predetermination. This is your free choice of reasoning...

We've been through this before and you refused to be pinned to your reasoning then, I don't expect anything has changed now. This MO is clearly demonstrated above with your first claim. I'm not into your type of circular reasoning. Good luck with it...

Don't bother....Just ignore the creature..

It's an ignorant troll which won't bother comprehending an issue before it spouts off at the mouth.

It understands absolutely NOTHNG about Molinism....

It only knows how to scream "hogwash!"...

Let it be.

Let it hunt it's coons it's Appalachian shack and ignore it.
It's an ignorant creature which hates learning.

It will never learn to understand how any other viewpoint understands anything.
It's a lost cause. Let the creature scream it's stupidity and leave it alone Ben.
This conversation is beyond it's ken...yes...
But the creature is still permitted to weigh in on the issue...
Don't entertain it.

It's like a possum or coon with trash..

It won't know what it's eating, but it smells like stink...so it thinks it'd be kinda' fun to go investigate and feed it's rankish gut for a while...

Let the creature feed. And just let the adult humans have a conversation AROUND the creature...

It'll yack, but just pay attention to the adults in the room who have something meaningful to say.

 

[Van]

You can always tell when the view of a poster or posters has been shown to be invalid, they stop defending their view and start saying those holding differing views are flawed in various ways, i.e. troll, ignorant, knows nothing....

1) I quoted from the OP linked article showing God does arrange the circumstance to bring about His desired outcome. You can deny it.

2) I stated a truth, if God predestines something, He knows what He predestined. Again, saying taint so does not move the ball.

3) 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.

4) If "chance events" are manipulated by God, they cease to be chance events, but only have the appearance of chance events.

The Bottom Line: Molinism is a man made concoction and is unbiblical. God sets before us the choice of life and death, and begs us to choose life. If God had determined what the circumstance would be to determine choice, then He would not ask us to choose otherwise.

 

[Van]

God did not prearrange circumstances to predestine the events to determine what His volitional creatures choose. You merely demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Molinist position and deny it simply based on YOUR belief that their is no other way than by limiting God's to do all things in truth.

One of the difficulties in discussing doctrine on this forum is that sometimes someone defending a doctrine will claim as true, something other than the published doctrine. In the above quote, IJ specifically denies Molinism.

"God knows, for example, that there is a possible world where Peter denies Christ three times, and in another possible world Peter affirms Christ, and yet another where it is Matthew who denies Christ three times and so forth. God picks one of these worlds to be actual, and thus subsequent to His decree, it is true Peter will deny Christ three times. God knows this because He knows which world He has decreed."

 

[Inspector Javert]

You can always tell when the view of a poster or posters has been shown to be invalid, they stop defending their view and start saying those holding differing views are flawed in various ways, i.e. troll, ignorant, knows nothing..

That's one possibility....
The other possibility is that you are actually insufferably ignorant and stupid such that you aren't "HARD" to refute.....

You are just an annoying moron who keeps posting on a thread which you aren't really invited to squelch about.

It's not that you are so super-genius that you've just put all us Molinists in our place...

It's that you're an idiot who won't LEAVE THE THREAD...

And go squelch where people of your kind belong.

You don't belong on this thread, Van....
It's a thread for people who know more than you.

You've said nothing of matter and importance and when anyone humors you, you simply ignore their arguments....

You are the worst form of poster.

I am not saying that because I can't "refute" you...
I'm saying that because you haven't posed an intelligent argument which is worthy of refuting...

One thing I'll grant the Calvinists on this board...
They pose REAL ARGUMENTS now and again....

You don't...
You're just an ignorant petulant child who doesn't know when to shut up.......