Partial control/Partial free will

[Faith alone]

HumbleSmith,

Thx for those comments. I'm not through with CBF yet, but have read some of Craig's stuff. My initial impression is that Geisler is a bit shakey in some of his logic, though in general that book is a very good resource.

Now Geisler will disagree with Craig on "middle knowledge." Geisler claims that middle knowledge is dependent on human will, which would make God dependent on how we act before He can act, making God a dependent being. Therefore Geisler denies middle knowledge as leading to a false view of God. Craig, however, in his book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview denies that middle knowledge is dependent on humans (I'm working from memory on this one....I seem to remember Craig saying two different things about about this one).

...

Bottom line on the moderate viewpoint: God is not dependent on us....he doesn't have to learn what we're going to do before he chooses us. Further, a will that can only choose sin, or is made to choose God is not free. Verses like Isaiah 1:19-20 and Deut. 30:19 tell us we have a choice, yet verses like Ezek. 36:22-27 tell us God acts unilaterally, without regard for anything in humans. And they're both true at the same time. The reason we struggle with it is because we're finite, and God is infinite, and the finite cannot understand the infinite. Any attempt to squeeze God into our minds results in confusion.

Actually MK does not say that God has to wait to see what we will do or that God is dependent on how we will act before He will act. Craig says that there does not exist any possible world in which everyone (assuming a free will) will trust inm Christ. It cannot be actualized. That does not make God dependent on us, though. God could have actualized a world in which we did all trust in Him, though not with a free will. He chose to give man a free will. He could actualize various worlds.

So God is still sovereign. I do agree that most likely Geisler would not buy into MK. Though he insists that he does not take the "simple foreknowledge" position, yet some of his comments do come down to that. In places he essentially says that God knows what we will do, and since His knowledge must be perfect that just knowing it will happen is the same as predetermining it. I don't buy that.

But in other places what he is expressing is essentially middle knowledge.

What is known as "open theism" is a VERY bad answer. It says God doesn't know what people will do till they do it. An open theist would say prophesies are just a good guess.

Agreed.

FA

 

[Humblesmith]

Actually MK does not say that God has to wait to see what we will do or that God is dependent on how we will act before He will act. Craig says that there does not exist any possible world in which everyone (assuming a free will) will trust inm Christ. It cannot be actualized. That does not make God dependent on us, though. God could have actualized a world in which we did all trust in Him, though not with a free will. He chose to give man a free will. He could actualize various worlds.

[/QB]

I humbly beg to differ. Here's a quote from Craig in his article "No Other Name" where he explains middle knowledge:

"According to Molina, this decision is the result of a complete and unlimited deliberation by means of which God considers and weighs every possible circumstance and its ramifications and decides to settle on the particular world He desires. Hence, logically prior, if not chronologically prior, to God's creation of the world is the divine deliberation concerning which world to actualize."

So this is Molinism, which in this quote clearly says that "God considers and weighs" what the creatures will do, then makes a logical decision about which world to create. This teaches that God's decisions are dependent on what the creatures will do. Rather, the moderate view would say that God decides not "based on" anything in creation, yet we are still free to accept God or not. God's unilateral decision is "in accordance with" foreknowledge (1 Peter 1) not "based on" foreknowledge.

I agree that Geisler does not always present his entire view, and sometimes sounds suspiciously like a simple foreknowledge person. But if you take his explanations as a whole, what he teaches is the "primary cause / secondary cause" view, as taught in the Westminster Confession and Thomas Aquinas.

By the way, have you attended any classes by Craig? I've always wanted to meet one of his students.