SteveB
New Member
Learning to follow Jesus
Posts: 36
|
Molinism
Dec 20, 2022 15:09:12 GMT -8
via mobile
civic likes this
Post by SteveB on Dec 20, 2022 15:09:12 GMT -8
On the other forum I'm on, a calvinist started accusing me of being a molinist (along with a number of other things). Not being a "theologian", I got a bit irate about it because of a couple reasons. 1- I had no idea what molinism is. 2- their general tone towards me had been antagonistic, leading up to that point. So, once I got past my initial irritation, I looked it up. www.gotquestions.org/molinism.htmlAfter having read through the article, I found myself wondering why it's a problem. I do indeed think that God is completely sovereign. And I do think that humans make their choices of their own volition, without being coerced. The specificity of the discussion was about Romans 9-11, with the Pharaoh of Egypt and Esau. I have no problem whatsoever with God's foreknowledge and have become fairly confident that that in the case of Pharoah's rejection of God, was entirely about pharaoh. God simply affirmed his choices, and honored the pharaoh and his desire to not have anything to do with God. Esau's dismissal of his birthright was more profound because he grew up in a family where birthright was everything. Perhaps a cultural thing, it was certainly a family matter. Each person made their own choices, because they wanted to. The calvinist argument that was presented to me was that God essentially coerced each to make the choices they did, because he decreed they choose as they did. So, perhaps someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool calvinist or arminianist, or is not so anal about pigeonholing people can explain why molinism is a problem. I understand that there are choices that we make because we are enslaved to our sin (Ephesians 2:1, John 8:30-36). |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Dec 20, 2022 16:29:28 GMT -8
William Lane Craig is a good theologian who holds to molinism . Check him out on YouTube
|
|
SteveB
New Member
Learning to follow Jesus
Posts: 36
|
Molinism
Dec 20, 2022 16:59:07 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by SteveB on Dec 20, 2022 16:59:07 GMT -8
William Lane Craig is a good theologian who holds to molinism . Check him out on YouTube That's what they said. Along with Alvin Platinga. 🤷🏽♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Dec 20, 2022 22:44:45 GMT -8
On the other forum I'm on, a calvinist started accusing me of being a molinist (along with a number of other things). Not being a "theologian", I got a bit irate about it because of a couple reasons. 1- I had no idea what molinism is. 2- their general tone towards me had been antagonistic, leading up to that point. So, once I got past my initial irritation, I looked it up. www.gotquestions.org/molinism.htmlAfter having read through the article, I found myself wondering why it's a problem. I do indeed think that God is completely sovereign. And I do think that humans make their choices of their own volition, without being coerced. The specificity of the discussion was about Romans 9-11, with the Pharaoh of Egypt and Esau. I have no problem whatsoever with God's foreknowledge and have become fairly confident that that in the case of Pharoah's rejection of God, was entirely about pharaoh. God simply affirmed his choices, and honored the pharaoh and his desire to not have anything to do with God. Esau's dismissal of his birthright was more profound because he grew up in a family where birthright was everything. Perhaps a cultural thing, it was certainly a family matter. Each person made their own choices, because they wanted to. The calvinist argument that was presented to me was that God essentially coerced each to make the choices they did, because he decreed they choose as they did. So, perhaps someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool calvinist or arminianist, or is not so anal about pigeonholing people can explain why molinism is a problem. I understand that there are choices that we make because we are enslaved to our sin (Ephesians 2:1, John 8:30-36). It might be worth mentioning that 'decree' is basically, or at least, in effect, the same thing as having spoken fact into existence. Since it is God doing it, it also is the same as what humans think of plans, and also the same as what humans would say is from God's point of view, to cause to come into existence, or to be fact. To me the notion of coercion doesn't begin to describe what God's decree does. To me, God coercing someone into deciding something can be shown with what he did to Jonah. That was coercion. Yet even there, we can see Jonah finally willing to do what God had commanded all along. Coercion doesn't change the fact of freewill, if there is such a thing. If one indeed decides, they decide to do what to them at that moment they most want to do. So I'm not saying that God can't coerce. I'm just saying that the normal day to day act of a person deciding is unrelated to coercion by God. The day to day choosing we do is by the ordinary chain of causation doing its normal thing. We are caused to choose even apart from the notion of God being at the beginning of that chain. If we can accept that that is fact, then admitting that God is the beginning of that chain of causation shouldn't make any difference as to any objections. You also said, "So, perhaps someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool calvinist or arminianist, or is not so anal about pigeonholing people can explain why molinism is a problem." Not being sure what a 'dyed in the wool calvinist' is, I'll attempt to answer what immediately presents itself as a problem to me with molinism. To quote Wikipedia, "Molinists...present God's knowledge in a sequence of three logical moments. The first is God's knowledge of necessary truths or natural knowledge. These truths are independent of God's will and are non-contingent. This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities. Examples include such statements as "All bachelors are unmarried" or "X cannot be A and non-A at the same time, in the same way, at the same place" or "It is possible that X obtain." The second is called "middle knowledge" and it contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances. The third kind of knowledge is God's free knowledge. This type of knowledge consists of contingent truths that are dependent upon God's will, or truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about. Examples might include statements such as "God created the earth" or something particular about this world which God has actualized. This is called God's "free knowledge" and it contains the future or what will happen. In between God's natural and free knowledge is His middle knowledge (or scientia media) by which God knows what His free creatures would do under any circumstance.[2]: 31 These are "truths" that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary cause of them." 1. 'First knowledge', God's knowledge of necessary truths; "These are non-contingent and independent of God's will." Objection A: There can be no such thing as something necessary independent of God having both willed and caused it, to include logical truth and very fact itself. "This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities." Objection B: 'Possibility' is only the mind's ignorance and speculation, and not actuality. 2. 'Middle knowledge' "contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances." Objection B, all over again. The only thing possible is what God has decreed. 3. God's 'free knowledge' are "truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about." Objection A, all over again. The statement assumes that there are truths independent of God's causing them, as presented in 'first knowledge' (#1 above) Objection C: As with Arminian thinking, the Molinist seems to think that after all, NOT all things are made by Him. But God's knowledge by foresight is not the same thing as what we imagine it to be. It is not at all an independent thing from God's foreknowledge and causation of the thing known. Objection D: Molinists apparently consider reason and logic, and that, as humans can master, to be of a higher order a thing than God himself. But God is subject to no principle from outside himself, nor indeed can there be a true principle that did not proceed from God himself, not as binding on God's nature, but as demonstrative of God's nature. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Dec 21, 2022 4:44:43 GMT -8
Matthew 11:21
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes
The above affirms the concept or possibility of middle knowledge by Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by civic on Dec 21, 2022 4:46:21 GMT -8
On the other forum I'm on, a calvinist started accusing me of being a molinist (along with a number of other things). Not being a "theologian", I got a bit irate about it because of a couple reasons. 1- I had no idea what molinism is. 2- their general tone towards me had been antagonistic, leading up to that point. So, once I got past my initial irritation, I looked it up. www.gotquestions.org/molinism.htmlAfter having read through the article, I found myself wondering why it's a problem. I do indeed think that God is completely sovereign. And I do think that humans make their choices of their own volition, without being coerced. The specificity of the discussion was about Romans 9-11, with the Pharaoh of Egypt and Esau. I have no problem whatsoever with God's foreknowledge and have become fairly confident that that in the case of Pharoah's rejection of God, was entirely about pharaoh. God simply affirmed his choices, and honored the pharaoh and his desire to not have anything to do with God. Esau's dismissal of his birthright was more profound because he grew up in a family where birthright was everything. Perhaps a cultural thing, it was certainly a family matter. Each person made their own choices, because they wanted to. The calvinist argument that was presented to me was that God essentially coerced each to make the choices they did, because he decreed they choose as they did. So, perhaps someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool calvinist or arminianist, or is not so anal about pigeonholing people can explain why molinism is a problem. I understand that there are choices that we make because we are enslaved to our sin (Ephesians 2:1, John 8:30-36). It might be worth mentioning that 'decree' is basically, or at least, in effect, the same thing as having spoken fact into existence. Since it is God doing it, it also is the same as what humans think of plans, and also the same as what humans would say is from God's point of view, to cause to come into existence, or to be fact. To me the notion of coercion doesn't begin to describe what God's decree does. To me, God coercing someone into deciding something can be shown with what he did to Jonah. That was coercion. Yet even there, we can see Jonah finally willing to do what God had commanded all along. Coercion doesn't change the fact of freewill, if there is such a thing. If one indeed decides, they decide to do what to them at that moment they most want to do. So I'm not saying that God can't coerce. I'm just saying that the normal day to day act of a person deciding is unrelated to coercion by God. The day to day choosing we do is by the ordinary chain of causation doing its normal thing. We are caused to choose even apart from the notion of God being at the beginning of that chain. If we can accept that that is fact, then admitting that God is the beginning of that chain of causation shouldn't make any difference as to any objections. You also said, "So, perhaps someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool calvinist or arminianist, or is not so anal about pigeonholing people can explain why molinism is a problem." Not being sure what a 'dyed in the wool calvinist' is, I'll attempt to answer what immediately presents itself as a problem to me with molinism. To quote Wikipedia, "Molinists...present God's knowledge in a sequence of three logical moments. The first is God's knowledge of necessary truths or natural knowledge. These truths are independent of God's will and are non-contingent. This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities. Examples include such statements as "All bachelors are unmarried" or "X cannot be A and non-A at the same time, in the same way, at the same place" or "It is possible that X obtain." The second is called "middle knowledge" and it contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances. The third kind of knowledge is God's free knowledge. This type of knowledge consists of contingent truths that are dependent upon God's will, or truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about. Examples might include statements such as "God created the earth" or something particular about this world which God has actualized. This is called God's "free knowledge" and it contains the future or what will happen. In between God's natural and free knowledge is His middle knowledge (or scientia media) by which God knows what His free creatures would do under any circumstance.[2]: 31 These are "truths" that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary cause of them." 1. 'First knowledge', God's knowledge of necessary truths; "These are non-contingent and independent of God's will." Objection A: There can be no such thing as something necessary independent of God having both willed and caused it, to include logical truth and very fact itself. "This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities." Objection B: 'Possibility' is only the mind's ignorance and speculation, and not actuality. 2. 'Middle knowledge' "contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances." Objection B, all over again. The only thing possible is what God has decreed. 3. God's 'free knowledge' are "truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about." Objection A, all over again. The statement assumes that there are truths independent of God's causing them, as presented in 'first knowledge' (#1 above) Objection C: As with Arminian thinking, the Molinist seems to think that after all, NOT all things are made by Him. But God's knowledge by foresight is not the same thing as what we imagine it to be. It is not at all an independent thing from God's foreknowledge and causation of the thing known. Objection D: Molinists apparently consider reason and logic, and that, as humans can master, to be of a higher order a thing than God himself. But God is subject to no principle from outside himself, nor indeed can there be a true principle that did not proceed from God himself, not as binding on God's nature, but as demonstrative of God's nature. Thanks for responding Mark and providing the calvinists POV. |
|
SteveB
New Member
Learning to follow Jesus
Posts: 36
|
Post by SteveB on Dec 21, 2022 14:20:09 GMT -8
You said, "The calvinist argument that was presented to me was that God essentially coerced each to make the choices they did, because he decreed they choose as they did." It might be worth mentioning that 'decree' is basically, or at least, in effect, the same thing as having spoken fact into existence. Praise God! It worked....😎🤭 To me the entire concept of predestination is based entirely and solely upon God's foreknowledge of the entire human history. So, based on God's foreknowledge, I was given grace, and shown mercy, that I may choose to follow Jesus. Furthermore, according to Romans 8:29, the sum of my life's experiences, from before my birth, through to my salvation, and then to my death, are ordered in such a way that I will choose to follow Jesus. A series of choices that I would make, because I am seeking something that would bring me ultimate happiness and satisfaction in my life. Eg., I was perhaps more an epicurean, in that every choice I made after a certain point in my life was about finding happiness and the feeling of being satisfied. Before Christ, those were all self-seeking and self-serving choices. Following my new birth, my choices became increasingly godly, slowly showing greater conformity to the likeness of Jesus. Almost like the Webb and flow of the tide for a long time, and once a series of events occurred, it became more focused, with increasing focus as I grew older. Since it is God doing it, it also is the same as what humans think of plans, and also the same as what humans would say is from God's point of view, to cause to come into existence, or to be fact. I won't specifically disagree with this one, but it's not quite the same. God's plans are based on clear awareness of the future. Our plans are based on what we want to accomplish, but don't necessarily know that we can. Solely because we don't know the end from the beginning. To me the notion of coercion doesn't begin to describe what God's decree does. To me, God coercing someone into deciding something can be shown with what he did to Jonah. That was coercion. Yet even there, we can see Jonah finally willing to do what God had commanded all along. Coercion doesn't change the fact of freewill, if there is such a thing. If one indeed decides, they decide to do what to them at that moment they most want to do. I think Jonah is a good example. God didn't ask. He commanded. Jonah said no, ran the other way, and was essentially dragged kicking and screaming to the last place he wanted to be. A part of me wonders if Saul/Paul was a similar experience. We don't however see the no. We do see something akin to a huge- oh sh88! I need to find out who I'm talking with! So, once God made himself known to Saul/Paul, his repentance was immediate. I.e., he didn't run the other way, or continue his crusade to destroy Jesus followers. So I'm not saying that God can't coerce. I don't think he does. He obviously let Pharaoh do stupid, in spite of 10 chances to repent, along with pleas from members of his advisers, and staffers. Not just expressions of opinions, but actual pleas, begging him to set the Israeli people free. I'm just saying that the normal day to day act of a person deciding is unrelated to coercion by God. The day to day choosing we do is by the ordinary chain of causation doing its normal thing. We are caused to choose even apart from the notion of God being at the beginning of that chain. If we can accept that that is fact, then admitting that God is the beginning of that chain of causation shouldn't make any difference as to any objections. I think the idea I see is that the consequences of our actions and decisions and attitudes in life bear fruit, and we realize we don't actually want to experience the pain, grief and agony anymore and repent. The writer of Hebrews alludes to this in Hebrews 5. Like Jesus, we learn obedience by the things we suffer. You also said, "So, perhaps someone who is not a dyed-in-the-wool calvinist or arminianist, or is not so anal about pigeonholing people can explain why molinism is a problem." Not being sure what a 'dyed in the wool calvinist' is, I'll attempt to answer what immediately presents itself as a problem to me with molinism. Thank you. To quote Wikipedia, "Molinists...present God's knowledge in a sequence of three logical moments. The first is God's knowledge of necessary truths or natural knowledge. These truths are independent of God's will and are non-contingent. This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities. Examples include such statements as "All bachelors are unmarried" or "X cannot be A and non-A at the same time, in the same way, at the same place" or "It is possible that X obtain." The second is called "middle knowledge" and it contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances. The third kind of knowledge is God's free knowledge. This type of knowledge consists of contingent truths that are dependent upon God's will, or truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about. Examples might include statements such as "God created the earth" or something particular about this world which God has actualized. This is called God's "free knowledge" and it contains the future or what will happen. In between God's natural and free knowledge is His middle knowledge (or scientia media) by which God knows what His free creatures would do under any circumstance.[2]: 31 These are "truths" that do not have to be true, but are true without God being the primary cause of them." 1. 'First knowledge', God's knowledge of necessary truths; "These are non-contingent and independent of God's will." Objection A: There can be no such thing as something necessary independent of God having both willed and caused it, to include logical truth and very fact itself. "This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities." Objection B: 'Possibility' is only the mind's ignorance and speculation, and not actuality. 2. 'Middle knowledge' "contains the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances." Objection B, all over again. The only thing possible is what God has decreed. 3. God's 'free knowledge' are "truths that God brings about, that He does not have to bring about." Objection A, all over again. The statement assumes that there are truths independent of God's causing them, as presented in 'first knowledge' (#1 above) Objection C: As with Arminian thinking, the Molinist seems to think that after all, NOT all things are made by Him. But God's knowledge by foresight is not the same thing as what we imagine it to be. It is not at all an independent thing from God's foreknowledge and causation of the thing known. Objection D: Molinists apparently consider reason and logic, and that, as humans can master, to be of a higher order a thing than God himself. But God is subject to no principle from outside himself, nor indeed can there be a true principle that did not proceed from God himself, not as binding on God's nature, but as demonstrative of God's nature. I got the impression that they called me a molinist because I think that humans are able to make whatever choices they want, and God knows every single choice they will ever make, and God, applying his foreknowledge to predestination, will "use" the consequences of their choices to "draw" them through to the point where they willingly turn to God from their sin and place their trust in Jesus. I suppose if I were to try and build a word picture to describe it, I'm not sure how well this will work.... Our choices, increasingly limit us to a certain pathway in our lives. Perhaps the families we grow up in limit us to certain paths in life. With each choice, it's almost like a fence being put up, a cliff that we never saw before, coming into our lives, various things that impact our lives in a manner that results in making choices that we never considered before. Eventually, we find ourselves looking at our lives from the other side, and seeing a clear path that we came along. God's sovereignty is indeed involved, consequences, benefits, blessings, etc.... all conform us into the likeness of Jesus.... For the ungodly, their lives choices, are still including God's seeking to bring them to repentance. But if, in the end, they refuse, at every turn, God will show them at their judgment, what he did to bring them to the place where they could have chosen life, instead of death. |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Dec 21, 2022 17:32:03 GMT -8
Good dialogue gentlemen much appreciated !!!
|
|
SteveB
New Member
Learning to follow Jesus
Posts: 36
|
Molinism
Dec 21, 2022 18:45:48 GMT -8
via mobile
civic likes this
Post by SteveB on Dec 21, 2022 18:45:48 GMT -8
Good dialogue gentlemen much appreciated !!! 😉🤣 Don't worry. I won't get persnickety unless I'm antagonized. 🤷🏽♂️🤣😊 |
|
|
|
Post by civic on Dec 21, 2022 18:50:42 GMT -8
Good dialogue gentlemen much appreciated !!! 😉🤣 Don't worry. I won't get persnickety unless I'm antagonized. 🤷🏽♂️🤣😊 lol that too funny we have some good eggs over here on the forum who are cordial and considerate/respectful of the ideas of those who differ from them. This forum was created to have this kind of environment and set it apart from some of the others that can get quite hostile and test our patience/kindness towards others. |
|
