Molinism

Stephen said:
Molonism isn't open theism, it is repackaged Calvinism.


Molonism just changes where the future is fixed from eternity past (i.e. Calvinism) to the point of creation.
Click to expand...
The main reason I reject Molinism is because of Counterfactuals. Since we always follow our strongest Desire at every given moment, Ten out of Ten times we would always choose the same. Thus there can never be Counterfactuals, because deviation will never occur...
 
ReverendRV said:
The main reason I reject Molinism is because of Counterfactuals. Since we always follow our strongest Desire at every given moment, Ten out of Ten times we would always choose the same. Thus there can never be Counterfactuals, because deviation will never occur...
Click to expand...
Counterfactuals and middle knowledge have to do with God knowing what would happen in circumstances which had not actually come to pass

Even the WCF affirms such middle knowledge

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26–27.
 
ReverendRV said:
The main reason I reject Molinism is because of Counterfactuals. Since we always follow our strongest Desire at every given moment, Ten out of Ten times we would always choose the same. Thus there can never be Counterfactuals, because deviation will never occur...
Click to expand...

From somebody who leans to the open theist point of view, the open theist would say that God has a chosen outcome (i.e. his glory will fill the earth), but the specific persons in that outcome are are still open.

This differs from Molonism, in that God knows all possible futures and has chosen the best specific future (at least that is how William Lane Craig explains it).
 
Dizerner said:
Many Scriptures describe middle knowledge.

What's the point of that if they aren't real?!
Click to expand...
That is true

David and the events at Keilah being a well know example

Seems there is even a Calvinist by the name of Matt Slick who has been quoted as saying

I certainly agree that God knows what any person will do in any situation. After all, God knows all things possible as well as all things actual.
 
Reformedguy said:
Sorry. I did not say you said that. Would you agree that LFW, or any position on the will is philosophical?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is largely philosophical, but it is very experiential and pragmatic. We do not feel like we're predetermined to wear a green shirt instead of a blue one, or to eat a banana instead of bacon and eggs. And the Bible clearly indicates that man had freedom to make choices without God's determination in the garden in Gen 2.


Reformedguy said:
God changing His mind woukd bring his immutable into question. Perhaps you could say He changes His mind but He has always known He would change His mind. I guess the question would be is that a genuine change of mind? Hmm..
Click to expand...

I don't think so, because thinking, deciding, and choosing are functional aspects of what he is in his Aseity. God has a freedom within the bounds of his nature to choose whatever he wants, including changing his mind, if he hasn't already declared publicly that he will do X. This is true of his positive promises, ie, whoever believes in him will be saved, but not so of his negative pronouncements with contingencies, such as with Nineveh, ie, " “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown”, and then, "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened." (Jonah 3:4,10)

Aseity is about God's core attributes, his nature of being, namely being eternally existent, self-subsistent, indomitable, rational, relational, creative and free in will.
Changing his mind, does not affect anything in God essential nature. It is an expression of, a function of being rational, relational, and free in will.


Doug
 
TibiasDad said:
Yes, it is largely philosophical, but it is very experiential and pragmatic. We do not feel like we're predetermined to wear a green shirt instead of a blue one, or to eat a banana instead of bacon and eggs. And the Bible clearly indicates that man had freedom to make choices without God's determination in the garden in Gen 2.




I don't think so, because thinking, deciding, and choosing are functional aspects of what he is in his Aseity. God has a freedom within the bounds of his nature to choose whatever he wants, including changing his mind, if he hasn't already declared publicly that he will do X. This is true of his positive promises, ie, whoever believes in him will be saved, but not so of his negative pronouncements with contingencies, such as with Nineveh, ie, " “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown”, and then, "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened." (Jonah 3:4,10)

Aseity is about God's core attributes, his nature of being, namely being eternally existent, self-subsistent, indomitable, rational, relational, creative and free in will.
Changing his mind, does not affect anything in God essential nature. It is an expression of, a function of being rational, relational, and free in will.


Doug
Click to expand...
The Bible does not say the choice on the garden was made without determination. If it was foreknown it was at least certain.

I agree. The key phrase is self subsistence. Hence God's decree is not based or dependent upon His foreknowledge of what His creatures, whom He created, would do in any given circumstance. He could create them in such a way that they will choose the way He desires in the circumstances He has chose to bring about. That woukd be perfectly consistent with the attributes of God.
 
Reformedguy said:
The Bible does not say the choice on the garden was made without determination. If it was foreknown it was at least certain.

I agree. The key phrase is self subsistence. Hence God's decree is not based or dependent upon His foreknowledge of what His creatures, whom He created, would do in any given circumstance. He could create them in such a way that they will choose the way He desires in the circumstances He has chose to bring about. That woukd be perfectly consistent with the attributes of God.
Click to expand...
Actually not as Calvinism has God acting in ways contrary to his stated love for the world and his desire none should perish
 
fltom said:
Actually not as Calvinism has God acting in ways contrary to his stated love for the world and his desire none should perish
Click to expand...
Way to address my points.

If His desire is that none should perish then why not actualize a world where that actually occurs? Maybe the fall never occurs?

Watch this answer lurkers. I can tell you what it will be. Close your eyes and what do you see?
 
Reformedguy said:
Way to address my points.

If His desire is that none should perish then why not actualize a world where that actually occurs? Maybe the fall never occurs?

Watch this answer lurkers. I can tell you what it will be. Close your eyes and what do you see?
Click to expand...

Asking why is not an argument, though.

The implicit argument behind it is that somehow God cannot have a good reason to do so—you need to prove that point.
 
Reformedguy said:
Way to address my points.

If His desire is that none should perish then why not actualize a world where that actually occurs? Maybe the fall never occurs?

Watch this answer lurkers. I can tell you what it will be. Close your eyes and what do you see?
Click to expand...
Duh that was not in your post which was

The Bible does not say the choice on the garden was made without determination. If it was foreknown it was at least certain.

I agree. The key phrase is self subsistence. Hence God's decree is not based or dependent upon His foreknowledge of what His creatures, whom He created, would do in any given circumstance. He could create them in such a way that they will choose the way He desires in the circumstances He has chose to bring about. That woukd be perfectly consistent with the attributes of God.

Hello

Why the switch?

Did you not know what you had written?

Concerning your substituted text

seeing as God made creatures with a free will did you never consider such was not possible
 
fltom said:
Duh that was not in your post which was

The Bible does not say the choice on the garden was made without determination. If it was foreknown it was at least certain.

I agree. The key phrase is self subsistence. Hence God's decree is not based or dependent upon His foreknowledge of what His creatures, whom He created, would do in any given circumstance. He could create them in such a way that they will choose the way He desires in the circumstances He has chose to bring about. That woukd be perfectly consistent with the attributes of God.

Hello

Why the switch?

Did you not know what you had written?

Concerning your substituted text

seeing as God made creatures with a free will did you never consider such was not possible
Click to expand...
I did not say I agreed it was simply foreseen. God's foreknowledge is not determination remember? Excellent reading comprehension.

Let Doug handle it. Your dismissed
 
Dizerner said:
What if God doesn't feel like telling you?

Does that mean he has no reason?

Does that mean he is obligated to?

In the end the objection is not logical—it's emotional.
Click to expand...
I agree. It is a question of logic. It does not seem logical to say God desires no one perishes, yet creates a world that is never going to happen.
 
Reformedguy said:
I did not say I agreed it was simply foreseen. God's foreknowledge is not determination remember? Excellent reading comprehension.

Let Doug handle it. Your dismissed
Click to expand...
Still playing games I see

flipping and flopping from one subject to another

Your original

The Bible does not say the choice on the garden was made without determination. If it was foreknown it was at least certain.

I agree. The key phrase is self subsistence. Hence God's decree is not based or dependent upon His foreknowledge of what His creatures, whom He created, would do in any given circumstance. He could create them in such a way that they will choose the way He desires in the circumstances He has chose to bring about. That woukd be perfectly consistent with the attributes of God.
Click to expand...


which you then implied was

Way to address my points.

If His desire is that none should perish then why not actualize a world where that actually occurs? Maybe the fall never occurs?

Watch this answer lurkers. I can tell you what it will be. Close your eyes and what do you see?

which it obviously was not

Now you just say

I did not say I agreed it was simply foreseen. God's foreknowledge is not determination remember? Excellent reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
which really has nothing to do with my comments

Actually not as Calvinism has God acting in ways contrary to his stated love for the world and his desire none should perish
 
Dizerner said:
Asking why is not an argument, though.

The implicit argument behind it is that somehow God cannot have a good reason to do so—you need to prove that point.
Click to expand...
It did not even appear in his comments though he tries to make it look that he had asked this and it was ignored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top