Molinism discussion

[August]

jlay, so how exactly do you understand the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom? Molinism posits that those counterfactuals are choices that are all made in possible worlds, freely, and without any providence, interference, coercion or influence, and that God then chooses which world of those possible worlds to actualize so that it fits with His decrees. He can do so because of His middle knowledge, what He sees in the future in all possible worlds.

That does mean libertarian freedom, exactly what Craig argues for when he says God must play with the hand He has been dealt.

[DannyM]

People simply don't make choices in a vacuum and free of cultural, social, and genetic influence. Its still THEIR decision, but they have a reason for making that decision.

Precisely. Remember that “middle knowledge” theory was proposed in order to reconcile the biblical fact of God’s sovereignty with man’s free will. So it literally presupposes itself as the ‘solution’ to an imagined problem.

Middle knowledge also makes God contingent upon the creature. If acts of the will are antecedent to His decree, then God must depend on the creature for knowledge, and He could decree nothing. God’s ‘decree' becomes some plastic decree, and is subsequently not even worthy of the name.

[puritan lad]

No whistling here jlay. You will need to explain in those scriptures further how they establish middle knowledge. In the meantime, I have established that God works actively in man's wicked acts, not just on "middle knowledge".

"The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

[narnia4]

In the last article posted, Craig seems to be inferring that the Calvinist has three options-

1. Leave things as a "mystery".
2. Explain the "problem" with the solution of Molinism
3. Resort to compatabalism/determinism, which he proceeds to lump all together into one big basket.

So this quote and what follows it-

These passages rule out a deterministic understanding of divine providence, which would preclude human freedom. Determinists reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there’s no mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency.

An example of one of his points-

3. Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility. In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil, and they cannot do otherwise. God determines their choices and makes them do wrong. If it is evil to make another person do wrong, then on this view God is not only the cause of sin and evil, but becomes evil Himself, which is absurd. By the same token, all human responsibility for sin has been removed. For our choices are not really up to us: God causes us to make them. We cannot be responsible for our actions, for nothing we think or do is up to us.

This is in contrast from this quote-

Answer: Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man. Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another.

From this article- http://www.gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html

So that's my problem with it, Craig seems to be ignoring the point the compatabilists are trying to make and say that they really don't believe in free will. I just find it a bit odd. I don't know many compatabilists who are going to say that God "makes" people do wrong, he's putting words into people's mouths here. No, humans aren't free in the sense that we are slaves to our sin and we can't save ourselves. But its still our responsibility, we are slaves to our OWN sin, not God's.

[DannyM]

So that's my problem with it, Craig seems to be ignoring the point the compatabilists are trying to make and say that they really don't believe in free will. I just find it a bit odd. I don't know many compatabilists who are going to say that God "makes" people do wrong, he's putting words into people's mouths here. No, humans aren't free in the sense that we are slaves to our sin and we can't save ourselves. But its still our responsibility, we are slaves to our OWN sin, not God's.

Craig's not alone here - just look at some of the threads currently in action on our board

[jlay]

jlay, so how exactly do you understand the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom?

How do I understand? Not very well I'm afraid.
I'm in the process of studying some things, in addition to reading Aquinas, and other commentaries. Still shaping my thoughts.
I've already posted one commone definition of middle knowledge and explained that I reject that position.

No whistling here jlay. You will need to explain in those scriptures further how they establish middle knowledge.

There is a link that deals with that. But, it seems pretty evident to this lay person, that the person who holds to middle knowledge would find these comply quite well. At least in the generic sense.

[B. W.]

from freedictionary.com:

de·cree (d-kr)
n.
1. An authoritative order having the force of law.
2. Law The judgment of a court of equity, admiralty, probate, or divorce.
3. Roman Catholic Church
a. A doctrinal or disciplinary act of an ecumenical council.
b. An administrative act applying or interpreting articles of canon law.
v. de·creed, de·cree·ing, de·crees

I'm not sure what you're trying to flush out, B.W.

Yes, this helps and I'll keep on file as those are the standard meaning people use it but is that the case in the Westminster Shorter Catechism is there some other meaning. I honestly do not know how they are using this word. When Craig ora political leader uses the word - its pretty standard.

Craig uses it alot, The WSC uses it and all of Calinism uses this word - how do Calvinist use decree - what does it mean to them? The same as your quote?

[B. W.]

It appears to me that the great 17th century Reformed theologian Francis Turretin would be one that you are referring too - not Craig. Reformed theologian Francis Turretin could not reconcile the sovereignty of God, human freedom and contingency together. I also see this when High Calvinist try to explain the same things.

Haven't read this from Turretin, but this kind of confusion is all to common, and even many Calvinists simply write it off as a "mystery". But there is really nothing to reconcile. The whole need to "reconcile" these issues (which lead to the birth of Molinism in the first place) is built on the assumption that man has a will capable of acting outside the Providence of God. That's the very thing that no one has proven. We are not "free" in any meaningful sense until the Son makes us free.

I agree with you PL, we are not free in any meaningful sense until Christ sets us free…

After reading thru Craig’s articles, I find he uses ‘philosopher speak’ when articulating counterfactuals and molinism. It can go over a person’s head and causes them to react, with more questions and counter points. Much like how upper level College Philosophy Prof use with their classes and the design, being, to teach philosophic inquiry.

I may not be reading the same pages from Craig as you all, but after going over his material, I do not think Craig is saying that man has a will capable of acting outside the Providence of God. I think what he is saying is that we operate because it is the providence of God for us to use reason and think things through to make a choice (hence the human art of choice making). Counterfactuals are described in terms akin to our thought process that we all use to come to a decision and perform it. For example, I can plan to go to the store tomorrow and decide I’ll do it, but when tomorrow comes bad weather stopped me. Counterfactuals, to me are just a way of explaining human thought process. Without a specific – stopping me to go – my thought processes leading to my final decisions were made nevertheless.

And the bible does teach – God knows all our thoughts and not only that all are thoughts from afar off – I have 14 bible verses right know to substantiate God knows the intents of our thoughts, intents of our thoughts afar off, there are even more that suggest God’s foreknows all our thought from afar off. So God indeed knows all counterfactuals, as Craig puts it. The Bible verses are there, despite what one may think about there are no bible verses to back up Craig’s, philosopher speak, there is.

So here is the real crux of the matter – I think Craig uses molinism to explain -- how God predestines because he Foreknows… or God foreknows first before he predestines or both act together during the same nano-second God decided it all.

What does Calvinism say about this: Does Foreknowledge come before He Predestines or the same time? Or does God predestine before he foreknows?

Craig, I think is using molinsim to look into what comes first, and from what I read, I think his view is that they act together - you can’t have one without the other: You can’t predestine without foreknowing nor can you foreknow without predestining… The use of the term Middle Knowledge helps explore how this is possible, which leaves the integrity of God intact and helps gain a glimpse of the mystery.

What do you think?


-

[B. W.]

"The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

Hmmm, are you a politician, a king, a governor, a head of State? That is to whom the verse is applying – powerful Rulers – presidents, Leader of nations etc… God Used Cyrus, and I do not think Craig was saying that God can’t use the wicked without their permission either as he stated in the article I post on page 3 disproves that.

Actually, I (Craig) have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that:

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established

-

[jlay]

Sorry, was not able to get back yesterday.
Taking Proverbs 21:1 is proof texting of all proof texting. Take Hitler for example. Yank this verse out of context, bent on injecting extreme Calvin view, fFollow this to it's logical lines, and God is the author of evil.
Of course you said,

In the meantime, I have established that God works actively in man's wicked acts,

Please elaborate on what you mean by 'active.' I believe that God works in all things, (Romans 8:28) but obviously have a much different perspective on this than do you.

[August]

Craig defines "free will" as "libertarian freedom". The "creaturely freedom" is necessary to produce counterfactuals. He is clear that creaturely freedom means agency freedom, i.e. the freedom to choose to do otherwise from within the agent. That necessarily excludes outside causality, even though there may be outside information based on reason.

[puritan lad]

Let me take it a step further. God actually creates evil (Isaiah 45:7). No matter how you slice it, that's what the verse says with honest exegesis.

[puritan lad]

Hmmm, are you a politician, a king, a governor, a head of State? That is to whom the verse is applying – powerful Rulers – presidents, Leader of nations etc… God Used Cyrus, and I do not think Craig was saying that God can’t use the wicked without their permission either as he stated in the article I post on page 3 disproves that.

But the verse doesn't say that God merely uses the wicked (which is true). It says he turns the heart however He will. He ordains their wickedness to bring about His purposes.

Taking Proverbs 21:1 is proof texting of all proof texting. Take Hitler for example. Yank this verse out of context,

If I have taken the verse out of context, you will have to show this.

bent on injecting extreme Calvin view, fFollow this to it's logical lines, and God is the author of evil.
Of course you said,

I could elaborate further, but I'm not sure how Molinism can resolve this issue in your eyes. If God merely foreknew (to use the term in an unbiblical manner again) that Hitler will kill 6 million Jews given particular conditions, and yet sovereignly put him in those very conditions, how is He vindicated in the court of human opinion any more that if He sovereignly ordained Hitler's acts by hardening his heart?

[DannyM]

I could elaborate further, but I'm not sure how Molinism can resolve this issue in your eyes. If God merely foreknew (to use the term in an unbiblical manner again) that Hitler will kill 6 million Jews given particular conditions, and yet sovereignly put him in those very conditions, how is He vindicated in the court of human opinion any more that if He sovereignly ordained Hitler's acts by hardening his heart?

Great point.

[B. W.]

Let me take it a step further. God actually creates evil (Isaiah 45:7). No matter how you slice it, that's what the verse says with honest exegesis.

Actually the KJV translates a Hebrew word used in the text you cited as ‘evil’ when the word actually means ‘calamity’. I do not think Craig is saying, or Jlay either, that God cannot use calamity or even unsaved people for his own purposes. What Craig says is that God does so without any violation to their reason and choice. Just as the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) states:

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established

"The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)

This actually substantiates Craig’s point about determinism. As well as others who have made comments about the use of stringing bible verses together without contemplative integrity.

I would like to ask, foregoing Craig’s philosopher speak, the following questions:

If God turns the human will whichever way he chooses in all cases with all people, then the acts of such people as Bonny and Clyde, John Dillinger, Machine Gun Kelly were so ordered by God to steal, kill, rob and destroy. If God desired that those, whom these people killed, stolen from, maimed, hurt for a greater good, would not a heart attack been a better method to achieve the same results or the use some type of local natural disaster instead have been better?

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states: "The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby for his own glory He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." (Hodge, Charles; Gross, Edward N. Ed.; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988, p 535)

How could God not be the author of their sin if God directs all people as Proverbs 21:1 (or even Isaiah 45:7) is interpreted by the Calvinist decree: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD turns it wherever he will,” by causing these criminal 1930 era gangsters to do and act they way they did?

Would not such reasoned use of bible text do injustice to what the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) states – contradicting it?

God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established

So then Bonny and Clyde, John Dillinger, and Machine Gun Kelly all can stand before God in judgment, yet, how can they honestly be found guilty for their crimes since God foreordained them to act and do what they did according to some determined decree?

They could say to God, “…you, God, alone, made me do thus and such, I am an instrument of thy will, and by your works making me as I am, heaven is my home – not hell. After all, it was not I that did these things but rather you, turning me hither and thither like a stream to do what you made me do for your greater good.”

"The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby for his own glory He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Westminster Shorter Catechism states: (Hodge, Charles; Gross, Edward N. Ed.; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988, p 535)

That is the mystery, plain and simple that the Reformed theologian Francis Turretin could not reconcile concerning the sovereignty of God, human freedom and contingency together.

Craig’s use of molinism to investigate predestination helps explain and solve this mystery without having God violate any part of his character and nature. From that, Craig builds off on through the use of what molinism describes as God’s own use of Middle Knowledge.

For those interested - The bible verses that support God’s own Middle Knowledge are:

Deuteronomy 31:21, Psalms 94:11, Psalms 139:2 -- 1 Chronicles 28:9 -- 1 Chronicles 29:17 -- Jeremiah 11:20, Jeremiah 17:10, Jeremiah 20:12, Matt 9:4, Luke 9:47, John 2:24-25, Hebrews 4:13, and even Gen 16:13 – there are more that imply this as well too.


-