Saturday, November 12, 2005

Molinism: Part I

Ok, well, all you guys are already hounding me about Molinism so I guess I might as well bring up this elephant in the room. One preliminary. As far as I know, there are five major views on God, foreknowledge, and free will. I'm sure there are several variations of each: 1. Calvinistic Compatibilism--God foreknows all events because He has foreordained them. 2. Simple Foreknowledge--God simply knows all future events including those resulting from the actions and choices of free creatures. We do not know the basis for this knowledge. 3. Boethian Eternalism--God, since He exists outside of time, sees all temporal events as if they were laid out before Him. 4. Open Theism--the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. God has knowledge of such future certainties such as those acts that He will do. However, God cannot know those future decisions or acts of free creatures since these exists only as possibilities 5. Molinism--well, we'll get to that. Am I right here?


Anonymous attilla said...

yeah... i think that about sums up the landscape.

im pretty familiar with all of these but (3).

and since we are doing preliminaries: let me just say that i have come to my conclusions based on both theology and philosophy. and what i mean by that is that i didnt come to the conclusion based on either one soley. i was struggling with the issue in both areas and (5) seemed to make everything fall into place. i was looking for consistency and honesty (no slight of hand or cop-out answers).

so - let me start with why i had apprehensions about some of the others and you can respond if you wish. (1) makes man less than human. just prima facia scripture seems to suggest that men do have the ability to make real choices. (2) has some issues philosophically. there are many who feel that its simply impossible. just God knowing what we will do puts us back at (1). and the way you worded it xman, makes me think you may have some of these reservations yourself. (dont know much about (3) so i wont want comment on it). i believe that (4) makes God less than God. i personally dont want to be with sanders in some of his conclusions, but i feel that his conclusions are valid based on this aspect of his theology. it just has too many problems in its implications for me. so basically i felt that none of the other options worked ALL of the time. other stuff has to be moved around and explained to fit with the presuppostion that X theory is true. i.e. no consistency.

and before i get blasted, i realize i didnt explain or qualify any of those comments. and i do believe all of them are orthodox, even open theism. i just didnt want to waste a lot of space until we were actually talking about it all. so until we get to specifics, just read through the lines. im pretty sure you have a good idea what angle im taking based on my comments.

11/13/2005 08:59:00 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Moorhead said...

Hey boys. It's about time you joined the blogosphere! I expect to see complete reverence for the Cornelius Van Til.

11/13/2005 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger Xavier said...

Hey Moorhead, you are welcome here anytime. Attilla I'm pretty much in lock step with you. I do have a fondness for (3) however, and I will explain it a bit later. As for (5), I will throw up a few objections and see what you guys do with it.

11/14/2005 09:39:00 PM  
Anonymous attilla said...

oh i see how it is... i dont give a direct objection to one of your views and thats the one you choose.

as always, just looking for the upperhand.

actually i wld be interested as to why you like that theory. i personally dont like it for a dumb reason. i held that theory in college without knowing it was out there.... i came up with it apart from anyone telling me about it. and now it just doesnt make sense to me. but maybe you can convince me otherwise. go ahead. try.

11/15/2005 07:15:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home