With libertarian freedom properly understood, consider another example from the Mere Molinism Study Guide (coauthored by Timothy Fox): This is a common fallacy regarding Gods foreknowledge known as the Modal Fallacy. Scripture nowhere appeals to the unique features of middle knowledge theory as a solution to the question of how to reconcile Gods sovereignty and human choice or the question of election and reprobation I know of no passage in the Bible that says God created the kind of world that he did and arranged the kind of circumstances that happen in the world so that certain people would freely choose to be saved and others not. Why? Bottom line: God predestines all things but does not determine all things. If He did, that would destroy His freedom. Craigs view as now presented seems to be a sort of agent-causation view of freedom being appealed to, and this might and should be sufficient to distinguish it from compatibilism,. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life . This book is both a biography of Molina as well as an introduction and defense of Molinism. As I have demonstrated in Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism, one can affirm all five points of Calvinism and logically and consistently affirm what I refer to as mere Molinism the simple conjunction of two propositions: God has middle knowledge and humans possess libertarian freedom. I raised the question, however, because I was misled by his affirmation of the freedom of spontaneity as heading him in a compatibilistic direction. Your comments raise a few questions in my mind, so Ill insert them in square brackets, after your own comments. The difference between the ability to do A or non-A and the ability to do A or not is subtle, but may be relevant in this case. In question 3 of a Q & A about middle knowledge, an inquirer named John sets out a syllogism which sums up his case against Molinism, focused on the grounding objection that concerns non-Molinists from positions both to the right (Calvinists) and the left (Open Theists) of Molinism. Hold on a second. One major contemporary proponent of Molinism is William Lane Craig, the famous philosopher, theologian, and apologist. Anti-Molinism is Undefeated! So, if God creates a world in which antecedent conditions are insufficient to necessitate all events, but God simply knows what would and will happen with perfect certainty, then God can predestine all things without determining all things. Thank you, Chad. $14.00. The Existentialist Critique of Molinism. Ok, with these two points in mind, lets see what Craig might have meant here. . not part of Gods natural knowledge, so it cant be part of Gods middle knowledge). I was particularly misled, it seems, by his proposal that a libertarian account of freedom requires only the absence of causal constraints outside oneself that determines how one chooses, that is, that we have genuine say-so about our choices (225). Calvinists share his objection, but their affirmation of the freedom of spontaneity as authentic freedom, which Craig also affirms now, is precisely what makes human freedom compatible with meticulous divine control. [8] I refer to this idea as weak libertarian freedom. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. [1] Grudems words will be italicized and in blue for the sake of clarity. God is certain that Agent P will freely choose X in circumstance C at time t, but it is not necessary. The problem for Molinism has been, however, that so many philosophers and theologians (both synergist and monergist) believe the grounding objection to be unanswerable, making the knowledge of counterfactuals of libertarian freedom (i.e., knowing what libertarianly free creatures would do in all possible sets of circumstances) impossible, even for God. Like Craig, Calvinist compatibilists regularly insist that moral responsibility requires that a person not have been coerced; they must have had say so in the action they committed. Rather, if we make a different choice then what God foreknew, then what God foreknew would have been different. the thesis that [Arminius was a Molinist] was first articulated and defended by the Reformed scholar Richard Muller in his book God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Baker, 1991). Thanks, William, for indicating where the stuff I was commenting on can now be found. Speaking of biblical support, please see the argument I offered in my debate with James White. With libertarian freedom properly defined, Molinism would entail the following: Just because the word would transforms to will, the word freely (in a libertarian sense) does not magically disappear. . First, middle knowledge is a theory foreign to biblical descriptions of predestination. Kirk MacGregor is known by many as the worlds leading expert on Luis De Molina and the theological system that sprang from him, known as Molinism. Does God have this knowledge before His decree and creation . Middle knowledge says that (a) God knows that if person P is in a certain set of circumstances, he will trust in Christ, and then (b) God creates the kind of world in which exactly those circumstances will come about, and so predestines person P to salvation. William Hasker, author of God, Time, and Knowledge. However, that reading of Craig is highly problematic, because Craig ends up saying doing non-A is impossible (i.e. I am now unable to distinguish the reasons for Craigs affirmation of the usefulness of Gods knowledge of counterfactuals to his providence from my own. 2023 Thoughts Theological. Why then does Craig continue to self-identify as a Molinist? And thats libertarianism. William Lane Craig's "On Guard" will help teach you how to defend your faith through this collection of 8 videos sessions on one disc. God knows nothing by free knowledge that isnt a part of middle knowledge that isnt a part of His natural knowledge and nothing by middle knowledge that isnt a part of His natural knowledge., [That seems clearly wrong to me. The decree decides how God will succeed, not if He will succeed or not. Molinism should not be considered a kind of Arminianism. . This book is really great, and I recommend it to anyone interested in studying Molinism. First, how exactly does one pronounce your name? [8] The view that libertarian freedom necessarily requires alternative possibilities has gone out of style. Transcript PAP), This is not correct. Molinism - Wikipedia In addition, my current situation is a result of Moses deciding to obey God and write the first five books of the Bible, and a result of the apostle Paul deciding to write his epistles which have so significantly influenced my thinking. It is of utmost importance to understand that the theologians at Dort did not respond to actual Molinism. This is because, an omniscient and omnipotent God can ensure an act occurs without creating antecedent conditions which are sufficient to necessitate the act. Why? This is not necessarily the case. There was a time when I would have granted him the affirmation of middle knowledge, while denying that his account was Molinist, but I have come to realize that middle knowledge entails libertarian creaturely freedom, in the classical sense of the PAP. Knowledge does not stand in causal relation. In retrospect, the title of my blog post was ill-advised. Kirk MacGregor, however, contends that Arminius may have liked some of Molinas views, but failed to express them correctly, or that Arminius was highly influenced by Molina, yet held a different view. window.mc4wp = window.mc4wp || { . Even for the Molinist, some things are not possible by the nature of reality, as coherent with Gods own nature. And I have a job in Arizona because some pastors in Arizona decided to found a seminary here in 1987. . Given Gods immutable determination to create a certain order, those who God knew would respond to his grace are predestined to be saved. After I published the above thoughts, I wrote to a friend with expertise in philosophical theology and our conversation has been helpful to me. However, once one affirms that God can be sovereign and predestine non-salvific libertarian free choices, the question is raised: Why cant God do the same thing regarding soteriological matters? With this in mind, many historians think that Arminius took Molinas work and attempted to repackage it and offer it in different words. You can click here to read that post. However, if one does possess opportunities to choose among alternative possibilities in the real world (strong libertarian freedom), then it follows that one is not determined by something or someone else. But I believe the people who attend my church, if they read this, might put the book down to go grab a bottle of Tylenol. It is vital to note that since Calvinists are Christians, the Calvinist who fell into temptation is already saved. A Brief Response to William Lane Craig on Molinism A Molinist Response to Wayne Grudem | Free Thinking Ministries Jul 11, 2016. Keathley provides a Molinistic view of soteriology that explains the entirety of biblical teaching. Paul Helm debates William Lane Craig on Calvinism and Molinism The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknow They are entirely free to reject Gods grace; but were they to do so, then God would have had different middle knowledge than he does and so they would not be predestined. In conclusion, Grudem is just plain wrong. Ill be watching with interest for Molinist style uses. All the Calvinist must do to be a mere Molinist is to affirm that God ordains and determines the existence of specific persons in certain circumstances, and also affirm that Christian persons, for example, are not causally determined by God to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13). callback: cb I can see a sense in which this would be true, but I think that even this perspective proves unhelpful. As I sit at my desk writing this sentence, I am here as a result of my great-grandparents deciding to emigrate from Norway in the 1870s, then meeting and deciding to get married in the United States. So, that is where we are now, and both my friend and I look forward to Craigs further publication in this regard. If He did, that would destroy His freedom., [Why do you state the second sentence? On determinism, theres only one possible world given Gods decree, Craigs scenario still has at least two possible worlds. window.mc4wp.listeners.push( As a result of our brief conversation, I have added an addendum to this post, further assessing Craigs move, and nuancing somewhat my way of identifying his position. Paul Helm debates William Lane Craig on Calvinism and Reformed theology There is room for disagreement on that score. Does he think that God would only know, in his middle knowledge, what you would choose to do, but not know that you could not choose to do otherwise? Against Molinism: A Refutation of William Lane Craig's Molinism The purpose . } Kenneth J. Perszyk - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 90 (3):215-235. Indeed, if God is necessarily omniscient, by definition, God knows all of these truths in all circumstancesincluding the circumstance prior to the foundations of the world. In the semi-final chapter of the book, Laing does look at biblical evidence for the doctrine of middle knowledge and the system of Molinism, but from my reading, his primary concern is to demonstrate Molinisms explanatory superiority in dealing with issues such as human freedom with divine sovereignty, predestination and Gods will for all to be saved, the tension between the security and warning passages, and others. In the rejection of "i ncredible " limited atonement, Dr. Craig complains the Reformed smuggle inference into interpretation of "the world" verses (e.g., 1 John 2:2) as opposed to the verses " prima facie " teaching. The question raised is whether this makes Arminius a closet Molinist in the way Muller proposes., Prior to MacGregors biography of Molina, most scholars assumedand many still dothat Arminius was really a Molinist. If the weather were to be different, then the barometer would give a different reading. William Hasker - 2000 - Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):126-131. By knowing what every possible free creature would do in any possible situation, God can by bringing about that situation know what the creature will freely do. But, in Molinism, what makes that moment distinct from the natural is precisely the creatures libertarian freedom, in the PAP sense. I hold Dr. Wayne Grudem in the highest regard. I say this, particularly because of my recently coming upon the following statement from Luis De Molina: . ); However, Grudems soteriological statement, while I do believe it is true, should not be confused with Mere Molinism (that sometimes humans possess libertarian freedom and God possesses middle knowledge). I need to give the paper more time but, from my initial reading, the paper is very helpful and Ive filed it accordingly. The recent rediscovery of the medieval philosophical theory known as Molinism brought Molinism to the fore of this debate. (not just choosing to create one of many possible worlds and then a specific set of circumstances in which we would choose to believe, but choosing individual persons): Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. At one point Arminius was accused of being too Catholic, and simply could not risk aligning himself with Luis de Molina since Molina was a Catholic Spanish Jesuit Priest. It is apparent, however, that Craig has not arrived at the same assessment as I have, given that he continues to self-identify as a Molinist, and that he puts forward his non-libertarian definition of freedom in a Q and A about middle knowledge. I cannot explain why he chose to respond to this question in a way that implied he didnt think he could defeat the challenge. William Lane Craig, Anti-Molinist Argument - PhilPapers Craig no longer affirms the latter, and so he has given up what made Molinism so attractive in our culture, where a free choice is generally assumed to involve the ability to choose between two alternatives. The 5 Best Books On Molinism (GoodReads Reviews), Q&A: Objections To The Free Will Defense Against The Problem Of Evil, Q&A: Molinism and The Infallibility Of God, Q&A: Molinism, Gods Love, and Those That Will Never Be Saved, A Simple Explanation Of Why Some Possible Worlds Are Infeasible, The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels Conclusion, The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels Part 9: The Resurrection Of Jesus. This is where I am most confused. Therefore, middle knowledge does not provide a better solution than Calvinism or Arminianism.. Keathley speaks for me when he writes: So why do I embrace Molinism? Rate this book. This debate is beyond the scope of my concerns. Here Jesus says, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. I fear Christianity will never get any closer than Pauls Romans 11:36 reason which gives a good revelatory insight to the big picture explanation between the two poles (Gods sov vs Human responsibility) but leaves a God sized mystery with its revelation. I thought I ought to do another one on books about Molinism. No! William Lane Craig has criticized nearly every important claim made in the course of 'Yet Another AntiMolinist Argument'. This is merely a possible application of Molinism to salvation issues in which a Molinist is free to disagree. Very weird. But if their decisions were to be different, then the content of Gods middle knowledge would be different.71 As for predestination of certain individuals to be saved, Craig says this: God in his goodness provides sufficient grace for salvation to all people in the world, and the only reason they are not predestined is that they freely ignore or reject the divine helps that God provides. I welcome continued conversation and enlightenment, and Ill pass along in future posts any changes that take place in my assessment, as new information comes my way. Youre right, John, that (1) is controversial, but I myself accept it. In the same breath he then smuggles his own notions of free will into his argument against limited atonement. [5] MacGregor contends that Arminius viewed the doctrine of middle knowledge as an effective weapon against the Calvinist view of deterministic predestination without fully grasping the doctrine of middle knowledge or its logical implications.//. In Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Craig displays this prowess by categorically defending Molinism. In this Special Topics class, Dr, William Lane Craig addresses several interrelated themes. Course Curriculum by William Lane Craig | Reasonable Faith In point 1, John states: 1. William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism. Craig is no monergist. In Craigs at present view, a unique agent cause intervenes, and it is that which motivates him to say that hes still a Molinist, because of the presence of a counterfactual of freedom, though not a freedom that consists in the power to do otherwise, but one that is the exercise of an ex nihilo power to create, so to speak. William Lane Craig - Molinism Some folk alerted me to the fact that Dr. Craig briefly responded to my argument in a recent podcast. Against Molinism: A Refutation of William Lane Craig's Molinism Richard Taylor puts it this way: In the case of an action that is free, it must not only be such that it is caused by the agent who performs it, but also such that no antecedent conditions were sufficient for his performing just that action.[6] We can understand libertarian freedom, then, as the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine or necessitate ones choice. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Cornell Studies in the However, I sense that this material might be a little too heady for the average churchgoer. Consider his own slightly edited words: Middle knowledge says that (a) God knows that if person P is in a certain set of circumstances, he [WOULD] cheat on his wife, and then (b) God creates the kind of world in which exactly those circumstances will come about. Which simply means the creature is granted Freedom for that which is Determined. understood in the usual way as the PAP. I had not considered that question before, and I think you may be on to something in questioning its coherence. A compatibilist would have to say that though the meshing necessary for x is unique, the ingredients the token beliefs and desires etc. Let me repeat it for emphasis: In Molinas view, we might say that it is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but that it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves.. I hope a strong Gospl centered type of Molinism will be developed in the evangelical world but given the cultural influence of other camps, like Calvinists and Reformed Compatiblists, Im not too optimistic. So he is not a monergist, and he is still Molinistic in that he asserts that God knows the completely undetermined choices that a person would make in a hypothetical situation. Similar books and articles. First, Molinism posits Gods natural knowledge covers possible worlds (things that can happen), his middle knowledge covers feasible worlds (things that hypothetically would happen) and finally Gods free knowledge covers what will happen. Likewise, in most cases we do have alternative possibilities. Craig would be positing that some people are saved by believing, within a particular set of circumstances, though they could not have chosen not to believe, in those circumstances. Since an omniscient God never gains knowledge, it logically follows that God possessed this knowledge prior to His decree and creation. Moreover, Book Title & Description. Fourth, middle knowledge is inconsistent with the essential claims of both Calvinism and Arminianism. I havent found a clear and specific defense of source incompatibilism in the context of Molinism, but I did find a clear discussion of source incompatibilism: https://www.academia.edu/7326981/Understanding_Source_Incompatibilism. What is Molinism and is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org Here it is:1- If scripture implies both (a) humans occasionally possess libertarian freedom and (b) all human activity is predestined before creation, then scripture implies Molinism.2- Scripture implies both (a) and (b).3- Therefore, scripture implies Molinism. But as you note, Im a libertarian who thinks that causal determinism is incompatible with freedom. ], You: Second, God does not have middle knowledge of His own choices only of our choices. Thus predestination and freedom are entirely compatible., Craig sees middle knowledge as an excellent way to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism, because predestination is preserved (making Calvinists happy) and libertarian human freedom is preserved (making Arminians happy).. I'm Kevin Harris. However, that reading of Craig is highly problematic, because Craig ends up saying doing non-A is impossible (i.e. If it were, the Calvinists wife should not blame her husband for destroying her family; she should blame God. In his popular theology textbook, Grudem mentions middle knowledge dozens of times and in Chapter 16, he gets down to business and presents four reasons why (he thinks) the Molinist position is not tenable. Tim, Im sure you know that Wayne Grudem is no fan of William Lane Craigs teaching on Molinism. The difference between the ability to do A or non-A and the ability to do A or not is subtle, but may be relevant in this case. The first question I have is to ask why it is that God would not choose to create the world in which the person does non-A? Consider donating or inviting us to speak at your church! Abstract. Please let me know if you do. Your email address will not be published. MP3 of this show. The second book in this series called The Philosophy, Theology, and Science of Molinism (The Spread of Molinism Book 2), Andrews writes of his book that The purpose of my first eBook on Molinism, An Introduction to Molinism: Scripture, Reason, and all that God has Ordered, was intended to ease in those who may be unfamiliar with the major talking points and issues concerning Molinism today. Some Calvinists hold or are open to libertarian freedom (see writings by Greg Koukl, Richard Muller, and Oliver Crisp). Not only did White summarize his discussion with Craig, he also brought up me, myself, and I. If the compatibilist is right, then God could deduce the future free choices of men from present conditions which causally determine how they shall choose. Libertarian freedom is not defined, as Grudem seems to assume, as the ability to trick God.. [2] : 20 Prominent contemporary Molinists include William Lane Craig, Alfred Freddoso, Thomas Flint, Kenneth Keathley, [2] Dave Armstrong, John D. Laing, and Kirk R. MacGregor. So, I decided to "go live" on YouTube and discuss White's comments specifically his claim that he had a "fatal objection" to Molinism. God's types of knowledge . Refutation of William Lane Craig's Molinism Daniel T. Clemons The Problem We Face Why is there pain? Laings primary goal is to show that Molinism has superior explanatory power in wrestling with theological issues than all non-Molinist views, thereby making Molinism the preferable view for the Christian to take. Be blessed. Are you positing that Gods freedom is different from ours, making his hypothetical acts unknowable whereas are knowable? Sovereignty vs Human Responsibility issue is super important but at the end of the day, for the Christian, its seems (to me at least) to always end disproportionately in Gods domain, as it rightfully should. on: function(evt, cb) { MacGregor said:It is true that Arminius possessed a copy of Molinas Concordia in his possession and that he quoted it twice in his own writings. William Craig says, By knowing what every possible free creature would do in any possible situation, God can by bringing about that situation know what the creature will freely do.. As Molina and others have noted, if God only knows these counterfactuals after the divine decree, then this obliterates human freedom. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University in Houston, Texas. William Lane Craig - Wikipedia Now that Craig defines freedom in terms of spontaneity or non-coercion, as compatibilists frequently do, the grounding objection no longer applies to his philosophical theology. Molinism vs. Calvinism | Reasonable Faith You can watch the debate here: William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism on the Problem of Evil Historians infer this explanation because Molinas writings have been found in Arminiuss library.[2]. If God knows what I will do in the future, doesnt that mean I cant do otherwise? Consider donating or inviting us to speak at your church! Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries YouTube channel. It is a way to reconcile the biblically supported truths that God predestines ALL things and that humans are free and responsible for SOME things. In such case he still affirms PAP. Second, if you are interested in exploring the type of libertarian free will that Craig appears to be espousing search for source incompatibilism. This question hinges uponwhenGod logically possesses counterfactual knowledge. I recently responded to James White's video discussing William Lane Craig. (Its listed above as #2.). It would be impossible to list or even be aware of all the human choices that resulted in the exact situations in which we find ourselves today.. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Grudem is confusing and conflating predestination with determinism. I am trying to figure out if that (source incompatiblism Molinism) is my view or if I am a hypothetical knowledge Calvinist. At first glance, one might be tempted to say Gods knowledge that the person would do non-A is part of Gods middle knowledge. How correct must our theology be for our faith to be saving? In that post, I expressed my surprise concerning William Lane Craigs redefinition of libertarian freedom, in which he denied that it entails the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), often described as the power of contrary choice. Craig proposed instead that a libertarian account of freedom requires only the absence of causal constraints outside oneself that determines how one chooses, that is, that we have genuine say-so about our choices (225).
New High-rise San Diego, How To Get House Ready For Listing Photos, Text Justification Codesignal, Best Places To Eat In Paris, Tn, Articles W