For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation: Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore): 1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and 2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’) So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance! So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’ Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!
There are several points at which your comment demonstrates misconceptions about Molinism and middle knowledge. 1. Middle knowledge is a component of Molinism, not a synonym for it. It is not called "middle knowledge" because it "places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes." Rather, it received its name from being logically situated between God's natural knowledge (knowledge of necessary truths) and God's free knowledge (knowledge of contingent truths resulting from the creative decree). 2. Molinists affirm both divine sovereignty and divine omniscience. However, they do not equate sovereignty with unilateral divine causal determinism. Nor to they diminish God's knowledge by eliminating middle knowledge, which includes God's pre-decree knowledge of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. 3. You set up a false dichotomy by assuming that if people freely accept Christ, then God cannot know who will be saved and cannot have chosen before the foundations of the world. However, if God has middle knowledge, then this is false. Since God is omniscient, then he has middle knowledge. Therefore, it is false that there being people who freely accept Christ entails that God does not know who will be saved and did not choose them before the foundations of the world. 4. It is incorrect to say that "Molinism... is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner 'freely' chooses to be saved." Again, if God has middle knowledge, then his creative decree entails his knowing who will be saved prior their actually freely accepting Christ. It's clear that you have an emotional aversion to Molinism. We hope that you'll set aside the emotions at some point to dispassionately learn about this fruitful concept. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg An intellectually honest assessment will admit to the fact that, at its core, Molinism is really nothing more an attempt to somehow reconcile two utterly irreconcilable ideas - the sovereignty of God and the ‘sovereignty of man’! I grant that there appears (Prv 14:12) to be compelling reasons why you will want to insist upon the latter, but here’s the thing (PLEASE try and set aside your Autonomian commitments for just a moment)… unless God is God, not only over SOME things, but over ALL things (Eph 4:6), then God is not God! Whenever we concern ourselves with the things of God, we ALWAYS need to try an understand the things of God in light of the fact that ALL THINGS (not just some things) are FROM Him, THROUGH Him, FOR HIS GLORY (Rom 11:36)! In other words… God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! So then, please answer me this - why would God, who is sovereign over all, permit ANYTHING that could possibly rob Him of His glory, including (in fact, ESPECIALLY) His image bearer to disavow His Lordship! And BTW - in case you think this bit of banter between us is nothing more than something trivial, consider this - whenever God gave Israel over into apostasy, it was not because of their idolatry, but because they denied the sovereignty of God! And because Molinists (and others in different ways, albeit always to the same effect) insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, I dare to say that God has (yet again), handed His own over to the Fool (Biblically speaking) into apostasy… “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” - 1 Tim 4:1 How can we as Christians otherwise account for the fact that the Fool now has the intellectual and moral ascendency in the world? It is not because we do not have the Truth, but because, while some “claim to know God, they have come to deny Him as God” - Tit 1:16…
@@ReasonableFaithOrg An intellectually honest assessment will admit to the fact that, at its core, Molinism is really nothing more an attempt to somehow reconcile two utterly irreconcilable ideas - the sovereignty of God and the ‘sovereignty of man’! I grant that there appears (Prv 14:12) to be compelling reasons why you will want to insist upon the latter, but here’s the thing (PLEASE try and set aside your Autonomian commitments for just a moment)… unless God is God, not only over SOME things, but over ALL things (Eph 4:6), then God is not God! Whenever we concern ourselves with the things of God, we ALWAYS need to try an understand the things of God in light of the fact that ALL THINGS (not just some things) are FROM Him, THROUGH Him, FOR HIS GLORY (Rom 11:36)! In other words… God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! So then, please answer me this - why would God, who is sovereign over all, permit ANYTHING that could possibly rob Him of His glory, including (in fact, ESPECIALLY) His image bearer to disavow His Lordship! And BTW - in case you think this bit of banter between us is nothing more than something trivial, consider this - whenever God gave Israel over into apostasy, it was not because of their idolatry, but because they denied the sovereignty of God! And because Molinists (and others in different ways, albeit always to the same effect) insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, I dare to say that God has (yet again), handed His own over to the Fool (Biblically speaking) into apostasy… “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” - 1 Tim 4:1 How can we as Christians otherwise account for the fact that the Fool now has the intellectual and moral ascendency in the world? It is not because we do not have the Truth, but because, while some “claim to know God, they have come to deny Him as God” - Tit 1:16…
@@osks You say that Israel denied God's sovereignty. Did Israel freely deny the sovereignty of God, or did God cause them to deny his sovereignty? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg You stubbornly refuse to accept the fact that God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY ALL THINGS! Why? No, really - WHY? God sovereignly directs (determines) all things towards His end for His glory - in other words… there is nothing which He does not either HAVE HAPPEN (sovereignly ordains) or LETS HAPPEN (sovereignly permits), lest it robs Him of His glory! Why do you insist upon kicking against the goads - the illusion of Libertarian ‘free will’ is nothing but a lie orchestrated by the Father of lies! I truly understand why there SEEMS to be compelling reasons why Autonomianism ought to be our default assumption - our sense of ‘free will’, moral duty/ability/responsibility, the so-called ‘problem of evil’, authentic love requiring free expression, and so on… So, I urge you… let’s rather discuss each of those things - that promises to be a far more edifying exercise instead of making vacuous appeals to the stone…
What a great lecture! As an ex-Calvinist who held a similar yet undefined view for many years, Molinism is refreshing. Praise the Lord for such intelligent, godly people!
If you were indeed a former Calvinist, I seriously question your understanding of your purported position if you think what Craig presents is biblically sound. Craig, as smart as he is, engages is utter theological and biblical nonsense in his Molinism. You have to ignore or twist the Bible to get to Craig's position.
@@МарфаМария A core tenet of Calvinist teaching is that regeneration by the Holy Spirit precedes faith. You can find numerous examples of saving faith preceding the indwelling of the Spirit in both Old and New Testaments. Years ago one of my theology professors debated a Calvinist during class while I was still quite convinced of Calvinism. That issue and many others were raised which made me rethink my whole soteriological understanding. Calvinists highly respect God and Scripture. My concern is that many have a skewed understanding of many passages based on a flawed theological framework. Dr. Craig's presentation of Molinism is quite good. For years before seeing this view, I knew I was neither Calvinist nor Arminian entirely. Perhaps Molinism has its own issues that further years of research and gaining knowledge may prove for me. But based on my current knowledge, it matches with a lot of my beliefs about soteriology.
@@paulhess1689 I'm assuming that if you are a Christian you agree that God created you at specific time and place in history but if you do agree with that you have to say that God picked your preconditions because you didn't have the ability to let's say be born in Africa at 1876 as a king. You kind of already are a Molinist if you agree with me. Because the type of choices that you would have freely made if you were born at a different time in history would have been completely and utterly different then decisions that you make now as a 21st century human. you agree as a Christian that God made you to be born at a specific place and specific time in a specific social class with specific abilities and interest to achieve his purposes, so in that sense you are already a Molinist. Unless you believe that God didn't pick these preconditions for you and you just randomly ended up being born in this specific time and place with these attributes and skills, then you can believe that but that's not biblical at all. obviously the type of decisions that you could have made if you're born as a Billionaire's son would have been completely and utterly different then the decisions that you could have made if you are born in some random tribe in Africa.
@@paulhess1689 I'm assuming that you are man when i say this but as a Christian you don't believe that you just didn't randomly ended up being born as a man, you believe that God specifically designed you to be a man and not a woman because he has a specific purpose for you, if you agree with that then you are again already a Molinist because the type of decisions that you could have made in your life would have been completely and utterly different if you were a woman then a man.
Brilliant, Dr. Craig! I don't know why people have such trouble with this doctrine. It's Biblical and it proves just how great God's Omniscience is (at least in so far as we can understand). God's Sovereignty and man's freewill do work together, and this view helps make sense of them both and gets us one step closer to understanding.
@@krzyszwojciech freewil = i make my choices. God knows the wariants I like to believe that He tryes to guide us all towards good choices for us. I am not talking about good or evil choice but i am talking about the greater good like in the butterfly effect. Molinism is for me a breath of fresh air because of one question (as I am a woman ...created by God with feelings towards suffering...so of course I had my questions...and kept searching for the "Is God evil..." answer. Molinism gave me a new perspective. It is a rather new doctrine we know...but we are wiser as the time goes by. And untill this perspective...frankly atheist had better answers... While calvinists and arminians fought their beliefs...
@@LiaM_3.16 Even if determinism is true you make your own choices, simply the reasons for those choices come from underlying mechanisms. So that's not a definition that would distinguish them enough. Also, if our choice is actually determined by the circumstances and God knows all the variants of the circumstances we could find ourselves in, and then he chooses the circumstances that best serve his goals, then our 'free' will is superfluous. We can't steer away from the destiny he planned for us. Either way, choices only make sense to me conceptually if there's a sufficient reason for the choice we make. You're hungry, so you choose to eat. You prefer one type of food over the other, but also consider your beliefs about health, so you try to choose optimally what's best for you in the circumstances. Or maybe you feel too lazy that day and choose just to indulge your taste. We have beliefs, drives, desires and values in some form of hierarchy which doesn't seem completely static either. And these inform the choices we make. I would even go as far as saying, they most likely determine the choices we make, while those reasons are obfuscated for us to various degrees (Why do I like one taste more than another? How did I really come to believe that sugar is unhealthy?). And we don't really choose either our beliefs, drives and values, or the circumstances in which we have to make the choices, so this scenario is not sufficiently different from determinism in the sense of moral responsibilities or blame. And if there were no circumstances that God could place me in to make better choices, then it's a design flaw or design manipulated with some end goal in mind that potentially treats many human beings destained for hell (whatever it is) as simply means to an end, objectified puppets. Knowledge could be in principle separate from causing someone to do something, but God is not only the Knowing One in this scenario. Ultimately, he's also the Causing/Decreeing One. The one who created reality and determined our natures and circumstances those natures would play in. So no matter how I look at it, it ends up in the same result: fatalism. In fact, if God is truly all-knowing, then he doesn't have any meaningful, morally responsible free choice either. He already knows all his future choices and what must happen and can't steer away from his fate any more than we can.
@@LiaM_3.16 Oh, and when it comes to the problem of evil, being a man doesn't stop me from empathizing with the suffering of others. I don't see a good reason for why an all-good God couldn't create an all-good reality. Our freedoms would be as free as they are now, which could still mean 'fatalism', but at least it would be a good reality, not this mess. We would choose in accordance with our natures, which if our natures were only good, the good choices would follow consistently from them.
@@krzyszwojciech I'm very curious your thoughts on moral accountability. Should we not hold a child rapist accountable for their actions? Or are they not responsible for their actions because their circumstances lead them to do what they did?
God bless you Dr Craig. Ten years ago, this saved my faith and revolutionised my understanding of God and the scripture. Still powerful and amazing today.
After going back and forth on freewill and election for many months this is the only thing that makes since. Pretty interesting it's William Lane Craig to point this out as he's a huge reason I gave up atheism.
Its not the only one, just the most popular. And it doesnt protect free will, it reduces it to formula and destroys it. Certainty is the opposite of possibility. Molonism claims certainty upon fate. The only way free will can exist, is if God gave us possibilities to choose from, and did not know which one we would choose. I'd argue that God could know these infinite possibilities, and also know how to accomplish his plan in all of them, knowing the end from the beginning.
It’s very little people that truly think things through and want to reconcile thoughts and verses like Craig. Many of the super pastors don’t really care for truth that goes for the Calvinist as well as Pentecostals and baptist. Everyone ignores there own contradictions rather than look for ideas and thoughts that reconcile conflicting ideas without taking away the integrity of the scriptures.
@@justindavis2711 Please explain how God not knowing what you would choose makes your choice any more free than if he did know? Also, based on your comment you seem to have a pretty confused understanding of Molinism. You should go over the lecture again.
Have you considered Thomism's view on predestination, Divine knowedge, and human freedom? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange has a book on it. And I think it's better than Molinism.
God foreknew that if WLC had been born at a different time in history, he would most likely not have freely chosen to study the theory of middle knowledge, and imparted to a world that was not prepared or it. It is only now, in the YT era that Molinism can be most effectively shared and understood. My eyes are now opened to a more profound understanding God’s providential plan for me.
Molina was responding to Calvinism and it did gain a foothold for many years but basically did not catch on with those who followed Calvin or Luther. It stayed on with the Jesuits for a while in Spain but the concept seems to have not resonated with the Puritans.
I love Dr. Craig's accent impersonations. It gives us a glimpse into his humorous side. Oh and Molinism is the best explanation that harmonizes predestination and human freedom.
no, its not. It harmonizes nothing. If God can know what any person would do in any situation, then their so called "free will" is reduced to nothing but a logical formula. Guess who designed the formula? God. So he made the formula and knows the answer to the formula. Which means humans play no part in their own fate. Molonism is hard determinism disguised to trick people into thinking it preserves free will, the same way that A.I tricks people into thinking computers are smart. In reality, A.I computers are coded from a bunch of deterministic IF/THEN statements. A.I is a deterministic formula. Counterfactuals are literally the same concept.
@@justindavis2711 I disagree, Justin. Even if God made the so-called "formula" and knows the answer to the formula, it doesn't follow that that is "hard determinism". If anything, human freedom produces the formula and then God takes that formula into account for the world that He actualizes. Molonism is the best explanation of divine providence that preserves both human freedom and God's omniscience. Calvinism and Open Theism both sacrifice either one or the other, undermining the greatness of God.
Logically true.. perhaps, but, morally, existentialy crazy. This world is the only actual world that we have ever existed in, yet we R either saved or dammed in a Simulation of sorts. Our representatives like. This is really screwy if U ask me. If you postulate duplication - same ends, same means, then it's morally game over for molinism. Parrellism, by contrast might work. One can pray this world and except Jesus and be saved, unlike in sin world. this makes God look more just. No one saved in sin world is unsaved here, but the damned, all of them to take free will to its logical conclusion,can potentially be saved. Morally, God could, with these individuals,a selective class, do a kind of double predestination gig with them.
John Piper is counter reformed with his Jesuit futurism. Odd that all the "protestants" teach counter reformation teachings from Rome. Molina was a mystic into quietism aka spiritism. Not everything Molina said was false but a lot is unbiblical. Why would Rome have an interest in inventing doctrines for a church they condemn as heretics? Roman Catholic canon law says its its not to kill heretics. Jesus said i will send you the holy spirit and he will lead you into all truth. He didn't say learn everything from men who are fallible and easy to deceive.
@@joshportie So basically we should reject every teaching or opinion that was ever hold by any unbeliever? What? That is just nonsense. Do you have any scripture to back that up? LOL. We can learn a lot from unbelievers. Even Jesus commended the children of this world for being wiser than the children of light in some topics (Luke 16), even though that has a different context. Even Solomon didn't seem to have a problem with learning from "fallible and easy to deceive" people, when he wrote some parts of the proverbs and let himself inspire by the Wisdom of Amenemope. I don't see a problem with that.
The Kalam implies that time came into existence at creation. Prior to creation God is timeless. After creation God is in time. So how can the knowledge of counterfactuals be prior to the divine decree? The divine decree, if indeed it is the choice of which possible world will be created, must be first because nothing else can be said to be prior to time. Are the truth values of all future tense statements known by God? If so, were they always known by God, even in the timeless state before creation? How is personal knowledge of the order of temporal events even accessible in a timeless state? What is the process of choosing a divine decree and how does that happen timelessly?
This is deep thank you Bill, so many preachers whom don't even touch this truths. No wonder the lamb of revelation is the Roman Catholics and Reformers.
Molinism makes sense of Christianity and the world we see around us. It reconciles God's sovereignty and human free will. God's self limitation of his power to allow true human free will as his utmost principle in his relationship with us explains many of the objections to Christianity by the atheists.
It's not necessary to call it a "self-limitation." The incorporation of free will choices into the divine creative decree is a demonstration of God's perfect omnipotence and omniscience, which includes the ability to create free creatures and the knowledge of what they would freely do in any particular circumstance. No self-limitation necessary. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg except that it is still only free will in the sense that determinists understand the term. Namely, our choices are free only if they are causally determined primarily by our reasons, character, desires, etc. Otherwise, it would be logically impossible for God to perfectly predict how anyone would choose, since the outcome would not be certain until the moment the choice is made.
@@fanghur Your comment makes a couple of dubious assumptions. First, there's no reason to think that reasons, desires, etc. causally determine our choices. Instead, it seems plausible that they are ends towards which we may or may not choose. So, unless one can show that they in fact causally determine our choices, libertarian freedom is a live option. Second, your comment presupposes that God doesn't have middle knowledge. If God in fact has middle knowledge, then he can be certain of how we would choose prior to the moment of choosing, and this without needing to causally determine that choice. In order to show that it's logically impossible for God to have middle knowledge, one must offer a logical or metaphysical argument for why this must be so. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg If you want to deny that our choices are causally determined by our reasons, our character, our desires, etc., then that puts you in the extremely problematic position of having to conclude that, well, the way we behave is not determined by any of those factors. We don’t choose to act morally BECAUSE we think it’s right, etc. Which very quickly leads to the absurd and very undesirable conclusion that ultimately our choices would be completely random and inexplicable, since according to the libertarian, literally nothing is sufficient to determine one outcome rather than any other. If literally nothing is sufficient to determine that A occurs rather than B, with A and B both being equally possible ways in which a system can evolve (in this case, how a person will choose), which is what proponents of libertarian free will at least pretend to believe, then the outcome could only be random and inexplicable even to the person making the “choice”. Normally I wouldn’t quote Richard Carrier on something to do with philosophy, but on this point, he is exactly right: whatever libertarians claim to believe, they invariable act like compatibilists. And as for why it is impossible for God to have middle knowledge unless determinism is true, that is actually fairly simple. Because by definition, the evolution of a truly (as opposed to merely apparently/epistemically) indeterministic system is random. There is at least one way out of this and that is if you held to an eternalist conception of time. In that case, God is viewing all time at once, and so from our perspective at any given ‘slice’ of time, it would seem to be foreknowledge, but fro, God’s frame of reference ‘outside’ of our time, it would all be God’s present. But that option is unavailable to Craig since he explicitly rejects eternalism. But under presentism, there is simply no mechanism that would allow anyone, even a god, to acquire knowledge of how a truly random system would evolve; there simply ARE no such counterfactuals. Middle knowledge makes perfect sense given a compatibilist view of free will, since in that case, we are deterministic systems/entities, and as such it is at least in principle possible to perfectly predict what we would do in any hypothetical situation, since only one outcome is actually possible. But if we are indeterministic, as I explained above, this simply is not the case.
@@fanghur It would be incorrect to conclude from the libertarians' rejection of reasons, character, desires causally determining our choices that therefore they believe choices have no explanation. Rather, they would say that choices are explained by indeterministic agent causation. The agent's choosing A over B is sufficient to explain the obtaining of A rather than B. *Why* the agent chose A rather than B is a teleological matter independent of the causal account of the choice itself. Your comments about middle knowledge seem quite confused. First, the claim was not that "it is impossible for God to have middle knowledge unless determinism is true." Rather, it was that your comment - "...it would be logically impossible for God to perfectly predict how anyone would choose, since the outcome would not be certain until the moment the choice is made" - assumes that God does not have middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is God's pre-decree knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Unless you can show that it is impossible for God to have middle knowledge, then your comment seems unjustified. Moreover, you assume that libertarian freedom, being indeterministic, implies inherent randomness. But proponents of LFW would reject this claim, since agents can choose towards particular teleological ends, which is paradigmatically non-random. But let's say there really are random events, such as those proposed by quantum mechanics. Why think that such events have no truth value available to God prior to creation? Since past tense propositions regarding random events would have truth values, it seems to clearly follow that God would know prior to creating what those truth values would be. That's just what it means to be omniscient, knowing only and all truths. And it seems dubious that God would somehow lose this knowledge by stepping into temporal relations at the moment of creation. - RF Admin
This is where the idea of parallel universes come into play and it's why so much of mankind has such a keen interest on the thought of it, it's because God has the ability to see the various possibilities of our actions, what could be, and will be based on our free will. There was a time in my life that God gave me 3 choices at a fork in the road of my life. I made one big decision and have seen things redeemed in my life I didn't think possible. Though there are other trials and tribulations I wish hadn't happened either. But I would consider myself meek now because of it and for that I am grateful. Edit: I want to reiterate meekness is not weakness it's strength in submission to God.
I liked the question around 45 minutes in. If a human in one of the possible worlds is named John, and John remains John in more than one possible worlds, or an infinite number of possible worlds, I don’t see how freewill isn’t violated upon God selecting a world. If you have enough iterations of possible worlds, John will have done so many different actions that it would be similar to just creating one deterministic world to begin with. One analogy - I can code a program where an object moves across the screen in a straight line (deterministicly) or I could create a program that allows for the object to move randomly within the screen. If I have enough iterations, I could simply choose the ‘random’ iteration where the object did what I wanted to begin with, which is move straight across the screen.
I still have some trouble understanding what middle knowledge is. I think my issue can be explained in this question: where do counterfactuals come from? A. If they just exist, then don't they exist necessarily, and wouldn't that make God's middle knowledge part of his natural knowledge? B. If they exist on account of some action of God, such as imagining the existence of free creatures, or even creating the free will of potential creatures, then it becomes unclear why that action should be distinguished from the rest of God's creative decree.
"If they just exist, then don't they exist necessarily, and wouldn't that make God's middle knowledge part of his natural knowledge?" I don't think so because they don't exist indefinitely like say abstract logic such as mathematics (I.e. 2+2= 4 in all possible worlds). Counterfactuals, I think, are contingent upon God's actual creative decree (i.e. God creates person A in India, person A could've been person B in Canada, for example, or person A could've never existed.) But one can argue that person A's non-existence is an existence of a counterfactual, but there wouldn't be any counterfactuals to person A if person A never existed in the first place. I may be wrong, but this is just my take.
The difference between counterfactuals and middle knowledge is that counterfactuals is merely what could possibly happen differently than reality, hence counter-factual. It is a knowledge of possible alternative ends. Middle Knowledge is what would happen IF such and such occurs. It is a knowledge of cause and effect, more specifically, what would need to happen in order to make any one of the possible outcomes factual, while leaving the rest as counterfactual. The knowledge of what will happen, if middle knowledge is true, is God's choice of what means to utilize in order to achieve a specific end result. In this, all future results remain equally possible, but not equally probable. Thus, free will is still left completely intact since the free agent could always choose to do differently, even though they won't. In short, Middle Knowledge is the understanding of probabilities, and how to tweak them, in order to ensure the desired possibility. Counterfactuals are the possibilities that could have happened, but didn't/won't. I hope this helps.
@@davidtrue4255 the problem is that in a presentist, indeterministic universe, as Craig at least claims to believe in, no amount of knowledge of the present state of a system is sufficient to predict with certainty how the system will evolve. So Molinists seem to unwittingly be promoting the very thing they frequently criticize. Namely compatibilism. That free will and determinism are compatible.
@@fanghur *"...no amount of knowledge of the present state of a system is sufficient to predict with certainty how the system will evolve."* While I understand how this can be concluded, I believe it is based in assumption. We, having incomplete and imperfect knowledge of any particular individual, can still accurately predict how that individual will respond in different circumstances. Our knowledge of a person seems to be directly proportional to how accurately we can predict their responses. Theoretically then, if we actually had complete and perfect knowledge of an individual, then we would be able to predict, with certainty, what they would do in any and every situation. Therefore, there is no need for determinism in order to know what a free agent would freely do. Compatibilism, which seems logically contradictory to me (saying that we freely choose "x" when it is determined for us to only be able to do "x"), becomes an unnecessary conclusion.
@@davidtrue4255 What you just described literally IS determinism. You said that sufficient knowledge about a person’s character, desires, etc. allows you to predict how a person will probably act in various situations. But the only reason that would work is if those factors causally determine how a person chooses. Otherwise, knowledge about them would be irrelevant to being able to predict a person’s behaviour. That’s literally the compatibilist position. That a choice is freely made if and only if it was not coerced by someone else against what you otherwise would have chosen, and if it was caused (at least primarily) by the will-independent factors that constitute *you*, namely your reasons, motivations, character, values, desires, etc. So based on what you just said, you are actually a compatibilist. Except that I would argue that Molinism isn’t even compatible with compatibilism. Since because God consciously chose which ‘version’ of you to bring into existence, and hence in effect chose how you would choose throughout your life, none of your choices are actually made free of coercion, since you’re just following God’s script.
Here’s what I still struggle with. So because of middle knowledge, God has the option of making any possible feasible world based on the free will decisions of people. However, sounds like there is the possibility that person A may decide to follow Jesus in one world and not in another. At that point, even if it’s a persons free will choice, God still decides which world to actualize. It doesn’t seem that molinism avoids the issue of God choosing who will believe in him, and if God is the one to choose then how is that free will? Maybe I’m missing something, but from how WLC explained it and I understood, God has a plethora of options of people’s free will choices that he then decides which one. But then the offer of the gospel for all people to choose is a lie because God chose the reality where person A wouldn’t believe instead of the reality where they would. I need to do more reading about this as well as open theism and Arminianism.
With God's foreknowledge and middle knowledge, we can fairly presume He has selected the world where Person X is not arbitrarily left to fail or left out. The middle knowledge allows God to intervene adequately to work that "all people" who would choose Him, will make a free-will choice to follow Him. "I urge, then, first of all, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗱 and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for 𝗮𝗹𝗹 people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time." 1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 NIV
“...properly understood [these words] plumb the depths of divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men - and his compulsion is our liberation” -cs Lewis
Wow..... I've always called myself a Calvinist that affirmed many Arminian things and was "in the middle". I didn't know there was a name for this. I always said God is the author of a book called reality and we are characters in the book who do what we want yet God wrote the whole book so we do what we do because He "wrote" the story that way. I lacked a more sophisticated explanation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: It's my understanding that William Lane Craig states that both Calvinist Protestants and Dominican Catholics [both of which are, broadly speaking, Augustinian] are among those who believe God's knowledge of counterfactuals is logically after the decree of creation. Whereas Molinists believe it's prior to the decree of creation. Or does Craig mean the decree of election, rather than of creation? Or was Craig conflating the two? As a Calvinist I don't see why God couldn't know counterfactuals of compatibilistically free [not libertarianly free as in Molinism] creatures in His necessary/natural knowledge logically prior to His decree. As I understand it, God's necessary knowledge [AKA natural knowledge] includes 1. all necessary truths, and 2. all logically possible/contingent truths. Why couldn't God's knowledge of counterfactuals be a subset of all logically possible/contingent truths which are not based on libertarian decisions, but on God's knowledge of the natures He knows He could endow them with by which they could compatibilistically make decisions?
compatibilistic freedom is equal to the freedom of a machine - in that case, God would not need to have foreknowledge of the behavior of a spiritual authomaton...
As Frank Turek says, without free will there cannot be love. Why would God want to create robots to “love” Him? He also says predestination means God predetermines the outcome of our decision.
Someone help me! He said multiple times that middle knowledge was Gods knowledge of feasible worlds AT THAT TIME. This makes no sense since we are not speaking chronologically but logically. What determines the feasibility of the smaller subset of worlds from natural knowledge to middle knowledge? Some counter factual do not make it to the middle knowledge level, who determines that God?
If God chooses certain history to play out and creates it, one has to question how free we really are. It's as if we were predictable up to a point of determinism. If you can't steer away from the circumstances you were created into, is it really morally significant type of freedom?
I think that yes it is a significant freedom; regardless of you circumstances you are morally responsible for your choices. This is true whether or not your circumstances are your "fault", and whether or not God foreknew your choice and deemed it fit to place you in those circumstances. Imagine we are playing chess, and me having an encyclopedic knowledge of the game (I don't) play in such a way as to force you to choose between your queen and a rook (known as a forked-attack). Is your choice any less free because I engineered circumstance to your detriment? Is it less free because you were powerless to stop it (given your lack of knowledge of all possibilities)? Is it less free because the outcome is to your disadvantage? Does not the creator have the right to create some beings for mundane uses, and some for great glory?
@@l-cornelius-dol I'm responsible for my choices in so far as I'm their direct cause. But I'm not their ultimate cause - that's based on God's choice in this scenario. And my choices are fully reducible to and fully explainable by God's choice. If God chooses to create a world in which I'm going to be damned, I can't steer away from that fate. And if in no world could I ever be saved - that just looks like a design flaw. It's not about some people being created into better things (though egalitarianism does seem better ethically to me in that regard), but being created for damnation or ultimate death (depending on your views what hell means). Your analogy with chess... - the problem is we're those pieces on the board. We're being moved through it in accordance with preordained fate. We're not in control of our fate, because it already exists. This whole concept seems to me to kinda sweep under the rug the whole issue of choice making and puts a vague concept of freedom of will that under typical definition doesn't seem to work with it. If there's fate, you can't choose something different than what your fate prescribes. And if your fate is based on your nature and the result would be the same no matter of what kind of world you would be created into - you didn't design or create your own nature either. And if you could have been saved in some worlds, but not in this one, this was not your choice to make either. God chose all of it - in him lies the ultimate responsibility under this model. As Craig put it, if I give my wife a choice: to eat vegetables or chocolate, I might know what she chooses [not really though - we don't have that kind of certainty, it's only a probabilistic expectation - what if she feels sick at the moment, or decided to control her weight and has eaten enough chocolate already this day...], but if I do in fact know, that means we have predictable natures. And if our natures are perfectly predictable by God so that he can know everything about us in any circumstances, then it's not significantly different from determinism. It's a clockwork that's simply not based on physics [alone], but the inner workings of the mind - and it's God who's ultimately responsible for that.
Imagine you had the ability to see 10 seconds into the future. You create a truly random number generator. Before you run it, you know (using your gift of foresight) what number will come up. You run it, and it does come up. Did you choose what number came up? Stupid example, but easy to understand I think.
@@zach7009 The number generator wasn't truly random then. It was pseudorandom, or truly random in accordance with a complete theory of physics, but in that case physical theory is insufficient to describe reality as a whole, which is not random in case of fate. I'll draw a different picture, similar to yours, which maybe will clarify it. Imagine that the whole timestream already exists - past, present and future. And imagine that the fullest possible description of physical reality (looking at it from the inside, through our experiences) is indeterministic. That is experiments show that from obtainable theories alone, even assuming the complete knowledge of the current state of reality one cannot derive the next state of reality exactly. That's from the inside - from the outside, the whole timeline already exists and there's just one path to follow. If we obtained the knowledge that this singular, set timeline already exists, it would turn out that the reality wasn't truly random, but pseudo-random - simply, physical description cannot be a full description of reality. If the future is set, no real randomness exists at the very base of reality; it only seems to. Fate is exactly like that, except there's no requirement that future must already exist physically (one could imagine it like water flowing into a canal and its current being shaped by the shape of that canal - there must exist some limiting factors, some logical structure enforcing that shape). Either way, you didn't choose your fate, it was chosen for you. How then can it be your moral responsibility? Craig said that God supposedly chooses some best world and this is it. In which case he apparently creates some people as means to an end, who at best are just tools to elevate other people and then to be discarded. I'd also love to hear any proposition as to why God couldn't have created a world in which all do make right choices. It's not logically incoherent. Craig claims such a world might not be feasible, but gives nothing as to why it wouldn't be.
Our French Bulldog lives for the opportunity to chew up my furniture. I am sick of our old den couch. I leave the Frenchie in the den unsupervised. Frenchie commits punishable sin of chewing up couch through his defiant freewill to knowingly defy me. Is this close?
I find the term "counterfactual" to be misleading since it refers to true facts; I think a better term would be conditional-factual -- but Dr Craig is much smarter, and far better studied than am I.
Dr. Craig himself has commented on the confusion that can occur when using the term "counterfactual": www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-13/
Josh, if you have serious commentary, then go ahead. But these kinds of snarky hit and run comments don’t help anyone but instead merely add to the unpleasantness of the comment section. (No, disagreement per se isn’t unpleasant. But your style is, although you are tame/mild compared to many others on UA-cam)
The Christian understanding of God is one of perfect simplicity in One Divine Nature except for the relations between the Three Divine Persons. It seems to me that Molinism better respects God's simplicity by positing that "God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree." (#7 at 35:38 - 36:28) Otherwise, if only known logically afterwards, this seems to suggest an unwarranted complexity in the One Divine Nature, even though the propositions are based on Extra Trinitate Relations (God's relationship with His creatures, as opposed to the Intra Trinitate Relations within Himself). According to Wikipedia, the Molinist controversy was never settled in the Catholic Church: "In 1581, a heated argument erupted between the Jesuits, who advocated Molinism, and the Dominicans, who had a different understanding of God's foreknowledge and the nature of predestination. In 1597, Pope Clement VIII established the Congregatio de Auxiliis, a committee whose purpose was to settle this controversy. In 1607, Pope Paul V ended the quarrel by forbidding each side to accuse the other of heresy, allowing both views to exist side-by-side in the Catholic Church." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism God willing, I hope and believe that we will get the answer after death, along with all of the other wonderful answers to our questions. Throw in the perfection of Divine Love and it looks like an amazing eternity for those who answer the call and seek it with all their heart. I wish it for everyone.
Its fairly easy to know that Molonism, at its very least, is false in the notion that it protects free will. The very concept that God could logically know every free will choice prior to any creature making that choice, implies that choices are nothing but pretetermined sequences. They are no longer free when you view time in such a linear fashion. Its just hard determinism disguised behind a bunch of counterfactuals.
@@justindavis2711 However, if God is outside of time, why couldn't there be no determinism, particularly if God made angels and human beings in His Divine Image in that they have immortal rational souls that endows them with free will. His Infinite and Omniscient Nature could see all at once in a flash what any of His creatures would do in that "linear fashion" we are presently limited to before experiencing physical death and then coming face to face with eternity.
Jeremiah 38:17-18 New American Standard Bible 17 Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, “Thus says the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘If you will indeed go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, then [a]you will live, this city will not be burned with fire, and you and your household will [b]survive. 18 But if you will not go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, then this city will be given over to the hand of the Chaldeans; and they will burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape from their hand.’”
At the 6min mark WLC makes the same mistake he mentioned just a couple minutes before. He asked the wrong question. And then he builds a strawman based on that premise. The right question would be what does it mean to be Omniscient. Does Omniscient mean "MUST know everything" as WLC claims or does it mean "can know everything"? And who gets to define that? Does Man dare define God and place titles on Him that He has not given Himself? Is that not Idolatry? Do you dare oh man to definitely claim or tell God who and what He is? And then to build his fallacious argument WLC brings in the very stinky red-herring herring of Timelessness. Where does God say He is outside of Time? Does He not say He is the Eternal One? The Everlasting? Who gets to define what Time is? Is not God the source of everything? Does not everything trace it's origins back to God? I suggest that where God has chosen to remain silent, ESPECIALLY about Himself, then so should Man. ESPECIALLY His children and ambassadors to Christ. To do otherwise runs the risk of Idolatry and what are we to do with Sin? At the 6min mark WLC makes the same mistake he mentioned just a couple minutes before. He asked the wrong question. And then he builds a strawman based on that premise. The right question would be what does it mean to be Omniscient. Does Omniscient mean "MUST know everything" as WLC claims or does it mean "can know everything"? And who gets to define that? Does Man dare define God and place titles on Him that He has not given Himself? Is that not Idolatry? Do you dare oh man to definitely claim or tell God who and what He is? And then to build his fallacious argument WLC brings in the very stinky red-herring herring of Timelessness. Where does God say He is outside of Time? Does He not say He is the Eternal One? The Everlasting? Who gets to define what Time is? Is not God the source of everything? Does not everything trace it's origins back to God? I suggest that where God has chosen to remain silent, ESPECIALLY about Himself, then so should Man. ESPECIALLY His children and ambassadors to Christ. To do otherwise runs the risk of Idolatry and what are we to do with Sin? As I continue to watch and WLC continues to mention "God's creative decree", I have to wonder what he means by that but assume he's talking about the "And God said, "Let there be..." "decrees" (plural) in Genesis 1 and therefore is narrowing that down to the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” decree. (Gen. 1:26) So that moved me to go look at it and a thought occurred to me that I've not had or considered before. Just throwing this out there as food for thought. What does it mean to be created "in the image of God"? I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever preach or teach on that except to say that Man is an "image bearer". Like in Right-To-Life arguments, for example. But what does that really mean? Then, almost immediately, the word "dominion" jumped out at me. So I looked at Strong's and BDB to see what they said. As I read them the word "Sovereign" that you hear so often immediately popped into my head. So that made me think of how I had looked for the word Sovereign before in the NT and found that it's never even used in most translations but some have it ONCE in 1st Tim. 6:15 for the Greek word "dunastēs" (G1413). And it's almost identical to the Hebrew Word in Gen. 1:26!! And the ESV used it in Acts 4:24 and Rev. 6:10 for the Greek word "despotēs" (G1203). It is EXTREMELY interesting to me to note the similarities and the differences in the two Greek words and how they could be tied into the Hebrew word. All this begs this question, at least for me, as to what does it mean to be created in God's image. What does "let us make Man in our image mean"? IOW, working backwards, if Man is considered to be "sovereign" over all the creatures and the earth and "rule" over them is that reflective of God's sovereignty and rule? Does Mankind decree ever single thing that happens with the created? Fish, animals, insects, etc.? Or do we make decisions based on the best information we have at the time based on the actions of free creatures? For example, let's say that I have a Beagle and want to train it to be a good rabbit dog or a German Shorthair that I want to be a good birddog. Am I "sovereign" over the dog and it's training? Can it do as it wishes? Will I not adapt my training techniques to the way in performs to a variety of tests and situations in order to achieve my goals and 'the plan" that I have for that dog? Is that somehow illogical? I know every analogy probably falls short somehow but consider the World renowned Chess Masters. I don't know if any of them were ever undefeated but suppose, for the sake of argument, they exist(ed). Why do they always win? Is it because they predestined the moves their opponent would make? Or because they had the foreknowledge to see all the moves anyone could make and only chose the opponent they could defeat? Or is it because they knew the game so well, forwards and backwards, that no matter what move their opponent freely chose to make they could then make their move in order to bring the desired win with the outcome? Is that illogical? Which is the bigger God? The one who knew all the options and then chose the one that would play out exactly as He planned or the God who knows everything, including the game, so well that no matter what choice is freely made He can instantly make the move that leads the game to the eventual win? And do so with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of people and free-will decisions simultaneously? Even as I type that I am reminded of Jonathan Sarfati. A leading Apologist with CMI and a world-class Chess Master who plays up to 30 opponents at one time. If he can do that how much more can God do? Which is greater? To have one plan which you have decided how everything will go so that you can accomplish what you desire or to have an infinite number of possibilities and know how to move each one of them forward to your desired outcome? Which puts God in a box and which puts Him outside the box? Is it possible that God may do the same? If so, does that make Him any less God? If not, why not? While I think Molinism does a pretty good job of answering the questions about Free Will, it simply doesn't come close to deal with the troublesome passages like: "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." (Jer 7:31) "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind" (Jer 19:5) So how does one reconcile passages like those with the ones WLC gave that Molinism seems to answer? I don't know. I don't. I just accept them both to be true and hold them in tension until God tells me. Well, I thought I was done but WLC says something at the 50min mark during the Q&A that is VERY telling and I had to address it. Listen to him talk about God "blindly" picking the world He wants to decree. Then ask yourself this simple question. Theologically, and I think Biblically, why does God do anything that He does?
Paragraph 1: Check out the Ontological argument. Basically stating that God is a perfect being, which would require perfect knowledge. If he simply "can" know everything, then he is not perfect in knowledge. Rather, I think it is required you know everything to be perfect in knowledge (what we mean by omniscient). Paragraph 2: William Lane Craig is coming at this from the Cosmological argument. Basically, because the time is finite, it requires something to exist before it, better known as God. Eternal implies that God never began to exist, therefore placing him before time. Paragraph 5: I think he’s referring to the creation when he says God’s creative decree (the decree that creates stuff). I don’t see how the image of God affects Molonism, and I don’t fully understand the leap in logic from decree to image of God. Paragraph 6: Again, I don’t see what this has to do with Molonism. However, I can assure you that dominion is telling humans to steward the earth (care for it but also have control of it). Paragraph 7: This has nothing to do with Molonism. Paragraph 8: Perhaps a better show of the “Molonist” chess player would be one who knows all the players, how they play, and exactly how they would react to his movements, knowing how to beat all of them, but only choosing the one who would give him the most glory (as both chess players are only allowed to choose one, because in this analogy, the universe is the opponent). Biblical argument: “Nor did it come to mind” is most likely an idiom meaning God was displeased by that action, and not that the thought didn’t cross his mind. If it didn’t, it would defy God’s omniscience. Paragraph 9: When WLC says “blindly” he is referring to the individual actions of “A” “B” and “C”, not how the universe plays out. Perhaps a better explanation would be, “God chooses a universe based on his goal, rather than the individual choices of A B and C.” This comment was very thoughtful and I enjoyed responding to it. I hope this clears up some of what WLC said.
@@bcpeters1457 - Thanks for the reply,. Yours was very thoughtful as well and I enjoyed reading and responding to it as well. To your Paragraph 1, I agree with you in that is the argument that WLC is making. But here's the problem with that as I see it,. "Basically stating that God is a perfect being, which would require perfect knowledge". Ok, but who gets to decide what is and define "perfect being" and "perfect knowledge"? IOW, who or what is to say that God is not "perfect" if He chooses not to know something? Why would that necessitate His being less that perfect? For example, suppose I want to build something and I have NO clue how to do so. I have in my mind something I want to accomplish and I know what the perfect result will be. I also know there are aspects of the building process that though I may be able to totally control I have chosen not to. So I try a few different things and let's just say on the 3rd attempt, due to some of those "out of my control" issues, I achieve the "perfect" result that I wanted. How is that process or the result less that perfect? "If he simply "can" know everything, then he is not perfect in knowledge." Says who? Based on what? Are you conflating Quality with Completeness? "Rather, I think it is required you know everything to be perfect in knowledge (what we mean by omniscient)." I understand, But as Christians we must be conformed into HIS image and NOT conform Him into OUR image. We must define our terms NOT according to our understanding and knowledge but rather according to His. (Pro. 3:5-7, 14;12). To your Paragraph 2: I understand But I have recently come across a couple of podcast that are challenging that "outside of time" assumption/premise/supposition. You claim that "time is finite". Say who? Based on what? There is NO mention of that in Scripture. What Scripture says is "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." But that was before the sun and the moon were even placed. There is no specific connection of that to Time. What if God is Time and it is in Him that we understand Infinity and Eternality? To your "Paragraph 5": I don't understand what you're asking me. There is a series of differing thoughts in that paragraph. Wrt the "image of God" thing the "leap in logic" has to do with my question asking what exactly does it mean to be created in he image of God. As I said, I don't think I've ever seen anyone define that. To your "Paragraph 6": It doesn't. I was just sharing a new "epiphany" I got while looking at the Scripture. To your "Paragraph 8": That may be a better show of Molinism but it doesn't do any better job with the Biblical argument I have against it. And I didn't go back to look at my chess analogy so that's why I say "may be". I'll just give you that it is and skip down to your comment on the Biblical argument. "Biblical argument: “Nor did it come to mind” is most likely an idiom meaning God was displeased by that action, and not that the thought didn’t cross his mind. If it didn’t, it would defy God’s omniscience." The operative words there for me are "most likely", I don't find that the case to be at all. And I would argue that it doesn't necessarily defy God's omniscience but rather your and others definition of Omniscience. My concern is that far too many churches are defining God based on THEIR knowledge or simply following what some other men laid down hundreds of years ago and NOT God's definition as determined by His Word. Make NO mistake, I'm NOT saying that's the case. I'm just saying it's my concern and as far as I'm concerned it is a VERY valid concern because I have personally witnessed firsthand MANY who have created a God, and/or a Jesus, in their own image according to their own ways, will, and wisdom. I find it far better to simply remain silent on things where God has chosen to remain silent on. God says His ways are above Man's and I believe that. FAR above. And I simply have NO problem with saying, "I don't know, God has chosen not to tell us that in His Word."
Man, that was very insightful, and gives me a better idea of where you are coming from. I respect the last paragraph wholeheartedly, as I do your strong desire for truth. Para 1: As Christians, we know that God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 13:8) and that he is Omniscient (Psalm 147:5, Hebrews 4:13). The way I see it, if God has the ability to change, that seems like it brakes the idea that God is unchanging. This is why I think God does know everything. However, you may not see this as changing anything. Have you checked out the Ontological argument? If you haven’t, it would give you a good idea of where I’m coming from. As to your analogy, I think the result is perfect, however the process is imperfect, as it has, at minimum, a 2/3 fail rate. A more perfect creation would be one that you have control over, despite having random events. This process would be perfect, and the result would remain perfect Yes, we should be conformed to God’s image. However, there is enough in the Bible to give us a framework of how his sovereignty works (check the verses I have above). Along with this, I have been backing up my claims with theological and philosophical arguments. Your argument basically comes down to, “who gets to decide what perfect means?” My answer: the Bible. I believe Psalm 147:5, “[God’s] understanding is infinite” says it best. Para 2: Philosophically, it is impossible for infinity to exist. If the universe were an infinite, then today would already have passed. Genesis 1:1 makes a claim to a beginning. You could argue it was the beginning of the earth, but included in the beginning is the Heaves (better known as space). God cannot be time, because time has a beginning (to say otherwise defies the philosophical Cosmological argument, and you would have to contend with that.) Para 5 & 6: I now understand that you were on a different topic. Thanks for the clarification. Para 8: This may be a difference of interpretation. However, there are multiple times in the Bible where God claims to not know something he actually does know, such as when God asks Adam and Eve where they are hiding. He obviously knows where they are, as Jeremiah 23:24, Hebrews 4:13 and Psalm 139:7 assert (all speaking about how no one can hide from God), but asks anyway. I don’t see why. If you don’t think this applies here, know that some translations, such as the CSB, opt to use, “Nor did I entertain the thought” rather than, “nor did it come into my mind”. This isn’t objective proof, but it does bring into question the true meaning of the phrase. I appreciate your final comment, and agree completely. However, I think I have reason to believe what I believe beyond creating my own god. I sincerely hope you don’t take this as an attack. Rather, I have been viewing this as a friendly debate, and hope you see it the same. Thanks for responding. You have made my day.
@@bcpeters1457 - Allow me to address your last first. Absolutely! And I very much hope you continue to view this the same, Now, that said, I think it's time for me to just move on,. There's just too much here to try and address in this forum. But I will give you the courtesy of explaining why and addressing some specific points in doing so, 1) " As Christians, we know that God is unchanging,.." You have conflated what a Christian is with holding to certain doctrines. Not only does one not need to know such things to be a Christian but they don't even have to come to know them to be a Christian. Furthermore, anyone can rape Scripture by ripping out some verse to make their point,. I'll use just your first as an example: "“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Mal 3:6) What is God saying by "I the Lord do not change"? It's not hard to see when one looks at the preceding "for" and the succeeding "therefore". It is a twisting of God's Holy Word to rip out "I the LORD do not change" from it's context which is sandwiched between the "for" and "therefore". Since that is your first Scripture citation I have little reason to trust any of your others nor take the time to look at them because I well-imagine that I will find the same. The same goes for God being Omniscient. It's not my intent to redefine Omniscience because words to have meaning but I think we must ask ourselves whether the word means what Man has ascribed to it. For example, I have often heard, and even said myself, "All means all." But does it? Not necessarily, When I say "all means all" I am referring specifically to "all" as the antecedent to "Scripture" in 2nd Tim. 3:16. Yet, when one studies Matt. 1:17 they will find that "all" can NOT mean "all" there. I would agree with you that my argument basically comes down to "who gets to decide what perfect means?” For me EVERYTHING comes down to who gets to decide and as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ it is my Master and NOTHING else. The Word of God is my final authority to govern everything. I'll end with what I think you know, but just to be crystal clear, I am NOT saying you have created your own god. Just that I know several who have because when questioned about their beliefs they leave Scripture altogether and basically can't support their suppositions. Often falling back on ad homs, demagoguery, mockery, or just disappearing. You have not done so and that's appreciated and respected. However, that said, I would submit, as I believe I showed with Mal. 3:6, that you have resorted to prooftexting. And prooftexting more often than not is a mistake. Oh, and I do realize that one might say the same about me. The difference, I believe, is the exegesis which can NOT ignore the context. Moreover, I believe that , in fact, the context actually renders a literal interpretation of "nor did it enter my mind". Especially when followed with "nor did I decree",
So God being all knowing and having seen all events played out in time. God knows how the movie ends so to speak. Yet he remains fulfilled. He doesn't get bored in need of more entertainment. God in the plan has the stage set for the sequel in eternity. His glory is never ending.
I havn't watched the full talk yet, but there is something I don't get about William Lane Craigs position. If William Lane Craig believes God can manipulate any given circumstance so that people can freely choose something _while also_ accomplishing God's will. Doesn't that mean that God could manipulate or order a Pope or an Ecumenical Council to infallibly decree his doctrines without error while still exercising their own free will? The infallibility of the Pope is something he rejects though, but according to his position on Molinism(as I understand it), papal infallibility is easily reconciled with the Molinist view of free will and God's omniscience.
Hello. I have read Dr. Craig referring that Thomas P. Flint has applied middle knowledge to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I think he would agree that this application is successful. Dr. Craig has applied middle knowledge to the Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture; a doctrine that has great similarities with the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I think that Dr. Craig's reservations to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility are because he maintains the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura., and that he would argue that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is not in the Scriptures.
@@jacobogutierrezsanchez I also heard in an interview that he doesn't believe in the infallibility of Church Councils either. That's why he is able to hold to monothelitism. But I agree that if you make the argument of the inspiration of scripture is pretty reasonable to do so with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
The use of the Christmas Carol is misleading. In Molonism, what "would" be true is totally inaccessible from the actual world post decree. Once a world is chosen, all counterfactuals are no longer live options, merely hypotheticals. So saying the future he sees WOULD happen has no teeth, what WILL happen was already chosen by God from before creation.
I'll make this easy for anyone who reads this: Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. Colossians 2:4 NKJV Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8 NKJV “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. John 14:15-17, 21-24 NKJV Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NKJV You're welcome.
To any "reasonable" man it looks like a contradiction that Jesus is both fully Man and fully God. But to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit it is simple truth. To any "reasonable" man it looks like a contradiction that God is fully Sovereign and Man is fully Free. But to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit it is simple truth. Calvinists who call Molinism unrealistic because of the apparent contradiction of God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will, who also hold that Jesus is Fully Man and Fully God (which is also an apparent contradiction to the mortal mind), need to check themselves before they wreck themselves because I smell hypocrisy. We can't deal in "Oh, that doesn't make sense." because we simply don't know. That's why EVERYTHING needs to be backed up by God's word.
"Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." (Psalm 80:17) "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." (Proverbs 16:9) "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him." (Job 23:13-14) "And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the Lord:" (Isaiah 62:12) "The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Proverbs 21:1) "Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men." (Psalm 90:3) "Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit." (Job 10:12)
How Does TULIP Make You Feel? Less mature Christians may grimace at the so-called “doctrines of grace” like children frown at sushi. They do so, however, only because they haven’t yet come to know its deeper joys. The mature grow into a rigor and depth and seriousness about doctrine, and knowing that doctrine produces joy, not boredom. For many, a kind of “coming of age” spiritually - from the “simple truths” of the gospel, to the massive theological realities that feed, undergird, strengthen, and arise from those truths - means coming into the furnace room of Christianity that some have called “Calvinism.” It is a bizarre term. The truths emphasized in the “system” were not new 500 years ago with John Calvin. The absolute sovereignty of God in all things, salvation included, is present (often shockingly so) in the Old Testament Scriptures, and then pervasive in the New. Then, after the Dark Ages, a great season of rediscovery came with the Reformation. Before Calvin taught the bigness of God in the second generation, Luther did in the first. And long before Luther, Augustine reckoned earnestly with the sovereignty and God-ness of God. “Calvinism” is a kind of nickname for the “strong old doctrines . . . which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.” So also, the faithful distinguish between God’s timeless truth and the incursions of unbelieving thought. Augustinian Delight When it comes to theology, one danger we face is to so emphasize a doctrine’s truthfulness that we undersell its goodness - and delightfulness. We need to rethink our Reformed soteriology, so that every limb and every branch in the tree is coursing with the sap of Augustinian delight. Augustine, more than most, wrote not only of truth but of joy. Famously he claims in his Confessions that human hearts find no rest until they find rest in God, and he writes of God as not only sovereign in power but also the “sovereign joy” - the universe’s supreme treasure (Matthew 13:44; Philippians 3:7-8), the Joy above all joys and in all joys, and God as the “exceeding joy” (Psalm 43:4). So, what, then, might it sound like, and how might it taste, to the maturing palate, to talk not only of the truth but also the goodness and joy of the so-called “doctrines of grace”? The five points of Calvinism (summarized as TULIP, as responses to five specific theological errors) moves from man’s inability to obtain real joy, to the Father’s and Son’s and Spirit’s parts in securing it, to man’s part, and now ability, even surety, of enduring in it. Consider those five famous petals, and taste the sap of delight in each limb and branch of the tree. Total Depravity Total depravity is not just badness, but blindness to beauty and deadness to joy.” Depravity in us does not produce delight in the long run but misery, a self-chosen misery and a misery God imposes in righteous retribution. Even in the short run, as sin holds out its deceitful promises of pleasure, we are not genuinely happy in our depravity. No one sins out of duty, but neither does sin make anyone deeply and enduringly happy. We sin for the sake of some pleasure, and then find it empty, again and again and again. Total depravity means we are totally unable, on our own, to escape the prison of our misery, totally unable to secure the joy our hearts ache for. Our native condition, punctuated with thin and hollow thrills, is no happy one. Apart from Christ, we are dead to real joy (Ephesians 2:1, 5; 4:18) and blind to true beauty (2 Corinthians 4:4). And yet it is the “weak,” “the ungodly,” “sinners,” his “enemies” that God reconciles to himself in Christ (Romans 5:6-10), ushering them into true rejoicing (Romans 5:11). Unconditional Election “Unconditional election means that the completeness of our joy in Jesus was planned for us before we ever existed.” The Father chose his people, to share with them his infinite joy, even before they existed, not to mention before they had done anything good or bad. How might it change our talk of such divine election to focus more on the gift of everlasting bliss and less on the loss of perceived autonomy? The Father was not, in Christ Jesus, going about robbing mankind of its ability to choose. Rather, from a race of incapable rebels, he chose a people, in sheer grace and mercy, to share with him in the infinite bliss of the Godhead. If you are in Christ, God chose you for joy, before you had any choice, or could meet any conditions. He “blessed us in Christ . . . even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:3-4). The sovereign God, who is the sovereign Joy, “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), and his will for his people is to make them indomitably, unassailably happy forever. Limited Atonement “Limited atonement is the assurance that indestructible joy in God is infallibly secured for us by the blood of the covenant.” The Father did not just snap his fingers, flip a switch, or wave a wand to make the everlasting joy of his people certain. The real world is more complicated than that, and real joy is far better. God is both unimpeachably just and teeming with love and mercy. To pay the penalty of the totally depraved, he gave his own Son, who embraced the mission and went willingly. And the gift of God’s own Son made final joy not only possible but certain. For God’s people, our final joy is as certain as the death and resurrection of God’s Son. Jesus bought our joy at the cost of his own pain and sorrows. Real joy is costly, not cheap. And for his people, his sheep, his bride, he has not only secured the offer of salvation but also effects it for us and in us. Irresistible Grace “Irresistible grace is the commitment and power of God’s love to make sure we don’t hold on to suicidal pleasures, but will set us free by the sovereign power of superior delights.” Not only does the Father plan, and the Son accomplish, but God the Spirit applies the Son’s work invincibly, in his perfect timing, to the Father’s chosen people. Precisely when he wills, the Spirit breaks into depraved lives unwittingly hellbent on eternal misery through sin, and he changes hearts irrevocably. He overcomes our slavery to the miseries of sin, and sets us free for the superior joy available only in God. As he allows, we may indeed resist for a season - but only so long as he permits for his good purposes. When he is ready, he lovingly breaks the back of our resistance. He opens our eyes to the truth, and beauty, and superior worth of Jesus Christ as the Joy of all joys. Perseverance of the Saints “The perseverance of the saints is the almighty work of God to keep us, through all affliction and suffering, for an inheritance of pleasures at God’s right hand forever.” Finally, from the misery of man in our sin, to the Father choosing joy for his yet-to-be-created people, the Son securing it, and the Spirit applying it, we return to man, in Christ. God works in us so that we endure in the joy of faith through the ups and downs of life in this age. Jude famously closes his short letter, “Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding great joy . . .” (Jude 24). Perseverance doesn’t pretend straight lines or lives without suffering. Perseverance promises final protection, eternal safety. In Christ, the promise of perseverance says, “Your sorrow will turn into joy” (John 16:20) and “No one will take your joy from you” (John 16:22). Joy Sounds the Final Note God is the great storyteller. He doesn’t draw with thin straight lines from conversion to glory. He’s the master of ups and downs, and ups again. He’s not so fragile as to be allergic to suffering any seeming defeat. In fact, in this fallen and sin-sick age, he thrives on the comeback story. His people are often down. “Many are the afflictions of the righteous” (Psalm 34:19). “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). God as our sovereign Joy doesn’t mean that every moment of our lives in this age will be pleasant and uncomplicated. But it does promise that there is always a joy that is deeper and greater than any pain and suffering we encounter. It doesn’t mean our troubles are insignificant. But it does mean that our sufferings, in Christ, do not have the final say. Joy will speak the final word. Joy will sound the final note. Which is why all of us, like Spurgeon and Edwards, who are willing to go by the name “Calvinist,” for distinction’s sake, would do well to show the world, and church, not only our drive for the truth but also the joy and grace that such truths produce. John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
lol... yes, the special, knowledgeable, high and lofty ones come into the "doctrines of grace" as you speak... removing free will and attributing God with every evil known to man, "for His glory" they say. Satan laughs at you, as you grasp the doctrines of MAN just like the Pharisees and Sadducees, those "hypocrites" Jesus called them, as well as "Children of the Devil." But go ahead, puff yourself up, Calvinist. For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight,” says the Lord. “They have set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, WHICH I DID NOT COMMAND, NOR DID IT COME INTO MY HEART. Jeremiah 7:30-31 NKJV bible.com/bible/114/jer.7.30-31.NKJV Every act of evil though right?? Except for this one?? Read your Bible more...
If the actual world is represented as a line, what we can see is from past till the present time on this line. We thought that God can see the whole line including future, from start till the end do the line, but actually God can see the whole “map” other than this “narrow” line on which the actual “time” is flowing. God sees myriad of other possible worlds other than the one actual world. Knowing this just make me dumbfounded, and then I know what I can do is to pray to him, as there is no way for any human being to know what God knows.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? Is that just?
Your assuming absolute knowledge , that god, even with beings who possess freewill, knows the future. This is only asserted. I'm not sure here. If it is, then does it follow that if molinism can show gods forknowledge doesn't contradict freewill, then does not his proove freewill.?I'm not being retorical here. Is it possibly the reverse here . The foundation has not been set?
Dr. Craig is assuming that the Bible teaches that God has absolute sovereignty over all of creation, knows the future, and is able to create free creatures. If this is the case, then we need an explanation that is able to synthesize these points. Middle knowledge is that explanation. So, it's not that Molinism can show God's foreknowledge. Rather, it's that Molinism explains how divine sovereignty, foreknowledge, and free will can all be logically compatible. - RF Admin
When it comes to which world God actualized, I believe differently than Dr. Craig or Molina. I believe that the people in this world that chose to go to hell or will choose to go to hell would do so in every possible world. So therefore, God can use those people as pawns by putting them in different places in time and geography to accomplish his goal without concern of their salvation, because no matter what they would never choose it. So I believe God created a world that the maximum number of people would go to heaven. I believe this is the best that it can be with free creatures, as sad as that is
I agree here. I don’t think it makes much sense for a person to accept Christ in world A but reject Him in world B - a true acceptance of Christ is independent of any circumstance. Moreover, one would be committing the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit but rejecting Him in even one possible world, as no circumstances justify rejecting God.
As fascinating as this exercise to find some kind of harmony among freewill and election, it all gets turned on its head if God reveals Himself to ALL and every knee bows and confesses the truth freely of their own will. Of course there are likely very few in the audience that believe that is possible. But only because of the assumptions that they bring to the table wittingly or unwittingly.
10 Then David said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O Lord, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.
By "world," Dr. Craig means a maximal description of reality. The actual world includes the entire history of this reality, including the past, present, and future. Since the past, present, and at least some of the future includes sin, then the ushering in of heaven would not preclude this world's having sin, since the past is part of the history of the world. For Dr. Craig's explanation of a "possible world," see his Defenders class, The Existence of God (Series 2, Part 23): www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-excursus-on-natural-theology/existence-of-god-part-23 - RF Admin
Firstly, There can be No Free Will if God is the Creator of each person’s own personal essence and nature. Namely, because God has created the person’s own essence and nature in such a way that the person would desire to do the things that he or she does. One person does action X and another person does action Y and the ‘ ultimate reason ‘ is because God has created each person’s essence and nature differently. Each person’s own will acts in accordance with their desires, and their desires act in accordance with how God has created their essence and nature. Therefore, it is impossible that anyone can have free will. Secondly, Those who were going to go to Hell were always going to go to Hell. God knew who would go to Hell if they were to exist. Once those people are born into the earth, they cannot use their will to get saved because if they did get saved, then that would prove God wrong on what He knew ( and He knew that they would go to Hell ). Molinism is just another version of Calvinism. It is Filled with Determinism and Cruelty. God creates the Elect and the non Elect just as He does in Calvinism. Thirdly, If God has exhaustive and perfect foreknowledge, then there is no need for God to choose between Possible Worlds. Namely, because He always knew that this World would exist. God having to choose between Possible Worlds and then making a choice on what World He would create or actualize means that God was NOT All Knowing prior to his choice. Fourthly, If God has exhaustive and perfect foreknowledge, then even God cannot have Free Will. Namely, because He can never do other than what He always knew He would do. He had to create this world and He could not refrain from creating it because He always knew this world would be created. Omnsicience and Free Will are incompatible.
I think you are conflating necessary truths with possible truths (contingent truths). If God foreknew he would create state of affairs A (the creation of the universe) instead of B, C, D and so forth; then it doesn't follow necessarily that God cannot create state of affairs B, C, D, and so on and so forth.
@@4idhero798 --- If God’s foreknowledge is as old He is, then He eternally knew that He would create the universe at point T and it had to obtain. If God had changed His mind and refrained and not created the Universe at point T, then He would have proven His Foreknowledge wrong. There was never any need for God to choose between possible worlds because God always knew He would create this world at point T. If God has exhaustive and perfect foreknowledge, then even God cannot have Free Will. Namely, because He can never do other than what He always knew He would do. He had to create this world and He could not refrain from creating it because He always knew this world would be created. Omniscience and Free Will are incompatible. If God is to be perfectly free, then He cannot be All Knowing. If God is All Knowing, then He is not free and is bound to always do what He always knew He would do.
Calvinism: Parent sets cookies in front of the disobedient child, tells him not to eat them, makes him eat them, then punishes him for eating them. Molinism: Parent knows the child will eat the cookies, but sets them out anyway, tells the child not to eat them, the child chooses to eat the cookies, the parent catches the child and teaches them a lesson. In this view, the child did not have to eat the cookies--even though the parent knew they would. Also, the parent could have made a situation with no cookies. But knew that the world with the cookies would produce the outcome of a more disciplined child. Both the parent and the child made free choices.
the problem is that the real world that god created is not free since God only actually creates one world. God is piking one world in which he will manipulate all situations, environments, and the nature of all created things so that certain choices are made. So again it really does not matter that there are other hypothetical worlds and counterfactuals which God knew before the decree of creation. The real world is the world in which God master planned everything and man is manipulated in choosing exactly what God wants him to choose. Since there is only one real (non-hypothetical world) then I cannot see how Molinism does not boil down to another form of determinism. The feasible worlds are just the worlds that God could create in which certain actions will take place. I really can only see one feasible world which would be the actual world since God is choosing a world in which all thins occur as he wants them to occur. Remember God is only choosing one world and God must have a reason to choose that one world vs. worlds that are very very similar to that world. the problem with Dr. Craig's answer as to the question of how are we free if God chooses the one world in which we live is that God is god has created my nature and environment. Thus I cannot choose anything different because I will not choose anything different. All the parameters are controlled by God. God would not have given me sufficient grace to choose differently. I have only one real choice. God manipulated creation so that I have only that one choice. Those hypothetical mes di not ever exist. The only real me was the one that lived in a world which everything was so controlled and manipulated so that I would do a certain action like sin. So the only real me that is able to make a real choice is one and only one option is really available to me. That is not libertarian freedom.
The mental gymnastics are impressive. God controls and knows all, but you're free. And if you abuse your freedom in sin and doubt, which god would also know and control, then you're free to burn eternally. But A Christmas Carol proves it all makes sense.
Sounds like you're challenging the doctrine of hell moreso than molinism. Molinism really isn't hard to understand. God places us in situations where our choices bring about His will. That's all there is to it.
Jack this crude summary suggests you don't yet understand the nuances of middle knowledge. The key point is that the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom known by God are not decided or determined by God. This is what Craig means when he says these counterfactuals are logically prior to His creative decree. So it really is up to free agents to decide in their circumstances. The counterfactuals are true, because they correctly correspond to the way we would really act in a particular set of circumstances. By choosing to actualise a particular world God merely allows or permits people to commit sins - and so people as free agents really are morally responsible for the sins that they freely commit.
I love Dr. Craig but unfortunately, his theory reduces God to the level of our brain logic, God is beyond our logical mind. Who can understand the fact that God can predetermine events and at the same time let men be free of their actions. Let God be God and man be man.
This seems to assume that God is incapable of creating creatures with the capacity to gain knowledge of his nature and providence through logic and reasoning. Why think that that's true? - RF Admin
Christ Jesus of Nazareth is our Messiah, not yahweh. Elohim, adonai, allah, diana, bel, ashtoreth, rapha, yahuwah, yahweh, yeshua, etc are devils and cannot save you from sin.
Umm... a bunch of the names you just listed are other names for Jesus. Elohim is a generic term for God, yahweh is the name of God (yahweh means "He is") and adonai is also another name for Jesus.
William Lane Craig talking philosophical connerie in order impress his audience that God is an expert in quantum indeterminancy and that God uses his servant William to illustrate what a fraud william was and still is. William thrives on theological connerie and is an expect in this area of Christianity.
hahaha, i see you've failed to recognize that every theology is formed from a philosophical framework. Whether consciously or subconsciously, humans will always try to make sense of scripture through their own preconceived ideas of logic.
@@justindavis2711 - Brother, when I hear WLC talk for 30 minutes and never bring up a text of scripture, it becomes pretty clear that his framework is philosophy, not scripture. I love WLC as a brother in Christ. I take issue with his apologetic framework, not him personally. I admire with efforts, but not his work. He has been a faithful warrior for Christ for decades. It would be awesome if he engaged with some presuppositional thinkers.
For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation:
Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore):
1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and
2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’)
So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance!
So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’
Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!
There are several points at which your comment demonstrates misconceptions about Molinism and middle knowledge.
1. Middle knowledge is a component of Molinism, not a synonym for it. It is not called "middle knowledge" because it "places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes." Rather, it received its name from being logically situated between God's natural knowledge (knowledge of necessary truths) and God's free knowledge (knowledge of contingent truths resulting from the creative decree).
2. Molinists affirm both divine sovereignty and divine omniscience. However, they do not equate sovereignty with unilateral divine causal determinism. Nor to they diminish God's knowledge by eliminating middle knowledge, which includes God's pre-decree knowledge of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
3. You set up a false dichotomy by assuming that if people freely accept Christ, then God cannot know who will be saved and cannot have chosen before the foundations of the world. However, if God has middle knowledge, then this is false. Since God is omniscient, then he has middle knowledge. Therefore, it is false that there being people who freely accept Christ entails that God does not know who will be saved and did not choose them before the foundations of the world.
4. It is incorrect to say that "Molinism... is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner 'freely' chooses to be saved." Again, if God has middle knowledge, then his creative decree entails his knowing who will be saved prior their actually freely accepting Christ.
It's clear that you have an emotional aversion to Molinism. We hope that you'll set aside the emotions at some point to dispassionately learn about this fruitful concept. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg An intellectually honest assessment will admit to the fact that, at its core, Molinism is really nothing more an attempt to somehow reconcile two utterly irreconcilable ideas - the sovereignty of God and the ‘sovereignty of man’!
I grant that there appears (Prv 14:12) to be compelling reasons why you will want to insist upon the latter, but here’s the thing (PLEASE try and set aside your Autonomian commitments for just a moment)… unless God is God, not only over SOME things, but over ALL things (Eph 4:6), then God is not God!
Whenever we concern ourselves with the things of God, we ALWAYS need to try an understand the things of God in light of the fact that ALL THINGS (not just some things) are FROM Him, THROUGH Him, FOR HIS GLORY (Rom 11:36)! In other words… God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! So then, please answer me this - why would God, who is sovereign over all, permit ANYTHING that could possibly rob Him of His glory, including (in fact, ESPECIALLY) His image bearer to disavow His Lordship!
And BTW - in case you think this bit of banter between us is nothing more than something trivial, consider this - whenever God gave Israel over into apostasy, it was not because of their idolatry, but because they denied the sovereignty of God! And because Molinists (and others in different ways, albeit always to the same effect) insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, I dare to say that God has (yet again), handed His own over to the Fool (Biblically speaking) into apostasy…
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” - 1 Tim 4:1
How can we as Christians otherwise account for the fact that the Fool now has the intellectual and moral ascendency in the world? It is not because we do not have the Truth, but because, while some “claim to know God, they have come to deny Him as God” - Tit 1:16…
@@ReasonableFaithOrg An intellectually honest assessment will admit to the fact that, at its core, Molinism is really nothing more an attempt to somehow reconcile two utterly irreconcilable ideas - the sovereignty of God and the ‘sovereignty of man’!
I grant that there appears (Prv 14:12) to be compelling reasons why you will want to insist upon the latter, but here’s the thing (PLEASE try and set aside your Autonomian commitments for just a moment)… unless God is God, not only over SOME things, but over ALL things (Eph 4:6), then God is not God!
Whenever we concern ourselves with the things of God, we ALWAYS need to try an understand the things of God in light of the fact that ALL THINGS (not just some things) are FROM Him, THROUGH Him, FOR HIS GLORY (Rom 11:36)! In other words… God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! So then, please answer me this - why would God, who is sovereign over all, permit ANYTHING that could possibly rob Him of His glory, including (in fact, ESPECIALLY) His image bearer to disavow His Lordship!
And BTW - in case you think this bit of banter between us is nothing more than something trivial, consider this - whenever God gave Israel over into apostasy, it was not because of their idolatry, but because they denied the sovereignty of God! And because Molinists (and others in different ways, albeit always to the same effect) insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, I dare to say that God has (yet again), handed His own over to the Fool (Biblically speaking) into apostasy…
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” - 1 Tim 4:1
How can we as Christians otherwise account for the fact that the Fool now has the intellectual and moral ascendency in the world? It is not because we do not have the Truth, but because, while some “claim to know God, they have come to deny Him as God” - Tit 1:16…
@@osks You say that Israel denied God's sovereignty. Did Israel freely deny the sovereignty of God, or did God cause them to deny his sovereignty? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg You stubbornly refuse to accept the fact that God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY ALL THINGS! Why? No, really - WHY?
God sovereignly directs (determines) all things towards His end for His glory - in other words… there is nothing which He does not either HAVE HAPPEN (sovereignly ordains) or LETS HAPPEN (sovereignly permits), lest it robs Him of His glory!
Why do you insist upon kicking against the goads - the illusion of Libertarian ‘free will’ is nothing but a lie orchestrated by the Father of lies!
I truly understand why there SEEMS to be compelling reasons why Autonomianism ought to be our default assumption - our sense of ‘free will’, moral duty/ability/responsibility, the so-called ‘problem of evil’, authentic love requiring free expression, and so on… So, I urge you… let’s rather discuss each of those things - that promises to be a far more edifying exercise instead of making vacuous appeals to the stone…
This is a very very beautiful doctrine. All the Glory to God forever.
Amen !
What a great lecture! As an ex-Calvinist who held a similar yet undefined view for many years, Molinism is refreshing. Praise the Lord for such intelligent, godly people!
How did you leave Calvinism? it is incredibly! Can you share who did it happen?
If you were indeed a former Calvinist, I seriously question your understanding of your purported position if you think what Craig presents is biblically sound. Craig, as smart as he is, engages is utter theological and biblical nonsense in his Molinism. You have to ignore or twist the Bible to get to Craig's position.
@@МарфаМария A core tenet of Calvinist teaching is that regeneration by the Holy Spirit precedes faith. You can find numerous examples of saving faith preceding the indwelling of the Spirit in both Old and New Testaments.
Years ago one of my theology professors debated a Calvinist during class while I was still quite convinced of Calvinism. That issue and many others were raised which made me rethink my whole soteriological understanding. Calvinists highly respect God and Scripture. My concern is that many have a skewed understanding of many passages based on a flawed theological framework.
Dr. Craig's presentation of Molinism is quite good. For years before seeing this view, I knew I was neither Calvinist nor Arminian entirely. Perhaps Molinism has its own issues that further years of research and gaining knowledge may prove for me. But based on my current knowledge, it matches with a lot of my beliefs about soteriology.
@@paulhess1689 I'm assuming that if you are a Christian you agree that God created you at specific time and place in history but if you do agree with that you have to say that God picked your preconditions because you didn't have the ability to let's say be born in Africa at 1876 as a king.
You kind of already are a Molinist if you agree with me. Because the type of choices that you would have freely made if you were born at a different time in history would have been completely and utterly different then decisions that you make now as a 21st century human.
you agree as a Christian that God made you to be born at a specific place and specific time in a specific social class with specific abilities and interest to achieve his purposes, so in that sense you are already a Molinist.
Unless you believe that God didn't pick these preconditions for you and you just randomly ended up being born in this specific time and place with these attributes and skills, then you can believe that but that's not biblical at all.
obviously the type of decisions that you could have made if you're born as a Billionaire's son would have been completely and utterly different then the decisions that you could have made if you are born in some random tribe in Africa.
@@paulhess1689 I'm assuming that you are man when i say this but as a Christian you don't believe that you just didn't randomly ended up being born as a man,
you believe that God specifically designed you to be a man and not a woman because he has a specific purpose for you, if you agree with that then you are again already a Molinist because the type of decisions that you could have made in your life would have been completely and utterly different if you were a woman then a man.
This is me understanding Molinism! Thank God for Dr. Craig!
Brilliant, Dr. Craig! I don't know why people have such trouble with this doctrine. It's Biblical and it proves just how great God's Omniscience is (at least in so far as we can understand). God's Sovereignty and man's freewill do work together, and this view helps make sense of them both and gets us one step closer to understanding.
Could you define free will?
@@krzyszwojciech freewil = i make my choices.
God knows the wariants
I like to believe that He tryes to guide us all towards good choices for us.
I am not talking about good or evil choice but i am talking about the greater good like in the butterfly effect.
Molinism is for me a breath of fresh air because of one question (as I am a woman ...created by God with feelings towards suffering...so of course I had my questions...and kept searching for the "Is God evil..." answer.
Molinism gave me a new perspective.
It is a rather new doctrine we know...but we are wiser as the time goes by.
And untill this perspective...frankly atheist had better answers...
While calvinists and arminians fought their beliefs...
@@LiaM_3.16 Even if determinism is true you make your own choices, simply the reasons for those choices come from underlying mechanisms. So that's not a definition that would distinguish them enough.
Also, if our choice is actually determined by the circumstances and God knows all the variants of the circumstances we could find ourselves in, and then he chooses the circumstances that best serve his goals, then our 'free' will is superfluous. We can't steer away from the destiny he planned for us.
Either way, choices only make sense to me conceptually if there's a sufficient reason for the choice we make. You're hungry, so you choose to eat. You prefer one type of food over the other, but also consider your beliefs about health, so you try to choose optimally what's best for you in the circumstances. Or maybe you feel too lazy that day and choose just to indulge your taste. We have beliefs, drives, desires and values in some form of hierarchy which doesn't seem completely static either. And these inform the choices we make. I would even go as far as saying, they most likely determine the choices we make, while those reasons are obfuscated for us to various degrees (Why do I like one taste more than another? How did I really come to believe that sugar is unhealthy?).
And we don't really choose either our beliefs, drives and values, or the circumstances in which we have to make the choices, so this scenario is not sufficiently different from determinism in the sense of moral responsibilities or blame.
And if there were no circumstances that God could place me in to make better choices, then it's a design flaw or design manipulated with some end goal in mind that potentially treats many human beings destained for hell (whatever it is) as simply means to an end, objectified puppets. Knowledge could be in principle separate from causing someone to do something, but God is not only the Knowing One in this scenario. Ultimately, he's also the Causing/Decreeing One. The one who created reality and determined our natures and circumstances those natures would play in.
So no matter how I look at it, it ends up in the same result: fatalism. In fact, if God is truly all-knowing, then he doesn't have any meaningful, morally responsible free choice either. He already knows all his future choices and what must happen and can't steer away from his fate any more than we can.
@@LiaM_3.16 Oh, and when it comes to the problem of evil, being a man doesn't stop me from empathizing with the suffering of others. I don't see a good reason for why an all-good God couldn't create an all-good reality. Our freedoms would be as free as they are now, which could still mean 'fatalism', but at least it would be a good reality, not this mess.
We would choose in accordance with our natures, which if our natures were only good, the good choices would follow consistently from them.
@@krzyszwojciech I'm very curious your thoughts on moral accountability. Should we not hold a child rapist accountable for their actions? Or are they not responsible for their actions because their circumstances lead them to do what they did?
God bless you Dr Craig. Ten years ago, this saved my faith and revolutionised my understanding of God and the scripture. Still powerful and amazing today.
After going back and forth on freewill and election for many months this is the only thing that makes since. Pretty interesting it's William Lane Craig to point this out as he's a huge reason I gave up atheism.
Its not the only one, just the most popular. And it doesnt protect free will, it reduces it to formula and destroys it. Certainty is the opposite of possibility. Molonism claims certainty upon fate.
The only way free will can exist, is if God gave us possibilities to choose from, and did not know which one we would choose. I'd argue that God could know these infinite possibilities, and also know how to accomplish his plan in all of them, knowing the end from the beginning.
It’s very little people that truly think things through and want to reconcile thoughts and verses like Craig. Many of the super pastors don’t really care for truth that goes for the Calvinist as well as Pentecostals and baptist. Everyone ignores there own contradictions rather than look for ideas and thoughts that reconcile conflicting ideas without taking away the integrity of the scriptures.
@@justindavis2711 Please explain how God not knowing what you would choose makes your choice any more free than if he did know? Also, based on your comment you seem to have a pretty confused understanding of Molinism. You should go over the lecture again.
theology isn't true because it makes sense to a small, incompetent, corrupt human mind (as in any of us), but because it's biblical. try again
Have you considered Thomism's view on predestination, Divine knowedge, and human freedom? Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange has a book on it. And I think it's better than Molinism.
Glad to see a great breakdown by Dr. Craig here.
I am rarely capable of understanding apologist discussions. Dr. Craig makes it understandable to laypeople like me.
This was funny, educational, enlightening, and just a joy to watch! Thank you so much Dr. Craig.
Thank you, Dr. Craig, for this clear, detailed description of Molinism, especially as it maintains God's omniscience and human free will.
Where is it in scripture?
@@hamcom5477 where is what in scripture?
God foreknew that if WLC had been born at a different time in history, he would most likely not have freely chosen to study the theory of middle knowledge, and imparted to a world that was not prepared or it. It is only now, in the YT era that Molinism can be most effectively shared and understood. My eyes are now opened to a more profound understanding God’s providential plan for me.
Amen
You rock!Well put and amen🥳👊❗️
Molina was responding to Calvinism and it did gain a foothold for many years but basically did not catch on with those who followed Calvin or Luther. It stayed on with the Jesuits for a while in Spain but the concept seems to have not resonated with the Puritans.
This is one of my all time favourites with dr Craig!
I love Dr. Craig's accent impersonations. It gives us a glimpse into his humorous side. Oh and Molinism is the best explanation that harmonizes predestination and human freedom.
no, its not. It harmonizes nothing. If God can know what any person would do in any situation, then their so called "free will" is reduced to nothing but a logical formula. Guess who designed the formula? God. So he made the formula and knows the answer to the formula. Which means humans play no part in their own fate. Molonism is hard determinism disguised to trick people into thinking it preserves free will, the same way that A.I tricks people into thinking computers are smart. In reality, A.I computers are coded from a bunch of deterministic IF/THEN statements. A.I is a deterministic formula. Counterfactuals are literally the same concept.
@@justindavis2711 I disagree, Justin. Even if God made the so-called "formula" and knows the answer to the formula, it doesn't follow that that is "hard determinism". If anything, human freedom produces the formula and then God takes that formula into account for the world that He actualizes. Molonism is the best explanation of divine providence that preserves both human freedom and God's omniscience. Calvinism and Open Theism both sacrifice either one or the other, undermining the greatness of God.
Great explanation, and I loved the Q&A there were a lot of good questions, and clarifications made.
Absolutely brilliant man. The Most High value reside in him! ⚖
This is absolutely crazy stuff. I'm not even sure I understand it but it seems to be the only explanation that is consistent
okay I think I get it now... yeah... wow
Logically true.. perhaps, but, morally, existentialy crazy. This world is the only actual world that we have ever existed in, yet we R either saved or dammed in a Simulation of sorts. Our representatives like. This is really screwy if U ask me. If you postulate duplication - same ends, same means, then it's morally game over for molinism. Parrellism, by contrast might work. One can pray this world and except Jesus and be saved, unlike in sin world. this makes God look more just. No one saved in sin world is unsaved here, but the damned, all of them to take free will to its logical conclusion,can potentially be saved. Morally, God could, with these individuals,a selective class, do a kind of double predestination gig with them.
Thank you Dr. Craig for clarifying Molinism.. God bless you
Dr. Craig rocks!!!👍👍😎
Love this! Had no idea there was a name for what I believed!
Open Theism?
Yes! Dr Craig is to me what John Piper is to Reformed folk.
Haha, oh why does that work so well? I concur!
John Piper is counter reformed with his Jesuit futurism. Odd that all the "protestants" teach counter reformation teachings from Rome. Molina was a mystic into quietism aka spiritism. Not everything Molina said was false but a lot is unbiblical. Why would Rome have an interest in inventing doctrines for a church they condemn as heretics? Roman Catholic canon law says its its not to kill heretics. Jesus said i will send you the holy spirit and he will lead you into all truth. He didn't say learn everything from men who are fallible and easy to deceive.
@@joshportie So basically we should reject every teaching or opinion that was ever hold by any unbeliever? What? That is just nonsense. Do you have any scripture to back that up? LOL. We can learn a lot from unbelievers. Even Jesus commended the children of this world for being wiser than the children of light in some topics (Luke 16), even though that has a different context. Even Solomon didn't seem to have a problem with learning from "fallible and easy to deceive" people, when he wrote some parts of the proverbs and let himself inspire by the Wisdom of Amenemope. I don't see a problem with that.
Are you of Piper or of Craig? Or is it Paul or Peter? Me I follow Jesus.
@@nickhanley5407 which Jesus?
Thank you for opening up the comment, Dr.Craig! You are loved! 🤓
I'm just here for the snarky comments that fail to understand Molinism.
LOL enjoy! I am sure there will be plenty
Fail to understand that the Jesuits are Satans special forces? That doesn't mean everything molina said was false.
josh portie or that determinism cane from Gnosticism
The Kalam implies that time came into existence at creation. Prior to creation God is timeless. After creation God is in time. So how can the knowledge of counterfactuals be prior to the divine decree? The divine decree, if indeed it is the choice of which possible world will be created, must be first because nothing else can be said to be prior to time.
Are the truth values of all future tense statements known by God? If so, were they always known by God, even in the timeless state before creation?
How is personal knowledge of the order of temporal events even accessible in a timeless state? What is the process of choosing a divine decree and how does that happen timelessly?
I was predestined to type that I love Molinism! haha!
And yet you were completely free in doing so! (wink - the genius of Molinism)
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I have an unconditional grace for your comment 🤣
😄😄😅
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣same
Wow such great, insightful questions from the audience
9:18 Dr. Craig is amazing to listen to; he is so dang good.
This is deep thank you Bill, so many preachers whom don't even touch this truths. No wonder the lamb of revelation is the Roman Catholics and Reformers.
Dr. James White had left the chat.
False. Stefan Molineux is an atheist.
@@SpecialFester how is he relevant here?
Molinism makes sense of Christianity and the world we see around us. It reconciles God's sovereignty and human free will. God's self limitation of his power to allow true human free will as his utmost principle in his relationship with us explains many of the objections to Christianity by the atheists.
It's not necessary to call it a "self-limitation." The incorporation of free will choices into the divine creative decree is a demonstration of God's perfect omnipotence and omniscience, which includes the ability to create free creatures and the knowledge of what they would freely do in any particular circumstance. No self-limitation necessary. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg except that it is still only free will in the sense that determinists understand the term. Namely, our choices are free only if they are causally determined primarily by our reasons, character, desires, etc. Otherwise, it would be logically impossible for God to perfectly predict how anyone would choose, since the outcome would not be certain until the moment the choice is made.
@@fanghur Your comment makes a couple of dubious assumptions. First, there's no reason to think that reasons, desires, etc. causally determine our choices. Instead, it seems plausible that they are ends towards which we may or may not choose. So, unless one can show that they in fact causally determine our choices, libertarian freedom is a live option.
Second, your comment presupposes that God doesn't have middle knowledge. If God in fact has middle knowledge, then he can be certain of how we would choose prior to the moment of choosing, and this without needing to causally determine that choice. In order to show that it's logically impossible for God to have middle knowledge, one must offer a logical or metaphysical argument for why this must be so. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg If you want to deny that our choices are causally determined by our reasons, our character, our desires, etc., then that puts you in the extremely problematic position of having to conclude that, well, the way we behave is not determined by any of those factors. We don’t choose to act morally BECAUSE we think it’s right, etc. Which very quickly leads to the absurd and very undesirable conclusion that ultimately our choices would be completely random and inexplicable, since according to the libertarian, literally nothing is sufficient to determine one outcome rather than any other.
If literally nothing is sufficient to determine that A occurs rather than B, with A and B both being equally possible ways in which a system can evolve (in this case, how a person will choose), which is what proponents of libertarian free will at least pretend to believe, then the outcome could only be random and inexplicable even to the person making the “choice”. Normally I wouldn’t quote Richard Carrier on something to do with philosophy, but on this point, he is exactly right: whatever libertarians claim to believe, they invariable act like compatibilists.
And as for why it is impossible for God to have middle knowledge unless determinism is true, that is actually fairly simple. Because by definition, the evolution of a truly (as opposed to merely apparently/epistemically) indeterministic system is random. There is at least one way out of this and that is if you held to an eternalist conception of time. In that case, God is viewing all time at once, and so from our perspective at any given ‘slice’ of time, it would seem to be foreknowledge, but fro, God’s frame of reference ‘outside’ of our time, it would all be God’s present. But that option is unavailable to Craig since he explicitly rejects eternalism.
But under presentism, there is simply no mechanism that would allow anyone, even a god, to acquire knowledge of how a truly random system would evolve; there simply ARE no such counterfactuals. Middle knowledge makes perfect sense given a compatibilist view of free will, since in that case, we are deterministic systems/entities, and as such it is at least in principle possible to perfectly predict what we would do in any hypothetical situation, since only one outcome is actually possible. But if we are indeterministic, as I explained above, this simply is not the case.
@@fanghur It would be incorrect to conclude from the libertarians' rejection of reasons, character, desires causally determining our choices that therefore they believe choices have no explanation. Rather, they would say that choices are explained by indeterministic agent causation. The agent's choosing A over B is sufficient to explain the obtaining of A rather than B. *Why* the agent chose A rather than B is a teleological matter independent of the causal account of the choice itself.
Your comments about middle knowledge seem quite confused. First, the claim was not that "it is impossible for God to have middle knowledge unless determinism is true." Rather, it was that your comment - "...it would be logically impossible for God to perfectly predict how anyone would choose, since the outcome would not be certain until the moment the choice is made" - assumes that God does not have middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is God's pre-decree knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Unless you can show that it is impossible for God to have middle knowledge, then your comment seems unjustified.
Moreover, you assume that libertarian freedom, being indeterministic, implies inherent randomness. But proponents of LFW would reject this claim, since agents can choose towards particular teleological ends, which is paradigmatically non-random. But let's say there really are random events, such as those proposed by quantum mechanics. Why think that such events have no truth value available to God prior to creation? Since past tense propositions regarding random events would have truth values, it seems to clearly follow that God would know prior to creating what those truth values would be. That's just what it means to be omniscient, knowing only and all truths. And it seems dubious that God would somehow lose this knowledge by stepping into temporal relations at the moment of creation. - RF Admin
Wow! What a sublime doctrine
This is where the idea of parallel universes come into play and it's why so much of mankind has such a keen interest on the thought of it, it's because God has the ability to see the various possibilities of our actions, what could be, and will be based on our free will. There was a time in my life that God gave me 3 choices at a fork in the road of my life. I made one big decision and have seen things redeemed in my life I didn't think possible. Though there are other trials and tribulations I wish hadn't happened either. But I would consider myself meek now because of it and for that I am grateful.
Edit: I want to reiterate meekness is not weakness it's strength in submission to God.
Middle Knowledge Rocks.
Kirk MacGregor and John Lange are good sources on this topic.
I think its very helpful.
Ken Keathley too
The great thing about molinism is you won't get lost running in circles being unable to forgive oneself
I liked the question around 45 minutes in. If a human in one of the possible worlds is named John, and John remains John in more than one possible worlds, or an infinite number of possible worlds, I don’t see how freewill isn’t violated upon God selecting a world. If you have enough iterations of possible worlds, John will have done so many different actions that it would be similar to just creating one deterministic world to begin with. One analogy - I can code a program where an object moves across the screen in a straight line (deterministicly) or I could create a program that allows for the object to move randomly within the screen. If I have enough iterations, I could simply choose the ‘random’ iteration where the object did what I wanted to begin with, which is move straight across the screen.
Wow amazing theologian philosopher 👏
I still have some trouble understanding what middle knowledge is. I think my issue can be explained in this question: where do counterfactuals come from?
A. If they just exist, then don't they exist necessarily, and wouldn't that make God's middle knowledge part of his natural knowledge?
B. If they exist on account of some action of God, such as imagining the existence of free creatures, or even creating the free will of potential creatures, then it becomes unclear why that action should be distinguished from the rest of God's creative decree.
"If they just exist, then don't they exist necessarily, and wouldn't that make God's middle knowledge part of his natural knowledge?"
I don't think so because they don't exist indefinitely like say abstract logic such as mathematics (I.e. 2+2= 4 in all possible worlds). Counterfactuals, I think, are contingent upon God's actual creative decree (i.e. God creates person A in India, person A could've been person B in Canada, for example, or person A could've never existed.) But one can argue that person A's non-existence is an existence of a counterfactual, but there wouldn't be any counterfactuals to person A if person A never existed in the first place. I may be wrong, but this is just my take.
The difference between counterfactuals and middle knowledge is that counterfactuals is merely what could possibly happen differently than reality, hence counter-factual. It is a knowledge of possible alternative ends. Middle Knowledge is what would happen IF such and such occurs. It is a knowledge of cause and effect, more specifically, what would need to happen in order to make any one of the possible outcomes factual, while leaving the rest as counterfactual. The knowledge of what will happen, if middle knowledge is true, is God's choice of what means to utilize in order to achieve a specific end result. In this, all future results remain equally possible, but not equally probable. Thus, free will is still left completely intact since the free agent could always choose to do differently, even though they won't.
In short, Middle Knowledge is the understanding of probabilities, and how to tweak them, in order to ensure the desired possibility. Counterfactuals are the possibilities that could have happened, but didn't/won't.
I hope this helps.
@@davidtrue4255 the problem is that in a presentist, indeterministic universe, as Craig at least claims to believe in, no amount of knowledge of the present state of a system is sufficient to predict with certainty how the system will evolve. So Molinists seem to unwittingly be promoting the very thing they frequently criticize. Namely compatibilism. That free will and determinism are compatible.
@@fanghur *"...no amount of knowledge of the present state of a system is sufficient to predict with certainty how the system will evolve."*
While I understand how this can be concluded, I believe it is based in assumption. We, having incomplete and imperfect knowledge of any particular individual, can still accurately predict how that individual will respond in different circumstances. Our knowledge of a person seems to be directly proportional to how accurately we can predict their responses.
Theoretically then, if we actually had complete and perfect knowledge of an individual, then we would be able to predict, with certainty, what they would do in any and every situation.
Therefore, there is no need for determinism in order to know what a free agent would freely do.
Compatibilism, which seems logically contradictory to me (saying that we freely choose "x" when it is determined for us to only be able to do "x"), becomes an unnecessary conclusion.
@@davidtrue4255 What you just described literally IS determinism. You said that sufficient knowledge about a person’s character, desires, etc. allows you to predict how a person will probably act in various situations. But the only reason that would work is if those factors causally determine how a person chooses. Otherwise, knowledge about them would be irrelevant to being able to predict a person’s behaviour.
That’s literally the compatibilist position. That a choice is freely made if and only if it was not coerced by someone else against what you otherwise would have chosen, and if it was caused (at least primarily) by the will-independent factors that constitute *you*, namely your reasons, motivations, character, values, desires, etc.
So based on what you just said, you are actually a compatibilist. Except that I would argue that Molinism isn’t even compatible with compatibilism. Since because God consciously chose which ‘version’ of you to bring into existence, and hence in effect chose how you would choose throughout your life, none of your choices are actually made free of coercion, since you’re just following God’s script.
Here’s what I still struggle with. So because of middle knowledge, God has the option of making any possible feasible world based on the free will decisions of people. However, sounds like there is the possibility that person A may decide to follow Jesus in one world and not in another. At that point, even if it’s a persons free will choice, God still decides which world to actualize. It doesn’t seem that molinism avoids the issue of God choosing who will believe in him, and if God is the one to choose then how is that free will? Maybe I’m missing something, but from how WLC explained it and I understood, God has a plethora of options of people’s free will choices that he then decides which one. But then the offer of the gospel for all people to choose is a lie because God chose the reality where person A wouldn’t believe instead of the reality where they would. I need to do more reading about this as well as open theism and Arminianism.
With God's foreknowledge and middle knowledge, we can fairly presume He has selected the world where Person X is not arbitrarily left to fail or left out.
The middle knowledge allows God to intervene adequately to work that "all people" who would choose Him, will make a free-will choice to follow Him.
"I urge, then, first of all, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.
This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗱 and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for 𝗮𝗹𝗹 people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."
1 Timothy 2:1-6 NIV
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
2 Peter 3:9 NIV
I just realized molinism explains soteriology better
“...properly understood [these words] plumb the depths of divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men - and his compulsion is our liberation”
-cs Lewis
Wow..... I've always called myself a Calvinist that affirmed many Arminian things and was "in the middle". I didn't know there was a name for this. I always said God is the author of a book called reality and we are characters in the book who do what we want yet God wrote the whole book so we do what we do because He "wrote" the story that way. I lacked a more sophisticated explanation.
I appreciate this comment. I feel that I may have been similar.
You could be an Open Theist!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but: It's my understanding that William Lane Craig states that both Calvinist Protestants and Dominican Catholics [both of which are, broadly speaking, Augustinian] are among those who believe God's knowledge of counterfactuals is logically after the decree of creation. Whereas Molinists believe it's prior to the decree of creation. Or does Craig mean the decree of election, rather than of creation? Or was Craig conflating the two? As a Calvinist I don't see why God couldn't know counterfactuals of compatibilistically free [not libertarianly free as in Molinism] creatures in His necessary/natural knowledge logically prior to His decree.
As I understand it, God's necessary knowledge [AKA natural knowledge] includes 1. all necessary truths, and 2. all logically possible/contingent truths. Why couldn't God's knowledge of counterfactuals be a subset of all logically possible/contingent truths which are not based on libertarian decisions, but on God's knowledge of the natures He knows He could endow them with by which they could compatibilistically make decisions?
compatibilistic freedom is equal to the freedom of a machine - in that case, God would not need to have foreknowledge of the behavior of a spiritual authomaton...
It's hard not to think that William Lane Craig is totally freaking awesome 👏 love this guy
As Frank Turek says, without free will there cannot be love. Why would God want to create robots to “love” Him? He also says predestination means God predetermines the outcome of our decision.
What a great ending. Of course the whole thing was a tour de force
1. Why are we assuming man must have free will?
2. Who gave God all the options for possible outcomes to choose from?
Someone help me! He said multiple times that middle knowledge was Gods knowledge of feasible worlds AT THAT TIME. This makes no sense since we are not speaking chronologically but logically. What determines the feasibility of the smaller subset of worlds from natural knowledge to middle knowledge? Some counter factual do not make it to the middle knowledge level, who determines that God?
If God chooses certain history to play out and creates it, one has to question how free we really are.
It's as if we were predictable up to a point of determinism.
If you can't steer away from the circumstances you were created into, is it really morally significant type of freedom?
I think that yes it is a significant freedom; regardless of you circumstances you are morally responsible for your choices. This is true whether or not your circumstances are your "fault", and whether or not God foreknew your choice and deemed it fit to place you in those circumstances.
Imagine we are playing chess, and me having an encyclopedic knowledge of the game (I don't) play in such a way as to force you to choose between your queen and a rook (known as a forked-attack). Is your choice any less free because I engineered circumstance to your detriment? Is it less free because you were powerless to stop it (given your lack of knowledge of all possibilities)? Is it less free because the outcome is to your disadvantage?
Does not the creator have the right to create some beings for mundane uses, and some for great glory?
@@l-cornelius-dol I'm responsible for my choices in so far as I'm their direct cause. But I'm not their ultimate cause - that's based on God's choice in this scenario. And my choices are fully reducible to and fully explainable by God's choice.
If God chooses to create a world in which I'm going to be damned, I can't steer away from that fate.
And if in no world could I ever be saved - that just looks like a design flaw. It's not about some people being created into better things (though egalitarianism does seem better ethically to me in that regard), but being created for damnation or ultimate death (depending on your views what hell means).
Your analogy with chess... - the problem is we're those pieces on the board. We're being moved through it in accordance with preordained fate. We're not in control of our fate, because it already exists.
This whole concept seems to me to kinda sweep under the rug the whole issue of choice making and puts a vague concept of freedom of will that under typical definition doesn't seem to work with it.
If there's fate, you can't choose something different than what your fate prescribes. And if your fate is based on your nature and the result would be the same no matter of what kind of world you would be created into - you didn't design or create your own nature either. And if you could have been saved in some worlds, but not in this one, this was not your choice to make either. God chose all of it - in him lies the ultimate responsibility under this model.
As Craig put it, if I give my wife a choice: to eat vegetables or chocolate, I might know what she chooses [not really though - we don't have that kind of certainty, it's only a probabilistic expectation - what if she feels sick at the moment, or decided to control her weight and has eaten enough chocolate already this day...], but if I do in fact know, that means we have predictable natures. And if our natures are perfectly predictable by God so that he can know everything about us in any circumstances, then it's not significantly different from determinism. It's a clockwork that's simply not based on physics [alone], but the inner workings of the mind - and it's God who's ultimately responsible for that.
Imagine you had the ability to see 10 seconds into the future. You create a truly random number generator. Before you run it, you know (using your gift of foresight) what number will come up. You run it, and it does come up. Did you choose what number came up? Stupid example, but easy to understand I think.
@@zach7009
The number generator wasn't truly random then. It was pseudorandom, or truly random in accordance with a complete theory of physics, but in that case physical theory is insufficient to describe reality as a whole, which is not random in case of fate.
I'll draw a different picture, similar to yours, which maybe will clarify it.
Imagine that the whole timestream already exists - past, present and future. And imagine that the fullest possible description of physical reality (looking at it from the inside, through our experiences) is indeterministic.
That is experiments show that from obtainable theories alone, even assuming the complete knowledge of the current state of reality one cannot derive the next state of reality exactly.
That's from the inside - from the outside, the whole timeline already exists and there's just one path to follow. If we obtained the knowledge that this singular, set timeline already exists, it would turn out that the reality wasn't truly random, but pseudo-random - simply, physical description cannot be a full description of reality. If the future is set, no real randomness exists at the very base of reality; it only seems to.
Fate is exactly like that, except there's no requirement that future must already exist physically (one could imagine it like water flowing into a canal and its current being shaped by the shape of that canal - there must exist some limiting factors, some logical structure enforcing that shape). Either way, you didn't choose your fate, it was chosen for you. How then can it be your moral responsibility?
Craig said that God supposedly chooses some best world and this is it. In which case he apparently creates some people as means to an end, who at best are just tools to elevate other people and then to be discarded.
I'd also love to hear any proposition as to why God couldn't have created a world in which all do make right choices. It's not logically incoherent. Craig claims such a world might not be feasible, but gives nothing as to why it wouldn't be.
You’ve made a mistake in your modal logic and have confused certainty with necessity
Our French Bulldog lives for the opportunity to chew up my furniture. I am sick of our old den couch. I leave the Frenchie in the den unsupervised. Frenchie commits punishable sin of chewing up couch through his defiant freewill to knowingly defy me. Is this close?
I find the term "counterfactual" to be misleading since it refers to true facts; I think a better term would be conditional-factual -- but Dr Craig is much smarter, and far better studied than am I.
Dr. Craig himself has commented on the confusion that can occur when using the term "counterfactual": www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-god-attributes-of-god/doctrine-of-god-part-13/
If hes so smart why is he teaching counter reformation doctrines of the Jesuits?
Josh, if you have serious commentary, then go ahead. But these kinds of snarky hit and run comments don’t help anyone but instead merely add to the unpleasantness of the comment section.
(No, disagreement per se isn’t unpleasant. But your style is, although you are tame/mild compared to many others on UA-cam)
@@joshportie A more constructive comment would be to offer counter-points where you disagree with Dr. Craig. Do better.
I like "conditional-factual." It fits well.
The Christian understanding of God is one of perfect simplicity in One Divine Nature except for the relations between the Three Divine Persons. It seems to me that Molinism better respects God's simplicity by positing that "God knows true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom logically prior to the divine creative decree." (#7 at 35:38 - 36:28) Otherwise, if only known logically afterwards, this seems to suggest an unwarranted complexity in the One Divine Nature, even though the propositions are based on Extra Trinitate Relations (God's relationship with His creatures, as opposed to the Intra Trinitate Relations within Himself).
According to Wikipedia, the Molinist controversy was never settled in the Catholic Church: "In 1581, a heated argument erupted between the Jesuits, who advocated Molinism, and the Dominicans, who had a different understanding of God's foreknowledge and the nature of predestination. In 1597, Pope Clement VIII established the Congregatio de Auxiliis, a committee whose purpose was to settle this controversy. In 1607, Pope Paul V ended the quarrel by forbidding each side to accuse the other of heresy, allowing both views to exist side-by-side in the Catholic Church." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism
God willing, I hope and believe that we will get the answer after death, along with all of the other wonderful answers to our questions. Throw in the perfection of Divine Love and it looks like an amazing eternity for those who answer the call and seek it with all their heart. I wish it for everyone.
Its fairly easy to know that Molonism, at its very least, is false in the notion that it protects free will. The very concept that God could logically know every free will choice prior to any creature making that choice, implies that choices are nothing but pretetermined sequences. They are no longer free when you view time in such a linear fashion. Its just hard determinism disguised behind a bunch of counterfactuals.
@@justindavis2711 However, if God is outside of time, why couldn't there be no determinism, particularly if God made angels and human beings in His Divine Image in that they have immortal rational souls that endows them with free will. His Infinite and Omniscient Nature could see all at once in a flash what any of His creatures would do in that "linear fashion" we are presently limited to before experiencing physical death and then coming face to face with eternity.
James White: 😡
lol
Lol :)
🤣
🤣
Jeremiah 38:17-18
New American Standard Bible
17 Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, “Thus says the Lord God of hosts, the God of Israel, ‘If you will indeed go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, then [a]you will live, this city will not be burned with fire, and you and your household will [b]survive. 18 But if you will not go out to the officers of the king of Babylon, then this city will be given over to the hand of the Chaldeans; and they will burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape from their hand.’”
At the 6min mark WLC makes the same mistake he mentioned just a couple minutes before. He asked the wrong question. And then he builds a strawman based on that premise. The right question would be what does it mean to be Omniscient. Does Omniscient mean "MUST know everything" as WLC claims or does it mean "can know everything"? And who gets to define that? Does Man dare define God and place titles on Him that He has not given Himself? Is that not Idolatry? Do you dare oh man to definitely claim or tell God who and what He is?
And then to build his fallacious argument WLC brings in the very stinky red-herring herring of Timelessness. Where does God say He is outside of Time? Does He not say He is the Eternal One? The Everlasting? Who gets to define what Time is? Is not God the source of everything? Does not everything trace it's origins back to God? I suggest that where God has chosen to remain silent, ESPECIALLY about Himself, then so should Man. ESPECIALLY His children and ambassadors to Christ. To do otherwise runs the risk of Idolatry and what are we to do with Sin?
At the 6min mark WLC makes the same mistake he mentioned just a couple minutes before. He asked the wrong question. And then he builds a strawman based on that premise. The right question would be what does it mean to be Omniscient. Does Omniscient mean "MUST know everything" as WLC claims or does it mean "can know everything"? And who gets to define that? Does Man dare define God and place titles on Him that He has not given Himself? Is that not Idolatry? Do you dare oh man to definitely claim or tell God who and what He is?
And then to build his fallacious argument WLC brings in the very stinky red-herring herring of Timelessness. Where does God say He is outside of Time? Does He not say He is the Eternal One? The Everlasting? Who gets to define what Time is? Is not God the source of everything? Does not everything trace it's origins back to God? I suggest that where God has chosen to remain silent, ESPECIALLY about Himself, then so should Man. ESPECIALLY His children and ambassadors to Christ. To do otherwise runs the risk of Idolatry and what are we to do with Sin?
As I continue to watch and WLC continues to mention "God's creative decree", I have to wonder what he means by that but assume he's talking about the "And God said, "Let there be..." "decrees" (plural) in Genesis 1 and therefore is narrowing that down to the "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” decree. (Gen. 1:26) So that moved me to go look at it and a thought occurred to me that I've not had or considered before. Just throwing this out there as food for thought. What does it mean to be created "in the image of God"? I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever preach or teach on that except to say that Man is an "image bearer". Like in Right-To-Life arguments, for example. But what does that really mean?
Then, almost immediately, the word "dominion" jumped out at me. So I looked at Strong's and BDB to see what they said. As I read them the word "Sovereign" that you hear so often immediately popped into my head. So that made me think of how I had looked for the word Sovereign before in the NT and found that it's never even used in most translations but some have it ONCE in 1st Tim. 6:15 for the Greek word "dunastēs" (G1413). And it's almost identical to the Hebrew Word in Gen. 1:26!! And the ESV used it in Acts 4:24 and Rev. 6:10 for the Greek word "despotēs" (G1203). It is EXTREMELY interesting to me to note the similarities and the differences in the two Greek words and how they could be tied into the Hebrew word.
All this begs this question, at least for me, as to what does it mean to be created in God's image. What does "let us make Man in our image mean"? IOW, working backwards, if Man is considered to be "sovereign" over all the creatures and the earth and "rule" over them is that reflective of God's sovereignty and rule? Does Mankind decree ever single thing that happens with the created? Fish, animals, insects, etc.? Or do we make decisions based on the best information we have at the time based on the actions of free creatures? For example, let's say that I have a Beagle and want to train it to be a good rabbit dog or a German Shorthair that I want to be a good birddog. Am I "sovereign" over the dog and it's training? Can it do as it wishes? Will I not adapt my training techniques to the way in performs to a variety of tests and situations in order to achieve my goals and 'the plan" that I have for that dog? Is that somehow illogical?
I know every analogy probably falls short somehow but consider the World renowned Chess Masters. I don't know if any of them were ever undefeated but suppose, for the sake of argument, they exist(ed). Why do they always win? Is it because they predestined the moves their opponent would make? Or because they had the foreknowledge to see all the moves anyone could make and only chose the opponent they could defeat? Or is it because they knew the game so well, forwards and backwards, that no matter what move their opponent freely chose to make they could then make their move in order to bring the desired win with the outcome? Is that illogical? Which is the bigger God? The one who knew all the options and then chose the one that would play out exactly as He planned or the God who knows everything, including the game, so well that no matter what choice is freely made He can instantly make the move that leads the game to the eventual win? And do so with BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of people and free-will decisions simultaneously? Even as I type that I am reminded of Jonathan Sarfati. A leading Apologist with CMI and a world-class Chess Master who plays up to 30 opponents at one time. If he can do that how much more can God do? Which is greater? To have one plan which you have decided how everything will go so that you can accomplish what you desire or to have an infinite number of possibilities and know how to move each one of them forward to your desired outcome? Which puts God in a box and which puts Him outside the box?
Is it possible that God may do the same? If so, does that make Him any less God? If not, why not?
While I think Molinism does a pretty good job of answering the questions about Free Will, it simply doesn't come close to deal with the troublesome passages like:
"And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind." (Jer 7:31)
"and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind" (Jer 19:5)
So how does one reconcile passages like those with the ones WLC gave that Molinism seems to answer? I don't know. I don't. I just accept them both to be true and hold them in tension until God tells me.
Well, I thought I was done but WLC says something at the 50min mark during the Q&A that is VERY telling and I had to address it. Listen to him talk about God "blindly" picking the world He wants to decree. Then ask yourself this simple question. Theologically, and I think Biblically, why does God do anything that He does?
Paragraph 1: Check out the Ontological argument. Basically stating that God is a perfect being, which would require perfect knowledge. If he simply "can" know everything, then he is not perfect in knowledge. Rather, I think it is required you know everything to be perfect in knowledge (what we mean by omniscient).
Paragraph 2: William Lane Craig is coming at this from the Cosmological argument. Basically, because the time is finite, it requires something to exist before it, better known as God. Eternal implies that God never began to exist, therefore placing him before time.
Paragraph 5: I think he’s referring to the creation when he says God’s creative decree (the decree that creates stuff). I don’t see how the image of God affects Molonism, and I don’t fully understand the leap in logic from decree to image of God.
Paragraph 6: Again, I don’t see what this has to do with Molonism. However, I can assure you that dominion is telling humans to steward the earth (care for it but also have control of it).
Paragraph 7: This has nothing to do with Molonism.
Paragraph 8: Perhaps a better show of the “Molonist” chess player would be one who knows all the players, how they play, and exactly how they would react to his movements, knowing how to beat all of them, but only choosing the one who would give him the most glory (as both chess players are only allowed to choose one, because in this analogy, the universe is the opponent).
Biblical argument: “Nor did it come to mind” is most likely an idiom meaning God was displeased by that action, and not that the thought didn’t cross his mind. If it didn’t, it would defy God’s omniscience.
Paragraph 9: When WLC says “blindly” he is referring to the individual actions of “A” “B” and “C”, not how the universe plays out. Perhaps a better explanation would be, “God chooses a universe based on his goal, rather than the individual choices of A B and C.”
This comment was very thoughtful and I enjoyed responding to it. I hope this clears up some of what WLC said.
@@bcpeters1457 - Thanks for the reply,. Yours was very thoughtful as well and I enjoyed reading and responding to it as well.
To your Paragraph 1, I agree with you in that is the argument that WLC is making. But here's the problem with that as I see it,. "Basically stating that God is a perfect being, which would require perfect knowledge". Ok, but who gets to decide what is and define "perfect being" and "perfect knowledge"? IOW, who or what is to say that God is not "perfect" if He chooses not to know something? Why would that necessitate His being less that perfect?
For example, suppose I want to build something and I have NO clue how to do so. I have in my mind something I want to accomplish and I know what the perfect result will be. I also know there are aspects of the building process that though I may be able to totally control I have chosen not to. So I try a few different things and let's just say on the 3rd attempt, due to some of those "out of my control" issues, I achieve the "perfect" result that I wanted. How is that process or the result less that perfect?
"If he simply "can" know everything, then he is not perfect in knowledge." Says who? Based on what? Are you conflating Quality with Completeness?
"Rather, I think it is required you know everything to be perfect in knowledge (what we mean by omniscient)."
I understand, But as Christians we must be conformed into HIS image and NOT conform Him into OUR image. We must define our terms NOT according to our understanding and knowledge but rather according to His. (Pro. 3:5-7, 14;12).
To your Paragraph 2: I understand But I have recently come across a couple of podcast that are challenging that "outside of time" assumption/premise/supposition. You claim that "time is finite". Say who? Based on what? There is NO mention of that in Scripture. What Scripture says is "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." But that was before the sun and the moon were even placed. There is no specific connection of that to Time. What if God is Time and it is in Him that we understand Infinity and Eternality?
To your "Paragraph 5": I don't understand what you're asking me. There is a series of differing thoughts in that paragraph. Wrt the "image of God" thing the "leap in logic" has to do with my question asking what exactly does it mean to be created in he image of God. As I said, I don't think I've ever seen anyone define that.
To your "Paragraph 6": It doesn't. I was just sharing a new "epiphany" I got while looking at the Scripture.
To your "Paragraph 8": That may be a better show of Molinism but it doesn't do any better job with the Biblical argument I have against it. And I didn't go back to look at my chess analogy so that's why I say "may be". I'll just give you that it is and skip down to your comment on the Biblical argument.
"Biblical argument: “Nor did it come to mind” is most likely an idiom meaning God was displeased by that action, and not that the thought didn’t cross his mind. If it didn’t, it would defy God’s omniscience."
The operative words there for me are "most likely", I don't find that the case to be at all. And I would argue that it doesn't necessarily defy God's omniscience but rather your and others definition of Omniscience. My concern is that far too many churches are defining God based on THEIR knowledge or simply following what some other men laid down hundreds of years ago and NOT God's definition as determined by His Word.
Make NO mistake, I'm NOT saying that's the case. I'm just saying it's my concern and as far as I'm concerned it is a VERY valid concern because I have personally witnessed firsthand MANY who have created a God, and/or a Jesus, in their own image according to their own ways, will, and wisdom.
I find it far better to simply remain silent on things where God has chosen to remain silent on. God says His ways are above Man's and I believe that. FAR above. And I simply have NO problem with saying, "I don't know, God has chosen not to tell us that in His Word."
Man, that was very insightful, and gives me a better idea of where you are coming from. I respect the last paragraph wholeheartedly, as I do your strong desire for truth.
Para 1: As Christians, we know that God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 13:8) and that he is Omniscient (Psalm 147:5, Hebrews 4:13). The way I see it, if God has the ability to change, that seems like it brakes the idea that God is unchanging. This is why I think God does know everything. However, you may not see this as changing anything. Have you checked out the Ontological argument? If you haven’t, it would give you a good idea of where I’m coming from.
As to your analogy, I think the result is perfect, however the process is imperfect, as it has, at minimum, a 2/3 fail rate. A more perfect creation would be one that you have control over, despite having random events. This process would be perfect, and the result would remain perfect
Yes, we should be conformed to God’s image. However, there is enough in the Bible to give us a framework of how his sovereignty works (check the verses I have above). Along with this, I have been backing up my claims with theological and philosophical arguments.
Your argument basically comes down to, “who gets to decide what perfect means?” My answer: the Bible. I believe Psalm 147:5, “[God’s] understanding is infinite” says it best.
Para 2: Philosophically, it is impossible for infinity to exist. If the universe were an infinite, then today would already have passed. Genesis 1:1 makes a claim to a beginning. You could argue it was the beginning of the earth, but included in the beginning is the Heaves (better known as space). God cannot be time, because time has a beginning (to say otherwise defies the philosophical Cosmological argument, and you would have to contend with that.)
Para 5 & 6: I now understand that you were on a different topic. Thanks for the clarification.
Para 8: This may be a difference of interpretation. However, there are multiple times in the Bible where God claims to not know something he actually does know, such as when God asks Adam and Eve where they are hiding. He obviously knows where they are, as Jeremiah 23:24, Hebrews 4:13 and Psalm 139:7 assert (all speaking about how no one can hide from God), but asks anyway. I don’t see why. If you don’t think this applies here, know that some translations, such as the CSB, opt to use, “Nor did I entertain the thought” rather than, “nor did it come into my mind”. This isn’t objective proof, but it does bring into question the true meaning of the phrase.
I appreciate your final comment, and agree completely. However, I think I have reason to believe what I believe beyond creating my own god.
I sincerely hope you don’t take this as an attack. Rather, I have been viewing this as a friendly debate, and hope you see it the same. Thanks for responding. You have made my day.
@@bcpeters1457 - Allow me to address your last first. Absolutely! And I very much hope you continue to view this the same,
Now, that said, I think it's time for me to just move on,. There's just too much here to try and address in this forum. But I will give you the courtesy of explaining why and addressing some specific points in doing so,
1) " As Christians, we know that God is unchanging,.." You have conflated what a Christian is with holding to certain doctrines. Not only does one not need to know such things to be a Christian but they don't even have to come to know them to be a Christian. Furthermore, anyone can rape Scripture by ripping out some verse to make their point,. I'll use just your first as an example:
"“For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Mal 3:6)
What is God saying by "I the Lord do not change"? It's not hard to see when one looks at the preceding "for" and the succeeding "therefore". It is a twisting of God's Holy Word to rip out "I the LORD do not change" from it's context which is sandwiched between the "for" and "therefore". Since that is your first Scripture citation I have little reason to trust any of your others nor take the time to look at them because I well-imagine that I will find the same.
The same goes for God being Omniscient. It's not my intent to redefine Omniscience because words to have meaning but I think we must ask ourselves whether the word means what Man has ascribed to it. For example, I have often heard, and even said myself, "All means all." But does it? Not necessarily, When I say "all means all" I am referring specifically to "all" as the antecedent to "Scripture" in 2nd Tim. 3:16. Yet, when one studies Matt. 1:17 they will find that "all" can NOT mean "all" there.
I would agree with you that my argument basically comes down to "who gets to decide what perfect means?” For me EVERYTHING comes down to who gets to decide and as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ it is my Master and NOTHING else. The Word of God is my final authority to govern everything.
I'll end with what I think you know, but just to be crystal clear, I am NOT saying you have created your own god. Just that I know several who have because when questioned about their beliefs they leave Scripture altogether and basically can't support their suppositions. Often falling back on ad homs, demagoguery, mockery, or just disappearing. You have not done so and that's appreciated and respected. However, that said, I would submit, as I believe I showed with Mal. 3:6, that you have resorted to prooftexting. And prooftexting more often than not is a mistake.
Oh, and I do realize that one might say the same about me. The difference, I believe, is the exegesis which can NOT ignore the context. Moreover, I believe that , in fact, the context actually renders a literal interpretation of "nor did it enter my mind". Especially when followed with "nor did I decree",
@@bcpeters1457 it is impossible for infinity to exist? So can't god create a universe infinite in size or is he not omnipotent?
So God being all knowing and having seen all events played out in time. God knows how the movie ends so to speak. Yet he remains fulfilled. He doesn't get bored in need of more entertainment. God in the plan has the stage set for the sequel in eternity. His glory is never ending.
I havn't watched the full talk yet, but there is something I don't get about William Lane Craigs position. If William Lane Craig believes God can manipulate any given circumstance so that people can freely choose something _while also_ accomplishing God's will. Doesn't that mean that God could manipulate or order a Pope or an Ecumenical Council to infallibly decree his doctrines without error while still exercising their own free will?
The infallibility of the Pope is something he rejects though, but according to his position on Molinism(as I understand it), papal infallibility is easily reconciled with the Molinist view of free will and God's omniscience.
Hello.
I have read Dr. Craig referring that Thomas P. Flint has applied middle knowledge to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility. I think he would agree that this application is successful. Dr. Craig has applied middle knowledge to the Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture; a doctrine that has great similarities with the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
I think that Dr. Craig's reservations to the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility are because he maintains the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura., and that he would argue that the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility is not in the Scriptures.
@@jacobogutierrezsanchez - Thank you for the reference. 👍
@@Sean-lv6fx My pleasure.
@@jacobogutierrezsanchez I also heard in an interview that he doesn't believe in the infallibility of Church Councils either. That's why he is able to hold to monothelitism. But I agree that if you make the argument of the inspiration of scripture is pretty reasonable to do so with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
@@HosannaInExcelsis Yes. And you can use too the same argument for the councils.
Interesting.
WLC could play a good Scrooge 😆
I thought you were being rude until I got to that part.
I will never understand the vitriol that Molinism seems to inspire in some folks
Strange, isn't it? - RF Admin
The use of the Christmas Carol is misleading.
In Molonism, what "would" be true is totally inaccessible from the actual world post decree.
Once a world is chosen, all counterfactuals are no longer live options, merely hypotheticals. So saying the future he sees WOULD happen has no teeth, what WILL happen was already chosen by God from before creation.
I'll make this easy for anyone who reads this:
Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words.
Colossians 2:4 NKJV
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Colossians 2:8 NKJV
“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.
John 14:15-17, 21-24 NKJV
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NKJV
You're welcome.
Yes, these are verses supporting the Molinist perspective. Good job. - RF Admin
"It's up to you to decide if you're predestined".... "Make sure your election"
To any "reasonable" man it looks like a contradiction that Jesus is both fully Man and fully God. But to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit it is simple truth.
To any "reasonable" man it looks like a contradiction that God is fully Sovereign and Man is fully Free. But to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit it is simple truth.
Calvinists who call Molinism unrealistic because of the apparent contradiction of God's Sovereignty and Man's Free Will, who also hold that Jesus is Fully Man and Fully God (which is also an apparent contradiction to the mortal mind), need to check themselves before they wreck themselves because I smell hypocrisy.
We can't deal in "Oh, that doesn't make sense." because we simply don't know. That's why EVERYTHING needs to be backed up by God's word.
Seven Calvinists didn't like this video XD
😂
The gospel is written in the stars.
"Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." (Psalm 80:17)
"A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." (Proverbs 16:9)
"But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him." (Job 23:13-14)
"And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the Lord:" (Isaiah 62:12)
"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Proverbs 21:1)
"Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men." (Psalm 90:3)
"Thou hast granted me life and favour, and thy visitation hath preserved my spirit." (Job 10:12)
How Does TULIP Make You Feel?
Less mature Christians may grimace at the so-called “doctrines of grace” like children frown at sushi. They do so, however, only because they haven’t yet come to know its deeper joys. The mature grow into a rigor and depth and seriousness about doctrine, and knowing that doctrine produces joy, not boredom.
For many, a kind of “coming of age” spiritually - from the “simple truths” of the gospel, to the massive theological realities that feed, undergird, strengthen, and arise from those truths - means coming into the furnace room of Christianity that some have called “Calvinism.”
It is a bizarre term. The truths emphasized in the “system” were not new 500 years ago with John Calvin. The absolute sovereignty of God in all things, salvation included, is present (often shockingly so) in the Old Testament Scriptures, and then pervasive in the New.
Then, after the Dark Ages, a great season of rediscovery came with the Reformation. Before Calvin taught the bigness of God in the second generation, Luther did in the first. And long before Luther, Augustine reckoned earnestly with the sovereignty and God-ness of God.
“Calvinism” is a kind of nickname for the “strong old doctrines . . . which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.” So also, the faithful distinguish between God’s timeless truth and the incursions of unbelieving thought.
Augustinian Delight
When it comes to theology, one danger we face is to so emphasize a doctrine’s truthfulness that we undersell its goodness - and delightfulness. We need to rethink our Reformed soteriology, so that every limb and every branch in the tree is coursing with the sap of Augustinian delight.
Augustine, more than most, wrote not only of truth but of joy. Famously he claims in his Confessions that human hearts find no rest until they find rest in God, and he writes of God as not only sovereign in power but also the “sovereign joy” - the universe’s supreme treasure (Matthew 13:44; Philippians 3:7-8), the Joy above all joys and in all joys, and God as the “exceeding joy” (Psalm 43:4).
So, what, then, might it sound like, and how might it taste, to the maturing palate, to talk not only of the truth but also the goodness and joy of the so-called “doctrines of grace”? The five points of Calvinism (summarized as TULIP, as responses to five specific theological errors) moves from man’s inability to obtain real joy, to the Father’s and Son’s and Spirit’s parts in securing it, to man’s part, and now ability, even surety, of enduring in it. Consider those five famous petals, and taste the sap of delight in each limb and branch of the tree.
Total Depravity
Total depravity is not just badness, but blindness to beauty and deadness to joy.” Depravity in us does not produce delight in the long run but misery, a self-chosen misery and a misery God imposes in righteous retribution. Even in the short run, as sin holds out its deceitful promises of pleasure, we are not genuinely happy in our depravity. No one sins out of duty, but neither does sin make anyone deeply and enduringly happy. We sin for the sake of some pleasure, and then find it empty, again and again and again.
Total depravity means we are totally unable, on our own, to escape the prison of our misery, totally unable to secure the joy our hearts ache for. Our native condition, punctuated with thin and hollow thrills, is no happy one. Apart from Christ, we are dead to real joy (Ephesians 2:1, 5; 4:18) and blind to true beauty (2 Corinthians 4:4). And yet it is the “weak,” “the ungodly,” “sinners,” his “enemies” that God reconciles to himself in Christ (Romans 5:6-10), ushering them into true rejoicing (Romans 5:11).
Unconditional Election
“Unconditional election means that the completeness of our joy in Jesus was planned for us before we ever existed.” The Father chose his people, to share with them his infinite joy, even before they existed, not to mention before they had done anything good or bad. How might it change our talk of such divine election to focus more on the gift of everlasting bliss and less on the loss of perceived autonomy?
The Father was not, in Christ Jesus, going about robbing mankind of its ability to choose. Rather, from a race of incapable rebels, he chose a people, in sheer grace and mercy, to share with him in the infinite bliss of the Godhead.
If you are in Christ, God chose you for joy, before you had any choice, or could meet any conditions. He “blessed us in Christ . . . even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:3-4). The sovereign God, who is the sovereign Joy, “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11), and his will for his people is to make them indomitably, unassailably happy forever.
Limited Atonement
“Limited atonement is the assurance that indestructible joy in God is infallibly secured for us by the blood of the covenant.” The Father did not just snap his fingers, flip a switch, or wave a wand to make the everlasting joy of his people certain. The real world is more complicated than that, and real joy is far better.
God is both unimpeachably just and teeming with love and mercy. To pay the penalty of the totally depraved, he gave his own Son, who embraced the mission and went willingly. And the gift of God’s own Son made final joy not only possible but certain. For God’s people, our final joy is as certain as the death and resurrection of God’s Son.
Jesus bought our joy at the cost of his own pain and sorrows. Real joy is costly, not cheap. And for his people, his sheep, his bride, he has not only secured the offer of salvation but also effects it for us and in us.
Irresistible Grace
“Irresistible grace is the commitment and power of God’s love to make sure we don’t hold on to suicidal pleasures, but will set us free by the sovereign power of superior delights.” Not only does the Father plan, and the Son accomplish, but God the Spirit applies the Son’s work invincibly, in his perfect timing, to the Father’s chosen people. Precisely when he wills, the Spirit breaks into depraved lives unwittingly hellbent on eternal misery through sin, and he changes hearts irrevocably. He overcomes our slavery to the miseries of sin, and sets us free for the superior joy available only in God.
As he allows, we may indeed resist for a season - but only so long as he permits for his good purposes. When he is ready, he lovingly breaks the back of our resistance. He opens our eyes to the truth, and beauty, and superior worth of Jesus Christ as the Joy of all joys.
Perseverance of the Saints
“The perseverance of the saints is the almighty work of God to keep us, through all affliction and suffering, for an inheritance of pleasures at God’s right hand forever.” Finally, from the misery of man in our sin, to the Father choosing joy for his yet-to-be-created people, the Son securing it, and the Spirit applying it, we return to man, in Christ. God works in us so that we endure in the joy of faith through the ups and downs of life in this age. Jude famously closes his short letter, “Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding great joy . . .” (Jude 24).
Perseverance doesn’t pretend straight lines or lives without suffering. Perseverance promises final protection, eternal safety. In Christ, the promise of perseverance says, “Your sorrow will turn into joy” (John 16:20) and “No one will take your joy from you” (John 16:22).
Joy Sounds the Final Note
God is the great storyteller. He doesn’t draw with thin straight lines from conversion to glory. He’s the master of ups and downs, and ups again. He’s not so fragile as to be allergic to suffering any seeming defeat. In fact, in this fallen and sin-sick age, he thrives on the comeback story. His people are often down. “Many are the afflictions of the righteous” (Psalm 34:19). “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
God as our sovereign Joy doesn’t mean that every moment of our lives in this age will be pleasant and uncomplicated. But it does promise that there is always a joy that is deeper and greater than any pain and suffering we encounter. It doesn’t mean our troubles are insignificant. But it does mean that our sufferings, in Christ, do not have the final say. Joy will speak the final word. Joy will sound the final note.
Which is why all of us, like Spurgeon and Edwards, who are willing to go by the name “Calvinist,” for distinction’s sake, would do well to show the world, and church, not only our drive for the truth but also the joy and grace that such truths produce.
John Stewart ~ hbh@email.com
minds.com/lovejoypeaceforever
lol... yes, the special, knowledgeable, high and lofty ones come into the "doctrines of grace" as you speak... removing free will and attributing God with every evil known to man, "for His glory" they say. Satan laughs at you, as you grasp the doctrines of MAN just like the Pharisees and Sadducees, those "hypocrites" Jesus called them, as well as "Children of the Devil." But go ahead, puff yourself up, Calvinist.
For the children of Judah have done evil in My sight,” says the Lord. “They have set their abominations in the house which is called by My name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, WHICH I DID NOT COMMAND, NOR DID IT COME INTO MY HEART.
Jeremiah 7:30-31 NKJV
bible.com/bible/114/jer.7.30-31.NKJV
Every act of evil though right?? Except for this one?? Read your Bible more...
44:23 wow
If the actual world is represented as a line, what we can see is from past till the present time on this line. We thought that God can see the whole line including future, from start till the end do the line, but actually God can see the whole “map” other than this “narrow” line on which the actual “time” is flowing. God sees myriad of other possible worlds other than the one actual world. Knowing this just make me dumbfounded, and then I know what I can do is to pray to him, as there is no way for any human being to know what God knows.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined without free will? Is that just?
The fruits of the holy spirit is an alien idea for catholics
Your assuming absolute knowledge , that god, even with beings who possess freewill, knows the future. This is only asserted. I'm not sure here. If it is, then does it follow that if molinism can show gods forknowledge doesn't contradict freewill, then does not his proove freewill.?I'm not being retorical here. Is it possibly the reverse here . The foundation has not been set?
Dr. Craig is assuming that the Bible teaches that God has absolute sovereignty over all of creation, knows the future, and is able to create free creatures. If this is the case, then we need an explanation that is able to synthesize these points. Middle knowledge is that explanation. So, it's not that Molinism can show God's foreknowledge. Rather, it's that Molinism explains how divine sovereignty, foreknowledge, and free will can all be logically compatible. - RF Admin
When it comes to which world God actualized, I believe differently than Dr. Craig or Molina. I believe that the people in this world that chose to go to hell or will choose to go to hell would do so in every possible world. So therefore, God can use those people as pawns by putting them in different places in time and geography to accomplish his goal without concern of their salvation, because no matter what they would never choose it. So I believe God created a world that the maximum number of people would go to heaven. I believe this is the best that it can be with free creatures, as sad as that is
I agree here. I don’t think it makes much sense for a person to accept Christ in world A but reject Him in world B - a true acceptance of Christ is independent of any circumstance. Moreover, one would be committing the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit but rejecting Him in even one possible world, as no circumstances justify rejecting God.
As fascinating as this exercise to find some kind of harmony among freewill and election, it all gets turned on its head if God reveals Himself to ALL and every knee bows and confesses the truth freely of their own will. Of course there are likely very few in the audience that believe that is possible.
But only because of the assumptions that they bring to the table wittingly or unwittingly.
10 Then David said, “O Lord, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O Lord, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the Lord said, “He will come down.” 12 Then David said, “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. 14 And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.
1 samuel 10-14
A world without sin isn't feasible for God. Isn't heaven such a world?
By "world," Dr. Craig means a maximal description of reality. The actual world includes the entire history of this reality, including the past, present, and future. Since the past, present, and at least some of the future includes sin, then the ushering in of heaven would not preclude this world's having sin, since the past is part of the history of the world.
For Dr. Craig's explanation of a "possible world," see his Defenders class, The Existence of God (Series 2, Part 23): www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-excursus-on-natural-theology/existence-of-god-part-23 - RF Admin
I need him to break it down like I’m a 10 year old 🤷♂️
Starting your teaching with the fictional story sounds very biblical.
The problem with Molinism is that counterfactuals that are not actualised are not real possibilities.
wrong - before this world was created, it was a possibility among many other possible worlds, even if none was actualized ...
what do you understand as 'real' possibilities? - what is possible in this universe, or in any universe God may create??
Firstly,
There can be No Free Will if God is the Creator of each person’s own personal essence and nature. Namely, because God has created the person’s own essence and nature in such a way that the person would desire to do the things that he or she does.
One person does action X and another person does action Y and the ‘ ultimate reason ‘ is because God has created each person’s essence and nature differently. Each person’s own will acts in accordance with their desires, and their desires act in accordance with how God has created their essence and nature.
Therefore, it is impossible that anyone can have free will.
Secondly,
Those who were going to go to Hell were always going to go to Hell. God knew who would go to Hell if they were to exist. Once those people are born into the earth, they cannot use their will to get saved because if they did get saved, then that would prove God wrong on what He knew ( and He knew that they would go to Hell ).
Molinism is just another version of Calvinism. It is Filled with Determinism and Cruelty. God creates the Elect and the non Elect just as He does in Calvinism.
Thirdly,
If God has exhaustive and perfect foreknowledge, then there is no need for God to choose between Possible Worlds. Namely, because He always knew that this World would exist. God having to choose between Possible Worlds and then making a choice on what World He would create or actualize means that God was NOT All Knowing prior to his choice.
Fourthly,
If God has exhaustive and perfect foreknowledge, then even God cannot have Free Will. Namely, because He can never do other than what He always knew He would do.
He had to create this world and He could not refrain from creating it because He always knew this world would be created.
Omnsicience and Free Will are incompatible.
Interesting, you've given me a lot to chew on. If not Molinism or Calvinism, what do you subscribe to?
@@skylerstorm527 --- I am Theistic / Agnostic. The reason for this is because all Christian positions are flawed.
@@TheMirabillis all Christian positions are flawed and yet you can't even show one argument where the fallacies lies.
I think you are conflating necessary truths with possible truths (contingent truths). If God foreknew he would create state of affairs A (the creation of the universe) instead of B, C, D and so forth; then it doesn't follow necessarily that God cannot create state of affairs B, C, D, and so on and so forth.
@@4idhero798 --- If God’s foreknowledge is as old He is, then He eternally knew that He would create the universe at point T and it had to obtain.
If God had changed His mind and refrained and not created the Universe at point T, then He would have proven His Foreknowledge wrong.
There was never any need for God to choose between possible worlds because God always knew He would create this world at point T.
If God has exhaustive and perfect foreknowledge, then even God cannot have Free Will. Namely, because He can never do other than what He always knew He would do. He had to create this world and He could not refrain from creating it because He always knew this world would be created.
Omniscience and Free Will are incompatible. If God is to be perfectly free, then He cannot be All Knowing. If God is All Knowing, then He is not free and is bound to always do what He always knew He would do.
I don't see any practical difference from Calvinism.
Calvinism: Parent sets cookies in front of the disobedient child, tells him not to eat them, makes him eat them, then punishes him for eating them.
Molinism: Parent knows the child will eat the cookies, but sets them out anyway, tells the child not to eat them, the child chooses to eat the cookies, the parent catches the child and teaches them a lesson. In this view, the child did not have to eat the cookies--even though the parent knew they would. Also, the parent could have made a situation with no cookies. But knew that the world with the cookies would produce the outcome of a more disciplined child. Both the parent and the child made free choices.
Maybe God has arranged everything so WLC might buy a Mercedes in the future.
the problem is that the real world that god created is not free since God only actually creates one world. God is piking one world in which he will manipulate all situations, environments, and the nature of all created things so that certain choices are made. So again it really does not matter that there are other hypothetical worlds and counterfactuals which God knew before the decree of creation. The real world is the world in which God master planned everything and man is manipulated in choosing exactly what God wants him to choose. Since there is only one real (non-hypothetical world) then I cannot see how Molinism does not boil down to another form of determinism.
The feasible worlds are just the worlds that God could create in which certain actions will take place. I really can only see one feasible world which would be the actual world since God is choosing a world in which all thins occur as he wants them to occur. Remember God is only choosing one world and God must have a reason to choose that one world vs. worlds that are very very similar to that world.
the problem with Dr. Craig's answer as to the question of how are we free if God chooses the one world in which we live is that God is god has created my nature and environment. Thus I cannot choose anything different because I will not choose anything different. All the parameters are controlled by God. God would not have given me sufficient grace to choose differently. I have only one real choice. God manipulated creation so that I have only that one choice. Those hypothetical mes di not ever exist. The only real me was the one that lived in a world which everything was so controlled and manipulated so that I would do a certain action like sin. So the only real me that is able to make a real choice is one and only one option is really available to me. That is not libertarian freedom.
The mental gymnastics are impressive. God controls and knows all, but you're free. And if you abuse your freedom in sin and doubt, which god would also know and control, then you're free to burn eternally. But A Christmas Carol proves it all makes sense.
He did do the English accent though, so that has to count for something.
God doesn’t control what you would do in every or all circumstances he might place you, under Molinism. So there is no contradiction.
Sounds like you're challenging the doctrine of hell moreso than molinism. Molinism really isn't hard to understand. God places us in situations where our choices bring about His will. That's all there is to it.
Jack this crude summary suggests you don't yet understand the nuances of middle knowledge. The key point is that the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom known by God are not decided or determined by God. This is what Craig means when he says these counterfactuals are logically prior to His creative decree. So it really is up to free agents to decide in their circumstances. The counterfactuals are true, because they correctly correspond to the way we would really act in a particular set of circumstances. By choosing to actualise a particular world God merely allows or permits people to commit sins - and so people as free agents really are morally responsible for the sins that they freely commit.
I don't think Craig has thought this through. His defenders definitely don't think it through
Molonism is heresy and has always been heresy. Go back to the Counsel of Orange as the earliest reference.
I love Dr. Craig but unfortunately, his theory reduces God to the level of our brain logic, God is beyond our logical mind. Who can understand the fact that God can predetermine events and at the same time let men be free of their actions. Let God be God and man be man.
This seems to assume that God is incapable of creating creatures with the capacity to gain knowledge of his nature and providence through logic and reasoning. Why think that that's true? - RF Admin
Christ Jesus of Nazareth is our Messiah, not yahweh. Elohim, adonai, allah, diana, bel, ashtoreth, rapha, yahuwah, yahweh, yeshua, etc are devils and cannot save you from sin.
Umm... a bunch of the names you just listed are other names for Jesus. Elohim is a generic term for God, yahweh is the name of God (yahweh means "He is") and adonai is also another name for Jesus.
William Lane Craig talking philosophical connerie in order impress his audience that God is an expert in quantum indeterminancy and that God uses his servant William to illustrate what a fraud william was and still is. William thrives on theological connerie and is an expect in this area of Christianity.
Good grief. Arguing theology from a philosophical framework is not legit.
hahaha, i see you've failed to recognize that every theology is formed from a philosophical framework. Whether consciously or subconsciously, humans will always try to make sense of scripture through their own preconceived ideas of logic.
@@justindavis2711 - Brother, when I hear WLC talk for 30 minutes and never bring up a text of scripture, it becomes pretty clear that his framework is philosophy, not scripture.
I love WLC as a brother in Christ. I take issue with his apologetic framework, not him personally. I admire with efforts, but not his work. He has been a faithful warrior for Christ for decades. It would be awesome if he engaged with some presuppositional thinkers.
@@hamcom5477 lol presuppositionalism you say. What is, perhaps the worst form of arguing for the christian faith. its Lazy and circular logic.
Is that a statement from your philosophical framework?
@@Rubberglass Lol good one.
False. Stefan Molineux is an atheist.
What a nonsensical, utter mess.
Scrooge never repented. He was The Eternal Jew.