By knowing what every possible free creature would do in any possible situation, God can by bringing about that situation know what the creature will freely do. . In the same breath he then smuggles his own notions of free will into his argument against limited atonement. William Lane Craig. Course Curriculum by William Lane Craig | Reasonable Faith Some might deny it either because they think that freedom is compatible with causal determinism or because they hold to a theory of time, variously called the tenseless or B-Theory of time, according to which future events are just as existent as present events. Therefore, middle knowledge does not provide a better solution than Calvinism or Arminianism.. The fourth contention is the following: Middle knowledge is the only way to predestine a libertarian free choice.. But I am classifying it here as a third Arminian viewpoint because, according to middle knowledge, the ultimate factor that determines whether someone is saved is not Gods eternal choice of that individual person but the persons own libertarian free will decision to believe in Christ.. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/i-a-compatibilist?fbclid=IwAR3_Ot0cwEmKzQoB37vQXdBk0qcUyz23AYfhln4ZmPeZ0fd6LLpJp-dvVwU. The Case For Nero Caesar Being The Beast Of Revelation, Response To Noel Weeks Critique Of The Lost World Of Genesis One, Promoting Civil Discourse Between YECs, OECs, and ECs, The Historical Reliability Of The New Testament, The Maximally Great Argument Against Calvinism. . Likewise, if you were to make a different choice, Gods foreknowledge would contain different content. God's types of knowledge In this Special Topics class, Dr, William Lane Craig addresses several interrelated themes. . Thus he foreknows with certainty everything that happens in the world.68 This view is called middle knowledge because it falls in the middle of the list of three kinds of knowledge that we can distinguish in God: 1. It also has the consequence of preventing God from knowing how free creatures would choose prior to the decree so that He cannot plan for them providentially in the decree. Along the same lines, one might think God freely chooses not to create a world in which the person does non-A, but again this is highly problimatic, because God does not have middle knowledge of His own actions. All the Calvinist must do to be a mere Molinist is to affirm that God ordains and determines the existence of specific persons in certain circumstances, and also affirm that Christian persons, for example, are not causally determined by God to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13). If anything, Arminianism borrows from Molinism. William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University in Houston, Texas. Your email address will not be published. At first glance, one might be tempted to say Gods knowledge that the person would do non-A is part of Gods middle knowledge. There was a time when I would have granted him the affirmation of middle knowledge, while denying that his account was Molinist, but I have come to realize that middle knowledge entails libertarian creaturely freedom, in the classical sense of the PAP. For a Christian who already has done some philosophical study (like yours truly), it wasnt a problem at all. Grudem is confusing and conflating predestination with determinism. A Brief Response to William Lane Craig on Molinism 8 May 2014 / Philosophy, Theology / 22 Comments A few months back I wrote a post entitled "The Fallible God of Molinism" which was prompted by an exchange between William Lane Craig and Paul Helm. I suspect (as I did when reading Flints Molinist account of providence) that insufficient attention is being paid to the difference between hard (mechanistic/incompatibilist) determinism and soft (compatibilist) determinism. Therefore, either humans are free, or God knows the future (and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom), but not both. Ill keep it in mind as I move forward on this. William (Bill) Lane Craig argues that Molinism - a view which reconciles human freedom and divine sovereignty - is Biblically consistent without making God the author of evil. So he is not a monergist, and he is still Molinistic in that he asserts that God knows the completely undetermined choices that a person would make in a hypothetical situation. Whichever way you choose, Gods foreknowledge follows. He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom (Baker, 1987 ). The Bible is clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God possesses counterfactual knowledge. I think one of the reasons Molinism isnt more widespread is that most of the material on the subject are not easy reads. Thank you, David. To clarify, Calvinism and Arminianism discuss Gods sovereignty specifically over salvation issues. What We Do. I believe Molinism is to systematic theology was Darwinian Evolution is to biology and paleontology (Oh yeah, Im an Evolutionary Creationist too, by the way). William Lane Craig is clear that the libertarian need not affirm alternative possibilities in his article, I, a Compatibilist? In question 3 of a Q & A about middle knowledge, an inquirer named John sets out a syllogism which sums up his case against Molinism, focused on the grounding objection that concerns non-Molinists from positions both to the right (Calvinists) and the left (Open Theists) of Molinism. 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars. A predestined act can be determined, but it does not have to be. } These are two different concepts. Thank you, Dan. I welcome continued conversation and enlightenment, and Ill pass along in future posts any changes that take place in my assessment, as new information comes my way. Nonetheless, in both of our cases, we were speaking impromptu, without self editing. God knows nothing by free knowledge that isnt a part of middle knowledge that isnt a part of His natural knowledge and nothing by middle knowledge that isnt a part of His natural knowledge., [That seems clearly wrong to me. It is absolutely certain that they will respond to and persevere in Gods grace. I wonder if it makes sense to ask him. At the same time, I couldnt affirm that Jesus only died for the elect or that He only wanted certain people to be saved because The Bible overwhelmingly contradicted such a notion in a multitude of places (to say nothing of it impinging on Perfect Being Theology). Consider his own slightly edited words: Middle knowledge says that (a) God knows that if person P is in a certain set of circumstances, he [WOULD] cheat on his wife, and then (b) God creates the kind of world in which exactly those circumstances will come about. While I did and still do affirm every doctrine I just listed, there were portions of scripture that seemed to strongly support Calvinistic doctrines such as unconditional election, the perseverance of the saints, and that God has meticulous sovereign control over all things. I believe they endorse it, in part because they think that Frankfurt-like cases are persuasive to an extent. ], You: Second, even if the person cant do non-A, there are still two possible worlds one where the person does A and one in which he does not. . then God possesses middle knowledge. Unfortunately, the first half of the book is probably the most important and it defends Molinisms coherence against the grounding and circularity objections and argues for the compatibility of foreknowledge and human freedom. First, how exactly does one pronounce your name? An Agent can be said to FREELY stay in a room even though there is no ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY. . Molinism, on the other hand, is simply a model demonstrating how humans can be responsible and free in a libertarian sense (not determined by something or someone else), and how God can still be completely sovereign over and predestine all things. Id love to hear your take on it. However, if one does possess opportunities to choose among alternative possibilities in the real world (strong libertarian freedom), then it follows that one is not determined by something or someone else. He accurately represents his opponents, citing their own words and quotations describing their positions, and proceeds to show how Molinism prevails over these non-Molinist views (Process Theology, Open Theism, Divine Determinism, Simple Foreknowledge Arminianism) in areas such as (1) Reconciling meticulous divine providence with human free will, (2) Reconciling Gods universal salvific will and resistible grace with his predestination of individuals to salvation, (3) The clear and numerous passages teaching perseverance of the saints with biblical passages warning us not to fall away, (4) How God inspired the content of the biblical text yet didnt dictate every word jotted down (as is clear from the fact that human idiosyncrasies are present in the text), (5) the problem of evil, and several other issues. ); It is hard to avoid the conclusion that hidden in the phrase that speaks about God bringing about that situation is the implied necessity for God not just to create a certain kind of world at the beginning but also to determine that millions of human choices would be decided in one way and not in another, in order to bring about the situation he wants at this moment. Craig posits a situation in which God knows that in a particular set of circumstances you would undeterminedly choose to do A, although you had no power to choose otherwise. Book Title & Description. It is here that he remains indeterministic where I have moved toward the determinism that makes human freedom compatible with Gods meticulous control. . But I believe the people who attend my church, if they read this, might put the book down to go grab a bottle of Tylenol. Craig has been the most prominent evangelical representative of Molinism of whom I am aware, and this is reflected in the large place I gave to his work in my exposition of the Molinist model of divine providence, in Providence and Prayer. If these Calvinistswho are still completely determinists regarding salvation issuesaffirm that God is omniscient prior to His creative decree, then it is likely they will also affirm Gods middle knowledge. Great thanks, just curious. Yes, the problem (for me) remains the status of the free act in this agent-causation sense (if that is what it turns out to be). Any recent developments since this post, on the issue? This article (and the WLC Q&A that inspired it) is not in any way about the Frankfurt cases, though. Craig writes: I am explicitly a libertarian about freedom of the will, and so there should be no doubt about that. I can see a sense in which this would be true, but I think that even this perspective proves unhelpful. Thanks, William. And anything God sized is well too big to even attempt to quantify or qualify. Since source incompatibilism is compatible with the denial of PAP, this means hes retreating from PAP when challenged. on W. L. Craigs understanding of freedom: Molinism or monergism? William Lane Craig - Wikipedia Thomas P. Flint develops and defends the idea of divine providence sketched by Luis de Molina, the sixteenth-century Jesuit theologian. . Boyd looked to me like an orthodox libertarian at that point, and Craig looks revisionist. William Lane Craig, Illustrated by Marli Renee. Abstract. But if you choose Y, then God foreknows Y and has always foreknown Y. It is vital to note that since Calvinists are Christians, the Calvinist who fell into temptation is already saved. On the other hand, Craigs view does not actually result in the kind of human freedom that Arminians want to defend. Second, even if a the person cant do non-A, there are still two possible worlds one where the person does A and one in which he does not. So if you choose X tomorrow, God foreknows X and has always foreknown X. II. Consider donating or inviting us to speak at your church! Thus, Molinism is NOT a soteriological system. For the benefit of anyone who subscribed to comments on this post, I note that I have had some correspondence with a friend who has significant philosophical theological expertise. Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. Libertarian freedom is not defined, as Grudem seems to assume, as the ability to trick God.. Molinism Books - Goodreads MacGregor disagrees and states that his research indicates that, in the best closet case scenario, Arminius may have thought he was a Molinist but misunderstood Molina drastically on several fronts. In this book, Kenneth Keathley provides biblical defense for the 10 affirmations that lead him to Molinism as the best explanation. But Craigs current account of the nature of freedom is compatibilistic, and I see no reason for him to continue to self-identify as a Molinist. Its about WLCs use of source incompatibilism when faced with an objection that (if correct) would make PAP false. Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? In December, I wrapped up my review of Four Views on Divine Providence, dealing with responses to Greg Boyds Open Theist proposal. The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom: Craig, William Lane: 9781579103163: Amazon.com: Books Books Christian Books & Bibles Churches & Church Leadership Enjoy fast, FREE delivery, exclusive deals and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime Try Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery Ill be watching with interest for Molinist style uses. Regarding that question, several substantial objections can be raised against the middle knowledge position: See the argument I give in my opening speech in my debate with James White. The problem for Molinism has been, however, that so many philosophers and theologians (both synergist and monergist) believe the grounding objection to be unanswerable, making the knowledge of counterfactuals of libertarian freedom (i.e., knowing what libertarianly free creatures would do in all possible sets of circumstances) impossible, even for God. God has chosen the world he will actualize. However, that reading of Craig is highly problematic, because Craig ends up saying doing non-A is impossible (i.e. Again, Grudem continues to confuse and conflate predestination with determinism. Take a second to support Evan Minton on Patreon! 7 Max Andrews, An Introduction to Molinism: Scripture, Reason, and All that God has Ordered (The Spread of Molinism Book 1) . Indeed, if God is necessarily omniscient, by definition, God knows all of these truths in all circumstancesincluding the circumstance prior to the foundations of the world. If God can predestine a Calvinist to cheat on his wife without causally determining him to do so, then it is logically possible for God to predestine a sinner to refrain from resisting Gods love and grace without God causally determining him to do so. $78.00. But such a process denies the kind of libertarian free will that middle knowledge advocates are claiming to protect.. . Middle knowledge says that (a) God knows that if person P is in a certain set of circumstances, he will trust in Christ, and then (b) God creates the kind of world in which exactly those circumstances will come about, and so predestines person P to salvation. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. He defends the view that God predestines the future, limiting human freedom. It is a logical error to conflate certainty with necessity. God, however, should not be blamed since not only did He not determine the Calvinist to cheat on his wife, God provided a way of escape, so that he did not have to fall into temptation and commit adultery in that specific circumstance. . The genius of the traditional distinction between Gods natural and free knowledge, and of Molinas adding of middle knowledge, was that each is a knowledge of different content. In fact, the middle knowledge theory is in actuality just a variety of the Arminian position that election is based on Gods foreknowledge of our faith. Your friend may have already mentioned it. Historians infer this explanation because Molinas writings have been found in Arminiuss library.[2]. Craig is no monergist. April 20, 2018 Summary: In the March 11, 2014 episode of The Dividing Line, James White offers an analysis of the discussion between Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Paul Helm on the topic "Molinism vs. Calvinism," which originally aired January 4, 2014. If the act A of choosing x was free, then, prior to the exact moment of A, A was non-existent and, prior to the exact moment of A, there were no specifiable set of circumstances by which to deduce that A would occur. William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism. Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism: A Biblical Whatever the case might be, it is vital to note that the Synod of Dort was not responding to the real thing. (Its listed above as #2.). As long as God knows all things that WOULD occur including the libertarian free choices of humanity prior to His words Let there be . In that post, I expressed my surprise concerning William Lane Craig's redefinition of libertarian freedom, in which he denied that it entails the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), often described as the "power of contrary choice." Molinism vs. Calvinism: The Problem of Evil - William Lane Craig If He did, that would destroy His freedom., [Why do you state the second sentence? However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced The Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvation of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) Gods grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvation was genuinely available to the unbeliever). I find that an insightful way to construe the move that Craig has taken. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. The Existentialist Critique of Molinism. [8] I refer to this idea as weak libertarian freedom. I'm currently participating in a four-views book on divine providence along with a pair of Reformed theologians. The first thing to point out would be that that seems like it would be rare for God not to be able to bring good out of a world where a person does non-A. Every subsection of this article will be a copy/paste of reviews I had previously written up for GoodReads.com. Craig first refutes Open Theism by listing the myriad of biblical passages and verses that either directly assert, implicitly assert, or logically entail that God has foreknowledge (i.e He knows what is going to happen in the future). Perhaps the most serious objection to a Molinist theory of providence which has been circulating of late is that it is too successful in showing how God could sovereignly control a world of free creatures. God is certain that Agent P will freely choose X in circumstance C at time t, but it is not necessary. How correct must our theology be for our faith to be saving? forms: { I think the statement is true, but the reason, in my view, is that God is libertarianly free, which we are not, and this would not be your reason, I assume. Moreover, Tim, I'm sure you know that Wayne Grudem is no fan of William Lane Craig's teaching on Molinism. ], You: Ok, with these two points in mind, lets see what Craig might have meant here. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life . If He did, that would destroy His freedom. The creature is NOT FREE to be [NOT X] where being [X] is Determined. In Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, Craig displays this prowess by categorically defending Molinism. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Because it would louse up Gods plans., [Definitely not, I think, because your construct makes the decree (Gods plans) logically prior to his natural knowledge. This is not necessarily the case. This is an error which leads to false conclusions. Here are my initial 'off the cuff' thoughts concerning the debate between William Lane Craig and James White over the issue of Molinism and Calvinism that took place in December 2021. We are going to look at an article [1] today on CARM that Matt wrote in response to Molinism. If youve followed this blog or my podcast for any amount of time, that should come as no surprise to you. In conclusion, Molinism proposes a speculative theory that has no explicit biblical support, that is inconsistent with the biblical descriptions of God choosing individual persons, that is a complicated version of the Arminian view that predestination is based on foreknowledge of a persons faith, that requires that God must determine millions of human choices that lead up to any specific set of circumstances, and that is inconsistent with claims that are essential to both Calvinism and Arminianism.. PAP), This is not correct. Even for the Molinist, some things are not possible by the nature of reality, as coherent with Gods own nature. Such a counterfactual requires Gods middle knowledge, is open to the grounding objection, and so on. Molinism seems to be a good argument to keep the debate in the realm of his omniscience which is intellectually satisfying but never gets anyore emotionally closer than the old God has his reasons answer weve had since practically day one post resurrection. The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human However, if one does possess this opportunity and ability to choose otherwise (as implied in 1 Corinthians 10:13), then it is sufficient to demonstrate libertarian freedom. In science, one should go with the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory scope of the data. the third type is middle knowledge, by which, in virtue of the most profound and inscrutable comprehension of each faculty of free choice, He saw in His own essence what each such faculty would do with its innate freedom were it to be placed in this or in that or, indeed, in infinitely many orders of thingseven though it would really be able, if it so willed, to do the opposite . Second, God does not have middle knowledge of His own choices only of our choices. . Im persuaded that so long as an agents choice is not causally determined, it doesnt matter if he can actually make a choice contrary to how he does choose. My current situation is also a result of the Founding Fathers of the United States deciding to declare their independence from Great Britain in 1776, and their lives are the result ofwell, such reasoning could go on forever. Transcript Please let me know if you do. window.mc4wp.listeners.push( With libertarian freedom properly understood, consider another example from the Mere Molinism Study Guide (coauthored by Timothy Fox): This is a common fallacy regarding Gods foreknowledge known as the Modal Fallacy. Just as an infallible weather barometer that knows it will rain in Spain does not cause the rain in Spain, God simply knows how a person with libertarian freedom would and will freely choose in a specific freedom-permitting circumstance (where antecedent conditions are insufficient to necessitate ones choice). I had not considered that question before, and I think you may be on to something in questioning its coherence. Consider the timeline of historical events: Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1506-1564), Molinas response to a Roman Catholic audience (1535-1600), Arminiuss (incorrect?) (Does it have the power to do nothing? Robert, I have heard nothing myself which throws any more light on the question I addressed. Not only did White summarize his discussion with Craig, he also brought up me, myself, and I. However, at the same time, there were parts of scripture that troubled me. Youre right, John, that (1) is controversial, but I myself accept it. Laings primary goal is to show that Molinism has superior explanatory power in wrestling with theological issues than all non-Molinist views, thereby making Molinism the preferable view for the Christian to take. Any development on the issue in question? -quote There is room for disagreement on that score. In his popular theology textbook, Grudem mentions middle knowledge dozens of times and in Chapter 16, he gets down to business and presents four reasons why (he thinks) the Molinist position is not tenable. Nor can Calvinists agree that it is up to us whether we are predestined, placing the ultimate factor that decides a persons destiny not in Gods choice of the person but in the persons decision to choose God. And that action depended on each of their ancestors deciding to get married, deciding to come to America, deciding (in many cases) to follow Christ and teach their children to follow Christ, and so forth. Richard Taylor puts it this way: In the case of an action that is free, it must not only be such that it is caused by the agent who performs it, but also such that no antecedent conditions were sufficient for his performing just that action.[6] We can understand libertarian freedom, then, as the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine or necessitate ones choice.

5602 Dalrymple Road, Edina, Mn, Buddhist Center Of New Mexico, Where Is Scrimshaw Beer Made, Clearwater Mobile Homes For Sale By Owner, The Augusta Apartments In The Galleria Area Of Houston, Articles W