User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17

Thread: What is the Difference Between Molinism and Open Theism?

  1. #16
    Journeyman Ardima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Miami FL
    Posts
    171
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    819
    Quote Originally Posted by Mocking You View Post
    Ah, yes, until it becomes reality. In my view, a future possibility is the result of an humungous IF-THEN decision tree. If I do this, then this situation arises. Similarly, if someone else does something, then this will happen. So, IF I drive my car tomorrow THEN there is a chance of getting in an accident. So getting into an accident is a future possibility.
    This is only true of those who possess a contingent mind. God doesnt even considers possibilities because He knows what has actually happened in the future. He doesnt need to control man's will because he already knows all that already had happened in the future. For something contingent to exist it has to actually and potentially exist, and because God is eternal, there is no potential in Him. Therefore all contingent existence that was, is, and will be is that which actuallyexists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mocking You View Post
    Why? If He knows every possible outcome then He knows the outcome BUT this still allows for human free will.
    God only knows the actual outcomes of every decision man will ever make. Because of this there is no need to interfere with the will of man. God has already set the end point and all the decisions you make of your own will lead to that end... God being all in all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mocking You View Post
    I like to think of them as alternate potential realities.
    If they are only potential alternate realities they do not anc cannot exist. And God does not have knowledge of anything that doesnt actually exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mocking You View Post
    Actually, that's exactly the way I see it. God knows every possible action I might take, and therefore "knows" the future.
    God only knows the actions that you will have already actually taken. Again no need to alter man's will when all that exists in God is only what actually exists. There is no potential in God for he is exhaustively complete.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mocking You View Post
    I see it in a more binary way then numbers taken to seven significant digits. Either something happens or it doesn't. IF it happens then there is another possible thing that could happen.
    That is the only way we can perceive things in our contingent mind. To God there is only the "it happens". Remember, God is in every place in time, at every point in time, all at the same time. He only knows what is actually there at every place in time at every point in time.
    Last edited by Ardima; May 14th, 2015 at 01:40 PM.
    Christ is the Gospel; Christ is our righteousness; Christ is our hope!!! No Jesus; no righteousness. No Jesus; no hope!

  2. #17
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,700
    Thanks
    2,798
    Thanked 2,559 Times in 1,573 Posts

    Blog Entries
    142
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2084629
    Craig and others refer to the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (CFs): Knowing what any possible agent would do in any possible circumstances, God can have complete providential control over the events that occur by knowing how the history of the world would go given any creative decision He might make about which circumstances to cause to be actual, and by then making that initial creative decision. Yet human libertarian freedom is obviously also maintained.

    But, foreknowledge is grounded in something that actually happens, and it is the occurrence of that future event that sanctions the foreknowledge of it.

    On the other hand, whatever grounds the truth of counterfactuals of freedom is something other than an actually occurring event. The indeterminateness of counterfactual states of affairs in virtue of which counterfactuals of freedom are true is therefore of a wholly different order from the indeterminateness of future states of affairs in virtue of which future factuals of freedom are true. Though the latter are not yet determinate, they nevertheless will be.

    Even granting that there are some CF’s with actual (true) antecedents whose truth might in principle be determined by actual agents it seems to be such that God could not know them pre-volitionally, if He must directly perceive their grounds. For until God decides which agents and which circumstances to cause to be actual, there aren’t any actual decisions that God could in principle know as the grounds of these CF’s. Since middle knowledge is meant to be the aid by which God determines the actual world, and yet it seems as if He could not have this knowledge logically prior to determining the actuality of a particular possible world, “middle knowledge” seems both incorrectly described and unhelpful for providential creation decisions.

    I believe that the Molinist view of providence should be rejected because there are good reasons to think that there are not any (and certainly not enough) true counterfactuals of freedom. According to Molinism, foreknowledge is nothing more than the causally impotent byproduct of God’s creative act of will.

    As relates to openism, see:
    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...36#post3415136

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; May 14th, 2015 at 10:01 PM.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us