What is Molinism?

[joelkaki]

I have heard the term "Molinism" around here, and some are self-professing Molinists, but what is molinism exactly? How does it differ from traditional Arminianism?


Thanks,
Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

Roughly it says that God knows every possible contingency for the future. You'll need Jaltus or someone else to explain the nuances of it though, as I am not a Molinist.

GP

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey Joel, was that because of my latest comment??

[Gavin]

Hey Joel,

check here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Don't ask me, I am just a wanna-be Molinist... hmm this brings back memories. I remember my designation on that other forum years back was Dee Dee Warren, wanna-be postmillennial preterist. And my dare was, "convince me otherwise." The rest is history.

[Jaltus]

Arminianism is a specific understanding of how God operates.

Molinism is essentially a branch of Arminianism that answers the alleged contradiction between foreknowledge and LFW by using the concept of counterfactual knowledge, or Middle-Knowledge.

Go to the thread above to see more specifics, or else feel free to ask me. I would, by default, be the resident expert on Molinism.

DDW could be, but she is too busy being a preterist to fin anything else to do (she is always doing things "soon," which we know means a preterist soon, and thus lives a life of immediacy, even if she does not return to threads where preterism is being discussed in a preterist "soon" because she is afraid to get beaten on....yes, this is Jaltus taunting DDW for not coming back to our thread).

[wienerdog]

In my experience, traditional Arminians think Molinism smacks of Calvinism, while Calvinists, of course, think it smacks of Arminianism.

If everyone hates it, it must be true! :thumb:

[Jaltus]

Actually, due to Sanders solid critique of Simple Foreknowledge, more and more Arminians are heading into the Molinist camp.

[Faramir]

03-12-2003 @ 06:49 PM
Jaltus:

Actually, due to Sanders solid critique of Simple Foreknowledge, more and more Arminians are heading into the Molinist camp.

I for one used to identify myself as an Arminian with Calvinist leanings. Since Jaltus posted his Molinist thread, I now consider myself a "near Molinist". That is I have probably been a Molinist for awhile, but didn't even know it. Although I am not sure I fully understand all of the nuances yet. Once I get a chance to study it more, I will probably end up becoming a convert.

Of course right now I'm having too much fun being a preterist with Dee Dee. :yipee:



:tongue:

[TheFiveSolas]

Jaltus wrote:


Molinism is essentially a branch of Arminianism that answers the alleged contradiction between foreknowledge and LFW...


Does LFW refer to Libertarian Free Will?

(Edit to Add)
Never mind, I just answered my own question when I looked at the above link to the Thinking Man's Arminianism thread.

By the way, it would seem that the entire system rests on the validity of Libertarian Free Will. Am I correct in this?

[Jaltus]

Yes, for as I said Molinism is a form of Arminianism, thus you assume Arminianism when dealing with Molinism (generally).

[Gavin]

Is molinism essentially the same as the open view?

[Jaltus]

ACK! NO!

Molinism is far from the OV (they call us Calvinists), since we hold to a "closed" future.

Molinism reconciles EDF with LFW, and EDF is what OV denies.

[Polemicist]

What is the Scriptural warrant for this view? From the brief descriptions I've seen here, it appears the Molinist is trying to use the "seeing down the corridors of time" argument of the Arminians, while dismissing the clear Scriptural notion of His predestinating and sustaining of all things.

[Jaltus]

First off, I agree God predestines things, but I believe it is through foreknowledge that predestination happens (a la Romans 8:29-30).

Matthew 11
21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

God has the knowledge of what would happen if people were in whatever circumstance. That is what Molinism teaches. It is contra Calvinism since Calvinism assumes God can only know through predetination, not through actual foreknowledge based on others actions.

[Polemicist]

God has the knowledge of what would happen if people were in whatever circumstance. That is what Molinism teaches. It is contra Calvinism since Calvinism assumes God can only know through predetination, not through actual foreknowledge based on others actions.

This view certainly puts man in control with God playing a supporting role, which is probably why it is an attractive view. It strips God of His sovereignty and omnipotence, ultimately making the notion of providence meaningless. How does the Molinist deal with Colossians 1:17, which makes it clear that Creation is actively sustained by Him?

Also, how does foreknowledge, of itself, accomplish anything? How can it precede predestination as you assert? Take it back to the beginning, to the "foundations of the earth" (Psalm 102:25), to the ultimate predestinating act of God. Did God foreknow Creation into being?

[joelkaki]

I'm not exactly understanding still what Molinism is. And yes, I did go to the link, but it still leaves me with some questions.
According to Molinism...
Does God know for certain what I will do at a particular point tomorrow?
If yes, how does it really differ from traditional Arminian foreknowledge of God?
If not, how does it really differ from Open Theism?

Joel

[Dee Dee Warren]

I like this thread.

Jaltus, did you notice that I changed my signature line??

[joelkaki]

Oh, DeeDee, in response to your earlier question:
No, this thread was not in response to your latest comment (I'm not even sure which comment you refer to).

Joel

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay, I am not sure anymore what I was referring to either. LOL.... I am glad you started this though...

[Jaltus]

This view certainly puts man in control with God playing a supporting role, which is probably why it is an attractive view. It strips God of His sovereignty and omnipotence, ultimately making the notion of providence meaningless. How does the Molinist deal with Colossians 1:17, which makes it clear that Creation is actively sustained by Him?Well, you picked your name correctly. Actually, omnipotence is in no way effected, you just assume that unless God is in control of everything, He is powerless, which is of course a farcical notion. Not using power does not mean it is not there. As for sovereignty, it gets rid of particular sovereignty (nothing occurs without God doing it) and replaces it with general sovereignty (God can overcome free will whenever, but generally chooses not to). Molinists have no problem with Col 1:17, it is you who assumes it means sovereignty when it is actually dealing with existence. In other words, if there was no God, there would be no universe, a concept which fits right in with Molinism.


Also, how does foreknowledge, of itself, accomplish anything? How can it precede predestination as you assert? Take it back to the beginning, to the "foundations of the earth" (Psalm 102:25), to the ultimate predestinating act of God. Did God foreknow Creation into being? Well, according to Romans 8:29, foreknowledge came before predestination, so ask God. No, really, foreknowledge is what predestination is based on. God created. Foreknowing is a passive role, not an active role, so you cannot foreknow something into being, the question itself is nonsensical.

[Woman]

Dumb question from one who is not informed. (That would be me, having been raised Catholic where such things were not open to debate)

I am finding the debate interesting. Trying to define exactly what one believes is natural I think. My question is this:

Aside from the fact that the various camps of Molinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Preterism, etc. have different takes on how much or little we are in control of our own lives, are these ideas important? I mean, it doesn't sound like belief in one over the other is a criteria for salvation or that it would change how you behave. Is this a correct assumption?

[Polemicist]

Well, you picked your name correctly.

I'm not a troublemaker... really. The name reflects the way I tend to challenge people and engage them in discussion. I find that healthy debate and tackling of controversies helps all involved (including myself) to gain a measure of knowledge and wisdom.

Let's focus on your idea of general vs. particular sovereignty. The Westminster Confession of Faith states in III.1 that "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..." G.I. Williamson, writes the following commentary, which I think is helpful:

What distinquishes a person from a thing (or being without personality) is that a person acts according to purpose. God is an infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Person. Therefore His plan or purpose must ever have been part of his infinite, eternal, and unchangeable existence. So Scripture testifies: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning..." (Acts 15:18). Scripture speaks of this as "the eternal purpose which He purposed" (Eph. 3:11). It is an unchangeable purpose (Heb. 6:17). The infinity of it is seen in the fact that "according to his purpose [he] worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). Little wonder that Christ could say confidently that not even a sparrow can "fall to the ground without [it being the will] of the father" (Mt. 10:29), and that even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Since the Bible declares that the whole system of things is controlled by God (Eph. 1:11), it declares with equal insistency that every single thing, however small and insignificant, is ordered by God ahead of time in his perfect plan. Even seemingly chance events can therefore be (and are) prophesied ahead of time by the true prophets of God (see I Kings 22:1-40, especially vv. 28,34,37).

How would the Molinist respond to the WCF and Williamson's commentary?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Woman:

You are correct in that these issues, at least as held by the forum members in question, are not salvational issues whatsover. But that does not mean they are unimportant of course.

[Jaltus]

Let's focus on your idea of general vs. particular sovereignty. The Westminster Confession of Faith states in III.1 that "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass..." G.I. Williamson, writes the following commentary, which I think is helpful:Obviously, I would disagree with this notion.


What distinquishes a person from a thing (or being without personality) is that a person acts according to purpose. God is an infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Person. Therefore His plan or purpose must ever have been part of his infinite, eternal, and unchangeable existence. So Scripture testifies: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning..." (Acts 15:18). Scripture speaks of this as "the eternal purpose which He purposed" (Eph. 3:11). It is an unchangeable purpose (Heb. 6:17). The infinity of it is seen in the fact that "according to his purpose [he] worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). Little wonder that Christ could say confidently that not even a sparrow can "fall to the ground without [it being the will] of the father" (Mt. 10:29), and that even the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Since the Bible declares that the whole system of things is controlled by God (Eph. 1:11), it declares with equal insistency that every single thing, however small and insignificant, is ordered by God ahead of time in his perfect plan. Even seemingly chance events can therefore be (and are) prophesied ahead of time by the true prophets of God (see I Kings 22:1-40, especially vv. 28,34,37).He is assuming that purpose refers to every single individual occurrence to ever happen on the face of the earth. The question to ask him is this: Where did he get that idea from? God's purpose is not something we can claim to know other than through revelation. It is to have Himself glorified. Remember that purpose generally deals with desired results, not desired paths to the result. Thus, I think that Williamson assumes his point instead of making a case for it. Note that his major section on specific causality has no scripture in it other than Eph 1:11, which has many explanations (such as the proffered idea that foreknowledge comes before predestination, and not vice versa). In other words, Williamson is assuming his definition of predestination as being a causal event whereby God governs every single detail in the universe, and goes on to prove exactly what he assumed from the beginning, which is known as a circular argument.


How would the Molinist respond to the WCF and Williamson's commentary? I cannot speak for all Molinists, but this is how I would respond.

[joelkaki]

I'm not exactly understanding still what Molinism is. And yes, I did go to the link, but it still leaves me with some questions.
According to Molinism...
Does God know for certain what I will do at a particular point tomorrow?
If yes, how does it really differ from traditional Arminian foreknowledge of God?
If not, how does it really differ from Open Theism?

Joel

I'm posting these questions again. Anyone gonna answer em for me?

Joel

[Jaltus]

Sorry, Joel, I missed your post.

Let me answer your questions:

Yes.

It differs in that God is able to respond to this knowledge. Simple Foreknowledge is a when god foreknows exactly what is going to happen, and that is it. He is unable to change the future for all He knows is what WILL happen, and not what MIGHT happen or COULD happen. Molinism says that God knows what people will do in a specific situation and can bring those situations about if He wishes.

in other words, Molinism has a God who can actually respond to His knowledge of the future, whereas SFK does not allow for that.

[Jaltus]

Oh, and Dee Dee, I did notice and I like it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

:yipee: :joy:

[Dee Dee Warren]

But is it as cool as my Pet Jaltus?

[Jaltus]

Not sure, but definitly not as cool as my pet DDW.

[Dee Dee Warren]

:rofl:

[joelkaki]

Sorry, Joel, I missed your post.

No problem.


Let me answer your questions:

Yes.

Judging from how you go on, yes doesn't seem quite right.


It differs in that God is able to respond to this knowledge. Simple Foreknowledge is a when god foreknows exactly what is going to happen, and that is it. He is unable to change the future for all He knows is what WILL happen, and not what MIGHT happen or COULD happen. Molinism says that God knows what people will do in a specific situation and can bring those situations about if He wishes.

OK, but all of that is rather irrelevant if He knows what WILL happen. Do you deny that He knows what will (definite, certain, for sure) happen? Or does he only know what might or could happen? You seem to kind of be evading the issue. Certainly I believe God knows what people would do in a specific situation (I don't believe any SFK advocate would disagree). But does God know for certain what exactly will happen tomorrow?


in other words, Molinism has a God who can actually respond to His knowledge of the future, whereas SFK does not allow for that.

OK, this all seems rather illogical to me. Would you mind explaining it a little more?

Joel

[Jaltus]

Molinism is a belief in woulds. God knows what any person would do in a given situation.

Thus, God works to bring about specific situations in which those things occur. This means that God can see what would happen if, and then cause the if to either be fulfilled or not to be fulfilled.

In SFK, God can only see the future, including what He is going to do, meaning that God cannot in any way respond to His knowledge of the future, for He does not see what would happen given circumstances, He knows only what will happen, making Him powerless to render any other future.

Molinism gives God a set of "possible worlds," and God can navigate between them, as it were. With SFK, He can only do what He already forsees. And no, SFK advocates do not hold to God foreknowing possibilities, He can only know certainties (which is why it is Simple Foreknowledge instead of Molinistic Foreknowledge).

[joelkaki]

OK, well obviously I am not a SFK advocate--I am a Calvinist believing in predestination. However, does God know for certain every detail that WILL happen in the future?

Joel

[Polemicist]

He is assuming that purpose refers to every single individual occurrence to ever happen on the face of the earth. The question to ask him is this: Where did he get that idea from?

The Scriptures are replete with that idea. What about the notion of fulfilled prophecy which Williamson brings up? How does that fit the Molinist model? If we accept that prophecy is God's will and purpose revealed ahead of time, how can the Molinist say that God makes adjustments as He goes? Was His hardening of Pharoah's heart (Exodus 4:21) an adjustment? Was Jacob's future relative to his brother Esau (Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2,3) an adjustment?

In terms of foreknowledge preceding predestination, my previous comments in reference to "the foundations of the earth" were to point out that reality as we know it did not commence until God "spoke" it into being. His act of Creation (which He actively sustains) was for His own glory and wasn't based on a reaction to anything. Saying that foreknowledge precedes predestination simply means He knew what would do before He did it. He had a plan.

[PuritanD]

This is a great thread. I am glad it was started.

Jaltus,

Please correct me here if I am wrong. Would this be considered Molinism?

The Lord God knows all possiblities and knows what it would take for you to do, "A." Since God wants you to do "A," He has set up all the criteria so that the only choice would be "A," though it was "freely choosen" because you were not aware of the intended circumstances in which God ordained.

Is this an understanding of what molinism is or am I off a bit there?

PuritanD

[Dee Dee Warren]

This is a great thread, much more at beginner's level than that other one. I need to get reading Craig's book on this subject.

[Jaltus]

The Scriptures are replete with that idea. What about the notion of fulfilled prophecy which Williamson brings up? How does that fit the Molinist model? If we accept that prophecy is God's will and purpose revealed ahead of time, how can the Molinist say that God makes adjustments as He goes? Was His hardening of Pharoah's heart (Exodus 4:21) an adjustment? Was Jacob's future relative to his brother Esau (Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2,3) an adjustment?I totally disagree with you, but that would be getting off on a tangent and not discussing what this thread is about.


In terms of foreknowledge preceding predestination, my previous comments in reference to "the foundations of the earth" were to point out that reality as we know it did not commence until God "spoke" it into being. His act of Creation (which He actively sustains) was for His own glory and wasn't based on a reaction to anything. Saying that foreknowledge precedes predestination simply means He knew what would do before He did it. He had a plan. Are you saying God did not know what would happen when He created? My exact point is that foreknowledge preceded predestination. The reason tis is important is because it implies that God foreknew what people would freely choose and then caused that world to be. With your model, God foreknows BECAUSE HE FORCES IT TO BE THAT WAY. If God predestined from the foundation of the world all that would happen before foreknowing, how can you escape the PoE?

[Jaltus]

Please correct me here if I am wrong. Would this be considered Molinism?

The Lord God knows all possiblities and knows what it would take for you to do, "A." Since God wants you to do "A," He has set up all the criteria so that the only choice would be "A," though it was "freely choosen" because you were not aware of the intended circumstances in which God ordained.

Is this an understanding of what molinism is or am I off a bit there?
I would change it a bit. God sets up the circumstances where you would freely choose something. He knows what you would freely choose in that circumstance due to His foreknowledge, a foreknowledge that includes all possibilites of what you would do in any circumstances.

At the same time, we would also argue that God does not always bring about all circumstances. He often lets man go off on his own merry way.

And of course, God has the power to take over circumstances at any point in time, but by so doing He supercedes LFW and thus free moral agents are not able to be held responsible for what they do.

Joel,

Yes, God does know what will happen, for His Middle-Knowledge occurred at either creation or the fall, and thus enabled Him at that "time" to know all possible worlds and thus plan exactly how He was going to respond, not respond, or totally control.

Make sense?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hmm, I am cool until the point of a "time" when God's Middle Knowledge came into being. How come He couldn't have always had the MIddle Knowledge. Why does there have to be a time when it began?

[Jaltus]

It could be it was always there, that is the part I know very little about. I think WLC says it occurred right after creation, otherwise God would be creating in order to let man sin, but I am not sure if I buy his argument.

[Polemicist]

The Scriptures are replete with that idea. What about the notion of fulfilled prophecy which Williamson brings up? How does that fit the Molinist model? If we accept that prophecy is God's will and purpose revealed ahead of time, how can the Molinist say that God makes adjustments as He goes? Was His hardening of Pharoah's heart (Exodus 4:21) an adjustment? Was Jacob's future relative to his brother Esau (Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2,3) an adjustment?

I totally disagree with you, but that would be getting off on a tangent and not discussing what this thread is about.

Why would you consider it a tangent to consider revealed and fulfilled prophecy in terms of Molinism? The fact that God reveals His plans beforehand, often in great detail), doesn't seem to line up with the Molinist idea as I have understood it thus far. I also brought up the examples of hardening Pharoah's heart and of Jacob & Esau to point to the fact that God decided the future of those individuals beforehand.


Are you saying God did not know what would happen when He created? My exact point is that foreknowledge preceded predestination. The reason tis is important is because it implies that God foreknew what people would freely choose and then caused that world to be. With your model, God foreknows BECAUSE HE FORCES IT TO BE THAT WAY. If God predestined from the foundation of the world all that would happen before foreknowing, how can you escape the PoE?

No, I am not saying God didn't know beforehand. Just the opposite. In fact, He's omniscient, knowing the beginning from the end (contra the Open View). But from the perspective of His created order, our existence began with His predestinating act. You're saying that God's actions are based on His foreknowledge of what man will do. What act of man was His act of Creation based on?

It seems like you're also putting too much emphasis on a chronological ordering of foreknowledge and predestinating. God isn't linear (with a beginning and end) like we are. If anything, I would think these are synonymous concepts in God's infinite mind. Of course, Paul describes a sequence (describing the process of salvation and sanctification), but that is to help our finite minds understand. But His foreknowledge is perfect because He "ordains whatsoever comes to pass."

Now you use ALL CAPS to say that my view says God forces things to be the way they are, that the Calvinist view is fatalistic. That's overstating things a bit. There is still a level of mystery to God's ways here (even Paul uses that term in Ephesians chapter 1). Jonathan Edwards described free will this way, "We are free to choose that which we most desire" and "Our choices are determined by what we think is most desirable at any given moment." There is still mystery there, but these concepts make sense to me.

As to theodicy (problem of evil), if you've got that figured out, you're better than all the best theologians since Paul! Yet another mystery we can ask God about when we see Him face to face. I'm very skeptical that the theodicy question will every be solved short of glory.

Enjoyable discussing this with you. It's making me think... more like making by head spin, but you get the idea. :brow:

[Jaltus]

Why would you consider it a tangent to consider revealed and fulfilled prophecy in terms of Molinism? The fact that God reveals His plans beforehand, often in great detail), doesn't seem to line up with the Molinist idea as I have understood it thus far. I also brought up the examples of hardening Pharoah's heart and of Jacob & Esau to point to the fact that God decided the future of those individuals beforehand.I think we will end up going down a different road with this, but we can start down the path if you wish. Joel can always stop us, since this is his thread.

Molinism has no problem with God giving great detail, for Molinists hold to EDF. The key concept for Molinists is that God knows all possible outcomes. However, He only needs to know them at the instant of creation in order to get things going the way He wants. After that, He just has to remember how to "adjust" things in order for the world to be the way it is supposed to be. Prophecy is no problem, as we hold to EDF. Molinism is essentially Calvinism without predestination as the cornerstone to make us unique. We think LFW is real, but we think God has EDF also.


No, I am not saying God didn't know beforehand. Just the opposite. In fact, He's omniscient, knowing the beginning from the end (contra the Open View). But from the perspective of His created order, our existence began with His predestinating act. You're saying that God's actions are based on His foreknowledge of what man will do. What act of man was His act of Creation based on?I did not mean to imply you doubt God's foreknowledge, my point was that Calvinists in general believe predestination is what makes foreknowledge possible. God knows because God ordained it to be that way, whereas Arminians say God ordained it to be that way because He saw how He was going to act(or react, as the case may be). He still saw all He was going to do in advance, He just was able to plan better in Molinism than in SFK.


It seems like you're also putting too much emphasis on a chronological ordering of foreknowledge and predestinating. God isn't linear (with a beginning and end) like we are. If anything, I would think these are synonymous concepts in God's infinite mind. Of course, Paul describes a sequence (describing the process of salvation and sanctification), but that is to help our finite minds understand. But His foreknowledge is perfect because He "ordains whatsoever comes to pass." I would argue it is a logical ordering, not a temporal one.


Now you use ALL CAPS to say that my view says God forces things to be the way they are, that the Calvinist view is fatalistic. That's overstating things a bit. There is still a level of mystery to God's ways here (even Paul uses that term in Ephesians chapter 1). Jonathan Edwards described free will this way, "We are free to choose that which we most desire" and "Our choices are determined by what we think is most desirable at any given moment." There is still mystery there, but these concepts make sense to me.Hmm, I balk at the use of mystery, for the exact reason that Calvinists balk at Arminians using the term: strength. The weakness of C is the strength of A and vice versa. Of course I disagree with Edwards use of desire, for that means humans are governed by desire, not by their own minds. It takes away from man's possible capricousness.


As to theodicy (problem of evil), if you've got that figured out, you're better than all the best theologians since Paul! Yet another mystery we can ask God about when we see Him face to face. I'm very skeptical that the theodicy question will every be solved short of glory.Actually, I would argue that the free will defense is the only argument that works.


Enjoyable discussing this with you. It's making me think... more like making by head spin, but you get the idea. :brow:
I am having fun as well...then again, I live for this sort of thing.

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

Pardon my ignorance, but what is EDF? And LFW? And SFK? And - what else have I missed? :huh:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge and Libertarian Free Will.

[Jaltus]

SFK=Simple Foreknowledge

[John Reece]

Thanks!

[joelkaki]

OK, Jaltus, you lost me with all that middle knowledge stuff. What is middle knowledge, and what does it have to do with anything?


Joel

[Jaltus]

Joel,

Middle-Knowledge (also called counter-factual knowledge) is knowing what a person would do in a given set of circumstances. Those circumstances do not have to be realized in order for the thought to be valid, nor do they need to not be real either.

In other words, Middle-Knowledge is possible worlds knowledge, such that God knows what any person would do in any given situation. This enables God to rightly "predict" what the future will bring and enables (and I use the term loosely) Him to set up the circumstances He needs to bring about the desired result.

I sincerely hope that helped, but as I read it I think I might only be confusing you further.

[Woman]

Polemicist:


This view certainly puts man in control with God playing a supporting role, which is probably why it is an attractive view. It strips God of His sovereignty and omnipotence, ultimately making the notion of providence meaningless. How does the Molinist deal with Colossians 1:17, which makes it clear that Creation is actively sustained by Him?

This line?


Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Isn't Paul talking about Christ here?

[joelkaki]

Joel,

Middle-Knowledge (also called counter-factual knowledge) is knowing what a person would do in a given set of circumstances. Those circumstances do not have to be realized in order for the thought to be valid, nor do they need to not be real either.

Seems to me like Molinism skates dangerously close to Open Theism.


In other words, Middle-Knowledge is possible worlds knowledge, such that God knows what any person would do in any given situation. This enables God to rightly "predict" what the future bring and enables (and I use the term loosely) Him to set up the circumstances He needs to bring about the desired result.

OK, but has God always known for certain every single thing that I will do tomorrow?

I sincerely hope that helped, but as I read it I think I might only be confusing you further.[/B]

Sorry I keep repeating my question over and over, but would you mind just giving me a yes or no answer?

Thanks,
Joel

[Jaltus]

YES, though I think the "forever" part might not work.

William Lane Craig (WLC) often posits that perhaps God did not know all possibilities until creation actually occurred, but that at that moment He knew all things.

[joelkaki]

YES, though I think the "forever" part might not work.

William Lane Craig (WLC) often posits that perhaps God did not know all possibilities until creation actually occurred, but that at that moment He knew all things.

So God has not always known all things? I don't often use the word, but that seems about as close to heresy as it gets.

The problem I see with Molinism is this:

According to Molinism, (As far as I can tell) God has not really always known for certain every action I will take. He knew all the possibilities, decided on a course, and then, and only then, did he know for sure and certain every single thing I would do. And that, I believe, is completely contrary to Scripture.

Joel

[Jaltus]

So God has not always known all things? I don't often use the word, but that seems about as close to heresy as it gets. Again, I am not so sure about that myself. The problem would be, according to WLC, that time did not exist before creation, so to talk about God knowing something before creation is in fact a nonsensical proposition. I finish this thought below.


The problem I see with Molinism is this:

According to Molinism, (As far as I can tell) God has not really always known for certain every action I will take. He knew all the possibilities, decided on a course, and then, and only then, did he know for sure and certain every single thing I would do. And that, I believe, is completely contrary to Scripture. The problem is that you are assuming God had to sit down and think about this, but there is only logical ordering, not temporal ordering in this thought process. Since God is infinite, as soon as He "thinks" about something, He has finished thinking about it as well.

Again, I am answering according to WLC's model since it is the only one I have experience with. I plan on getting some stuff by Alvin Plantinga this summer.

Here is how WLC talks about it:

God exists before creation. Since time is a physical dimension, there is no time until creation. Creation occurs, and at that exact instance God knows everything that will ever happen and how He will react to it in order to instantiate the world He wants.

I myself, however, would argue that God has always known, but that "always" is a meaningless term precreation since I believe there was no time then either.

Make sense?

[Polemicist]

Woman:

Isn't Paul talking about Christ here?

Absolutely. It is a really good proof-text in Scripture establishing the Diety of Christ.

[joelkaki]

The problem is that you are assuming God had to sit down and think about this, but there is only logical ordering, not temporal ordering in this thought process. Since God is infinite, as soon as He "thinks" about something, He has finished thinking about it as well.

Again, I am answering according to WLC's model since it is the only one I have experience with. I plan on getting some stuff by Alvin Plantinga this summer.

Here is how WLC talks about it:

God exists before creation. Since time is a physical dimension, there is no time until creation. Creation occurs, and at that exact instance God knows everything that will ever happen and how He will react to it in order to instantiate the world He wants.

I myself, however, would argue that God has always known, but that "always" is a meaningless term precreation since I believe there was no time then either.

Make sense?

See that is where I think there is a problem. People try to come up with all these rationalizations, and I don't think that is right. the Bible speaks of "before the foundation of the world" so I believe we can to. And again, that is skating dangerously close to Open Theism.

Joel

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 06:47 PM
Jaltus:

Joel,

Middle-Knowledge (also called counter-factual knowledge) is knowing what a person would do in a given set of circumstances. Those circumstances do not have to be realized in order for the thought to be valid, nor do they need to not be real either.

In other words, Middle-Knowledge is possible worlds knowledge, such that God knows what any person would do in any given situation. This enables God to rightly "predict" what the future will bring and enables (and I use the term loosely) Him to set up the circumstances He needs to bring about the desired result.

Jaltus,

Is this the same thing that I asked aobut in my prior post about God wanting an individual to do "A?"

Also, from these other posts, does Molinism assume that God places Himself inside of time or not?

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

Joel,
See that is where I think there is a problem. People try to come up with all these rationalizations, and I don't think that is right. the Bible speaks of "before the foundation of the world" so I believe we can to. And again, that is skating dangerously close to Open Theism. The problem is that the phrase "before the foundation of the world" does not necessarily mean before time. Don't ask me why, I am just conveying what I have read. I'll try to look it up to see what I can find, but my Revelation commentaries are not the best grammatical ones.

PuritanD,
Is this the same thing that I asked aobut in my prior post about God wanting an individual to do "A?"

Also, from these other posts, does Molinism assume that God places Himself inside of time or not?Yes.

As for time, Molinism does not depend on any specific view of how God relates to time, which is what I think is one of its strengths. The reason WLC talks about God knowing right after creation happens is because He believes that God was atemporal before creation and is now temporal (in order to actually interact with the world). I myself have serious problems both with an atemporal God and with a temporal God, so I am quite happy to find a view that does not depend on God's interaction with time.

As for skating close to OV, why do you think that? We have a God who knows the future before it happens, which totally negates OV. OVers complain that we are Calvinists since God can work such that the future He wants is brought about.

[Polemicist]

As for time, Molinism does not depend on any specific view of how God relates to time, which is what I think is one of its strengths. The reason WLC talks about God knowing right after creation happens is because He believes that God was atemporal before creation and is now temporal (in order to actually interact with the world). I myself have serious problems both with an atemporal God and with a temporal God, so I am quite happy to find a view that does not depend on God's interaction with time.

Now this is really starting to sound like an odd view. God created the planets, moon, and sun, whose movements define time. How do the objects of His creation have any affect on Him at all? This runs counter to the orthodox view of God being distinct and separate from His creation (the Creator/Creature distinction). As creatures, we are bound by such things as time and gravity. God is not.

[Polemicist]

On another note: Why do you think a view proferred by a man named Luis de Molina (1535 - 1600) in the 16th century is still such an obsure one? Not necessarily a reason to reject his views, but certainly something to consider. Other views have survived the centuries. This one, as far as I know, is still quite obscure.

[joelkaki]

I haven't particularly liked what I have seen of Molinism so far, but the real question is: Is there any biblical evidence for it?


Joel

[Jaltus]

Now this is really starting to sound like an odd view. God created the planets, moon, and sun, whose movements define time. How do the objects of His creation have any affect on Him at all? This runs counter to the orthodox view of God being distinct and separate from His creation (the Creator/Creature distinction). As creatures, we are bound by such things as time and gravity. God is not. i think you misunderstood.

WLC holds to that view, but it is NOT part of Molinism.

Molinism holds no view about God's interaction with time.

With respect to God being atemporal, though, there are serious philosophical problems with it, as well as scriptural ones.

[Jaltus]

Joel,

An example would be:

Matthew 11

21 "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

That is what Middle-Knowledge is, knowledge of possibilities.

[Jaltus]

Pol,
On another note: Why do you think a view proferred by a man named Luis de Molina (1535 - 1600) in the 16th century is still such an obsure one? Not necessarily a reason to reject his views, but certainly something to consider. Other views have survived the centuries. This one, as far as I know, is still quite obscure.It has a lot more adherents than I once thought. The real issue is that most Arminians who are academics do seem to hold to this view, they just do not write about it since that is not what they are concerned with. The most well known Arminians I can think of, WLC, Plantinga, and Osborne, all hold to Molinism. The only SFK adherents I can think of are David Hunt and I think Bruce Reichenbach.

After Sanders wonderful critique of SFK, my guess is more Arminians will go flocking toward Molinism.

[joelkaki]

Jaltus, that knowledge does not mean that God also at the same time has SFK. I see no reason to believe that God predestined what he would do by knowing the possibilities, and then deciding which one most accorded with his plan.


Joel

[Jaltus]

Jaltus, that knowledge does not mean that God also at the same time has SFK. I see no reason to believe that God predestined what he would do by knowing the possibilities, and then deciding which one most accorded with his plan. Showing that there were possibilities and tyhat God knew them rules out SFK.

Arminians hold to either SFK or to Molinism. I am assuming Arminianism, and showing what points to Molinism over SFK.

[CT292]

Here is one Calvinist critique (http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm) of the Roman Catholic view of Molinism.

See also Richard Muller's comments in the book, The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will edited by Schreiner, Thomas R. and Bruce A. Ware, which responds to WLC's essay. and Charles Hodge's critique of Molinism in Vol. 1 of his Systematic Theology and Chapter 2 of William Hasker's, God,
Time, and Knowledge (though Hasker is an open theist).

See also, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy.

Colin

[Jaltus]

Well, the author from that website is, frankly, a moron. He shows no understanding of Molinism since Molina, he confuses OV with Molinism, when they are quite different things.

I have Hasker's book, which is good, but the only proof worth anything is his last one (all the others have been aswered satisfactorily), but I cannot even get my mind wrapped around that one.

As for the four views book, that is one of the reasons I am a Molinist.

For responses to most of those objections, see Craig's The Only Wise God and Time and Eternity, the second half.

Besides, you do not learn about a view by reading its opponents, you learn about a view by reading the proponents. You read the oponenets only once done with the primary literature.

[CT292]

Well, the author from that website is, frankly, a moron.

Employing a fallacious ad hominen against another Christian brother (or even a non Christian brother) does not elevate the credibility of your position.


He shows no understanding of Molinism since Molina, he confuses OV with Molinism, when they are quite different things.

He may well be mistaken in that one distinction, but that does not make him a "moron" nor have "no understanding of Molinism". There are distinctions between classical Arminianism, Weslyan Arminianism, Amyraldanism and Catholic Molinism and later Molinism. But they all deny the absolute decrees of God which are the first cause of anything in the world and are not based on anything forseen by God in the future. This is one of the central tenets of Augustinianism and Calvinism (WCF III:1-3).


As for the four views book, that is one of the reasons I am a Molinist.

So what is your response to Calvinist, Paul Helm's arguments?

Colin

[Jaltus]

He may well be mistaken in that one distinction, but that does not make him a "moron" nor have "no understanding of Molinism". There are distinctions between classical Arminianism, Weslyan Arminianism, Amyraldanism and Catholic Molinism and later Molinism. But they all deny the absolute decrees of God which are the first cause of anything in the world and is one of the central tenets of Augustinianism and Calvinism (WCF III:1-3). Last time I checked, belief in Calvinism was not necessary to be saved, but he says it is. Hence, he is a moron. He gives passages dealing with foreknowledge and says that defeats Molinism, which shows he does not get it. He also offers prooftexts without any interpretation, as if his interpretation was the only one (which it is not). He offers very little in the way of argumentation, a lot of assertion, and very little understanding of the actual issue.

By the way, when you attack someone's knowledge and back it up, I don't think it fits ad hom anymore. I could be wrong.

Well, in response to Helm's critique of Molinism (which I assume you are referring to), I would say this:

Responding to his objection on page 156 (the middle of the page), I would simply say that God actively works in the world, which is something that Helm denies due to his belief in the atemporality of God. Since he cannot accept that God can actually work in the world, he misses this vital piece of the puzzle.

His objection as to the mode of knowledge is a good objection, except that he denies mystery as being possible. However, that begs the question of the mystery in Calvinism (man is both determined and culpable), and so he lets it seemingly slide. Besides, does he really expect anyone to understand how God knows things?

As for his objection about the PoE, the free will defense is quite easily applied to Molinism since free will is part of the system, something he cannot say for his Calvinism.

[CT292]

Last time I checked, belief in Calvinism was not necessary to be saved, but he says it is. Hence, he is a moron.

Then I guess you also believe that Spurgeon is a "moron" too. Spurgeon said:

"there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of ****ation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." from A Defense of Calvinism.

But Spurgeon did not hold that one must believe in the Calvinistic system in order to be saved and neither does Matthew McMahon. Hence, you are mistaken for drawing that conclusion.

I also note that you did not bother to quote McMahon's own words in order to support your reckless name calling. But your malicious behaviour is nothing new. Calvinists have been slandered repeatedly throughout history and Mr. McMahon is just another victim of shameless smear tactics, as was Spurgeon before him (cf. The Forgotten Spurgeon).


He gives passages dealing with foreknowledge and says that defeats Molinism, which shows he does not get it. He also offers prooftexts without any interpretation, as if his interpretation was the only one (which it is not). He offers very little in the way of argumentation, a lot of assertion, and very little understanding of the actual issue.

None of this justifies calling him a "moron". I have strong disagreements with Arminians, Dispensationalists and hyper-Calvinists, but I wouldn't call them "morons". Remember, he is your Christian brother. I shudder to think what names you must call your non-Christian family members.


By the way, when you attack someone's knowledge and back it up, I don't think it fits ad hom anymore. I could be wrong.

But you did not initially "back it up". In fact you had falsely claimed that he had "confused" Molinism with OV which he did not do at all. He merely said that they were "close brothers", not "identical twin brothers" which is what he must say in order to justify your dissent (but even that would not justify your reckless name calling).

And thank you for your response to Helm's arguments. I don't have access to the 4 Views book right now, but I will next week. I will refresh my knowledge of it in light of your response. But I will say that "free will" is a myth among God's creatures. See The Myth of Freewill (http://www.the-highway.com/Myth.html).

The only debatable question is whether God himself has any freewill. For example, Isa 46:10 which says that God "can do all his pleasure" and Psa 115:3 which says "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased".
or Titus 1:2 which says that "God cannot lie". God is inherently holy and righteous, thus He can never sin which would imply that even God himself does not have "freewill". The only way "free will" can exist is if it is defined exclusively as doing the righteous will of God, which is what God himself does perfectly.

Thus, in this sense, God alone has "freewill" and redeemed man's will is only free insofar as it is expressed in conformity to God's righteous will (which can only be done by the power of God's grace, Psa 110:3)) Any Will expressed contrary to God's revealed Will is infact, a bondage of the Will by sin, Thus, "they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Infact, sinners are seen as dead men and dead men have no "free will". (Eph 2:1-2) Yet despite man's lack of freewill, they are nevertheless morally responsible to obey God (Matt 3:2; Acts 17:30).

Colin

[PuritanD]

Jaltus,

I thank you for your patience and courage in informing us what is Molinism. I think that it is refreshing and very thought provoking.

I am wondering if the following word association would be true:

Molinism is to Arminiansim as Compatablism is to Calvinism

If so, then I may be getting a handle on this thing. If not, I am off to the drawing board for futher understanding.

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

Perhaps I am oversensitive having gone to a Calvinistic college and seminary, generally being called a heretic, heterodox, and unsaved (all right to my face, mind you) by Calvinists.

Not an excuse mind you, just a mention of where I am coming from.


In this paper, the heresy I am re-refuting surrounds Theology Proper, or the doctrine of God. It is specifically in terms of the doctrine of the knowledge of God, or His Omniscience. The error is called Molinism, or Middle Knowledge (Today Open Theism is its close brother.). He assumes that Molinism is heretical, thus already saying Molinists are not saved.

What is worse, being called a moron or saying someone is not saved due to a non-salvific theological issue?


. Molinians must simply deny most of the Bible in order to hold onto these ideas while at the same time exalt other portions of the Scriptures which they think holds their view together. They must simply deny texts such as Isaiah 46:10-11 because it is incompatible with their “logic;” “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.” Whenever men are placed in the driver's seat of the future, God is diminished in His glory and the depravity of those men bolts to the forefront; then, doctrines such as Molinism rise to the surface. In light of the Biblical data, and logical reasoning itself, this doctrine comes to naught. The only reason why anyone would continue to hold this doctrine is due to unbelief – they reject the God of the Bible.
He is obivously spouting pure nonsense here, as many Molinists are inerrantists, such as myself. It just shows that he does not understand the system nor does he recognize that he himself might be fallible. I hate to tell you this, but a Calvinistic interpretation might be correct, but it might be wrong as well, and nobody should have the arrogance to say that their view of a non-salvific issue is inerrant, which is what this guy is implying, otherwise he has no right to use the tag heretic.


Middle Knowledge is a non-entity. The reasons for this are many: First, both natural and free knowledge embrace the knowing of all things for God. There is nothing left to know after these. There is nothing in the nature of any thing whatsoever which is not possible or future. God’s knowledge cannot be said to move out of these bounds. He knows all things possible or future before the foundations of the world. Middle knowledge, then, is a non-entity. Second, no future conditional thing can be knowable before the divine decree. Thus, things not true cannot be foreknown as true. Third, all things are under the power of God’s providence, and thus, no thing can be independent of that providence. Fourth, the Bible does not ascribe to God any type of knowledge this is uncertain (the author is aware of the resurgence of “Open Theism” which is adequately dealt with by Bruce Ware in his book, “God’s Lesser Glory”). Molina would have God confused about all things since God’s knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of men. Thus, any knowledge about any thing in the created order would necessitate that all knowledge God has about the universe would be contingent upon the free acts of men in that universe - which is nonsense. God, then, would simply be a resurrected kind of “Zeus” figure from ancient mythology. Fifth, middle knowledge destroys the dominion of God over creation since all acts are not preformed by God’s decree, but the acts itself. Man, then, becomes “God.”
Especially point 4 above shows a lack of biblical knowledge. I have already pointed out where in the Bible Jesus shows knowledge of a non-fact.


There is no position in between the two poles of logic – God is the cause of all things, both primary and secondary means, (this Calvinism affirms) or, He is dependent upon other free acts (Roman Catholicism and Arminianism affirms). God is either cause, or He is effect. The epistemological nature of God’s knowledge will not allow Him to become an Olympian god who peers over the clouds to see what trickery men have played against Him that day. Efficacious salvation would be impossible with such a “god.” How could Zeus ensure the salvation of any individual if the individual is the author and finisher of his own faith? Molinism does not only deny the cardinal doctrines of Theology Proper, but also denies the depravity of man at this point (and this the usual goal of such doctrines – to relieve man of his true misery and place in his hands a form of “power” that the serpent tempted Eve by). He separates (seemingly) Molinism from Arminianism, when Molinism is in fact a branch of Arminianism.

He then goes on to quote more verses about God's knowledge of all things, which Molinism affirms and says that it refutes Molinism.

How little this guy understands something he is allegedly critiquing!

Now, for the final few marks against him and to show that, while he may not be a moron, he is not an intellectually honest (or full of integrity) scholar:

1) He quotes secondary sources refuting Molinism over twice as often as he quotes Molinists.

2) He quotes only Molina, and not a single Molinist since. The movement has come a long way in the last few hundred years.

3) He calls Molinists Molinians, which shows a lack of knowledge. If I called Calvinists Calvinians, you could rest assured that I knew nothing of Calvinism. It goes the same for this guy.

4) He links Molinists with Open Theists and calls Open Theism the closest modern theological strand to Molinism, which is patently false since there are still Molinists today. for that matter, Molinists totally deny the Open View (see WLC's The Only Wise God).

Bottom line, this guy does not know what he is talking about. He is being intellectually dishonest by taking a hundreds of year old argument for Middle-Knowledge and claiming it is the standard for Molinism. He links Molinism to Open Theism in order to polemicize it, he declares it heretical without any warrant, he disregards the fact that Molinists have biblical support, and he misrepresents what Molinists believe.

What do you expect me to call him?

[Jaltus]

Puritan D,


I thank you for your patience and courage in informing us what is Molinism. I think that it is refreshing and very thought provoking.

I am wondering if the following word association would be true:

Molinism is to Arminiansim as Compatablism is to Calvinism

If so, then I may be getting a handle on this thing. If not, I am off to the drawing board for futher understanding. I guess that would be valid. Are all Calvinists compatibilists?

Not all Arminians are Molinists, but that may quickly change.

[PuritanD]

Today @ 10:35 PM
Jaltus:

I guess that would be valid. Are all Calvinists compatibilists?

Not all Arminians are Molinists, but that may quickly change.

Jaltus,

Not all Calvinists are compatiblists. It is the view of most if not all moderate Calvinists but not necessarily for high Calvinist. HC's tend to lean towards a harder determinism and even fatalism.

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

Ok, then fair analogy.

I would also argue that all Calvinists are not compatibilists, but I wanted to make sure you felt the same way.

[PuritanD]

Jaltus,

Would you then further agree that Molinism weakens LFW in relation to God's sovereignty as compatibilist does to God's sovereignty to man's free will. If so how?

PuritanD

[Jaltus]

In a way.

OVers complain that it gives God the "ability" to respond infinitely while infinitely in the know. He is not determining, but He can set up things such that He gets the outcome He desires.

[Andrew]

If this has already been answered, I'm sorry 'cause I haven't read all the posts but...

"God exists before creation. Since time is a physical dimension, there is no time until creation. Creation occurs, and at that exact instance God knows everything that will ever happen and how He will react to it in order to instantiate the world He wants."

There's something very dodgy about this. The word 'before' is a time-word. It means 'happened in the past'. How does God exist "before" creation when there is no time?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well "before" is also a logical priority word not just a chronologically sequential word. It is used in a sense of logical priority with the Trinity all the time.

[Andrew]

You think Craig is using a logical notion in the first sentence but starts using time concepts in the second?

[Jaltus]

Yes, he specifically states in the conclusion of Time and Eternity that he is talking about logical dependance and then temporal dependance.

[onceuponapriori]

03-20-2003 @ 09:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40957#post40957)
CT292:

Here is one Calvinist critique (http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm) of the Roman Catholic view of Molinism.


The author of this article is completely confused with regards to Molinism.

Consider this passage:

"The Molinian logician will argue that an action must first occur before it can be true. God, then, cannot know anything in this manner as true and absolute unless it has first occurred[...]The free acts of men cannot be true acts until they are actually acted. Thus, God cannot know something as true until men, in time, act out their free choices. Then God's knowledge becomes true."

This is *not* what Molinism teaches. The author seems to conflate temporal and logical priority, and completely sidesteps the issues surrounding counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Also, I've never seen a Molinist speaking of 'false knowledge', so from whence comes "God's knowledge becomes true"?

Again:

"Molina would have God confused about all things since God's knowledge is dependent upon the free acts of men."

Molinism teaches that God knows what men _would_ freely do in any situation, and 'then' chooses to actualize certain situations. There is simply *no room* for "confusion". I'm not in the mood to defend Molinism, but this man just continues to attack strawmen.

"If God's knowledge is dependent on the free actions of men, then God is not really God at all.[...]He would have no power to act independently of men, nor would he have the power to enact any change whatsoever, not even the act of creation."

Huh?

"The epistemological nature of God's knowledge will not allow Him to become an Olympian god who peers over the clouds to see what trickery men have played against Him that day.[...]"

I could only suggest that the author understands a doctrine before he goes about 'refuting' it. The author *repeatedly* describes the god of Open Theism when attacking Molinism.

Thanks for reading,
Jared Nuzzolillo

(edited for formatting)