Does Molinism spring from philosophical or exegetical concerns?

[Gavin]

You who are molinists - did you convert to Molinism because of your study of Scripture or your concern for LFW and EDF? Just curious.

[Jaltus]

I toyed with Molinism because it had the weirdest sounding name I had ever heard of, to be honest. I thought it was a wacky belief system.

Then I read certain key passages, and I started to wonder. I got into the debate on OV and needed to formulate how I believed. I (unfortunately) read Boyd's OV book and it made me wonder how he could call himself a neoMolinist.

Then I began to research Molinism, and I saw the critique against SFK that Sanders and Hasker both give, which I thought was devastating. Thus, Molinism seemed the only coherent and scriptural way to be an Arminian.

I would say the exegetical concerns were outweighed by the philosophical concerns, but that my reading is what gave me the nudge in this direction.

Does this post make sense? I feel like it was a big rambling mess.

[Gavin]

No it makes sense. I ask the question because it just seems to me like it usually comes from philosophical, not exegetical concerns (which I am no way implying is always and necessarily wrong). To be frank, I don't even know what texts the molinists would use (if any).

[AcousticJS]

To be frank, I don't even know what texts the molinists would use (if any).

Neither am I. In fact, I'm not really sure what Molinists believe. Can anyone recommend a good book (or website) about it, that it is actually possible to get hold of? William Lane Craig's book seems to be out of print - Amazon say they can't get hold of it so it must be very rare.

God bless
Jon

[GrayPilgrim]

I think Mad Magazine Issues 43-49.3 have an excelent discussion of counter-factuals

[$cirisme]

I became Molinist for mostly philosophical reasons, and on my own. I had never heard of Molinism until after a few months after I formulated a theory for freewill and foreknowledge... and all that time I thought I invented something new :dunce:

[Jaltus]

Hmmm, "The Only Wise God" by William Lane Craig should not be too hard to find.

Otherwise I recommend Flint's "Divine Providence: The Molinist Account"

As for verses, many look at Matthew 11:21-23. That is what pushed me in this direction.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 12:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194843#post194843)
GrayPilgrim:

I think Mad Magazine Issues 43-49.3 have an excelent discussion of counter-factuals

I'd slap you around for that except it is a pretty funny comment.

I think I'll even put down my Swimsuit issue of Calvinism Illustrated to read that.

[AcousticJS]

Thanks Jaltus

Turns out The Only Wise God isn't too hard to find, as long as you look at the US Amazon site, not the UK one. The UK one says it's not able to offer the item at the moment and may be out of print!

Cheers
Jon

[mattbballman19]

I was convinced as a result of the readings of both exegetical and philosophical explications. The philosophical ones being logically deduced from the various exegetical interpretations.

Some of the biblical support comes from 1 Samuel (and I will invoke others here as well).

1 Samuel 23:6-10. Here, David uses a divining instrument (an ephod) to determine if Saul would attack Keilah where David was. In the two cases, the answer is "Yes." Subsequently, David fled the city and the predictions did not turn into reality. In this case, David was not receiving simple foreknowledge from God since foreknowledge entails that the events do take place. Instead, the unusual situation here is that if David would have remained in Keilah then Saul would have attacked it and the men of Keilah would have delivered up David to Saul. This is clearly a situation where God knows what would have happened under different circumstances -- a la counterfactuals.

Other instances of such counterfactual knowledge include Jeremiah 38:17-18; Matt. 17:27; 26:24; and John 18:36.

matt

[geebob]

Then I read certain key passages, and I started to wonder. I got into the debate on OV and needed to formulate how I believed. I (unfortunately) read Boyd's OV book and it made me wonder how he could call himself a neoMolinist.

I think he might be able to get away with calling himself a "soft" molinist. Craig and Plantinga are the "neo" molinists. I think I'll suggest that.

[themuzicman]

08-26-2003 @ 01:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=194848#post194848)
Jaltus:
I'd slap you around for that except it is a pretty funny comment.

I think I'll even put down my Swimsuit issue of Calvinism Illustrated to read that.

Oh, my goodness.. She's bear up to her KNEES! Decadent. And look at how she reveals her collarbones in that slinky swimsuit. At least she kept the long sleeves... Unlike this model, who is showing us her forearms! That's just evil. They're a stumbling block for men.

Next thing you know we're going to get a peek at the bellybutton...

* turns the page

Oh.. My... * faints


Now you see what you've done with your swimsuit issue? Get that trash out of here. :cheers:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Why would Craig and Plantiga be NeoMolinists? How do they differ from the original to deserve that designation? For instance, I have been called NeoPostmill, and I don't mind that, cause I do depart from the older versions of postmill.

To answer Gavin, there are a few passages that imply Molinism, that Matthean passage to me is strong. However, it is also exegetical in that (and I am not saying this for debate, saying this for how I came to the position) that the Scripture teaches LFW, EDF, and yet predestination.... so there needed to be a coherent philosophical system to explain how this worked. So while there are not thatmany specific "molinist" passages in the way that there are preterist passages, the whole sotoriological string leads to a philosophical pursuit.

Craig BTW answers this questions sayng the passages are equivocal (I don't agree) and that his molinism springs mainly from philosophy....

[Dee Dee Warren]

/ot Acoustic it is good to see you here

[themuzicman]

I don't see where scripture necessarily teaches EDF, and I don't think that the concept of predestination held by Calvinists is necessarily how we must view it, either.

Michael

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh, MM, which is why I said I was speaking from what I saw... in my view those things are pretty clearly taught (corporate election is incoherent in the details) and thus there is individual predestination. It is those issues that drove my exegetical concern for a philosophical resolution. :yipeewhip:

[AcousticJS]

Today @ 05:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=198114#post198114)
Dee Dee Warren:

/ot Acoustic it is good to see you here

/ot Thanks Dee Dee - I've been tardy for too long, but I'm coming back to the fold :teeth:

[themuzicman]

* Off Topic Is your banana guy whipping himself?

[geebob]

Why would Craig and Plantiga be NeoMolinists? How do they differ from the original to deserve that designation? For instance, I have been called NeoPostmill, and I don't mind that, cause I do depart from the older versions of postmill.

for one, they revived it. secondly, they updated it with modern philosophical devices like possible worlds ontology and the notion of the best possible world.


(corporate election is incoherent in the details)

post a thread on it. I know of some criticisms of it that are unfounded. And we can invite arminian. :smug:

[adam.naranjo]

Is it to hard to accept the fact that due to the very nature of the case [between God and man] we cannot completely, humanly, rationalize these truths? Is it to hard to accept the mystery?
I suppose I shouldn't expect much else from classical analytic philosophers like Craig and Plantinga -- as brilliant as they are. There is no doubt that molinism is based on a philosophical argument. (however weak) Exegetical considerations do not necissarily point to molonism.

I suggest an approach that embraces the mystery of God's great wisdom.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.


-----
Adam

ps. has there ever been a discussion on 'supercomprehension'?

[Jaltus]

Chanting "mystery" gets you nowhere.

At least Craig and Plantinga have a coherent system.

[geebob]

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

this verse is taken out of context way too much as a licence for agnosticism in terms of one question or another concerning the nature of God. We should pay close attention to the context where we find this verse and it won't turn into an absolute which virtually renders the biblical project of conveying God's thoughts and ways to us useless.

Yes his ways are not our ways. That's because God would forgive where we would not. this has nothing to do with the debate on foreknowledge.


Is it to hard to accept the fact that due to the very nature of the case [between God and man] we cannot completely, humanly, rationalize these truths? Is it to hard to accept the mystery?

Is it hard to accept that it is very well within God's power to create us to have a significant degree of understanind about him, and that he did so making us in his own image? And would it be hard to accept that though he gave us this capability, that doesn't mean that it will be easy?


Exegetical considerations do not necissarily point to molonism.

well I can toast to this.

[AcousticJS]

Yes his ways are not our ways. That's because God would forgive where we would not. this has nothing to do with the debate on foreknowledge.

Amen! Isaiah 55 is talking about how God will accept those who repent back into fellowship with Him. He's saying that His ways are more gracious than ours 'cos He will forgive. The ultimate expression of the truth of this passage is the Cross - where we would rarely die even for a good man, God came and died for us while we were still sinners! His ways are higher than ours.

Trouble is that we, with our Western preconceptions and deeply in-ground Hellenistic philosophy, latch hold of the 'My toughts are not your thoughts' and construct a theology of how God is philosophically beyond us. The Hebraic mindset is much more practical and earthy than ours, and I suspect that this is the last thing Isaiah's contemporaries would have done with that verse.

God bless
Jon

PS. 'The Only Wise God' is on it's way to me now. I'm looking forward to devouring it page by page!

[adam.naranjo]

wow, Just like that and i'm the local 'anti-philosophy' guy. The fact is nothing is further from the truth. I may be minoring or possibly double majoring in philosophy and I've studied under Bahnsen. So do not get me wrong, I am not against philosophy. I'm against over rationalizing in attempts to smooth out 'rough' spots that we don't like -- I don't mind the discussion over such issues, I just don't think people have it figured out -- And even if they did, they would never know. (at least in this life)

Jaltus,


Chanting "mystery" gets you nowhere.

At least Craig and Plantinga have a coherent system.

1- You know as well as I do that Molonism appeals to mystery at some point too.

2- I'm not one to chant 'mystery', in the sense which you speak of. I would not call VanTil or Bahnsen people who chant mystery either -- I think they have a very coherent system. I'll get to that at a later date -- when I don't have the flu.


geebob,


this verse is taken out of context way too much as a license for agnosticism in terms of one question or another concerning the nature of God. We should pay close attention to the context where we find this verse and it won't turn into an absolute which virtually renders the biblical project of conveying God's thoughts and ways to us useless.

Yes his ways are not our ways. That's because God would forgive where we would not. this has nothing to do with the debate on foreknowledge.

This is what I call a meta-appeal. It supports the context by appealing to a broader truth that is not limited itself to the context. For example if I were to say "we cannot participate in God's ability to think outside of reference to a succession of moments, because we don’t share God's incommunicable attributes." Now by this I don't mean that we don't share God's incommunicable attributes ONLY in reference to the discussion, in the context, over our ability to think outside of 'time'. Is my statement about not sharing God's incommunicable attribute meaningless outside of the context? Or is it an appeal to a truth that is not limited, itself, to the context? I hope you get my point.


Is it hard to accept that it is very well within God's power to create us to have a significant degree of understanding about him, and that he did so making us in his own image? And would it be hard to accept that though he gave us this capability, that doesn't mean that it will be easy?

I agree that God created us in such a way. The question, though, is did God create us with the ability to think exactly the way he can and does. Its just not possible given the nature of the case.

There is information we just don't have, and an understanding of things that we don't have -- I don't think that the logical order of God's creative decree is information we have. I also don't think that our thinking is unscathed by the fall.


AcousticJS


Trouble is that we, with our Western preconceptions and deeply in-ground Hellenistic philosophy, latch hold of the 'My toughts are not your thoughts' and construct a theology of how God is philosophically beyond us. The Hebraic mindset is much more practical and earthy than ours, and I suspect that this is the last thing Isaiah's contemporaries would have done with that verse.

I love your pro-hebraic/anti-hellenistic thinking. I totally agree. I don't think that the Hebrews would have thougth, "wow, God is philosophically beyond us". HOWEVER, they would have and DID recognize the transcendence of God in a way that Christians in the last millennium have NOT. Enlightenment erra thinking has lead us to believe that we can rationally climb our way to God - without depending on him to do it. This is the age old problem between VanTil and others. It's an underlying current. We ought not base our belief's on conjecture. Again, I'm not saying that the logical order of God's creative decree as seen by the molinist is not true, (although it seems to beg the question) I'm saying that at some point we have to say we don't know for sure. I'm ok with that, are you?

Furthermore, i'm don't spend a lot of time studying molonism. However, I do love to study religious epistemology.

---
Adam

[markporter]

I think that whatever road we go down then we're simply going to have to chant 'mystery' at some point, there is stuff which God just wasn't really interested in telling us, and to go beyond agnosticism in such areas is very likely to lead down the wrong roads.....if you insist on knowing everything, and having a totally worked out and coherent philosophical system, then that's up to you, but I think that in a lot of cases agnosticism is the best position to be in (obviously with a lot of issues it is not....).

[Dee Dee Warren]

08-29-2003 @ 03:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=198280#post198280)
geebob:



for one, they revived it. secondly, they updated it with modern philosophical devices like possible worlds ontology and the notion of the best possible world.

But the basic underpinning are the same, no? It's not a biggie, I was just wondering. I like the prefix "neo" so what the hey... I'll take it :teeth:



[qiote]post a thread on it. I know of some criticisms of it that are unfounded. And we can invite arminian. :smug: [/QUOTE]

Oh too little time my friend.

[Dee Dee Warren]

08-30-2003 @ 05:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=199212#post199212)
AcousticJS:




PS. 'The Only Wise God' is on it's way to me now. I'm looking forward to devouring it page by page!

I just finished it, and it pushed me over the edge. BTW, we are running a Craig Molinism article next week on the home page...

[Dee Dee Warren]

08-30-2003 @ 09:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=199651#post199651)
adam.naranjo:

wow, Just like that and i'm the local 'anti-philosophy' guy. The fact is nothing is further from the truth. I may be minoring or possibly double majoring in philosophy and I've studied under Bahnsen. So do not get me wrong, I am not against philosophy. I'm against over rationalizing in attempts to smooth out 'rough' spots that we don't like -- I don't mind the discussion over such issues, I just don't think people have it figured out -- And even if they did, they would never know. (at least in this life)


If I could quote from Craig just in general not specificlaly directed towards you at all, this was just a convenient spot to place this:

For too many Christians, easy appeal to mystery has become a substitute for the labor of hard thinking. But such an appeal is little use against Christian theologians who are fatalists, and it will hardly convince non-Christian philosophers who, on the basis of theological fatalism, reject as unintelligible the Christian concept of God. This is not to say that theology ahs no place for mystery, but that such an appeal ought to be made only as a last resort after much hard thinking.



1- You know as well as I do that Molonism appeals to mystery at some point too.

Not in the sense I think you are using it, ie not any more than any other theology has to when it comes to pondering the unmeasurableness of God.



2- I'm not one to chant 'mystery', in the sense which you speak of. I would not call VanTil or Bahnsen people who chant mystery either -- I think they have a very coherent system. I'll get to that at a later date -- when I don't have the flu.

Look forward to it.




This is what I call a meta-appeal. It supports the context by appealing to a broader truth that is not limited itself to the context. For example if I were to say "we cannot participate in God's ability to think outside of reference to a succession of moments, because we don’t share God's incommunicable attributes." Now by this I don't mean that we don't share God's incommunicable attributes ONLY in reference to the discussion, in the context, over our ability to think outside of 'time'. Is my statement about not sharing God's incommunicable attribute meaningless outside of the context? Or is it an appeal to a truth that is not limited, itself, to the context? I hope you get my point.

I get your point Adam and think it is a really good one. But back to your original point that geebob was commenting on, it is not an objection limited to Molinism but any system, so again, to bring it up as a potential Molinism objection says nothing that is not already presumed.




I agree that God created us in such a way. The question, though, is did God create us with the ability to think exactly the way he can and does. Its just not possible given the nature of the case.

We do not then throw theological philosophy out the window. I can think of no higher pursuit.


There is information we just don't have, and an understanding of things that we don't have -- I don't think that the logical order of God's creative decree is information we have. I also don't think that our thinking is unscathed by the fall.

Of course it isn't, but God still gave His Word to fallen people and delights inour meditations upon Him.

[AcousticJS]

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=202526#post202526)
Dee Dee Warren:



I just finished it, and it pushed me over the edge. BTW, we are running a Craig Molinism article next week on the home page...

It arrived on Tuesday - not bad considering I ordered it from the US site and it was being delivered to the South of England. Yay Amazon! :yipee:

Initial thoughts are that there is a lot of philosophy in there, but the philosophy is only there to reconcile two viewpoints that have traditionally been seen as irreconcilable Scriptural doctrines so that's a good us of philosophy. It's not quite the full-on theological treatise I was expecting, but it seems good. I don't agree with all of his uses of Scripture, but then I'd be very shocked if I ever found a book that I did!

God bless
Jon

[geebob]

But the basic underpinning are the same, no? It's not a biggie, I was just wondering.

yeah, that's why it's molinism. The neo nazi's don't really seek to be essentially different from the original. The idolize hitler.


I like the prefix "neo" so what the hey... I'll take it

There you go. and neo just means new. It's a fancy way to say new! the molinists today are the new molinists.

But I wouldn't use that term until Greg Boyd stops using it.


Oh too little time my friend.

:glare: