For the fatalists here, you're free to disagree. Oh wait sorry you're not.

@jordandthornburg

Жыл бұрын

Is molinism fatalism though? I think it’s an open question

@Bonddeeee

Жыл бұрын

I sometimes feel pre destined to believe in free will

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

@@jordandthornburgwhy would molinism lead to fatalism

@jordandthornburg

Жыл бұрын

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I didnt say it did.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

@@jordandthornburg ok… I’ll try again. Why would the idea that molinism entails fatalism be “an open question?”

While it is not easy to grasp at first, the doctrine of middle knowledge does a wonderful job of providing an explanation of how God is sovereign while humans remain free.

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

How can I be free to do X or Y if God has already known I will do X since eternity past and I am unable to make God wrong?

@SOG323

Жыл бұрын

@@Mentat1231 You're not free to do X or Y. You're free to choose X or Y. Picture this: You're invited over to your friends apartment which is located on the second floor of his building. In order to get there you have two choices, you can take the stairs or you can take the elevator. You choose to take the stairs and upon reaching the door your friend opens the door and says, "Geez, I forgot to tell you to take the stairs. Our elevator is busted!" Does this mean that your choice wasn't free? While you may have only had one action available because of circumstances beyond your control, your choice is still a free choice according to your own personal preference. God is omniscient and serves to learn nothing by watching life playout. God knows that given the right conditions every person who is not Jesus will betray him and turn to sin. So God selected some people before time that He wanted to save, and, armed with middle knowledge, knows exactly what circumstances to bring about to ensure that those people come to faith and He counts them as righteous through Himself. Molinisim doesn't annihilate the free choices of creatures. This is important as it is a key ingredient when allocating responsibility. Without it, we are all just characters in a book that's being read. With it then it makes sense for God to pour out His wrath as described in Romans 1 because the sins people commit are their own free choices regardless of whether they are free to act as they choose or not. As scripture teaches, God searches the heart... And from the heart come all manner of things that defile us.

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

@@SOG323 Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Which of the following statements is incorrect? 1) Freedom means I am able at the moment of choice to choose either X or Y. 2) If God knows I will choose X, then choosing Y would make His knowledge wrong. 3) I am incapable of making God's knowledge wrong.

@SOG323

Жыл бұрын

@@Mentat1231 Premise 1 is incomplete. Freedom means freedom of choice or freedom of action. For example you can be free or constrained to act as commanded. That has nothing to do with your choosing.

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

@@SOG323 Historically, free agency had to do with two-way vs. one-way active powers, of which choosing would just be a subset. But, let's say we restrict it to choosing. Were the rest of my points correct?

Amazing interview. I so enjoyed hearing molinism explored, not just defined. I am so grateful for God’s common grace that allows us to think and explore his perfection! As long as our explanations do not contradict his word or his character, which molinism does not, I truly believe there is no end to the journey of exploring his brilliance, goodness, justness, etc.! Thank you God for expressing your power and goodness through your children!

WLC is such an excellent communicator of his ideas.

I've been tackling these questions too and shared my perspectives on my channel. Engaging with like-minded individuals is enriching.

If we didn't have freewill that would mean God made us sin, and God does not tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13). But in that light God also knows that eventually everyone will also turn of their own freewill. For the Scriptures say, “‘As surely as I live,’ says the LORD, ‘every knee will bend to me, and every tongue will declare allegiance to God.’” -Romans 14:11

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

Romans 14:11 would be just as true if God simply destroys all those who don't bend the knee.

@thetotalvictoryofchrist9838

Жыл бұрын

@@Mentat1231 That would be a lot of knees that didn't bend, actually most of mankind. Kind of renders that prophecy meaningless and impotent. Kind of like saying my favorite baseball team holds the championship if I simply erase all the games they lost.

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

@@thetotalvictoryofchrist9838 If God said that everyone alive will enjoy a relationship with Him, but He also executed those who rejected a relationship with Him, would you think there is some problem?

I'm glad to know about this topic. Do anybody know if there is this video with spanish subtitles?

@nemrodx2185

Жыл бұрын

Lamentablemente no. Al menos que yo sepa.

Fun!

A few days ago I uploaded video to my channel that utterly dismantles Dr Craig's view of God's free knowledge. Unfortunately, if you hitch your wagon to glorifying God because of power over love, then you get trapped in superlatives. When you have to do mental gymnastics to reconcile God's free knowledge and human free will you know there is a conundrum. God doesn't perfectly know the future, and the logic thought experiment in my video cearly and irrefutably shows this. I'd be happy to debate Dr Craig on it any time.

Love WLC

"Bill?" C'mon, that's "Dr. Craig." Hard to hear a young guy who got an interview with this esteemed professional call him, "Bill." Even if you know him personally, it's just a sign of respect for his accomplishments and age to refer to him professionally in an interview.

@vinchinzo594

Жыл бұрын

Clearly you are not very familiar with Dr. Craig. Everyone calls him Bill. It is not a sign of disrespect, in the slightest, nor does it bother him.

@forthwith

Жыл бұрын

@@vinchinzo594 On the contrary, I am very familiar with his work. I didn't say he was being disrespectful, just that it is a sign of respect that is due him. Feel free to disagree with the point that I am making.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

First of all, the “young guy” is a fellow PhD, and Craig doesn’t address him as “dr” one on one. Second, they have a long and Friendly history. So it’s a sign of friendship. Third, constantly expecting the use of “dr” is smug and alienating.

One in a million

For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation: Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore): 1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and 2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’) So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance! So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’ Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!

@ReasonableFaithOrg

8 ай бұрын

There are several points at which your comment demonstrates misconceptions about Molinism and middle knowledge. 1. Middle knowledge is a component of Molinism, not a synonym for it. It is not called "middle knowledge" because it "places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes." Rather, it received its name from being logically situated between God's natural knowledge (knowledge of necessary truths) and God's free knowledge (knowledge of contingent truths resulting from the creative decree). 2. Molinists affirm both divine sovereignty and divine omniscience. However, they do not equate sovereignty with unilateral divine causal determinism. Nor to they diminish God's knowledge by eliminating middle knowledge, which includes God's pre-decree knowledge of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. 3. You set up a false dichotomy by assuming that if people freely accept Christ, then God cannot know who will be saved and cannot have chosen before the foundations of the world. However, if God has middle knowledge, then this is false. Since God is omniscient, then he has middle knowledge. Therefore, it is false that there being people who freely accept Christ entails that God does not know who will be saved and did not choose them before the foundations of the world. 4. It is incorrect to say that "Molinism... is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner 'freely' chooses to be saved." Again, if God has middle knowledge, then his creative decree entails his knowing who will be saved prior their actually freely accepting Christ. It's clear that you have an emotional aversion to Molinism. We hope that you'll set aside the emotions at some point to dispassionately learn about this fruitful concept. - RF Admin

@osks

8 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg An intellectually honest assessment will admit to the fact that, at its core, Molinism is really nothing more an attempt to somehow reconcile two utterly irreconcilable ideas - the sovereignty of God and the ‘sovereignty of man’! I grant that there appears (Prv 14:12) to be compelling reasons why you will want to insist upon the latter, but here’s the thing (PLEASE try and set aside your Autonomian commitments for just a moment)… unless God is God, not only over SOME things, but over ALL things (Eph 4:6), then God is not God! Whenever we concern ourselves with the things of God, we ALWAYS need to try an understand the things of God in light of the fact that ALL THINGS (not just some things) are FROM Him, THROUGH Him, FOR HIS GLORY (Rom 11:36)! In other words… God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! So then, please answer me this - why would God, who is sovereign over all, permit ANYTHING that could possibly rob Him of His glory, including (in fact, ESPECIALLY) His image bearer to disavow His Lordship! And BTW - in case you think this bit of banter between us is nothing more than something trivial, consider this - whenever God gave Israel over into apostasy, it was not because of their idolatry, but because they denied the sovereignty of God! And because Molinists (and others in different ways, albeit always to the same effect) insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, I dare to say that God has (yet again), handed His own over to the Fool (Biblically speaking) into apostasy… “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” - 1 Tim 4:1 How can we as Christians otherwise account for the fact that the Fool now has the intellectual and moral ascendency in the world? It is not because we do not have the Truth, but because, while some “claim to know God, they have come to deny Him as God” - Tit 1:16…

@scarlettm8702

4 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrgcan you explain this to me as if I were 5 years old? I’m from Alabama 😂

@ReasonableFaithOrg

4 ай бұрын

@@scarlettm8702 Sure. Here's the basic idea: 1. God has the ability to create free creatures whose choices are not merely the necessary outcome of prior causes over which the creature has no control. 2. Prior to creation, God knew what any free creature *would* freely do in whatever situation he could place them. This is called "middle knowledge." This is different from what those creatures *could* do or *will* do. 3. God used this middle knowledge to incorporate the free choices of creatures into his exhaustive planning of history. This ensures that he is completely sovereign over all things that occur in history, including the free choices of his creatures. - RF Admin

@scarlettm8702

4 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg thank you!

I have a Thomist understanding of this issue now. Feser was one of the people that helped me. He has this simple analogy of an author: does the fact that an author writes a book mean that the characters in the book aren't free? Obviously not.

@daman7387

Жыл бұрын

Is Feser a compatibilist?

@gingrai00

Жыл бұрын

They are obviously free to do whatever the author writes… that makes the author free not the character.

@GulfsideMinistries

Жыл бұрын

@Sinful Bastard Child I don't know where Jon got the particular comment from Feser, but he discusses the analogy here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/are-you-for-real.html That article is an extension of comments in previous blogs based on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (here, especially section six: plato.stanford.edu/entries/providence-divine/#TraSol) and Ralph McKinny's book Characters in Search of Their Autor (www.amazon.com/Characters-Search-Their-Author-1999-2000/dp/026802278X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304831005&sr=1-1). The problem with your objection is that you're mistaking (or making too much of) a secondary, non-salient feature of the metaphor for the salient feature. When we say God is our rock or Jesus is the door, we don't mean that God is made of sediment or that Jesus has hinges. Those are metaphors in which we are pulling a particular feature out of one thing and applying it to the other. The other features are not intended to be applied. Same thing here. The idea of God as author and we as characters has a salient feature, namely, that the author is the ultimate cause. So I can say, meaningfully, that Peter Parker punched Green Goblin. But in reality, in the real world, it's just the authors writing a story. Peter doesn't do anything because he is not real. But if we are real, as I think you'll agree we are, and if we are true causes of our actions, as free will advocates insist we are, then the salient feature of the metaphor becomes more clear: imagining Peter as a real (if secondary) cause, he chose to punch the Goblin freely, and yet it is the writer that is the ultimate cause of the entire story. To press the analogy further just requires abandoning it and getting into primary v secondary causes and whether or not and how it is meaningful to discuss how secondary causes can be free. I think that's in interesting discussion, and how you answer it will say a lot about where you end up landing on the entire issue of Open Theism v Molinism v Thomism.

@Bane_questionmark

Жыл бұрын

They are "free" within the context of the world of the story. If the author is a skilled author, then the characters will act in accordance with logic, their own knowledge; and their own wants, motivations, and character. They are not autonomous, which is the sense in which people say "free" on this topic. The author of the book is not having to devise a bunch of schemes to work around the free decisions of autonomous characters he can't control (or even that he chooses not to control) to bring the story to the conclusion he has chosen. He created the characters, at any point before his book is published he could have changed them or removed them from what became the final draft. The idea is absurd, he creates the entire paradigm of reality they exist within and everything that happens in it. To stick with this analogy (how I'm applying it should be obvious), it would be a mistake for a character to say that he would not really be free if the author (who he has acknowledged is real and all powerful over the story he has written) had decided all of the things he would do over the course of the story. The character exists entirely within the book, and so even if he has "freedom" or autonomy in any sense it would also be entirely within the book. The author exists and acts outside of the book, anything that exists or happens in the book is that way because he wrote it to be that way (and so any notion that he has made writing decisions based on what a character in his own book has done is absurd). Even if a character knew about the author and was obedient to the author's revealed truth to the extent they knew and understood it, I think they might fail to fully wrap their mind around (if not reject) the concept that the fundamental nature of their reality is letters on a page which the author can and does write and erase whenever he chooses. If you have ever seen an interview with an author talking about his story(particularly ones who write science fiction or fantasy and/or are willing to say exactly what they think and not take themselves too seriously), you will hear plainly that they truly view the good characters as good and the evil characters as evil. If a character goes through hardship or pain or suffers for a mistake, they will feel sympathy for them as if they were another human being. But how could that be. How DARE the author call the villain evil, when the villain only did all those things because the author wrote that he would! How DARE the author write that a bad thing happens to an innocent person! Unless all of the characters are autonomous entities which the author does not control but only works and plans around (how this could even conceivably be true is apparently not important), then the author is the "author of evil"! Now it is true that the real creation more than a book, but it is also true that God is more than a human author. In fact I would say the metaphysical "gap" between real human beings and literary characters is infinitely smaller than the metaphysical gap between the human author and God. If anything this whole analogy was an understatement of the extent to which God is sovereign and in control over everything He has created (i.e. everything that isn't Him). (I realize after writing this that I saw 'Thomist' and assumed you were Roman Catholic and so trying to define God's sovereignty in a way that wouldn't invalidate any conception of human autonomy. Regardless of whether that's the case I am curious what a Thomist understanding means in this context, I don't know what Thomas believed related specifically to this topic nor how people using his ideas within different groups today would apply it)

Am i the only one noticing the one eye symbology on the thumbnail?

@ReasonableFaithOrg

Жыл бұрын

XD

🤙😁

It's all begging the question. Feels like, anyway, circular reasoning. He starts with a conclusion then finds ' reasons' to support it.

I'm at the 12:00 mark, and I want to pause and say this is precisely the point I reject Molinism. Far from safeguarding free will, it seems to me to deny it right at this point. If God knows that always under the case of X that I will do Y, then I'm not free. My choice is determined by the circumstances. God then just creates the circumstances to get me to do what He wants me to do. Slightly better is the argument that it's not that God knows what I would do in situation X (i.e., God creates X if He wants me to do Y), but rather than God looks at all possible worlds in which I do Y. In some of these worlds, X happens and I respond with Y. In other worlds, X happens identically in all respects except I do ~Y. Here, God just actualizes the world in which I choose Y rather than ~Y. Now, I have *serious* objections to that. I think it turns God into a finite, contingent being in need of causal explanation. It's little more than atheism in which the creature we call God is Superman. But let's set that aside. Sticking to free will, I'm not sure that even that second, definitely better, scenario, safeguards human freedom. For in this case, it's not obvious that I literally could have done ~Y. It was a logical possibility in that there were possible worlds. But if God determined to actualize this world precisely because this is the one in which I choose Y, then I don't know that I really had a "choice" in the proper sense of the word in the first place. It's a bit ironic for a Weslyan theologian not to see this. He will object, rightly, to limited atonement on the basis that it implies that it's just not true that "WHOSOEVER believes has everlasting life." The gospel isn't a genuine offer of salvation. It's just a diagnostic to show which people Christ died for, and that's an abominable view that undermines the heart of the Christian message. And so here. Molinism preserves the out trappings of free will but it denies its real spirit. And this at the cost of what it does to the divine nature. I'm going to keep listening to the video, but I think I'm going to have to do a series on this soon.

@geomicpri

Жыл бұрын

Your way is literally obliterating free will! If God only actualises the world where you do exactly as He wills, then there is no possibility for you to choose other than His will, & therefore you have no free will. Secondly, I think you’re confusing freedom with randomness or arbitrariness. For example, if you (knowing that peaches are my favourite fruit & bananas are my least) offer me the choice between a peach & a banana, you know with absolute certainty that I will freely choose the peach! Right? Your certainty does not in any way diminish my freedom, because freedom is not mere randomness. So Molinism preserves both God’s sovereignty & our freedom just perfectly,

@GulfsideMinistries

Жыл бұрын

@@geomicpri You confused my way with my critique. I'm charging that the argument that God actualizes the world of His choice just IS to obliterate freedom. So we agree that such a view is untenable. The alternative, which was Molina's original position and which has been widely abandoned, was that God just brings about the world in which He knows you'll choose what He wants. But that also obliterates freedom, because it means that circumstances are sufficient to determine your behavior. Either way, Molinism destroys human freedom.

@geomicpri

Жыл бұрын

@@GulfsideMinistries sorry, I must have misread. But my second point is still valid. The point of realising choices is to test our free will, not for God to know how we would act under x conditions, but for *us* to know how we would act under x conditions.

@GulfsideMinistries

Жыл бұрын

​@@geomicpri There's actually some important considerations around arbitrariness in free will. There's a reason that one of the main Latin phrases for what we call free will was liberum arbitrium. Maybe we can revisit that. I want to touch on what I think is the substance of your point based on your analogy and then double down on my own suggestion. The question we need to ask about your peach v banana analogy is the basis upon which I know you will pick the one over the other. Am I making a mere inductive argument? That is, I've seen you pick the peach 1,000 times and I've never once seen you pick the banana? If so, my knowledge is of the sort that's a very well founded *prediction,* but that doesn't go to the essence. It's entirely possible and within reason that you could get a hankering to try something new. Let's go deeper: suppose I know something about your particular being. You, it turns out, are like me and have a sensitivity to bananas, so that when you eat it, it gives you very severe gastro problems! I also know that in conjunction with that, you rather despise those problems and that you can't deal with them tonight because you have a hot date later. Again, my knowledge that you will choose the peach is even deeper than a mere induction. And yet, it's entirely possible that, for reasons I don't know, you STILL might decide to go for the banana! Deeper still: Perhaps I've never met you or seen you choose, but your wife tells me that you love the one and hate the other. Let's say that she is right, perhaps because she's seen you always choose peaches and because she knows about your allergy and because you TOLD her what you would choose. You can reasonably say that I have 100% certainty of what your free choice will be, and yet, your choice remains free. But now suppose that the reason I know what you are going to choose is that I found out that, amazingly, you are nothing more than a hyper-realistic AI that passes the Turing Test in every way, and that you have been programmed to ALWAYS choose peaches to bananas. Now I know that your choice wasn't free at all. Or suppose we found out that neurological determinism was true. Again, we'd find that your choice wasn't free. In other words, the issue is not certainty v randomness but rather it's an issue of your essence. What *kind* of thing are you making the choice? And based on that *kind* of thing, what is the nature of my knowledge? (I see Gettier peaking around the corner, by the way.) Here's the bottom line: God knowing what you will choose, even with 100% certainty, is no objection to free will. But God knowing that in all cases you choose peaches *precisely because those circumstances determine you choose peaches* DOES deny free will. That's the nature of what a choice is. Now we can argue that circumstances will make you more likely to choose bananas over peaches, such that my prediction may be more or less certain. We can even say that circumstances are SO overwhelming that while you *technically* have free will, you don't *reasonably* have it. And our justice system recognizes this by the way when it considers culpability. So I don't think I'm confusing anything here. If circumstances *determine* your choice, you don't have free will. If Molinism is taken to mean that God puts us in circumstances that He knows will *determine* our choice, then while we DO have a choice, it is not free. It is externally determined, and then all the problems that Craig cited at the very beginning as to why he assumes free will fall right back on his head. Molinism is wrong. It's goals are right and laudable. But the philosophy destroys both free will and God's very essence.

@EternalVisionToday

Жыл бұрын

@@GulfsideMinistries, I hadn't even started the video, but I am glad I read your formulation and back-and-forth. I still think new Molinism maybe equipped to handle objections like this, but now I will see if Craig gets close to even addressing anything near your well-conceived objection.

I don’t get it. “Baal doesn’t exist” is true because it is a description of reality, reality is the truth-maker, & it is such that there is no such character. Is that not right?

@ReasonableFaithOrg

Жыл бұрын

Great question! It kind of depends on what you mean by "truth-maker" here. According to truth-maker theorists, a truth-maker is an object or objects that exist which ground the truth of a proposition. The problem with this is that "reality" doesn't pick out any distinctive truth-maker capable of distinguishing between contradictory propositions. For example, if Baal did exist, then reality would also be the truth-maker for that proposition. But then reality would be the truth-maker for both "Baal exists" and "Baal does not exist," which is absurd, since the conjunction "Baal exists" and "Baal does not exist" is impossible. This is why truth-maker theorists must generally fall back to postulating an infinity of abstract objects, like propositions, capable of making such distinctions. But then you have an infinite regress of propositions "true-making" other propositions, which is highly dubious, or else an arbitrary stopping point for the regress, which is ad hoc. Better to be rid of truth-maker theory and adopt something like a deflationary theory of truth, where correspondence can be understood as "that S" is true if and only if S. No correlates in reality needed for all of the singular terms in S. "Baal does not exist" is true if and only if Baal does not exist. So, if by "reality is the truth-maker" you are merely expressing this deflationary concept of correspondence, then you agree with Dr. Craig over and against truth-maker theorists. - RF Admin

29:00 ["..I can still act in a way that he did not decree as he in fact did decree.."] Do you hear yourself? Honestly man.

Under the rigour of a proper Biblical exegesis, we quickly discover that the idea of God’s ‘natural knowledge’ and God’s ‘free knowledge’ is a theological canard constructed to accommodate the (utterly unBiblical) idea of God’s ‘middle knowledge’ - an artificial abstraction contrived by men like William Lane Craig to somehow salvage the ‘sovereignty of man’ while paying little more than lip service to the absolute sovereignty of God… I really don’t understand why the disciples of Dr Craig aren’t also troubled by the fact that he insists on appealing to two extra-Biblical sources to support his Autonomian commitments, rather than allowing the sufficiency of the very Word of God (2Tim 3:16,17) to speak for itself on the things of God… On the one hand, Craig employs an argument formulated by a Muslim apologist (amongst others), Al-Ghazali, as ‘proof’ for the existence of God (as though it were possible to reduce the infinitude of God to the level of finite human comprehension)! And then, Craig employs an argument formulated by Luis de Molina, a Spanish Jesuit priest commissioned by Pope Paul III as a Romanist ‘soldier of the Catholic Church’ to counter the Scriptural principle of Sola Scriptura upheld by the Protestant Reformation It is little wonder that God has (yet again) given His church over to the Fool into apostasy…

he chose to study free will.

Either way, if God infallibly knows what you’re going to do under any specific set of circumstances, and God is also in control of those circumstances, then you aren’t actually free to do anything other than what God infallibly knows you’ll do under the circumstances that he set into motion. I don’t see how there’s any room for a will that is actually _free to do otherwise._

@ReasonableFaithOrg

Жыл бұрын

Libertarian freedom doesn't require the freedom "to do otherwise." It just requires that the agent isn't causally determined by antecedent conditions to choose what they choose. So, even if there are no other options, the agent may freely choose. - RF Admin

See, this is where I get confused: how is God freely choosing to create a world that He *knows* will accomplish His will any different than Him creating this world in the Calvinist view? In either scenario, He’s still choosing to create a world which contains human beings choosing evil. Under the Molinist view is it assumed God had no option to create a world where all choose to follow Him? Does such a world simply not exist?

@ReasonableFaithOrg

Жыл бұрын

Right. On Molinism, God *could* create a completely deterministic world just as the Calvinists envision. But humans wouldn't be freely choosing evil in that case. They would be deterministically caused by God to do evil things. Here, determinism means that antecedent conditions are sufficient to causally determine the choice. By contrast, if God has middle knowledge, then he can incorporate the free (indeterministic) choices of creatures into his exhaustive planning of history. It may not be feasible for him to create a world with as much good and as little evil as this one due to the way people would freely choose. But he may have overriding reasons for preferring to create this world rather than a world with even less evil, such as there being a greater proportion of saved to condemned people in this world, for instance. - RF Admin

@flavioa2252

Жыл бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg the problem I have with Molinism is it’s accounting of fairness. If there was a world where someone freely DID choose God, how is it fair that a different world was chosen wherein that person would not choose God and therefore be punished eternally as a result? That person has no choice in the matter of what world they found themselves in so how can we punish them? Transworld depravity seems only to assume persons such as these would have chosen to disbelieve in god in every possible world…

I do not understand why Middle Knowledge isn't understood as knowledge of everything we and everybody else might do and what would happen, and what He will do in all cases, and what each of us will do next, etc. There is no "what you will do" in the future, except in the things that you have decided already. It's middle knowledge because "might" is right between "will" and "won't" edit: if this view needs a name, I suggest "The Might Of God". If I have a decision coming up which will be a surprise to me (for example, where to get a car fixed, God forbid), how can God, at this moment, know what I will decide to do when I am, at this moment, unaware there is even a decision? Currently, there is no "what I will do" concerning that, and there may never be. God cannot know a fact which is not. But He can easily know what might be. He can just know way more of it than we can. The past is just a memory, but the future is just an assumption.

the problem I have with Molinism is it’s accounting of fairness. If there was a world where someone freely DID choose God, how is it fair that a different world was chosen wherein that person would not choose God and therefore be punished eternally as a result? That person has no choice in the matter of what world they found themselves in so how can we punish them? Transworld depravity seems only to assume persons such as these would have chosen to disbelieve in god in every possible world…

@MarkNOTW

Жыл бұрын

That is a problem for me as well. I think perhaps God chose to actualize and create a world in which the maximum number of persons choose Him.

@flavioa2252

Жыл бұрын

@@MarkNOTW yes. That’s seems to be a good way to think about it.

If God creates a being that predictably will freely choose to do X in certain circumstances, isn't God still predetermining that being's fate, especially if He knows the being will choose evil in response to realities in one possible world and choose good in response to realities in another world, and then God chooses to actualize the version of reality where the person chooses evil? If there are many feasible worlds, and someone could be saved in one and damned in another, but based on how God created them to respond to certain situations and which world they are placed in, they choose evil and are damned, aren't many of the problems of Calvinism, like squaring God's goodness with unconditional reprobation, still there? Very possible I'm missing something though.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

6 ай бұрын

The major difference is, of course, that God's choosing a feasible world doesn't entail his causing people to choose the way that they do. They make their choices freely. God simply knows what they will freely choose. On deterministic Calvinism, God causes people to choose the way that they do, which is theologically abhorrent. Regarding whether a person who is damned might have been saved in another feasible world, theologians are divided. Dr. Craig is of the opinion that if a person would freely accept Christ in some possible world, then God would not actualize a world in which they freely reject him. He also thinks it's possible that, due to the way the various free choices play out in different feasible worlds, certain outcomes are not compossible. For example, let's take hypothetical persons A and B. It's possible that in any world in which both exist, one would freely accept Christ and one would freely reject Christ, and that person A is not always the one who accepts. If this is the case, then the salvation of both A and B is not compossible and, therefore, not feasible for God to actualize. - RF Admin

@DavidLarson100

6 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thank you for the response. Like Molina, I'm a Catholic who would love to see a way to easily square human free will and God's foreknowledge and providence. I agree with you that Calvinist determinism is abhorrent and clearly unjust -- since eternal punishment for sins one had no choice but to commit violates the most basic understanding of justice. But from what you're saying, I don't know that Molinism seems to solve the issue. It's much better than Calvinism or late Augustinianism, but the problem of God creating beings whose destiny is to be eternally tormented and for whom God could have chosen another destiny but didn't (which is my main concern), still exists. I'll explain. You said Molinists are divided over whether the damned could have been saved in another feasible world. For those who think there are worlds, let's say worlds 1-5, where Bob is saved, and other worlds, 6-10, where he is not, if God loves His creatures (ie wills their good), He would by nature choose 1-5. If He was in a bind because of non-compossibility of saving two people simultaneously, and He chose Steve over Bob, then it would appear to be the Calvinists' Romans 9 interpretation of I loved Jacob not Esau and unconditional reprobation. But if on the other hand, there are those who in all feasible worlds are saved and then others who in all feasible worlds are damned, was God's creation "good" regarding the latter? Why would He create a being that under no circumstances was able to do good and say yes to its creator? So as you see, it seems in both circumstances, we are left with something almost as determinist as Calvinism. Either God is creating beings capable of serving Him in some feasible worlds but then not choosing to place them in the necessary circumstances (which seems a cruel thing to do to one's creatures) or He is creating beings who have no ability in any feasible world to serve Him (which would call to question why that being would be created, since its end will necessarily be unspeakable suffering). I prefer Occam's explanation that we choose freely, and God sees it from outside of time (like Boethius' explanation in Consolation of Philosophy), and if we chose something differently, He would have seen differently. I may even more prefer versions of Open Theism that do not violate Catholic doctrine (which many versions do). If God chooses to partially blind Himself to the future for the sake of true free will, like He partially limits His power in other ways at times, I think that could be compatible. I also think it's possible He can't see things that aren't seeable, in the same way He can't create a square circle. So maybe His plan is in place, but it is being slightly amended by our free will, but He always finds ways to steer it back to what He intended, like with Jonah. My friend called this the Google Maps version. He knows He can bring about very specific things in the future because of just how many things He knows, but He doesn't fully know what we will do because we haven't chosen yet. It's possible this last version is not orthodox though, so I'll have to research that more.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

6 ай бұрын

@@DavidLarson100 What you're proposing here is called open theism, which claims that knowing the truth values of future free choices is impossible and, therefore, not within the purview of divine omniscience. There are many problems with the view, and Dr. Craig describes a few here: www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/postmodernism-open-theism-and-philosophy. Regarding why God would actualize a world in which some will be condemned, Dr. Craig addresses this exact question in an article titled "How Can Christ Be the Only Way to God?" In it, he says the following: "(ii) Why did God even create the world, when He knew that so many people would not believe the Gospel and be lost? Answer: God wanted to share His love and fellowship with created persons. He knew this meant that many would freely reject Him and be lost. But He also knew that many others would freely receive His grace and be saved. The happiness and blessedness of those who would freely embrace His love should not be precluded by those who would freely spurn Him. Persons who would freely reject God and His love should not be allowed, in effect, to hold a sort of veto power over which worlds God is free to create. In His mercy God has providentially ordered the world to achieve an optimal balance between saved and lost by maximizing the number of those who freely accept Him and minimizing the number of those who would not." The article may be found here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/christianity-other-faiths/how-can-christ-be-the-only-way-to-god. - RF Admin

@DavidLarson100

6 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I agree there are issues with open theism, but as I said, there are various versions, some of which say God is voluntarily limiting available knowledge, others that say the information is simply not available, like the Jewish authors likely believed, since that's what Jews today believe. On your quote from Craig on why God would create human beings knowing which ones were damned and saved, but doing so because "God wanted to share His love and fellowship with created persons," that's a tough one to swallow. It'd be a bit like me saying, I really want to share my love and have a relationship with children, so even though I'm in a situation where I can see 3/4 of children would end up being immediately taken from me by sex traffickers where their lives will be constant torment, I still will choose to have the children so I can have a relationship with that fourth one. Maybe that's the way it is, but it would not seem very just of God to create so much eternal suffering so He can have relationships. I always have to remind myself my intellect is very limited and God's ways are not ours though. That being said, it's not a very satisfying answer for me. In all honesty, I'm more in the Catholic "hopeful universalist" camp. I think hell is a possibility for all (a doctrine of the Church and clear from biblical warnings) but I hope and pray that none are lost.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

6 ай бұрын

@@DavidLarson100 Regarding the first part, Dr. Craig would reject the idea that God can limit his knowledge, since omniscience is an intrinsic property of God. A being which is less than omniscient is imperfect and, therefore, not God. Regarding the second part, note that the analogy of your children is different in one important respect. The children abducted by sex traffickers had no choice in the matter. But, of course, those who are condemned did have a choice to respond appropriately to God. So, it would be more like having children and offering them an eternal place in your home, where they would enjoy an eternity of bliss without suffering, but several of them choose to leave the home forever despite your pleading. Would you be doing anything wrong by allowing some to go their own way and some to stay and enjoy the home forever? - RF Admin

Molinism actually destroys the very human freedom it claims to preserve by making human choices dependent upon external created circumstances. It is one thing for ones actions to be determined (but not necessitated - there is a difference) by God, but entirely another to be determined by creatures.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

3 ай бұрын

It seems that perhaps you've misunderstood Molinism. The circumstances merely create the occasion for choices, but the choices themselves are not causally dependent on those circumstances. Rather, it's the people themselves who are the causes of their free choices. - RF Admin

@jeffreykalb9752

3 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I've studied it in detail. It is you have failed to understand the implication of your own thoughts. If God has "scientia media" of all contingent actions, and simply places people in the circumstances in which he knows that they will respond favorably to His grace--and that is Molina's doctrine--then people are indeed determined extrinsically by the circumstance. Period. Their acts would proceed from themselves, yes, but they would not be free acts. And that is far less acceptable than God determining (but not necessitating... there is a difference) our actions. In the Molinist doctrine, circumstances cannot be a mere occasion for their free choices, or you destroy God's entire capacity for predestination and election, which was the very thing the doctrine was supposed to answer in the first place. Even the Jesuit order, of which Molina was a member, rejected his doctrine in favor of the congruism of Suarez and Bellarmine.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

3 ай бұрын

@@jeffreykalb9752 You say that on Molinism, the circumstances do in fact determine people's choices, though you say that they do not necessitate the choices. By "determine," it seems like you mean something close to "guarantees." But this is affirmed by Molinists. By knowing how creatures would freely act in circumstances and then placing them in those circumstances, God guarantees that they will in fact act as he pre-knows. But this isn't determinism in the sense to which those who affirm middle knowledge object. Determinism in that sense is the idea that the antecedent conditions are sufficient to *causally necessitate* one's choice or act. This is the antinomy of libertarian freedom, which is the idea that antecedent conditions are *insufficient* to causally necessitate one's choice or act. All who affirm middle knowledge - be they followers of Molina, Suarez, Bellarmine, Plantinga, Craig, or other - deny determinism in the causal sense. (Suarez and Bellarmine differed from Molina in application, not affirmation of middle knowledge and libertarian freedom). This is because, if true, it would obliterate human responsibility. There would be no sense in which creatures would have morally significant control of their choices. The middle knowledge approach of Molina, Suarez, and Bellarmine do nothing to undermine predestination or election by affirming libertarian freedom, since God still exhaustively plans the entirety of history. Without middle knowledge, God cannot incorporate free choices into this planning, since he would not have pre-decree knowledge of what free creatures would do. - RF Admin

Molinism is based on one piece of scripture (Matthew 11:23) by a Spanish Jesuit priest (1535-1600) which articulates a view of that tries to rationalize the contradiction between divine foreknowledge and human fee will. This has become called 'middle knowledge'. This is an early apologetic that is important because it helps justify the omnipresent concept that is often propagated by Christians. But it is only supported by one verse and there is little other evidence for the idea in the Bible itself. Molinism lives on in pre-suppositional philosophical discussions like Mr. Craig's one in this video. Not the clear word of God per se, but a discussion point for Christians trying to prop up the concept of free will.

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

You're not a subscriber to free will?

@AntWoord_YT

Жыл бұрын

Firstly, the verse mentioned is but one of many Scriptures that Molinists claim is consistent with Molinism. Second, with whom a concept orginated is completely irrelevant to that idea's coherency or truth. Thirdly, Molinism shows why the perceived contradiction is only apparent, not real. Fourthly, Molinism is concerned about God's omniscience, not his omnipresence. Fifthly, all discussion has presuppositions (that is, starting assumptions) whether in theology or philosophy. Lastly, Molinism doesn't claim to be the Word of God, but merely a model for how God's foreknowledge with human free will, can be coherently reconciled.

@paulsparks4564

Жыл бұрын

@@JCDisciple Nup, we don't have it. I recall god hardening Moses heart at some stage. I can't control the thoughts that pop into my head. You can chose the supernatural over the natural sure, that's up to you, but something will have influenced you to do so, outside of your so-called free will. Christianity itself is a coerced proposition insofar as, if you believe in hell, then that influences your will to choose. The concept of free will is philosophical apologetic hogwash to justify the fact that for 2,000 years, god hasn't come and physically said hello. When he did in the OT with Moses and the like, he didn't say up front, "Oops, sorry for violating your free will by this impromptu visit, but ... can you sacrifice that goat and while you're at, it kill a few thousand Amalekites as well, too?" Maybe god should have turned up when countless Catholic priests over the centuries followed their natural instincts to have sex, that was forbade by their form of Christianity, and did so with children, etc. You could say it was their free will to do so, but I'd wager their natural instincts overrode their moral standards because they couldn't marry. Time to forget free will and just ask for the Abrahamic god, or his son, or a visible holy ghost to show up and convert the world. Then we can forget about apologetics forever, yeah!

@paulsparks4564

Жыл бұрын

@@AntWoord_YT yes, I should have said omniscience. But I have always been told my apologists that the reason god doesn't appear to us is that it would violate our free will. Hence if he is also omnipresent, then why doesn't he appear to us like he did in the OT and NT, instead of just via the so-called "self-authenticating witness of the holy spirit?" Molinism is a clever attempt to overcome this by delving into the concepts of counter-factuals of creaturely freedom and middle knowledge. The lengths that people have to go, I mean really ...? I just want god to show himself and then we will all know. Instead, we have contrived philosophy and resulting amazing word salad.

So.......he is saying God is not sovereign? Um no thanks.

Universalism is the most interesting ideas if it real even if better than Christianity and middle knowledge .

God still has to select for Adam and Eve world . Change the basic c.c.f, it doesn't need to be the garden of eve, you can get a different result. Why not select for a winning ticket? There may be a way round this. If A and E flunk the test more times than they pass it, they get an F.

@chriswest8389

11 ай бұрын

Yahway, assuming he wasn't Baul or co equal. A nessesary anteledent. The straw that stirs the drink. THE drink. The glass. The empty ,infinite space of his being that surrounds it. I Am That I AM.

It is easy to show why there is no free will in Molinism. God knew that I would do X. God chose to create a World where I do X. Once the World has been created I must do X. I must do X because if I don’t do X, then God would have got a different World than the World which He chose to create. And furthermore, if I didn’t do X, then God would have been wrong in His knowledge ( which stated that I would do X ). I have the illusion that I could refrain from doing X but because it is impossible for God to be wrong, then it is impossible for me to not do X. What I have written above is very easy to follow and understand. There is no free will in Molinism.

@NationalPK

Жыл бұрын

Gods choice to create a world where He knows you'll do X doesn't not terminate your freedom to not do X, that simply does not follow. Imagine a world, the future of which is unknown, but then, suddently, you are given perfect foreknowledge of the future, ask yourself, if the future that you now see necessary? I see no reason to think yes. Though it is now impossible for the future that you know to fail to happen, that is the case only because your foreknowledge is perfect, not because the futures events are necessary.

@TheMirabillis

Жыл бұрын

@@NationalPK God chose to create a World where He knew I would do X. So let’s think about that. Once the World has been created I MUST do X. If I don’t do X, then God gets a different World than the World which He chose to create ( remember, He chose to create a World where He knew that I would X ). Not only does God get a different World by me not doing X but it also means that God was wrong in His knowledge ( remember, God knew that I would do X but I have caused God to be wrong in His knowledge by not doing X ). But can God ever be wrong ? No. No He can’t. Once the World has been created, everything must play out 'exactly' as God saw it in His mind prior to creation. Nothing can be different. God knew I would do X prior to creation, then I must do X once the world has been created. God can never be wrong. Thus: I have absolutely no free will. I MUST do X. I have to do X. Necessarily, I MUST do X.

@NationalPK

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMirabillis soo, you've missed my point.. i want to approach this in a different way, would you agree that divine foreknowledge is, an in advance perfect description of all events in the future? If so, how does a perfect description of the future constrain the future? The future is prior to its description, otherwise there is nothing to describe. What I'm trying to say is that there must be something to foreknow before it can be foreknown, in this case its the future. Foreknowledge and the future have NO relationship. Therefore, Gods description(foreknowledge) of the future, could have very well been different. The description of our world for example, isn't a necessary one. So, instead of saying, you MUST do X or you'll contradict Gods flawless foreknowledge, I say, Gods flawless foreknowledge MUST perfectly describe the future, and It will be impossible to contradict it, but not because you aren't free, but because the life that you will live has a perfect description that God simply knows.

@TheMirabillis

Жыл бұрын

@@NationalPK The key phrase in what I have written is this: - “ Once the World has been Created. “ Once the World has been Created, then everything must happen 'exactly' as God saw it in His mind prior to Creation. Nothing can differ or change. So where is human freedom of will situated ? It can’t be in the Created and Actual World. If God knew I would do X prior to creation, then I MUST do X once the World has been created. Can I now prove God wrong in His knowledge by not doing X ?

@NationalPK

Жыл бұрын

@@TheMirabillisI'm starting to think that you don't read my replies. As I've said before, if God creates a world in which He knows you'll do X, that does not necessitate you doing X, that just does not follow. Adding to that, again something I've already said, the worlds that God knows don't necessarily have to be the way they are. God simply finds Himself with an array of worlds to choose from. So when God chooses a world, the only thing He directly decrees in such a world is its initial condition from which the it then contingently unfolds. No freedom is lost.

Given Dr. Craig's explanation and the way he blithely batted away the main objections and criticisms to the theory of Molinism it is patently obvious that Molinism, as it is conceived by both Craig and Stratton, is false.

@AntWoord_YT

Жыл бұрын

Lol. What is patently obvious is that you have no idea what Molinists actually claim and why.

@fanghur

Жыл бұрын

@@AntWoord_YT they claim that we can have both libertarian free will (i.e. in any given situation, multiple choices are metaphysically possible, meaning that each has a non-zero probability of occurring), and also that God knows even before we existed which choices will be made… which would mean that in fact only one choice was metaphysically possible. At best, Molinism is only compatible with free will in the sense compatibilists mean, and even that is a massive stretch IMO.

@jasongillis1336

Жыл бұрын

Either God is the author of evil, or He isn't. James 1:13 says He isn't. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of host Isaiah 6:3. God does not cause us to sin; we choose to sin on our own because we rebel against God's law. We freely sin. Jesus invites us to freely believe in Him and repent. Love requires freedom of the will. P.S. I chose to write this comment.

How’s it going Low Bar Bill?

THE ABSOLUTE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE! Omg man, How can you say so many contradictory statements back to back.

Perhaps libertarian free will was annihilated at the fall, and compatibilistic free will was then the case. That is, before the fall, angelic and human beings had libertarian freedom and so had the ability to act contrary to their good, unfallen natures. After the fall, they could act only in accordance with their natures, compatibilistic freedom, in the case of angels fallen or unfallen and in the case of humans fallen or fallen-and-redeemed, the latter implying an ability to act in accordance with either of the two (old or new) natures until glorification at which time redeemed humans, like God, would have the ability to act only in accordance with their redeemed nature.

@pepedestroyer5974

Жыл бұрын

fu!/!€!€$!ing Craig. He should defend the inmateriality of mind if he wants to defeat the materialist worldview. His Kalam is meaningless if he doesnt prove first that mind is fundamental.

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

I've heard this another way - man's alleged 'free' (libertarian or otherwise) will is completely bound by sin. This does not mean man is unable to do good deeds, as witnessed by the donors of the "Giving Pledge" or the charitable work of Mother Teresa. What it does mean is, because of the fall, man is unable to avoid sinning - whether in thought, word or deed.

@MBarberfan4life

Жыл бұрын

I would separate humans and angels. Per the Angelic Doctor, the wills of angels are set after their initial choice. On the other hand, human wills aren't set in this way (whether or not they have libertarian or compatibilist freedom).

@dcouric

Жыл бұрын

@@MBarberfan4life But I meant that, in agreement with Aquinas, only before the fall can and do all personal creatures (angels and humans) act contrary to their natures (in order for the fall to even take place). After that, on the compatibilist view, both kinds of personal creatures act only according to their natures, just as the personal creator does.

I am honestly dumbfounded that Dr. Craig doesn't see the problem with both the Occamist and Molinist claim that, were I to choose differently now, then God _would have known_ differently. As though I, right now, have the power to retroactively change what God knew back then!?

@12345shushi

Жыл бұрын

You cant change what he already knew (logical causation is not causally temporal)

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

That's why all attempts at reconciling divine sovereignty and man's alleged free will ultimately fail. Bill is grasping at something that someone like James White easily pulls the rug from under. Why? Because James is a determinist and uses that as his basis (Craig does not). Is James' logic wrong? Well, not until you get inside a courtroom and tell the judge, "I'm sorry your honor, but God made me rape and kill that woman, and I had no choice in the matter." That's where James' theory/logic of determinism (Calvinism?) cracks. On the flipside, we've more than sufficient, empirical proof (about 7 billion living proofs) that man is a wretch who sins daily until death prior to salvation, and becomes a saved wretch who sins daily until death (without reference to the magnitude of sin, which is in most cases radically reduced), and there's not a damn thing man can do to avoid being man anymore than a dog can avoid being a dog in its lifetime. It is on this opposite end of this spectrum, where we see the futility of man's attempts to break out of his condition on his own accord, by an act of 'free will', our need to be saved and that the only way we get to heaven (salvation) is through faith, repentance and trust in Christ's finished work and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead us on that long and narrow road.... Since the dawn of time man has, in my view unsuccessfully, attempted to pin point where exactly the truth is on this spectrum of two seeming opposites...divine sovereignty and man's 'free' will (if they are indeed, opposites). I fear no definitive answers will be forthcoming on this side of heaven. Meanwhile I am content reading and listening to Bill, James, Cameron, Greg, RC, Norman, etc ☺

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

@@12345shushi Of course we can't. It's absurd. So, why does Craig take that idea seriously?

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

Yes, Molinism sounds a bit like magic/sci-fi. Like watching Star Trek TNG where a rift/crack in the time space continuum permits the supposedly infinite number of possible Enterprises to become manifest in the other's time line/parallel universe.... Watch "Parallels", "Yesterday's Enterprise" and "All good things" episodes. Roddenberry 'made' molinism real on the screen- in that he was able to imaginatively show all possible universes manifest in a single convergent/cross-cutting point that somehow 'magically' crosses independent spacetime continuums/universes that in theory (or practice) can't know of each other's existence (or non-existence).

@Mentat1231

Жыл бұрын

@@JCDisciple Worse than magic; it's incoherent! But, I understand the motivations for it. I personally don't see much option for a Presentist like Craig except to be an Open Theist. He seems to think that that would mean God can't predict the future at all; but that's not true. The likes of Swinburne and Peter van Inwagen have basically been Open Theists since before the term existed, and it definitely does not entail that prediction is impossible for God.

How is it possible to listen to Craig's description of "God's middle knowledge" without recognizing that he is simply weaving a completely man-made hypothetical view of God out of whole cloth? Craig's proposition is nothing more than a desperate emotional attempt to reconcile God's theoretical omnipotence in which he creates humans who are destined for hell, with the notion that a human actually has free will. This is a disaster of an argument. Craig should know better.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

7 ай бұрын

It's not a "desperate emotional attempt" at all. It's a fairly straightforward way of explaining a wide range of biblical data. - RF Admin

@fotoman777

7 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg One might suggest that the concept of "explaining a wide range of biblical data" is itself rhetorically suspicious. Craig is obviously inventing a God that meets his own personal requirements for what a God should be.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

7 ай бұрын

@@fotoman777 What do you mean by "rhetorically suspicious"? This is exactly what the church has done from the beginning - seeking to correctly interpret the biblical data and find explanations that synthesize that data into coherent, biblically faithful models. That's precisely why we have the doctrine of the Trinity. - RF Admin

@fotoman777

7 ай бұрын

@@ReasonableFaithOrg To me, the "doctrine of the Trinity" is a perfect example of a rhetorically suspicious invention. If God is "three Persons in One," why does Jesus exclude the Holy Spirit in the lengthy Intercessory Prayer of John 17? Here Jesus says it was just "The Father and Me" for all eternity, and the Holy Spirit was so irrelevant that his existence was not even worthy of mention. So in this prayer, Jesus shows no awareness of man's "doctrine" of the Trinity. Aren't we better off assuming the Trinity is just a man-made hypothetical construct, quite like Craig's proposition of "God's middle knowledge?" Both appear to be rhetorical sleight-of-hand with no basis in reality.

WLC loves and uses $100 words, but has forgotten common sense.

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

It's unhelpful to a discussion to make sarcastic comments without specific details about why and how you think Bill lacks common sense.... Can you please expound?

@evanramirez384

Жыл бұрын

He dislikes the conclusion but is unable to properly object to premises. So he used ad hominem and sarcasm instead

@grimsanctuary3937

Жыл бұрын

@@JCDisciple Don't worry, it's KZread, everyone is a genius within their own mind (sarcasm).

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

@Grim LOL. sorta like... "hey I'm feeling like a woman today." (even though last I checked, I was still a man ;)

@vgrof2315

Жыл бұрын

@@JCDisciple Just watch and listen to WLC's recent YT interviews, you'll understand.

theres no free will. Bible says so. Roman's 8:9 to say or defend free will is being an adversery towards Gods word. stop trying to make God sovereign he creates good and evil. an no one can stop or question that

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

If there's no free will, who typed your comment?

@jtorres3048

Жыл бұрын

@@JCDisciple Phil 2:13 For it is God that works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I know your comment is just being silly but truth is you don't read the Bible. God never gave man a free will. everything is ordained by God. even your ignorance to scripture

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

@@jtorres3048 I've been reading it daily for over a decade. The bible doesn't speak of 'free will', it does however speak of man's disobedience to God's word all throughout. Doesn't disobedience necessitate being able to do the opposite of what God commands and expects us to do? What would you call this capacity to disobey, if not 'free will'?

@jtorres3048

Жыл бұрын

@@JCDisciple predestination is what that is. we are preordained to do God's will even brake his commandments. people are doing God's will without even trying both good and evil.

@JCDisciple

Жыл бұрын

@@jtorres3048 if I end up in a court of law, can I blame God for making me do the crime? You are taking divine sovereignty to an illogical extreme, my friend...at least in my view.

For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation: Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore): 1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and 2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’) So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance! So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’ Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!

@Aquines

8 ай бұрын

Absolutely rubbish the whole idea of equal ultimately Calvin at it worse

@osks

8 ай бұрын

@@Aquines Rather than appealing to the stone, would you care to offer a Biblical warrant for your diatribe?