I'm a devoted listener to Greg Koukl's radio show and podcast "Stand to Reason". Stand to Reason is a very valuable ministry for those who like to think reasonably about the Christian worldview and realize that believing in God and Christ is not a "leap of faith".
This week's podcast was a bit odd to me because Koukl spent a large portion of the show talking about why he is a Calvinist, specifically regarding the topic of God's providence and human free will. There were two things that bothered me here. First, Koukl didn't explain why he doesn't agree other views of God's providence. He briefly mentioned Arminianism, but didn't, as far as I remember, even mention Molinism (or Middle Knowledge). Second, Koukl's view assumes certain foundational truths, but he didn't argue for these foundational truths. What I mean is, he takes a Calvinist stance based on some assumptions which may or may not actually be true.
My point is not to argue against Calvinism here, so I won't go into detail on the issue, but for a brief example, Koukl explains that humans have compatiblist free will, but doesn't really argue for why he thinks this. He assumes it using a common sense approach. He asked if it would be possible for humans to live sinlessly and assumed the answer to be "No." But what if someone thinks the answer is "Yes"? Regardless of what the answer is, I don't like that he simply appealed to common sense on this issue.
Since Koukl left out mention of Molinism, I am assuming that there are many teachers out there who are doing the same. For this reason, I am writing today. I want to make sure that you have had the opportunity to research this view. Perhaps you haven't even heard of it. A more common term for this view is "Middle Knowledge". The modern father (if you will) of this view is Dr. William Lane Craig. With his wonderfully logical thinking, Craig has been very effective at explaining and teaching about this view of God's providence and human free will.
I will not try to explain the view here because it has been thoroughly explained elsewhere. My goal is to bring the view to your attention and to encourage you to read some resources on the topic. My goal here on Reverentium is always to encourage you to think. This is an issue worth thinking about. A few years ago, I had never had solid convictions on the topic. Then, a friend introduced me to Craig's arguments for the Middle Knowledge view. This view, I think, makes the most sense of Bible passages on the topic. It solves the issues present in Calvinism and Arminianism, and it takes a totally different perspective on some foundational ideas assumed by Calvinists.
You might find the Middle Knowledge view to be refreshing.
Some good resources are:
The Only Wise God, by William Lane Craig
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig
LeadershipU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Molinism has the advantage of being provably true, granted the existence of an omniscient being (not necessarily God) and libertarian free will.
If I understand correctly, Molinism is the doctrine that in each logically possible set of circumstances, a person will freely choose in one particular way.
And that an omniscient being will know which choice is made, given only a description of the circumstances in which a person can find himself.
And that this knowledge is known as 'middle knowledge', as it is knowledge about things which may not ever be actualised.
Given those 3 assumptions, is Molinism provably true? As an example, take two different sets of circumstances that I can conceive of.
1) I am sitting down to breakfast in an hotel at 8:30 am on Wed 16/07/2008, and a waiter is asking me ‘Tea or Coffee’, and God has infallible knowledge that I will choose tea.
2) I am sitting down to breakfast in an hotel at 8:30 am on Wed 16/07/2008, and a waiter is asking me ‘Tea or Coffee’, and God has infallible knowledge that I will choose coffee.
Clearly, I can conceive of both sets of circumstances, and they are both logically possible, and they are different to each other.
We can apply Molinism to each set of circumstances in turn, and see if the Molinist claim is true that a person will freely choose one particular way in each set of logically possible circumstances that could occur in a real world.
Molinism works perfectly here. In the first, I will freely choose one particular way, just like Molinism says I would. I will choose tea.
In the second set of circumstances, Molinism is right again. I will choose one particular way. I will choose coffee.
Of course, my choices are different in the two sets of circumstances, but I’m sure Molinists will agree that free agents will choose differently in different circumstances, and it cannot be denied that the 2 circumstances are different.
So the first assumption is true.
In every logically possible set of circumstances, a free being will choose one particular way.
The second assumption is clearly also true.
In fact, you hardly need to be omniscient to know which way I will choose, given the description of the circumstances in which I c an find myself.
And this is 'middle knowledge', as it never came to pass that I actually was in an hotel on 16/07/2008
So Molinism is demonstrably true.
While I wasn't fully able to understand what you were saying or where you were going with your commentary, I think you were trying to show that indeed Molinism is a good view of God's providence. Is this correct? A bit more clarification would be nice for people like me who need details and examples. =)
I was showing that if you describe the circumstances in which people make libertarian free will choices, you will see that an omniscient being will know which way people will freely choose in each different set of circumstances.
I think you're saying that the reason that is possible is because of God's middle knowledge. Is that correct? I think I'm catching up to your train of thought now.
Do people freely choose one way in each set of circumstances which could occur?
These set of circumstances always include an omniscient being who knows which way a person will freely choose.
So describe the circumstances and you know which way a person will freely choose.
When you say "you" I'm assuming you mean "the omniscient being". I'm still not sure exactly what you're arguing and why. Thanks for posting though!
Post a Comment