Molinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Molinism, named after 16th Century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a religious doctrine which attempts to reconcile the omniscience of God with human free will. William Lane Craig is probably its best known advocate today, though other important Molinists include Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Flint.


Contents

[edit] God's Types of Knowledge

Taking after Luis de Molina, Molinists divide God's knowledge into three separate categories. The first is God's knowledge of necessary truths. These truths are independent of God's will and have no possibility to be false. Examples include statements like, "All bachelors are unmarried" or "X cannot be X and non-X at the same time, in the same way, at the same place" etc. etc. The third kind of knowledge is God's free knowledge. This type of knowledge consists of contingents truths that are dependent upon God's will; or truths that God brings about, that he does not have to bring about. Examples might include statements like "God created the earth" or something particular about this world which God has actualized. The second kind of knowledge is middle knowledge (or scientia media) and describes things that are contingently true, but are independent of God's will. These are truths that do not have to be true, but are true of without God being the primary cause of them. The color of socks I decided to wear today would be an example of middle knowledge (assuming that God knew that before today).

Molinists support their case with Jesus's statement in Matthew 11:23:

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

The Molinist claims that in this example God will know what is contingently true and independent of God's free will, namely that the Sodomites would have responded is such a way that they would have remained until today. This would be an example of a counterfactual statement.

Matthew 11:23 contains, what is commonly called, a counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. But counterfactuals are to be distinguished from foreknowledge. The Bible contains many examples of foreknowledge or prophecy such as Deut. 31:16-17 where God tells Moses that the Israelites will forsake God after they are delivered from Egypt.[1] But counterfactuals of creaturely freedom and foreknowledge are generally considered to be two separate things.[2].

Some opponents of Molinism claim that God's foreknowledge and knowledge of counterfactuals are examples of what God is going to actively bring about. That is, when Christ describes the response of the Sodomites in the aforementioned example, God was going to actively bring it about that they would remain until today.[3] Molinists have responded to this objection by noting that scripture contains examples of God's foreknowledge of evil acts. For example, the Israelites forsaking God, or Peter's denial of Christ, are both examples of what one would call overt acts of sin. Yet, according to opponents of Molinism, God is actively bringing about these overt acts of sin. This is obviously fallacious according to the Molinist. In order for this account of prophecy to be valid all prophecies must be wholly good, and never contain evil acts; but this is not the case.

[edit] Knowledge of Counterfactuals

Molinist believe that God does not only have knowledge of necessary truths and contingent truths but that God's middle knowledge contains, but is not limited to, his knowledge of counterfactuals. A counterfactual is merely an "if/then" statement. A example would be, "If Bob was in situation X he would freely choose A over B." The Molinist claims that even if Bob is never in situation "X" God could still know what Bob may or may not do. The Molinist believes that God, using his middle knowledge and foreknowledge, surveyed all possible worlds and then actualized a particular one. God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals would play an integral part in this "choosing" of a particular world.

Molinist say the logical ordering of events for creation would be as follows:

1. God's knowledge of necessary truths.

2. God's middle knowledge, (including counterfactuals).

---Creation of the World---

3. God's free knowledge (the actual ontology of the world).

Hence, God's middle knowledge plays an important role in the actualization of the world. In fact, it seems as if God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals plays a more immediate role in creation than God's foreknowledge. The placing of God's middle knowledge between God's knowledge of necessary truths and God's creative decree is crucial. For if God's middle knowledge was after His decree of creation, then God would be actively causing what various creatures would do in various circumstances and thereby destroying libertarian freedom. But by placing middle knowledge (and thereby counterfactuals) before the creation decree God allows for freedom in the libertarian sense. The placing of middle knowledge logically after necessary truths, but before the creation decree also gives God the possibility to survey possible worlds and decide which world to actualize.[4]


[edit] Theological Implications

Perhaps the greatest advantage to the Molinism system are the theological implication it has for a variety of doctrines. For God still retains a measure of divine providence while not hindering man's freedom (in the libertarian sense). Because God has middle knowledge, He knows what an agent will freely do in a particular situation. So, agent A, when placed in circumstance C, will freely choose option X over option Y. Thus, if God wanted to accomplish X, all God would do is, using his middle knowledge, actualize the world in which A was placed in C, and A would freely choose X. God retains an element of providence without nullifying A's choice and God's purpose (the actualization of X) is fulfilled.

Molinists also believe it can aid one's understanding of salvation. Ever since Augustine and Pelagius there has been debate over the issue of salvation; more specifically how can God elect believers and believers still come to God freely? Those who lean more towards God election and sovereignty are usually Calvinists while those who lean more towards man's free choice follow Arminianism.[5] However, the Molinist can embrace both God's sovereignty and man's free choice.[6]

Take the salvation of Agent A. God knows that if He were to place A in circumstances C, then A will freely choose to believe in Christ. So God actualizes the world were C obtains, and then A freely believes. God still retains a measure of His divine providence because He actualizes the world in which A freely chooses. But, A still retains his libertarian freedom. It is important to note that Molinism does not affirm two contradictory propositions when it affirms both God's providence and man's freedom. God's providence extends to the actualization of the world in which an agent may believe upon Christ. Molinism splits from Calvinism by affirming that God is not the primary cause of salvation, but also splits from Arminianism because it has a higher view of the role of God's sovereignty in salvation.[7]

Another benefit that Molinism offers concerns the issue of the process of Biblical cannonization. For, suppose that God could survey the various possible worlds and see in which one the correct cannon was choosen. Then God would merely weakly actualize that particular world in which the correct cannon is preserved. In this way God can provide the modern church with the correct set of books.

Thomas Flint has also developed several theological implictions of Molinism, including Papal Infallibility, prophecy, and prayer.[8]

[edit] Criticism

The grounding objection is at present the most debated objection to Molinism. The argue claims that there are no metaphysical grounds for the truthfulness of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. There are no "truth makers" that ground counterfactuals. Opponents to middle knowledge claim that the historical antecedent of any possible world does not determine the truthfulness of a counterfactual for the creator is free in the libertarian sense. Furthermore, if the possible world does not exist yet the creature cannot make the counterfactual true.

Molinists have responded to the aforementioned argument two ways. First, they claim that there are strong theological and philosophical reasons for affirming Molinism and if current epistemological methods do not aline, then they must be reformed. Molinist are much more sure of the doctrine of middle knowledge than they are of this particular theory of truth-making. The second response is that what makes counterfactuals of creaturely freedom true is what makes anything else true--correspondence. William Lane Craig says "[I]n order for a counterfactual of freedom to be true, it is no required that the events to which they refer actually exist; all that is required is that they would exist under the specified conditions."[9]

A counter-counter argument is the distinction between "knowledge" and "true belief"; believing something that is true is not enough to make something knowledge, where knowledge is defined as something that is true, is believed to be true, and is believed to be true because of a compelling reason, such as direct experience or deductive logic.

Another argument against Molinism is that if the creator initiates a world in which he knows all the future actions of all the future denizens, He is still making their decisions for them by realizing that world. Under Molinism, critics argue, God doesn't directly make people's decisions for them, He makes their decisions for them at the moment of creation, where all future actions of all agents are determined.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ The Bible also contains several examples of counterfactuals, such as I Samuel 23:1-14 and Wisdom of Solomon 4:11.
  2. ^ Foreknowledge is what will happen. Whereas counterfactuals are what would happen if it's antecedent were true. Also, foreknowledge is usually used as an umbrella term that can be used to embrace God's natural, free, and middle knowledge.
  3. ^ This is the stance that Gregory Boyd takes, among other places, in his book "God of the possible."
  4. ^ James Beilby and Paul Eddy, Divine Foreknowledge, Four views. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001. pg 120-123.
  5. ^ For more information see the History of Calvinist-Arminian debate.
  6. ^ Of course, Molinism is, at heart, a philosophical theory with theological implacations. Calvinism and Arminianism are both theological theories with philosophical implacations. A Molinist can still be influenced by either set of doctrines. For example, a Calvinist can accept the concept of middle knowledge but still believe that God actively causes all things. What has been presented here is a typical application of middle knowledge, though it is by no means the only or necessary theological implication of middle knowledge.
  7. ^ If God actualizes a world where agent A will freely choose God, then A is guaranteed to believe on Christ. Hence, verses like Romans 8:30, "And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He justified he also glorified" can be understood to mean that those whom God predestined and chooses still freely choose salvation, but that God's will is still meet and the certainity of those predestined cannot be questioned.
  8. ^ See Flint's book Divine Providence: The Molinist Account, pages 179-250.
  9. ^ William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. New York, E.J. Brill; 1991, 260.

[edit] References/Further Reading

  • Thoams Flint, Divine Providence, The Molinist Account. London, Corneel University Press; 1998.
  • William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. New York, E.J. Brill; 1991.
  • ______, The Only Wise God. Eugene, Wipf and Stock; 1999.
  • Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans; 1974.
  • ______, "On Ockham's Way Out" Faith and Philosophy vol. 3, nu. 3; 1986.
  • William Hasker, God, Time, and Knowledge. London, Cornell University Press; 1989.
  • ______, "The Antinomies of Divine Providence" Philosophia Christi vol. 4, nu. 2; 2002.
  • James Beilby and Paul Eddy. Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views Illinois, InterVarsity; 2001.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/l/Molinism.html"
In other languages