Thanks to Bill Craig, who's done so much to popularize Molinism (while Plantinga did much of the intellectual heavy-lifting), this has become a chic alternative to Calvinism and Arminianism.
Molinism goes three layers deep:
1. It posits that God has counterfactual knowledge of what libertarian free agents would do in every hypothetical situation. Molinists act as if it's self-evident that such knowledge is possible.
There are, however, very sophisticated freewill theists who deny it. If the outcome could go either way, then even God can't know the outcome in advance. There's nothing to be known before it happens.
If libertarian freedom is true, then our choices are independent of the circumstances. The past can be the same right up to the moment of choice, yet the agent is able to choose either way. So you can't predict the agent's choice from his situation.
2. However, Molinism takes it down another layer. This isn't about God's counterfactual knowledge of what real agents would do, but nonexistent agents. Molinism posits that God has counterfactual knowledge of what agents who don't even exist would do in every hypothetical situation. They haven't been actualized as of yet. So that's one step removed from (1), which many sophisticated freewill theists already reject.
3. Finally, there's a third layer. Molinism posits that God has counterfactual knowledge of what agents who will never exist would do in every hypothetical situation. The class of possible persons is subdivided into a subset whom God will instantiate and another subset who will remain unexemplified possibilities. So that's two steps removed from (1), which many sophisticated freewill theists already reject.
So it's odd to see how Molinists take key assumptions for granted that are not conceded even by many distinguished freewill theists.
That's a lot of mental work (gymnastics) to avoid the Doctrines of Grace. Plus as far as I can tell none of what you've described has any Scriptural basis. Maybe the woes on Bethsaida and Chorazin? Sorry I've only looked at Bruce Ware's middle knowledge closely and he seems to mainly apply it to theodicy.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've described seems to be a stand-alone external philosophical system that's laid as a grid over Scripture as an interpretive device rather than building one's interpretive device(s) from the foundation of Scripture.
Even the worst Arminians at least appeal to Scripture as the basis for their beliefs, mangled though they may be.
James White playing William Lane Craig on the DL many times in the past. This one was very revealing, since WLC said that God was limited by "the cards He was dealt"
ReplyDeleteanalyzing William Lane Craig’s Molinism and middle knowledge and libertarian free will. Molinism came from a Jesuit priest named Molina who was charged with the task of coming up with an answer to the Reformation’s view of the bondage of the human will without grace and the Sovereignty of God. Rich Pierce made the insightful comment that the way William Lane Craig explains God sounds like He is just an algorithm, a mathematical formula. Deep stuff.
William Lane Craig has said things like “God could not do anything; He had to work with the cards He was dealt”. Who is the cosmic “card dealer” who is above God?
That statement alone by WLC reveals how shallow and unBiblical Molinism is.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/05/09/james-white-on-the-dividing-line-may-8-2014-1-behold-the-secular-woman-and-2-william-lane-craigs-molinism/