Critiquing "Counterfactual" of Molinism

[Binyawmene]

What if God wanted to redesign kangaroos? Could there really been another possible future for kangaroos? Interesting questions to think about. Right? However, this critique is exclusively about Jesus Christ against the doctrine of Molinism to demonstrate some absurdities. After all, Molinism is a philosophical and logical argument. And it's a doctrine that wants to combine God's omniscience with libertarian free will. So, Luis de Molina (the founder of Molinism) must add a new term to the doctrine of foreknowledge called counterfactual. This doctrine teaches that God being omniscient, he "knows all things," and "all" includes counterfactuals (all possible futures) which is the essence of middle knowledge. But what does the doctrine actually mean by counterfactual?

Oxford Dictionary defines counterfactual as:

a counterfactual conditional statement (e.g. If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over):
"These are all counterfactuals and now we are entering into 'what-if' history"​

According to the heretical doctrine of Molinism:
To summaries counterfactuals is an idea that in God's foreknowledge he foresaw all possible futures 'that doesn't exist in reality but might exist in hypothetical.' But here is the catch. This is based upon the choices of libertarian free will of humans. This includes whatever humans will choose to do in any set of possible future circumstances they find themselves in regardless if it's logical absurdities and to utterly random chance events. And God possessing this knowledge of counterfactual 'logically prior to' making any decisions about the world he will decree. So counterfactual is an independent subsequence to God's decree and is placed logical prior to and simultaneous with God's decree.

--actual future apart from a possible future--

Actual Future
Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End

Possible Futures
Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End​

The Bible is very clear on this matter. God's mercy does not depend on libertarian free will of humans. The same goes for any of his attributes too, such as his omniscience. "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." (Romans 9:16). If it's true for God's mercy, then it's also true for God's omniscience. Even counterfactual do not apply to Jesus Christ in the actual reality. Since his crucifixion is for us and for our salvation (1 Corinthians 2:8). To deny this is to deny your own salvation. And also, to philosophize over hypothetical conditionals and unknown possible futures of what God could have possibly done differently is destructive. Because we are not God, and we cannot predict a philosophical outcome correctly in light of salvation. We don't know what could have occurred in the "what-if" scenarios. It's only pure speculation at best. In the actual reality, God didn't do those things differently, and the future is already known (Matthew 10:26). There is no plan B or even plan C for our salvation.

Omniscience of Jesus Christ:
In the traditional view of omniscience. There is no adding to or subtracting from God's omniscience. Especially when speaking in reference to the future. You have Open Theism subtracting from God's omniscience to an uncertain future. And you have Molinism adding to God's omniscience to a possible future. The future is already known, "God exhaustively knows all things" without the adding to and subtracting from his omniscience. God fully knows himself and all things knowable. Timelessly his knowledge is perfect, complete, and without limitations, encompassing all events past, present, and future. Omniscience is an essential aspect of his nature, reflecting his infinite wisdom and understanding in all things.

a) Before the creation of the universe the Father has foreknown Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9-11, Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:1-20, Revelations 13:8). There is nothing in the Bible suggesting another possible future for Jesus Christ apart from the actual Jesus Christ we read in the Gospels. And the universe is created "from him," "through him," and "for him" (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 2:10, Romans 11:36). Again, there is nothing in the Bible suggesting another possible universe apart from the actual universe we all exist in today. So, during the incarnation Jesus Christ is both God and man. As God, he is omniscient according to the Divine Nature and knows all things (John 16:30, 21:17). He knows every heart and mind (John 2:24-25, Matthew 9:4, Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22, John 6:64, Revelations 2:18, 23). He knows the Father (Matthew 11:27, John 7:29, 8:55, 10:15, 17:25). He knows what is hidden (Matthew 10:26-27, 17:27, John 21:4-6), And from his omniscient, he spoke the future about Judas and Peter (John 13:18-19, Luke 22:33-34). Obviously he is greater than King Solomon's wisdom (Luke 11:30-32, 1 Kings 4:29-34).

b) While Molinists, on the other hand, suggest that Jesus Christ omnisciently knows all possible futures too from the counterfactuals he spoken about (Matthew 11:21-23). If the towns' people "have repented long ago," then the towns "would have remained to this day." Except, Jesus Christ, as God, according to the Divine Nature is immutible and he doesn't "change his mind" (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29) and no other possible future for those towns since judgement has already came to pass. Even about his arrest (John 18:36), If my kingdom was of this world, then "my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders." This is not talking about another possible future world and place apart from the actual world. Rather, he is talking about his kingdom is not of this time era but will come in the future (Revelations 11:15). And also in (Matthew 26:52-54) If Jesus called on "more than twelve legions of angels" then the Scriptures would not be fulfilled. All the more reason why Jesus Christ doesn't have libertarian free will according to the human nature. It's been foreknown and predetermined to happen that way it did.

c) Jesus Christ also has two wills, if his human will were libertarian, then it would be in opposition to his omniscience. And a tug-a-war match so to speak. Except his human will is compatibilistic in John 6:38 "not to do my will" and Matthew 26:39 "not as I will" is referring to the human will of Christ. And the divine will of the Father is technically the divine will of the Son. There is only one Divine Will of God. So, to make a conscious decision against the Father's divine will be in essence going against his own divine will. The Gospels are very clear that he cannot do anything on his own initiative (John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and he did not work outside of the Father's will (John 4:34, 5:36, 14:31, 17:4). If the Father and the Son has autonomies between them, then the Son would have 'individualized personal freedom,' which was either spoken or acted independently from the Father. The Son would be able to make his own choices and go his own direction. Or, thinking for himself and acting on his own accord. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches the Son has spoken or acted, or to gain personal glory independently from the Father's will and authority.​

Therefore, there is not another possible future for Jesus Christ apart from the actual Jesus Christ we read in the Gospels. Just because he has spoken in hypothetical conditionals on certain occasions. This doesn't mean there are possible outcomes of his crucifixion as if P could occur instead of Q. The Bible clearly tells us that Herod and Pontius Pilate thought it was their idea to conspire against Jesus Christ. But technically that was God underneath the scenes demonstrating his power and will (Acts 4:27-28, 2:23). God determines all future events by his will. The future is known because he decrees it to be so. He is in complete control over all events that occur and will occur in the future. And all human actions are determined in advance for his good pleasure and purpose.

*Note: I leave open to anyone who wants to critique what I've critique. I also used advanced logic to critique all of Molinism proof-texting verses. But I don't think many people would understand it, so I will keep that to myself unless its permitted and acceptable by the Mods. Until then, enjoy, I will love to hear the feed back.

 

[makesends]

What if God wanted to redesign kangaroos? Could there really been another possible future for kangaroos? Interesting questions to think about. Right? However, this critique is exclusively about Jesus Christ against the doctrine of Molinism to demonstrate some absurdities. After all, Molinism is a philosophical and logical argument. And it's a doctrine that wants to combine God's omniscience with libertarian free will. So, Luis de Molina (the founder of Molinism) must add a new term to the doctrine of foreknowledge called counterfactual. This doctrine teaches that God being omniscient, he "knows all things," and "all" includes counterfactuals (all possible futures) which is the essence of middle knowledge. But what does the doctrine actually mean by counterfactual?

Oxford Dictionary defines counterfactual as:

a counterfactual conditional statement (e.g. If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over):​

"These are all counterfactuals and now we are entering into 'what-if' history"​

According to the heretical doctrine of Molinism:
To summaries counterfactuals is an idea that in God's foreknowledge he foresaw all possible futures 'that doesn't exist in reality but might exist in hypothetical.' But here is the catch. This is based upon the choices of libertarian free will of humans. This includes whatever humans will choose to do in any set of possible future circumstances they find themselves in regardless if it's logical absurdities and to utterly random chance events. And God possessing this knowledge of counterfactual 'logically prior to' making any decisions about the world he will decree. So counterfactual is an independent subsequence to God's decree and is placed logical prior to and simultaneous with God's decree.

--actual future apart from a possible future--

Actual Future
Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End

Possible Futures
Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End​

The Bible is very clear on this matter. God's mercy does not depend on libertarian free will of humans. The same goes for any of his attributes too, such as his omniscience. "It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy." (Romans 9:16). If it's true for God's mercy, then it's also true for God's omniscience. Even counterfactual do not apply to Jesus Christ in the actual reality. Since his crucifixion is for us and for our salvation (1 Corinthians 2:8). To deny this is to deny your own salvation. And also, to philosophize over hypothetical conditionals and unknown possible futures of what God could have possibly done differently is destructive. Because we are not God, and we cannot predict a philosophical outcome correctly in light of salvation. We don't know what could have occurred in the "what-if" scenarios. It's only pure speculation at best. In the actual reality, God didn't do those things differently, and the future is already known (Matthew 10:26). There is no plan B or even plan C for our salvation.

Omniscience of Jesus Christ:
In the traditional view of omniscience. There is no adding to or subtracting from God's omniscience. Especially when speaking in reference to the future. You have Open Theism subtracting from God's omniscience to an uncertain future. And you have Molinism adding to God's omniscience to a possible future. The future is already known, "God exhaustively knows all things" without the adding to and subtracting from his omniscience. God fully knows himself and all things knowable. Timelessly his knowledge is perfect, complete, and without limitations, encompassing all events past, present, and future. Omniscience is an essential aspect of his nature, reflecting his infinite wisdom and understanding in all things.

a) Before the creation of the universe the Father has foreknown Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9-11, Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:1-20, Revelations 13:8). There is nothing in the Bible suggesting another possible future for Jesus Christ apart from the actual Jesus Christ we read in the Gospels. And the universe is created "from him," "through him," and "for him" (1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 2:10, Romans 11:36). Again, there is nothing in the Bible suggesting another possible universe apart from the actual universe we all exist in today. So, during the incarnation Jesus Christ is both God and man. As God, he is omniscient according to the Divine Nature and knows all things (John 16:30, 21:17). He knows every heart and mind (John 2:24-25, Matthew 9:4, Mark 2:8, Luke 5:22, John 6:64, Revelations 2:18, 23). He knows the Father (Matthew 11:27, John 7:29, 8:55, 10:15, 17:25). He knows what is hidden (Matthew 10:26-27, 17:27, John 21:4-6), And from his omniscient, he spoke the future about Judas and Peter (John 13:18-19, Luke 22:33-34). Obviously he is greater than King Solomon's wisdom (Luke 11:30-32, 1 Kings 4:29-34).​

​

b) While Molinists, on the other hand, suggest that Jesus Christ omnisciently knows all possible futures too from the counterfactuals he spoken about (Matthew 11:21-23). If the towns' people "have repented long ago," then the towns "would have remained to this day." Except, Jesus Christ, as God, according to the Divine Nature is immutible and he doesn't "change his mind" (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29) and no other possible future for those towns since judgement has already came to pass. Even about his arrest (John 18:36), If my kingdom was of this world, then "my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders." This is not talking about another possible future world and place apart from the actual world. Rather, he is talking about his kingdom is not of this time era but will come in the future (Revelations 11:15). And also in (Matthew 26:52-54) If Jesus called on "more than twelve legions of angels" then the Scriptures would not be fulfilled. All the more reason why Jesus Christ doesn't have libertarian free will according to the human nature. It's been foreknown and predetermined to happen that way it did.​

​

c) Jesus Christ also has two wills, if his human will were libertarian, then it would be in opposition to his omniscience. And a tug-a-war match so to speak. Except his human will is compatibilistic in John 6:38 "not to do my will" and Matthew 26:39 "not as I will" is referring to the human will of Christ. And the divine will of the Father is technically the divine will of the Son. There is only one Divine Will of God. So, to make a conscious decision against the Father's divine will be in essence going against his own divine will. The Gospels are very clear that he cannot do anything on his own initiative (John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and he did not work outside of the Father's will (John 4:34, 5:36, 14:31, 17:4). If the Father and the Son has autonomies between them, then the Son would have 'individualized personal freedom,' which was either spoken or acted independently from the Father. The Son would be able to make his own choices and go his own direction. Or, thinking for himself and acting on his own accord. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches the Son has spoken or acted, or to gain personal glory independently from the Father's will and authority.​

Therefore, there is not another possible future for Jesus Christ apart from the actual Jesus Christ we read in the Gospels. Just because he has spoken in hypothetical conditionals on certain occasions. This doesn't mean there are possible outcomes of his crucifixion as if P could occur instead of Q. The Bible clearly tells us that Herod and Pontius Pilate thought it was their idea to conspire against Jesus Christ. But technically that was God underneath the scenes demonstrating his power and will (Acts 4:27-28, 2:23). God determines all future events by his will. The future is known because he decrees it to be so. He is in complete control over all events that occur and will occur in the future. And all human actions are determined in advance for his good pleasure and purpose.

*Note: I leave open to anyone who wants to critique what I've critique. I also used advanced logic to critique all of Molinism proof-texting verses. But I don't think many people would understand it, so I will keep that to myself unless its permitted and acceptable by the Mods. Until then, enjoy, I will love to hear the feed back.

While I agree that their notions are, in the end, 'God-reducing' as to the meaning of omniscience and omnipotence, at least I will give Open-Theists credit, that their definitions and philosophy is consistent. It is also logical, but for that definition of omnipotence imposed on first cause, and but for the same self-contradiction that plagues the libertarian-free-will'er --claiming there can be billions of little first causes trotting about the planet.

 

[CrowCross]

Do those who hold to Molinism conclude Revelation may not occur as written?

 

[Binyawmene]

While I agree that their notions are, in the end, 'God-reducing' as to the meaning of omniscience and omnipotence, at least I will give Open-Theists credit, that their definitions and philosophy is consistent. It is also logical, but for that definition of omnipotence imposed on first cause, and but for the same self-contradiction that plagues the libertarian-free-will'er --claiming there can be billions of little first causes trotting about the planet.

Thanks. But let me try to bring out a deeper thought. That counterfactual occurs prior to God’s decree to create the world. Even in my OP, I've stated in summary: "And God possessing this knowledge of counterfactual 'logically prior to' making any decisions about the world he will decree. So counterfactual is an independent subsequence to God's decree and is placed logical prior to and simultaneous with God's decree." Remember this concept is all centered upon libertarian free will. Before there was God's control or prior to any purposeful plan. God foreknown humans had free choices of either A or B outside of his control and each decision was not caused by anything but contingent upon themselves. Now try to place 'Jesus Christ' into the Molinism framework. God knows all the possible futures that could have occur as an independent subsequence (John 18:36, Matthew 26:52-54). And then placed logically prior to and simultaneous with God's decree (Acts 4:27-28, 2:23). How did God change the circumstances for us and our salvation? It would 'seem' like in God's foreknowledge he had to “undo” and “redo” Jesus Christ's choices of either A or B who supposedly has libertarian free will. The thing is, that it's only an assumption that counterfactual conditionals are actual and real possible futures. Especially when counterfactual only exists in philosophical hypotheticals not in the actual. If counterfactual is true, then where it's logically placed is a theological error from the start.

 

[Binyawmene]

Do those who hold to Molinism conclude Revelation may not occur as written?

It's a good question to ask. But the OP topic example is about Jesus Christ in relation to counterfactuals. And how to applies to us and our salvation. If you want to give a logical critique of the OP, then I would gladly give a logical reply.

 

[makesends]

Thanks. But let me try to bring out a deeper thought. That counterfactual occurs prior to God’s decree to create the world. Even in my OP, I've stated in summary: "And God possessing this knowledge of counterfactual 'logically prior to' making any decisions about the world he will decree. So counterfactual is an independent subsequence to God's decree and is placed logical prior to and simultaneous with God's decree." Remember this concept is all centered upon libertarian free will. Before there was God's control or prior to any purposeful plan. God foreknown humans had free choices of either A or B outside of his control and each decision was not caused by anything but contingent upon themselves. Now try to place 'Jesus Christ' into the Molinism framework. God knows all the possible futures that could have occur as an independent subsequence (John 18:36, Matthew 26:52-54). And then placed logically prior to and simultaneous with God's decree (Acts 4:27-28, 2:23). How did God change the circumstances for us and our salvation? It would 'seem' like in God's foreknowledge he had to “undo” and “redo” Jesus Christ's choices of either A or B who supposedly has libertarian free will. The thing is, that it's only an assumption that counterfactual conditionals are actual and real possible futures. Especially when counterfactual only exists in philosophical hypotheticals not in the actual. If counterfactual is true, then where it's logically placed is a theological error from the start.

Exactly right!

The definition of "counterfactual" by no means proves that there even IS such a thing as "Even though it did not happen, it could have.", but only that the notion is helpful to those who believe in [the self-contradictory] causation by chance, to further investigate bogus means of causation. (It reminds me of those who use the dictionary definition of freewill as proof that there is such a thing.)

So with the language of "all possible futures". The concept necessarily implies (at best) ambiguity in God's design that allows for all sorts of things to happen, unknown by God. It is not only logically bogus, but insulting to God. These hold to a very powerful God but a mere agent with the rest of us within a larger reality than himself, outside his causation. The whole mindset is frankly horrifying, that God is not particular as to what happens.

This deals directly with the very meaning, "God". Such people will say that God considers between this and that option in making his choices. But the fact is that God need not even choose. Even the word, 'Elect', is a concession to our thinking, an anthropomorphism, so we can understand that it was God's doing and not ours, that resulted in the effects he had in mind from the beginning. He is not like us, and the stark difference between him being the "self-existent" "uncaused first causer", vs, mere creatures, is by their illogical philosophy buried beneath their notion of "God is Love" --to wit, "God is Loving". It's bad enough that they depend on their notion of "Love", but they don't even see that they are conflating their meaning with the logical implications of their meaning. To them, it is all one big feel-good fuzzy jumble.

They also, similarly, say that God has libertarian free will, (in fact, some Calvinists and Reformed say it), which implies validity to a notion of God being not the originator of very fact, but, rather, one who must consider from within options to which he is privy.

God need not 'decide' as we do. He has no options from which to choose. That is our kind of thinking, to say that he does. Even my word, "invent", as in, "God invented reality itself", is only for lack of a better way to say it, that can be understood by those who insist on self-determinism. Truth is, God does what he does. (But even saying that induces meanings by human reasoning from the human's own experience, to imply such things as, "Oh! So you are saying that God is forced and governed by his own nature, and has no personhood/agency? You may as well say he is mere mechanical cause!")

Sorry. I see I have wandered away, again.

 

[Binyawmene]

They also, similarly, say that God has libertarian free will, (in fact, some Calvinists and Reformed say it), which implies validity to a notion of God being not the originator of very fact, but, rather, one who must consider from within options to which he is privy.

This is a good 'thought' and should have mention it in the OP. I will say that God has a divine will, but I wouldn’t assert “free” to his will. Because God doesn’t need freedom from anything. It's absurd to think "free" in context to God's divine will. God's will is of his nature and not of the persons. The persons only function in the same divine will. God’s divine will performs what is only possible in context of his essential nature. And within the scope of a quantifier God is free to perform all though things that are possible from his omnipotent will only within the scope or within the means that "He cannot go against his own nature" i.e. or all things that are possible in accordance with his nature. God simply cannot will himself out of existence and not ever will himself back into existence. Besides, God is self-sufficient, independent, and his own authority. God does what he pleases and has no dependency. God’s divine will operate independently and not controlled by others or by outside forces.

And Jesus Christ is both God and man. The Bible only talks about the two comings of Christ. His first coming has already occurred and his second coming have not occurred yet. If Jesus has libertarian free will, then he could decide how certain events could take place, for instance:

Matthew 26:52-54 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”​

If this apocalyptic scenario occurred "more than twelve legions of angels" just to prevent Jesus' arrest. Hypothetically speaking here is some possible futures:

Plan a). Then Scriptures would not be fulfilled.
Plan b). Then Jesus would not have died on the cross.
Plan c). Then the Roman empire is destroyed.
Plan d). Then Armageddon will occur in his first coming instead of his second coming.

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”​

If this apocalyptic scenario occurred "my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders" just to prevent Jesus arrest. Hypothetically speaking here is some possible futures:

Plan a). Then Scriptures would not be fulfilled.
Plan b). Then Jesus would not have died on the cross.
Plan c). Then the Roman empire is destroyed.
Plan d). Then Christ's kingdom will occur in his first coming instead of his second coming.

This tells me that Jesus is omniscient and knows the future about himself. But keep in mind that the OP isn't a topic about end time Bible prophecies. It's about counterfactual conditionals of possible futures that God supposedly knew about from his omniscience. And these so-called possible futures has 'HAPPEN PRIOR TO' God's decree. After all, a Moninist believes Jesus has libertarian free will. So, this reflects back to the Garden of Gethsemane and the two wills of Christ. For instance, John 18:10-12, Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” God only has one will and omniscient, and each persons has that same divine will and omniscience. The Father's will and omniscience is technically the Son's will and omniscience. The same will and omniscience. And "not my will" is in reference to the human will. The so-called possible futures would be based on Jesus' human will but that is not the case about the Hypostatic Union.

A Molinist would have to rewrite the doctrine of Dyothelitism:

We also proclaim two natural willings or wills in him and two natural operations, without separation, without change, without partition, without confusion, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers — and two natural wills not contrary to each other, God forbid, as the impious heretics have said they would be, but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will. (Third Council of Constantinople).​

That's not a description of libertarian free will. As I have previously stated in the OP:

c) Jesus Christ also has two wills, if his human will be libertarian, then it would be in opposition to his omniscience. And a tug-a-war match so to speak. Except his human will is compatibilistic in John 6:38 "not to do my will" and Matthew 26:39 "not as I will" is referring to the human will of Christ. And the divine will of the Father is technically the divine will of the Son. There is only one Divine Will of God. So, to make a conscious decision against the Father's divine will be in essence going against his own divine will. The Gospels are very clear that he cannot do anything on his own initiative (John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and he did not work outside of the Father's will (John 4:34, 5:36, 14:31, 17:4). If the Father and the Son has autonomies between them, then the Son would have 'individualized personal freedom,' which was either spoken or acted independently from the Father. The Son would be able to make his own choices and go his own direction. Or, thinking for himself and acting on his own accord. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches the Son has spoken or acted, or to gain personal glory independently from the Father's will and authority.

 

[Arial]

After all, Molinism is a philosophical and logical argument. And it's a doctrine that wants to combine God's omniscience with libertarian free will. So, Luis de Molina (the founder of Molinism) must add a new term to the doctrine of foreknowledge called counterfactual. This doctrine teaches that God being omniscient, he "knows all things," and "all" includes counterfactuals (all possible futures) which is the essence of middle knowledge. But what does the doctrine actually mean by counterfactual?

Oxford Dictionary defines counterfactual as:
a counterfactual conditional statement (e.g. If kangaroos had no tails, they would topple over):
"These are all counterfactuals and now we are entering into 'what-if' history"
According to the heretical doctrine of Molinism:
To summaries counterfactuals is an idea that in God's foreknowledge he foresaw all possible futures 'that doesn't exist in reality but might exist in hypothetical.' But here is the catch. This is based upon the choices of libertarian free will of humans. This includes whatever humans will choose to do in any set of possible future circumstances they find themselves in regardless if it's logical absurdities and to utterly random chance events. And God possessing this knowledge of counterfactual 'logically prior to' making any decisions about the world he will decree. So counterfactual is an independent subsequence to God's decree and is placed logical prior to and simultaneous with God's decree.

[]--actual future apart from a possible future--

Actual Future
Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End

Possible Futures
Beginning <--------------------------------------------------------> End[/]

Very good OP.

In both Molinism and Libertarian free will---and as pointed out by your OP----it is a case of having a doctrine of God consistent with what we find in the Bible. That is, an assent to all his attributes and that he is his attributes. But then abandoning that doctrine in arriving at other doctrines or ideas. If the doctrine of God is true, then counterfactuals as a philosophical term brought into Scripture, contradicts the doctrine of God that is supposedly held. It also undermines the doctrine that the Bible is the inerrant word of God--- which, in most cases is probably also held by Molinism and Libertarian Free Will. My question would be, why do people go to so much trouble to do this, and many follow along? Though I am not asking for an answer since it is far outside the aim of your OP.

If Jesus states that no one can come to him unless the Father grants it, and that all who the Father gives him will come to him, and that he will lose none----there is no contingency, no counterfactual. They are very understandable statements and no shenanigans will make them say or mean anything else. There is no "Choose to believe and you will be saved and if you don't choose to believe, you will not be saved." That would be a contingency and Christ's person and work would not be an actual work but a work of contingencies. The rebellious will of man having more power in the most crucial moment of all time, the sacrifice and death of the Son, as to whether the death was successful or in vain. Plus it would have that death to be both successful and in vain in the same place and at the same time.

 

[Binyawmene]

Very good OP.

Thank you.

If the doctrine of God is true, then counterfactuals as a philosophical term brought into Scripture, contradicts the doctrine of God that is supposedly held. It also undermines the doctrine that the Bible is the inerrant word of God--- which, in most cases is probably also held by Molinism and Libertarian Free Will.

This is an interesting critique. Discernment is the key factor and why we critique false doctrines. The thing is people write and talk in conditional statement all the time. Even if we are not aware of it, but we do anyways. It's just the way language and grammar is essentially. And logic is composed out of sentence structures, for instance: "If I go to the store today, then you know I'm carrying my phone." It doesn't surprise me that people will find conditional statements in my words and also the Bible. Jesus Christ often spoke in parables and in certain cases he spoke in counterfactuals.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.​

a). In this so-called possible future, Judas never existed.
b). Then the Scriptures about Judas is not fulfilled.
c). Then the day for Jesus' arrest is delayed for another time.
d). So many more hypotheticals scenarios that even Socrates wouldn't be able to figure it out.

I don't believe Jesus is intentionally appealing to hypothetical scenario or making a logical and philosophical argument. If so, his argument would challenge both Aristotle and Socrates. Well, after all, Jesus is omniscient. And I don't think Jesus intended to suggest a possible future for himself and Judas. "If Judas was never born, then Jesus was never betrayed." Does this mean that God has to come up with plan B because plan A has failed? We can philosophize about this, but hypothetical won't turn to a possible future and magically become actual.

If Jesus states that no one can come to him unless the Father grants it, and that all who the Father gives him will come to him, and that he will lose none----there is no contingency, no counterfactual.

Amen. Matt Slick wrote an interesting topic.

Can God cause a person to believe in Him? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Explore Christian Apologetics, theology, and critical answers to today's questions about God, the Bible, and the Christian faith at Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.

carm.org

 

[makesends]

This is a good 'thought' and should have mention it in the OP. I will say that God has a divine will, but I wouldn’t assert “free” to his will. Because God doesn’t need freedom from anything. It's absurd to think "free" in context to God's divine will.

Exactly.

God's will is of his nature and not of the persons. The persons only function in the same divine will. God’s divine will performs what is only possible in context of his essential nature. And within the scope of a quantifier God is free to perform all though things that are possible from his omnipotent will only within the scope or within the means that "He cannot go against his own nature" i.e. or all things that are possible in accordance with his nature. God simply cannot will himself out of existence and not ever will himself back into existence. Besides, God is self-sufficient, independent, and his own authority. God does what he pleases and has no dependency. God’s divine will operate independently and not controlled by others or by outside forces.

And Jesus Christ is both God and man. The Bible only talks about the two comings of Christ. His first coming has already occurred and his second coming have not occurred yet. If Jesus has libertarian free will, then he could decide how certain events could take place, for instance:

Matthew 26:52-54 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”​

If this apocalyptic scenario occurred "more than twelve legions of angels" just to prevent Jesus' arrest. Hypothetically speaking here is some possible futures:

Plan a). Then Scriptures would not be fulfilled.
Plan b). Then Jesus would not have died on the cross.
Plan c). Then the Roman empire is destroyed.
Plan d). Then Armageddon will occur in his first coming instead of his second coming.

John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”​

If this apocalyptic scenario occurred "my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders" just to prevent Jesus arrest. Hypothetically speaking here is some possible futures:

Plan a). Then Scriptures would not be fulfilled.
Plan b). Then Jesus would not have died on the cross.
Plan c). Then the Roman empire is destroyed.
Plan d). Then Christ's kingdom will occur in his first coming instead of his second coming.

This tells me that Jesus is omniscient and knows the future about himself. But keep in mind that the OP isn't a topic about end time Bible prophecies. It's about counterfactual conditionals of possible futures that God supposedly knew about from his omniscience. And these so-called possible futures has 'HAPPEN PRIOR TO' God's decree. After all, a Moninist believes Jesus has libertarian free will. So, this reflects back to the Garden of Gethsemane and the two wills of Christ. For instance, John 18:10-12, Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” God only has one will and omniscient, and each persons has that same divine will and omniscience. The Father's will and omniscience is technically the Son's will and omniscience. The same will and omniscience. And "not my will" is in reference to the human will. The so-called possible futures would be based on Jesus' human will but that is not the case about the Hypostatic Union.

A Molinist would have to rewrite the doctrine of Dyothelitism:

We also proclaim two natural willings or wills in him and two natural operations, without separation, without change, without partition, without confusion, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers — and two natural wills not contrary to each other, God forbid, as the impious heretics have said they would be, but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will. (Third Council of Constantinople).​

That's not a description of libertarian free will. As I have previously stated in the OP:

c) Jesus Christ also has two wills, if his human will be libertarian, then it would be in opposition to his omniscience. And a tug-a-war match so to speak. Except his human will is compatibilistic in John 6:38 "not to do my will" and Matthew 26:39 "not as I will" is referring to the human will of Christ. And the divine will of the Father is technically the divine will of the Son. There is only one Divine Will of God. So, to make a conscious decision against the Father's divine will be in essence going against his own divine will. The Gospels are very clear that he cannot do anything on his own initiative (John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and he did not work outside of the Father's will (John 4:34, 5:36, 14:31, 17:4). If the Father and the Son has autonomies between them, then the Son would have 'individualized personal freedom,' which was either spoken or acted independently from the Father. The Son would be able to make his own choices and go his own direction. Or, thinking for himself and acting on his own accord. There is nothing in Scriptures that teaches the Son has spoken or acted, or to gain personal glory independently from the Father's will and authority.

Very good. Thanks.

Lol, hard to put this into human words, isn't it!

Molinism takes a shortcut in logic and reasoning, FOR THE PURPOSE of combining two opposing worldviews.

 

[Arial]

*Note: I leave open to anyone who wants to critique what I've critique. I also used advanced logic to critique all of Molinism proof-texting verses. But I don't think many people would understand it, so I will keep that to myself unless its permitted and acceptable by the Mods. Until then, enjoy, I will love to hear the feed back.

I see no reason why you shouldn't present your critiques

 

[Arial]

Jesus Christ often spoke in parables and in certain cases he spoke in counterfactuals.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.
a). In this so-called possible future, Judas never existed.
b). Then the Scriptures about Judas is not fulfilled.
c). Then the day for Jesus' arrest is delayed for another time.
d). So many more hypotheticals scenarios that even Socrates wouldn't be able to figure it out.

I don't believe Jesus is intentionally appealing to hypothetical scenario or making a logical and philosophical argument. If so, his argument would challenge both Aristotle and Socrates. Well, after all, Jesus is omniscient. And I don't think Jesus intended to suggest a possible future for himself and Judas. "If Judas was never born, then Jesus was never betrayed." Does this mean that God has to come up with plan B because plan A has failed? We can philosophize about this, but hypothetical won't turn to a possible future and magically become actual.

Interesting. I never viewed those type of statements of Jesus as appealing to hypothetical scenario or that he was making a logical and philosophical argument. To me, he was stating facts and making a point. It would never occur to me to go down that road. But then I read the Bible as though I can count on the absoluteness of everything it teaches, and not on how can I complicate what is straightforward.

However, as I am sure your critiques will bring out----people are prone to overthinking and complicating, and ignoring the contradictions they create within their own musings. To use such statements of Jesus as fodder for "what ifs",boggles my mind. At the same time, it is interesting and a great exercise (training) in honing the art of critical thinking.

 

[makesends]

Thank you.



This is an interesting critique. Discernment is the key factor and why we critique false doctrines. The thing is people write and talk in conditional statement all the time. Even if we are not aware of it, but we do anyways. It's just the way language and grammar is essentially. And logic is composed out of sentence structures, for instance: "If I go to the store today, then you know I'm carrying my phone." It doesn't surprise me that people will find conditional statements in my words and also the Bible. Jesus Christ often spoke in parables and in certain cases he spoke in counterfactuals.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.​

a). In this so-called possible future, Judas never existed.
b). Then the Scriptures about Judas is not fulfilled.
c). Then the day for Jesus' arrest is delayed for another time.
d). So many more hypotheticals scenarios that even Socrates wouldn't be able to figure it out.

I don't believe Jesus is intentionally appealing to hypothetical scenario or making a logical and philosophical argument. If so, his argument would challenge both Aristotle and Socrates. Well, after all, Jesus is omniscient. And I don't think Jesus intended to suggest a possible future for himself and Judas. "If Judas was never born, then Jesus was never betrayed." Does this mean that God has to come up with plan B because plan A has failed? We can philosophize about this, but hypothetical won't turn to a possible future and magically become actual.

Arial said:
If Jesus states that no one can come to him unless the Father grants it, and that all who the Father gives him will come to him, and that he will lose none----there is no contingency, no counterfactual.

Not that I am any better than anyone else at assessing the facts, and @Josheb and I have butted heads over the use of the term, but I think that "contingency" is not in itself the same sort of thing as counterfactuals, nor even 'possibilities'. To me, it only means that x is necessarily causal for y to result. So y is contingent on x.

But speculating as to what would result, if z, while the results of z would be contingent on z, they are not actually contingent on z, anymore than counterfactuals have any basis, nor any use other than proposing bogus constructions, and mental exercises.

 

[makesends]

*Note: I leave open to anyone who wants to critique what I've critique. I also used advanced logic to critique all of Molinism proof-texting verses. But I don't think many people would understand it, so I will keep that to myself unless its permitted and acceptable by the Mods. Until then, enjoy, I will love to hear the feed back.

There is another, @TonyChanYT , who I think has not posted of late here, who often posts from the POV of first order logic and so on. While I very much enjoy logical argument, I would appreciate better if he (and you, if you wish to engage in such posts) would not depend on the reader to figure out what you are actually saying. Tony has urged me to learn the meaning of the formal symbols, and I tried, but don't practice them enough to remember them. In an earlier post, the diagrams you drew are not exactly self-explanatory, and in the above post, the lists you gave numbered a,b,c,d took a few looks to figure out what you were doing there. I find myself reading further in order to speculate on just what you are saying, then needing to circle back to look at the diagram again, and repeating the process until I am relatively sure. It can be time consuming and taxing, instead of clarifying and demonstrative.

BTW, I'm no better. Even my most ardent 'followers' say I beat around the bush too much, and talking in person with friends, it is common to see their eyes glazing over before I'm halfway through presenting a thought.

 

[Josheb]

Arial said:
If Jesus states that no one can come to him unless the Father grants it, and that all who the Father gives him will come to him, and that he will lose none----there is no contingency, no counterfactual.

Not that I am any better than anyone else at assessing the facts, and @Josheb and I have butted heads over the use of the term, but I think that "contingency" is not in itself the same sort of thing as counterfactuals, nor even 'possibilities'. To me, it only means that x is necessarily causal for y to result. So y is contingent on x.

Perhaps that is where some confusion exists. The WCF does not state God did not violence to contingents. It states He did not violence to contingencies (the contingencies of secondary causes). A contingent is not a contingency. Neither is a causal contingent identical to a "chance" contingent. The former describes a known dependent relationship. The latter does not. Alternatively, the Oxford dictionary defines "contingency" as any future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty or a provision for an unforeseen event or circumstance. That meaning does not work with an omniscient God (unless one is an Open Theist) so it must be modified to fit divine omniscience. Nothing knowable is unknown (or unexpected) but that does not mean meticulous causation exists, or that it is necessary.

The Calvinism of the WCF inherently asserts Divine causality that does not.......

• Author sin...
• Do violence to human volition, or...
• Do violence to secondary causes...
• Do violence to the contingencies of those secondary causes.

All of which are known by God.


Btw, I've been re-reading the Spectrum Series book "Divine Foreknowledge" in which Gregory Boyd (Open Theist), William Lane Craig (Molinist), David Hunt (simple foreknowledge), and Paul Helm (Augustinian Calvinist) weigh in on the subject. Very good read.

But speculating as to what would result, if z, while the results of z would be contingent on z, they are not actually contingent on z, anymore than counterfactuals have any basis, nor any use other than proposing bogus constructions, and mental exercises.

I agree. If a singular dependent relationship exists (and that is not a given even in the Augustinian-Calvinist pov) then there can be no counterfactual. The question is, "Are all things thusly determined and deterministic?" if it is believed the original uncaused cause can have only one effect and each subsequent causal relationship also has only one effect then determinism is reasonable, perhaps inevitable and unavoidable, but I am not inclined to limit God to one effect, nor any secondary cause to one effect. That's not a very big god, nor a particularly powerful or knowing god. That God is not the God of the Bible.

And I think that is another way the Molinist errs.

 

[Binyawmene]

I see no reason why you shouldn't present your critiques

Thank you. I will demonstrate a proof-texting verse from Matthew 11:23 which is out of its context.

I will also define what a logical conditional is for the readers of this thread so they can understand. I want to point out that to identify a counterfactual, then it's based upon a conditional statement that is understood in a two-fold application. First, it involves a 'condition' that's contrary to the actual world, and secondly, it expresses truth that belongs to the actual world. In other words, counterfactual is a conditional statement that is contrary to the actual world, and yet, possesses truth content of the actual world.

What is a logical conditional statement? A logical conditional is consisting of two statements joined by a connective "if, then" (a truth-functional operator --->) to form a compound sentence.

Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.​

For instance, P--->Q

P = "If miracles were performed in Sodom"​

Q = then Sodom would have remained to this day"​

​

While the two statement flanking each other are constituents called antecedent and consequent. Now the word “if” is a hypothesis and the word “then” is the conclusion. And the word “implied” means “always results in” which the antecedent is implying the consequent.​

​

Logical Conditional P --->Q
“If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.”

Antecedent P
If miracles were performed in Sodom

Consequent Q
then Sodom would have remained to this day.​

​

The Logical Conditional rules states: “A conditional P --->Q is false, if and only if, antecedent P is true and consequent Q is false, otherwise it’s all true.”​

​

You have four outcomes from the Truth Table.​

​

1. Possibility one: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

2. Possibility two: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is False. Only false, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

3. Possibility three: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

4. Possibility four: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

We know the actual outcome of each of the four possibilities. We know that those towns' people didn’t repent, and we know those towns were destroyed based on the information of the Bible. Our truth table chart would read F, F, T. But Jesus Christ did not lie about his statement because he was only speaking hypothetical about Sodom in contrast to the miracles, he did perform in unrepented towns. This is not suggesting a possible future for Sodom and judgement already happen. Rather, Sodom would have repented if he performed miracles in the same manner that he performed in those unrepented towns. Context is key, in Matthew 11, verses 20 and 24 is never quoted when by Molinist but simply proof texting. Jesus' contrasting does not mean he is talking about a possible future for Sodom.​

​

In context:​

​

Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.​

 

[Binyawmene]

Btw, I've been re-reading the Spectrum Series book "Divine Foreknowledge" in which Gregory Boyd (Open Theist), William Lane Craig (Molinist), David Hunt (simple foreknowledge), and Paul Helm (Augustinian Calvinist) weigh in on the subject. Very good read.

Wow. I would never have thought a book like that exist. I'm definitely buying that book for sure. But first I will do my own research and critiques. Then I will read the book and see if I came to same conclusions. Plus, to learn new things too. I'm in the process of writing a book about the Hypostatic Union. But knowing different arguments about "omniscience" and how to present a logical case would matter most to me. Thanks for sharing.

 

[makesends]

Thank you. I will demonstrate a proof-texting verse from Matthew 11:23 which is out of its context.

I will also define what a logical conditional is for the readers of this thread so they can understand. I want to point out that to identify a counterfactual, then it's based upon a conditional statement that is understood in a two-fold application. First, it involves a 'condition' that's contrary to the actual world, and secondly, it expresses truth that belongs to the actual world. In other words, counterfactual is a conditional statement that is contrary to the actual world, and yet, possesses truth content of the actual world.

What is a logical conditional statement? A logical conditional is consisting of two statements joined by a connective "if, then" (a truth-functional operator --->) to form a compound sentence.

Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.​

For instance, P--->Q

P = "If miracles were performed in Sodom"​

Q = then Sodom would have remained to this day"​

​

While the two statement flanking each other are constituents called antecedent and consequent. Now the word “if” is a hypothesis and the word “then” is the conclusion. And the word “implied” means “always results in” which the antecedent is implying the consequent.​

​

Logical Conditional P --->Q
“If miracles were performed in Sodom, then Sodom would have remained to this day.”

Antecedent P
If miracles were performed in Sodom

Consequent Q
then Sodom would have remained to this day.​

​

The Logical Conditional rules states: “A conditional P --->Q is false, if and only if, antecedent P is true and consequent Q is false, otherwise it’s all true.”​

​

You have four outcomes from the Truth Table.​

​

1. Possibility one: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

2. Possibility two: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" T = True, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is False. Only false, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

3. Possibility three: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" T = True. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

4. Possibility four: "If miracles were performed in Sodom" F = False, and "then Sodom would have remained to this day" F = False. Jesus performed miracles in Sodom is True. Only true, if and only if, the event has occurred.​

​

We know the actual outcome of each of the four possibilities. We know that those towns' people didn’t repent, and we know those towns were destroyed based on the information of the Bible. Our truth table chart would read F, F, T. But Jesus Christ did not lie about his statement because he was only speaking hypothetical about Sodom in contrast to the miracles, he did perform in unrepented towns. This is not suggesting a possible future for Sodom and judgement already happen. Rather, Sodom would have repented if he performed miracles in the same manner that he performed in those unrepented towns. Context is key, in Matthew 11, verses 20 and 24 is never quoted when by Molinist but simply proof texting. Jesus' contrasting does not mean he is talking about a possible future for Sodom.​

​

In context:​

​

Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.​

Thanks for this. I'll get to it when I'm a little less fuzzy-headed. BTW this was a text that @TonyChanYT dealt with in similar fashion, maybe not on this site but on CF. I had a disagreement with what I thought he was saying, but I don't remember what about.

 

[makesends]

Perhaps that is where some confusion exists. The WCF does not state God did not violence to contingents. It states He did not violence to contingencies (the contingencies of secondary causes). A contingent is not a contingency. Neither is a causal contingent identical to a "chance" contingent. The former describes a known dependent relationship. The latter does not.

The latter is a bogus concept.

Alternatively, the Oxford dictionary defines "contingency" as any future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty or a provision for an unforeseen event or circumstance. That meaning does not work with an omniscient God (unless one is an Open Theist) so it must be modified to fit divine omniscience. Nothing knowable is unknown (or unexpected) but that does not mean meticulous causation exists, or that it is necessary.

As you are aware, there is where we differ. In spite of your meticulous defining to the term as used in the WCF, I still see their statement as valid even if God does meticulous causation. I'm not saying that I garner the notion of his meticulous causing of all things from the WCF, but that it allows for it. My reasoning for it does not come from the WCF, but from the simple logic of necessary implications of God's omnipotence as the uncaused causer (aka, First Cause). (And to rehash a point we had to work out, what I mean by, 'first cause', is not 'first effect', but, rather, it is what caused the several first effects).

By one use of "contingencies", in, "contingencies of secondary causes", the contingencies would be whatever caused those secondary causes, but I don't think that is what WCF is referring to, though the same "...does not do violence to..." would work there, too.

The Calvinism of the WCF inherently asserts Divine causality that does not.......

• Author sin...
• Do violence to human volition, or...
• Do violence to secondary causes...
• Do violence to the contingencies of those secondary causes.

All of which are known by God.

I am not familiar with the term, 'contingent', used as a noun, except in special cases. It is an adjective. I suppose one could use it as a noun, 'short for' "a contingent fact". I am familiar with the use of it as a stand-alone descriptive term, and adverbial(?), in saying that x is contingent on y.

The WCF reference to contingencies of secondary causes, I suppose could be taken to mean only the unforeseeable (by us) results of secondary causes, but that does not mean that those results are unknown to God, nor even unintended by God. It does not imply randomness or chance, nor spontaneity of moral agents. It only would mean, (in my opinion, of course), that God does not, or is not in the habit of, interrupting the usual course of cause-and-effect. It is an affirmation of the law of causation, and it prohibits superstitious explanations for cause-and-effect.

Btw, I've been re-reading the Spectrum Series book "Divine Foreknowledge" in which Gregory Boyd (Open Theist), William Lane Craig (Molinist), David Hunt (simple foreknowledge), and Paul Helm (Augustinian Calvinist) weigh in on the subject. Very good read.

Sounds interesting, though I've grown weary of reading authors that I know espouse unbiblical views. I could hardly watch a debate through, between WLCraig and James White. But you have me curious. (I bought Boyd's "God of the Possible", I think it was, at the urging of a professional philosopher relative of mine who espouses open theism, but once read, I have no use for it --not even to quote representative statements from it. It's been years since I last opened it.)

I agree. If a singular dependent relationship exists (and that is not a given even in the Augustinian-Calvinist pov) then there can be no counterfactual. The question is, "Are all things thusly determined and deterministic?" if it is believed the original uncaused cause can have only one effect and each subsequent causal relationship also has only one effect then determinism is reasonable, perhaps inevitable and unavoidable, but I am not inclined to limit God to one effect, nor any secondary cause to one effect. That's not a very big god, nor a particularly powerful or knowing god. That God is not the God of the Bible.

I don't follow how that applies to Molinism, nor, for that matter to any other -'ism'. I don't see how it comes up in your thinking, here. *I* certainly don't claim such a ridiculous notion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding or maybe I'm not considering some implication of Molinism that you see.

Or, are you referring to my construction, that only one choice can be made, in the fact that when one chooses, one only ever makes the one choice? I guess that can be represented by your one-for-one statement, there, but I don't claim that only one cause, caused the choice a person makes. The "chains" of causation are a huge web of chains --not a series of long single chains.

And I think that is another way the Molinist errs.

 

[Josheb]

Wow. I would never have thought a book like that exist. I'm definitely buying that book for sure. But first I will do my own research and critiques. Then I will read the book and see if I came to same conclusions. Plus, to learn new things too. I'm in the process of writing a book about the Hypostatic Union. But knowing different arguments about "omniscience" and how to present a logical case would matter most to me. Thanks for sharing.

There are a few series of comparative theology. The Spectrum Multiview Series contains the book I mentioned, as well as 26 other books of various subjects. One possible improvement this series has that the much larger Counterpoint Series does not have is each book has a different editor, whereas the Counterpoint series is edited by Stanley Gundry. You can decide whether one set of biases or differing ones in the editorial part is preferred. There is also a smaller series of Counterpoint Series on "Church Life." I don't know why they did not combine the two series. Then there's the Perspectives Series, which has some books with unusual topics like a child's spiritual development. There are others but these three I can personally recommend. Sometimes the positions defended are poorly argued, sometimes they are so esoteric they're worthless to most laypeople. There are a lot of single volume comparative works like this one, or this one, that a simple search will provide.