Thread: What does a molinist believe and why?

Please move if in wrong forum.

It was started by a Jesuit named Molina in the 16th century. Without going into a great deal of detail about "counterfactuals", etc., here's is the "ultra brief explanation" of Molinist thought:

In essence, it is an attempt a reconciling God's exhaustive Sovereignty with libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilism). Think of it like this:

God knows ahead of time what every individual person certainly will choose to do, given all possible variables . . . (not just what they might choose, but what they certainly will choose). However, these foreknown contingent choices are libertarian choices, not compatibilist choices. The people are REALLY free to choose ANYTHING, according to libertarian free will. God just merely knows ahead of time what a given person WOULD freely choose in any given circumstance.

Based on God's knowledge of these "counterfactuals" (I'm not going to try to explain that word right now.), God simply fiddles with all of the variables so that people end up in the situations that He wants them in, so that they will FREELY choose what He wants them to choose.

If I understand Molinism correctly, it still fully allows all the basics of Arminian theology, in that nobody is ever "effectually called" . . . regeneration does not precede faith, and people lose their salvation all the time. Molinism just brings God's Sovereignty into the Arminian mix, by saying that God perfectly controls how all these things work out.

I hope that is a little bit helpful.

In Christ,
Joseph

You can find a good write up here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Puritan...eKnowledge.htm

Le nez de Cléopâtre: s'il eût été plus court, toute la face de la terre aurait changé.

(If Cleopatra's nose had been shorter, the whole face of the earth would have changed.)

Blaise Pascal, Pensées, section 2, no. 162.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

English proverb

As these examples show, a counterfactual considers the consequences of an assumption which is false, or contrary to the facts.

Logic tries to categorise statements as either true or false. But with counterfactuals, this is more difficult. Is it true to say If 2+2=5, then Paris is the capital of France? Or If 2+2=5, then London is the capital of France? The two statements appear contradictory: can they both be true?

Human thought naturally embraces counterfactuals, from the banal to the bizarre. How dull life would be without the ability to imagine the world differently from how it is! The way we think about them is a flourishing area of psychological research.

What if there had been no American Revolution, or Hitler had won the World War II? Change some historical event and consider the ramifications: this is a game historians and authors can all play. Entertaining fiction has resulted, but more academic historians disagree on the value of the exercise.

Thanks for the info guys.I have realized I have heard Arminians argue using the same arguement.Especially,for Romans 8:28-29.

My buddy is way into this, thinks it's the big Logical solution to God's Sovereignty and Man's free will.

I think J.P. Moreland (I don't even know if that's the right name, I read his stuff a while ago) pushes it. I think this guy is some Philosophical big wig. I've asked about him here before with no response.

Paul?........... Is this J.P. Moreland a respectable Philosopher and within orthodoxy?

Moreland's good and within orthodoxy. he's along the same lines as Bill Craig (William Lane Craig).

J.P. Moreland is an evidentialist.

I think It was Craig actually that he was pushing as the Molinist, he loves Moreland too, but as you said, as an evidentialist. Craig is the Philosopher, correct? I could be wrong again, it's been a while, but I know he talks of both of these two.

Moreland has written some good stuff critiquing scientism.