Molinism - heresy?

[panta dokimazete]

I was reading the wiki entry on Molinism and these 2 phrases jumped out at me:

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.

In order for this account of prophecy to be valid all prophecies must be wholly good, and never contain evil acts...

Doesn't Rom 8:28 wholly refute this?

That is - if all things work for good, then even evil acts that occur are under the sovereign direction of God. That is, He foreknows and allows evil acts under His permissive will, but integrates the acts into His decretive will, so that ultimately all evil acts work to glorify Him and benefit the elect. Therefore, nothing is independent of God's will.

See also:

Genesis 50:20
"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.

So: If this is true, then Molinists are heretics, right?

This makes me sad... - I really like William Lane Craig...would never have believed that he could not or would not make this simple connection.

What lengths Men will go to preserve their sovereignty!

 

[Amazing Grace]

Ah the theology of the "moles".

 

[toddpedlar]

Ah the theology of the \"moles\".

Sadly, I was thinking of the doctrine of Molina....

[video=youtube;g9MpqbOaXdo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9MpqbOaXdo[/video]

 

[panta dokimazete]

William Lane Craig says "n order for a counterfactual of freedom to be true, it is not required that the events to which they refer actually exist; all that is required is that they would exist under the specified conditions."[12]

Would, could, luck and possibility - why should we play in the sandbox of the enemy and constrain God through the imaginations of Man?

What was, is and shall be is the under the exclusive authority of the sovereign God.

 

[JohnOwen007]

So: If this is true, then Molinists are heretics, right?

Depends on your definition of "heretics". "Heresy" is usually reserved for an error that prevents one from being saved. Are you willing to say that Bill Craig is actually not a Christian?

 

[ChristopherPaul]

So: If this is true, then Molinists are heretics, right?

Depends on your definition of "heretics". "Heresy" is usually reserved for an error that prevents one from being saved. Are you willing to say that Bill Craig is actually not a Christian?

JD linked several definitions for "Heretics" in the portion you quoted. None of those definitions associate "Heretic" with being outside of Christ.

 

[Davidius]

So: If this is true, then Molinists are heretics, right?

Depends on your definition of "heretics". "Heresy" is usually reserved for an error that prevents one from being saved. Are you willing to say that Bill Craig is actually not a Christian?

JD linked several definitions for "Heretics" in the portion you quoted. None of those definitions associate "Heretic" with being outside of Christ.

Those definitions don't include the notion of excommunication, but I can't think of any heretics throughout church history who weren't excommunicated. This term has normally been reserved for those who deny the Trinity in one form or other, or, in a stricter (Protestant) sense, deny the true doctrine of justification.

 

[Grymir]

Yea, and Molinism was what the Jesuits and Dominicans were fighting about during the time of the reformation. hmmm

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Depends on your definition of "heretics". "Heresy" is usually reserved for an error that prevents one from being saved. Are you willing to say that Bill Craig is actually not a Christian?

JD linked several definitions for "Heretics" in the portion you quoted. None of those definitions associate "Heretic" with being outside of Christ.

Those definitions don't include the notion of excommunication, but I can't think of any heretics throughout church history who weren't excommunicated. This term has normally been reserved for those who deny the Trinity in one form or other, or, in a stricter (Protestant) sense, deny the true doctrine of justification.

If I was to be cast outside by the Church, then I should assume I am outside of Christ. This is one of the great assurances of Church membership (done in a Biblical manner).

 

[JohnOwen007]

JD linked several definitions for "Heretics" in the portion you quoted. None of those definitions associate "Heretic" with being outside of Christ.

Indeed. His link was inadequate. Hence, my post. I was simply using the standard definition of the 16th and 17th century tradition.

 

[Christusregnat]

So: If this is true, then Molinists are heretics, right?

Depends on your definition of "heretics". "Heresy" is usually reserved for an error that prevents one from being saved. Are you willing to say that Bill Craig is actually not a Christian?

Mr. Australia Guy (your signature is deficient),

Heresy just means a schism, or a tearing apart of the body of Christ. In this sense, anabaptism may be called a heresy.

There are schisms which tear asunder the body, but do not send the holders of them to hell; yet, they are still heresy. Some schisms tear the body asunder, and likewise send men to hell. These are damnable heresies. The Greek term, however, simply means a division. In fact, it is used of the "Sect" of the Nazarene in Acts 24:5. It didn't mean that Paul was going to hell, it just meant it was dividing the Jewish community (which it was).

Hairslittingly yours,

 

[Ron]

I argue that it is heresy here: Reformed Apologist: Molinism, Dualism & the Nicene Creed

Possible world discussions involve modal claims regarding the way reality might have been. Yet not all possible worlds are feasible worlds. (Thomas Flint coined the terms possible / feasible world, though the ideas preceded him.) In layman terms, a possible world is one that is internally consistent though might include actions individuals would never freely perform. Accordingly, it would not be feasible for God to actualize possible worlds in which moral agents will not freely cooperate to bring about the realities those worlds contemplate. For the Calvinist, possible worlds are identical in number with feasible worlds because within Calvinism, actions of choice are not according to libertarian freedom; therefore, whatever is possible for Jones to do is feasible for God to bring to pass – should God so desire. The reason being, God causes men to cooperate.

Obviously possible worlds are not God, nor his will, yet they are eternal. They are, however, a reflection of his logic, which is why it is not dualistic for there to be such abstract entities. Possible worlds are necessary and find their origin in God’s attribute(s). We can rightly say, therefore, that God’s necessary (or "natural") knowledge requires knowledge of such worlds. This is a far cry from Molinism's use of middle-knowledge, whereby God somehow knows contingently true conditional propositions about creaturely free actions couched in the subjunctive mood; such as, if Jones were in state of affairs y, he would freely choose x. Such an alleged truth cannot come from God’s necessary knowledge since the truth is alleged to be contingently true, making its truth-maker itself, nothing or some mystical entity residing outside of God and his control. Yet God, somehow, eternally acquires the knowledge of how creatures would freely behave in various circumstances. Christian or pagan?

Consider Plantinga: "It seems to me much clearer that some counterfactuals of freedom are at least possibly true than that the truth of propositions must, in general, be grounded in this way."

Plantinga, as brilliant as he is, since he is not moved by the arbitrariness and inconsistencies of Molinism, would do well to put down the pagan philosophers for a time and pick up some orthodox creeds and confessions. If the unreasonableness of Molinism doesn't constrain men such as Plantinga, maybe a greater appreciation for the heretical implications of the system might. Molinists need to come to terms with the fact that any ungrounded truth implies dualism and, therefore, results in an outright denial of the historic Christian faith, which affirms that "the Father, the Almighty, [is the] maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen, [which would include any contingently true-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (not that there are any)].

Molinism is riddled with many theological and philosophical problems (e.g. ungrounded truth; God being informed by entities outside himself; all the problems pertaining to LFW, etc.) because the system is an avoidance of truth. It was invented in order to get out from under the complete and total sovereignty of God; so we should expect it to reduce to absurdity in obvious ways. Molinists confess pagan ideas that oppose orthodox Christianity.