SFE Theological Discussion - Molinism

A theological discussion on the topic of Molinism with Eric Hernandez and Tyler Vela.

[paulheberling]

Eric Hernandez is for sure one of the best apologist of the libertarian type. That being said, it seems to me here that Tyler Vela had the upper hand virtually the whole time. Philosophically and biblically.

[JohnQPublic]

Thank you Eric Hernandez for mopping the floor with Tyler's theology!

[dylanmcphee]

1:50:58 Tyler, in clarifying an objection he has to Eric says that the Molinist position logically necessitates God's free knowledge varying based on which world he chooses to actualize.

This is a good point.

Another point I thought of is that the position of the Molonism states that middle knowledge is called "middle" because it's *between* 1)God's natural knowledge (knowledge of his eternal self)
AND
2)God's free knowledge (knowledge of God's eternal decree).

Middle knowledge, according Molonists, is knowledge of all possible worlds/feasible worlds.

So if middle knowledge is that God has knowledge of all feasible worlds before choosing to create one.
Which would include the world that God chooses to actualize.
That means that God's free knowledge (knowledge of the world God chose to actualize) is really based on God's middle knowledge (knowledge of all feasible worlds).

It makes meaningless the free knowledge of God. Because if, according to Eric, God's free knowledge is God's knowledge of the world he chooses to actualize then how is this even a meaningful category of knowledge when God's knowledge of the world he chooses to create is already placed in the category of middle knowledge and since middle knowledge comes prior to his decree/free knowledge that makes the category of "free knowledge" of no use.

[dylanmcphee]

53:33 Eric is responding to Tyler's question:
Since God is omnipotent then why do you say that God cannot create a world where all people freely choose Christ given that that is something that is logically possible and given that the meaning of omnipotence is that God can do all things that are logically possible?

Eric's response in showing Tyler why God is omnipotent (able to do all things that are logically possible) but cannot create a world in which all people freely choose Christ is to make a comparison.

The comparison is between these two things:
1)God not being able to create a world in which all people freely choose Christ.
2)God not being able to create a married bachelor.

But there's is a clear flaw in this logic.
Before I point out the flaw in his comparison let me briefly mention that what Eric is trying to communicate to Tyler in this comparison is that God's omnipotence is not faulted just because God cannot create a married bachelor. And so Eric is saying that by comparison God's omnipotence is *likewise* not faulted just because he cannot create a world where all people freely choose Christ.

The flaw in this reasoning is that a married bachelor is something that is logically *impossible* and that is the reason why God can't create it.
Therefore it would in fact make sense to say that "God's omnipotence is not flawed just because he cannot create a married bachelor."

But comparing God creating a married bachelor to God creating a world in which all people freely choose Christ is flawed reasoning because God creating a world in which all people freely choose Christ is something that is logically *possible* (not logically *impossible* like a married bachelor).
Therefore it would NOT in fact make sense to say, "God's omnipotence is not flawed just because he cannot create a world in which all people freely choose Christ.

Eric's conclusion does not follow from his argument. The question still stands, "Why can't God create a world where all people freely choose Christ, since that is something that is logically possible and God can do all things that are logically possible?"

[thecosmicgroanthecosmicgro]

Good discussion overall. I would have liked to hear Tyler actually attempt to justify moral responsibility on his view and not just say, "well the Bible says we're responsibile, so we are". Any analogy that can be given by the Calvinist as to how moral responsibility and justice makes sense on this view fails miserably. We don't judge people as morally culpable if they could not choose to refrain from wrong action, it's insane to suggest such a method of judgement is an acceptable approach in any imaginable scenario. Just because someone thinks the Bible takes such a position does not mean it's rational or justifiable as it clearly is neither.

The Molinist view seems to simply fail to ground libertarian freedom. it's not that "I could have refrained to do X via my own will" but instead it's "god could have actualized a world in which I refrained from X". The individual has no freedom to refrain because they do not have the ability of actualizing a world in which they refrain! So quite clearly Molinism fails at providing libertarian freedom and falls into the same sinking ship of trying to ground moral responsibility as the Calvinist.

I would have liked to seen this discussion go on longer as there are very few Molinism vs Calvinism discussions.