I Told You So Molinism

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

1 Kings 11:2, 9
They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love.... verse 9  The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice.

God uses His middle knowledge to warn people. If you put yourself into a given circumstance, you will do this.  God knew what would happen if the Israelites intermarried.  He knew what the foreign wives would do and how the Israelites would respond.  Sadly, Solomon didn't listen.

On divine determinism, God's foreknowledge is logically "too late" to serve as a warning.  All  (even the hypothetical - if you intermarry, you will fall away) is determined by God.  So 1 Kings 11 turns into "I told you I determined you would fall" as opposed to "I told you you would fall".    

Comments

SLW said…
I told my kids not to hang out at parties where underage drinking was going on, because if they did, those underage drinkers would draw them into drinking and all kinds of unfortunate things would occur. Was I using middle knowledge?
December 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Godismyjudge said…
SLW,

Sort of. You could have been wrong, but God can't be wrong.

God be with you,
Dan
December 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM
SLW said…
What would it take for me to be right? It seems to me that if my kids thoughts and intentions were transparent to me I would be able to prognosticate their actions in given circumstances with near perfection, even though it couldn't be said that I knew what they would do by necessity.
December 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Godismyjudge said…
The probability of you being right would correspond to the probability of their performing the action. So if, given the causal forces at play in your kids nature and circumstances, there's a 90% chance they would do something, and you had all that data, then your odds of being right would be 90%.

If the odds go to 100%, then your kids wouldn't have libertarian freedom.

God be with you,
Dan
December 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM
SLW said…
Doesn't Molinism posit a 100% probability for God knowing what an agent with creaturely freedom would do in all possible circumstances?
December 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yes, God can't be wrong.

God be with you,
Dan
December 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM
SLW said…
If that is the case, how can the Molinist position allow libertarian freedom, for God always prognosticates at 100%? When conditionals obtain his correctness is self-evident, when they do not, the prognostications become counterfactual statements which cannot be true because they represent less than that 100% probability which you said is God's standard.
December 6, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Godismyjudge said…
This is similar to simple foreknowledge. God knows with 100% certainty what the future will be (or would be), not because causal forces give a 100% probability for an event to occur, but in some other way.

God be with you,
Dan
December 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM
SLW said…
in some other way
Now there's the rub!

Incidentally, I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your tone and willingness to have me pick your brain.
December 6, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Godismyjudge said…
My pleasure and your right, that's the tough part. At some point you have to say "because He's God", and leave it at that.

God be with you,
Dan
December 6, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more