Wednesday, April 28, 2010

R. Scott Clark Responds to Molinism

I am glad to report that R. Scott Clark provided a fairly concise response to Molinism on his blog (link to response). Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

UPDATE/ADDENDUM:

RSC is getting some heat for characterizing MK this way:
According to MK, God knows all the contingencies which could be actualized in the world by persons with free will but he doesn’t know which one will be actualized in the world because he has determined to allow humans to exercise their free will to choose these contingencies.
I understand the basis for the criticism. The criticism is that now, at the present time, Molinism (notice that I say “Molinism” not “middle knowledge”) does claim that God knows what world the free agents will choose. Unless I’ve missed RSC’s point, the criticism misses the mark.

Middle Knowledge isn’t relevant at the present time. Middle Knowledge is only relevant prior to God’s decree, and prior to God’s decree God does not know which possible world his free creatures *will* actualize, though God does know (within the framework of Molinism) what worlds the free creatures *would* contingently actualize under various imagined (by God) conditions.

Now, I agree with RSC that he could have been more precise – and furthermore I’ve seen that RSC has conceded that WLC’s definition of Molinism is a reasonable one. However, if folks are going to police him for precision, they need to be precise themselves.

More to the point, the substance of the criticism of Molinism remains untouched. Notwithstanding a little imprecision (and the fact that not enough Turretin and too much Voetius were used :grin:), I thought the post was a concise capsule of the issues.

-TurretinFan

6 comments:

natamllc said...

TF,

yes, I agree.

It was balanced, brief, not heady, plain and concise and easy to read and understand what he was putting over.

Thanks for leading some of your readers in that direction!

Pete Hoge said...

I wonder if theology is
just a lower degree of
idolatry.

Pete.

Godismyjudge said...

TF,

I appreciate your good Samaritan approach here, but you missed a booboo. I don't think we can construe Clark's comment the way have because he said: "because he has determined to allow humans to exercise their free will to choose these contingencies." Per Molinism, the reason God does not know what will happen prior to His decree is due to His freedom, not ours. This seems to be the primary reason Molina denied God has MK with respect to His own choices.

God be with you,
Dan

Turretinfan said...

To answer your question, Pete, no, I don't think it is.

Turretinfan said...

"Per Molinism, the reason God does not know what will happen prior to His decree is due to His freedom, not ours. This seems to be the primary reason Molina denied God has MK with respect to His own choices."

I hear you. Divine freedom is the reason why particular exercises of human freedom may not come to be. Depending on the sense in which RSC meant "because" your comment may be a valid criticism.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

Anonymous:

This thread is not about Oneness theology or about Dr. White.

-TurretinFan