Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Molinism questions from a "Determinist."

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Your hypothetical doesn't follow because in God's design it is always a one-time run through otherwise it would be a bizarre form of Hinduism. If it is not a one time run through then you take that same soul and run them through it again which violates the law of man made in God's image. Your hypothetical violates said premise.

    Craig has some strange notions that do not follow logically which stem from his works based salvation as one would expect.

    And libertarian free will is not true free will since all of our choices are within God's divine providence.

    The original Molinism was by a non-OSASer like Craig, both unsaved going to Hell. What I do is apply the principle of middle knowledge to OSAS Arminian, however I am aware of the limitations of Molinism so don't expect much from it. It always leaves you wanting anyhow so it is not the ultimate answer of how God reconciles His infinite foreknowledge with free will.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I still disagree with you about the hypothetical. It doesn't have to get run through or ever be intended to run through again for the logic to matter. That's the whole point of hypotheticals. They show inconsistencies in logic. The point was that two identical worlds wouldn't necessarily function in the exact same way. All things being the same, they wouldn't end up the same. In fact, they could end up at two very different ends of the spectrum. That seems to show very clearly that this notion of libertarian free will is baselessness. The actions of an individual aren't really tied to an individual at all. It's random (or determined).

    You would most likely disagree with me, but I have a hard time understanding your position. You say you don't like Craig's free will and you talk about God's providence and all, yet you are an Arminian. I would honestly love to believe in libertarian free will, since I think it makes Christianity much more of an open and shut case. I also feel the same way about young earth creationism, but that's just another area where my desires don't line up rationally. So I would love to be proven wrong, I just haven't found any substantive arguments for a sort of libertarian free will that coincides with the God of the Bible, or even an explanation that can stand on it's own to feet at all. If you can enlighten me, I would absolutely love that.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Libertarian free will is false since obviously all our free choices are within God's caring hand. Your hypotheticals show themselves to be flawed. Craig is wrong. This one run through is all that is needed. It is the best. He saves the most and damns the least.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 68 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 68 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2013, 09:20 PM
  2. "The Fringe" and Molinism
    By John in forum Molinism
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-07-2012, 09:52 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-20-2012, 11:10 PM
  4. Psalms 12.7 the 2nd "Them" Should be "HIM" not "Them".
    By InTruth in forum KJV Only/Versions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-27-2010, 12:17 AM
  5. Matt. 24.28 "Carcase" and "Eagles"
    By Churchwork in forum OSAS Arminian
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-09-2006, 03:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •