Molinism and OSAS

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by psimmond » Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:14 pm

If "the absence of causal constraint" is the essence of free will, then the stones sitting idle in the park have free will.
You forgot the last, quite important, part of Craig's quote "...with respect to your choices."
God knowing "counterfactuals of creaturely freedom" is itself a contradiction. If God knows what we would choose under any possible conditions, then we do not have free will in the sense that we can choose something and make it happen.
It's only a contradiction if you define free will as the ability to do other than what God knows we will do. If I place cookies on the table, I know (even with my extremely limited knowledge) that my kids will devour them when they get home from school. Although I know what they will freely choose, they certainly "choose something and make it happen."
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by Paidion » Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:36 pm

You forgot the last, quite important, part of Craig's quote "...with respect to your choices."
No. I didn't forget the last part. For, if I have choices, this is inconsistent with the first part which says, "the essence of free will is the absence of causal constraint". For it that is all free will is, then I have "free will" but not the ability to choose. However, if free will is defined as "the ability to do otherwise" (which is the usual understanding of free will), then I do not have the ability to choose if someone knows what I will do, even in the absence of causal constraint.
It's only a contradiction if you define free will as the ability to do other than what God knows we will do.
Inapplicable, because it is impossible to know what a free will agent will choose.
If I place cookies on the table, I know (even with my extremely limited knowledge) that my kids will devour them when they get home from school.
No, you don't know that. You merely predict that they will eat them when they get home. Your prediction is based on your past experience with your children. Because they have free will (the ability to do otherwise), one or more of them may choose NOT to eat any of the cookies.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by Paidion » Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:14 pm

Against Heresies by Irenaeus (born 120 A.D. died 202 A.D) Book 4, Chapter 37

MEN ARE POSSESSED OF FREE WILL, AND ENDOWED WITH THE FACULTY OF MAKING A CHOICE. IT IS NOT TRUE, THEREFORE, THAT SOME ARE BY NATURE GOOD, AND OTHERS BAD

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honor,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honor, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

2. But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it, — some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more fromGod), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is
in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets.

3. For this reason the Lord also said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” And, “Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be
overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares.” And, “Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing.” And again, “The servant who knows his Lord’s will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.” And, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” And again, “But if the servant say in his heart, The Lord delayeth, and begin to beat his fellow-servants, and to eat, and drink, and to be drunken, his Lord will come in a day on which he does not expect Him, and shall cut him in sunder, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites.” All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of] unbelief against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.

4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no
small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient;” referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, for this is not expedient. And again he says, “Speak ye every man truth with his neighbor.” And, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.” And, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

5. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee; “ thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;” and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.” Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him.” In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.”

6. Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature “material,” as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality. “But He should not,” say they, “have created angels of such a nature that they were capable of transgression, nor men who immediately proved ungrateful towards Him; for they were made rational beings, endowed with the power of examining and judging, and were not [formed] as things irrational or of a [merely] animal nature, which can do nothing of their own will, but are drawn by necessity and compulsion to what is good, in which things there is one mind and one usage, working mechanically in one groove (inflexibiles et sine judicio), who are incapable of being anything else except just what they had been created.” But upon this supposition, neither would what is good be grateful to them, nor communion with God be precious, nor would the good be very much to be sought after, which would present itself without their own proper endeavor, care, or study, but would be implanted of its own accord and without their concern. Thus it would come to pass, that their being good would be of no consequence, because they were so by nature rather than by will, and are possessors of good spontaneously, not by choice; and for this reason they would not understand this fact, that good is a comely thing, nor would they take pleasure in it. For how can those who are ignorant of good enjoy it? Or what credit is it to those who have not aimed at it? And what crown is it to those who have not followed in pursuit of it, like those victorious in the contest?

7. On this account, too, did the Lord assert that the kingdom of heaven was the portion of “the violent;” and He says, “The violent take it by force;” that is, those who by strength and earnest striving are on the watch to snatch it away on the moment. On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, “Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men [do it] that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.” This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam). And the harder we strive, so much is it the more valuable; while so much the more valuable it is, so much the more should we esteem it. And indeed those things are not esteemed so highly which come spontaneously, as those which are reached by much anxious care. Since, then, this power has been conferred upon us, both the Lord has taught and the apostle has enjoined us the more to love God, that we may reach this [prize] for ourselves by striving after it. For otherwise, no doubt, this our good would be [virtually] irrational, because not the result of trial. Moreover, the faculty of seeing would not appear to be so desirable, unless we had known what a loss it were to be devoid of sight; and health, too, is rendered all the more estimable by an acquaintance with disease; light, also, by contrasting it with darkness; and life with death. Just in the same way is the heavenly kingdom honorable to those who have known the earthly one. But in proportion as it is more honorable, so much the more do we prize it; and if we have prized it more, we shall be the more glorious in the presence of God. The Lord has therefore endured all these things on our behalf, in order that we, having been instructed by means of them all, may be in all respects circumspect for the time to come, and that, having been rationally taught to love God, we may continue in His perfect love: for God has displayed long-suffering in the case of man’s apostasy; while man has been instructed by means of it, as also the prophet says, “Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;” God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by psimmond » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:48 am

Paidion said...
"...it is impossible to know what a free will agent will choose.
This is your current belief, but can you say with 100% certainty that it is a fact that it is impossible for God to know what any free agent would choose in any and every situation?

I definitely agree with Irenaeus that humans possess libertarian free will (the ability to freely choose), and although I know you disagree with the statement that the "essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices," I'd like to hear your reaction to the specific examples I posted:
Imagine that a mad scientist has secretly wired your brain with electrodes so that he can control your choices. Suppose that in the last Presidential election, he wanted you to vote for Obama and had determined that if you were going to vote for McCain he would activate the electrodes and make you cast your vote for Obama. Now as it turns out, you also wanted to vote for Obama, and so when you went into the polling booth you marked your ballot for Obama, and therefore the scientist never activated the electrodes. I think it’s clear that you freely voted for Obama, even though it was not possible for you to do otherwise. What this thought experiment suggests is that the essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices; it is up to you alone how you choose.
1. Did this fellow freely choose to vote for Obama? Why or why not?
Now in the case of God, if God is essentially good, then there is no possible world in which He does evil. But does that imply that God does not freely do the good? Not if Frankfurt’s analysis is right. For God acts in the complete absence of any causal constraint whatsoever upon Him. It is up to Him and Him alone how He acts. He therefore acts freely in doing the good. That God is acting freely is evident in the fact that His will is not inclined necessarily toward any particular finite good; He chooses to do whatever He wants.

2. Do you believe that it is not possible for God to do evil? If so, do you believe that God freely chooses to do good?
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by Paidion » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:05 pm

Mr. Simmond wrote:Paidion said...
"...it is impossible to know what a free will agent will choose.

This is your current belief, but can you say with 100% certainty that it is a fact that it is impossible for God to know what any free agent would choose in any and every situation?
Yes, it is a logical implication of the order, “If this object is totally red in colour, then it is not totally blue” I believe I have already justified the impossibility of anyone knowing in advance what a free will agent will choose, with pure logic, showing the inherent contradiction of the belief that sentences about future actions of free will agents have truth value.
I definitely agree with Irenaeus that humans possess libertarian free will (the ability to freely choose), and although I know you disagree with the statement that the "essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices," I'd like to hear your reaction to the specific examples I posted:
Imagine that a mad scientist has secretly wired your brain with electrodes so that he can control your choices. Suppose that in the last Presidential election, he wanted you to vote for Obama and had determined that if you were going to vote for McCain he would activate the electrodes and make you cast your vote for Obama. Now as it turns out, you also wanted to vote for Obama, and so when you went into the polling booth you marked your ballot for Obama, and therefore the scientist never activated the electrodes. I think it’s clear that you freely voted for Obama, even though it was not possible for you to do otherwise. What this thought experiment suggests is that the essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices; it is up to you alone how you choose.
1. Did this fellow freely choose to vote for Obama? Why or why not?
I can affirm this: that the fellow didn't possess libertarian freedom. As Gregory Boyd puts it, “An agent is said to possess libertarian freedom if it lies within his or her power to do otherwise, given the exact same set of antecedent conditions.” This is the usual definition “libertarian freedom” Wikipedia gives Robert Kane's position as essentially the same."
Advocating what is termed within philosophical circles "libertarian freedom", Kane argues that "(1) the existence of alternative possibilities (or the agent's power to do otherwise) is a necessary condition for acting freely, and that (2) determinism is not compatible with alternative possibilities(it precludes the power to do otherwise)"
The "man on the street" also understands that having freedom to choose means that there are two or more options which he has the power to carry out, if he is not constrained to do otherwise.

Once again quoting your quote from William Craig:
Philosophically, I’m persuaded by arguments such as have been offered by Harry Frankfurt that free choice does not entail the ability to do otherwise.
So clearly, Craig is not using “free choice” in the same way that Boyd and Kane, myself, and "the man on the street" are using it. He apparently believes in some sort of compatibilistic “free choice” which is neither “free” nor a “choice”, but is a "decision" which is an eternal fact and is thus compatible with determinism.

So to answer your question, my answer is, “No, the fellow does not freely choose to vote for Obama." Why not? Because he cannot vote for McCain. Psychologically, he may think he has a choice since presumably he is unaware of being wired, and thus it may seem to him that he has the ability to freely choose, but he doesn't. For he CANNOT vote for McCain. Of course, according to Craig's understanding of “free choice”, he does "freely choose", since nothing has forced him to vote for Obama. But that is not how “free choice” is normally understood. If he were truly free to choose between McCain or Obama, he COULD HAVE voted for McCain.
Now in the case of God, if God is essentially good, then there is no possible world in which He does evil. But does that imply that God does not freely do the good? Not if Frankfurt’s analysis is right. For God acts in the complete absence of any causal constraint whatsoever upon Him. It is up to Him and Him alone how He acts. He therefore acts freely in doing the good. That God is acting freely is evident in the fact that His will is not inclined necessarily toward any particular finite good; He chooses to do whatever He wants.
2. Do you believe that it is not possible for God to do evil? If so, do you believe that God freely chooses to do good?
No, I do not believe it is not possible. Avoiding the double negative, I affirm that it is possible for God to do evil, because He has libertarian freedom. But in fact, He never does because doing so is contrary to His nature.

But doesn't Titus 1:2 speak of God “who cannot lie”? In the translations, yes. But the Greek has: “ο αψευδης θεος”, which translates as “the non-lying God”. So it is not “God who cannot lie” but “God who does not lie”. So, yes, I believe that God freely chooses to do good — since He could do otherwise, if He so chose — and He is able to so choose.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by psimmond » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:34 pm

Paidion said...
Yes, it is a logical implication of the order, “If this object is totally red in colour, then it is not totally blue” I believe I have already justified the impossibility of anyone knowing in advance what a free will agent will choose, with pure logic, showing the inherent contradiction of the belief that sentences about future actions of free will agents have truth value.
Molinists believe that couterfactuals of creaturely freedom have truth value since these counterfactuals "[include] a set of circumstances C which includes the whole history of the world up to the time of the choice in question." William Lane Craig

You believe God can do evil but chooses not to.

Do you also believe that God can choose not to love?
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by Paidion » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:14 pm

God has libertarian free will; He is also omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants. His character is that of LOVE. So I think He will always love. But I would never be so bold as to claim that He does not have the power to withhold His love. He has ALL power. He is omnipotent!
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: Molinism and OSAS

Post by psimmond » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:25 pm

God has libertarian free will; He is also omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants. His character is that of LOVE. So I think He will always love. But I would never be so bold as to claim that He does not have the power to withhold His love. He has ALL power. He is omnipotent!
My fault, I should have worded my question differently. What I meant to ask was, Do you believe God's free will enables him to choose to do the opposite of love? (I'm not talking about withholding.)

It seems to me to be logically impossible for God to be love and for God to be able to do that which is the opposite. I think it's highly significant that scripture says "God is love," not just "God can love" or "God does love." I believe God loves all of his creation because He is love. (I know the Bible says that God hated Esau, but I think this has to do with God choosing one over the other and not the emotion that we call hate.)

It also seems logically impossible that a perfectly holy God could choose to do evil (unrighteousness).

Take it or leave it; this is just my 2¢ :)
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”