Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?

[psimmond]

Paidion,
I don't understand why you responded to backwoodsman the way you did. He said:

Essentially, you said God makes predictions about the future the same way we do -- simply by making an educated guess based on knowledge of the past. He's just better at it than we are because His knowledge of the past is total, while ours isn't. But some of God's predictions are wrong for the same reason some of ours are wrong -- He guesses wrong.

And you responded with...

Predictions are not guesses. They are based on facts.Tossing a die, and guessing what number comes up — that's guessing. Guessing does not require any knowledge at all. Making a so-called "educated guess" implies a guess based on partial knowledge. God's knowledge is not partial and so God's predictions are perfect and flawless. His intention to destroy Ninevah was based on his total knowledge of the Ninevites. He knew the thoughts and intentions of their hearts! His complete knowledge indicated that the Ninevites were unlikely to repent, so He decided to destroy them. He wasn't "wrong" in his prediction. He made a perfect prediction based upon His complete knowledge. But, having libertarian free will, the Ninevites did repent. And so God changed His mind and didn't destroy them as He had intended.

He specifically said "educated guess," which is what a prediction is, and you responded by saying predictions are not guesses but are based on facts.

The way Open Theism describes God reminds me of the weatherman on the radio: He has facts regarding the past and present, detailed data including Doppler images, and most of the time his predictions are right. But he is sometimes wrong.

If God was wrong about Nineveh (He didn't realize they were going to repent), He could be wrong about anything! As far as I can see, we have no reason to trust completely in prophesies issued by a God such as this.

[Paidion]

Mr. Simmond, it appears to be a matter of semantics.

I consider "educated guess" to be an oxymoron.(the word "oxymoron" is itself an oxymoron, since its literal translation from the Greek is "sharp/dull")

If it's a guess, it's not educated. If it's educated, it's not a guess; it's a prediction (if it's a sentence about the future). And the fact that the prediction does not materialize, does not imply that the prediction is "wrong". There's nothing "wrong" with a prediction unless it omits some relevant information. But God never omits such information since He is omniscient. So His predictions are never "wrong". The fact that some of them don't come true does not mean that He is "wrong" or that He is "a false prophet" as Backswoodsman said. Perhaps the problem here is that in modern English, we have become accustomed to calling a prediction "wrong" when it doesn't come true. That custom itself is wrong, that is, mistaken. However, when God predicts, He is not mistaken. For He took all relevant facts into consideration before predicting. How could human choices, such as repenting or backsliding, make his prediction "a mistake"? Based on all the facts, His predictions are the best predictions possible!

The fact that a prediction does not materialize is not a mistake. If I think a book is on a shelf, when, in fact, it is on my bed — THAT is a mistake.

Even the predictions of that weatherman of which you spoke were not mistakes just because they didn't turn out. If the weatherman had taken into considerations the facts, wind direction and speed, relative humidity, barometric pressure, position of the clouds, etc.etc., then his predictions was not necessarily mistaken. For how could there have been a better prediction? Only if someone who knew ALL the facts made a prediction based on the total facts. But that wouldn't ensure that the prediction would come true unless there were no free-will agents involved in changing the weather.

[steve]

Hmmm...
If God told Jonah he was going to destroy Ninevah while He knew that He wouldn't do so, that sure sounds like lying to me!

If God made a prediction, knowing even that it might not come true, then He was lying—unless there was inherent in the prediction the implied condition that repentance would (or could) change everything.

Of course, there is always this kind of condition implied in every promise or threat (Jer.18:7-10).

If God made the threat, implying the condition, then Jonah's prophecy was, essentially, "Nineveh will be overthrown in 40 days, unless it repents!" This statement would be true, and could honestly be made even if God knew that the condition would be met and the disaster averted.

[mattrose]

I don't think that what Steve just said is really any different from what Paidion said.

Paidion, it seems to me, is saying that the reality of free will renders sound predictions capable of not coming to pass. Steve is saying that the known reality of free will is inherent in the predictions themselves.

[psimmond]

Paidion,
It's quite possible that I'm just ignorant here, but I'm very surprised to hear that you don't believe a guess can be an educated guess. I don't see anything in the definition to suggest that guesses must be based on complete ignorance; that sounds more like "chance" to me.

I'm also surprised to hear an open theist say that predictions based on all available facts (God's predictions) cannot be wrong, regardless of whether or not they materialize or come true (unless you see "wrong" as always referring to issues of morality).

It seems to me you are saying that God's predictions can be incorrect and false but not wrong or mistaken. Is this what you're saying?

Of course, there is always this kind of condition implied in every promise or threat (Jer.18:7-10).

Steve, thanks for pointing this out.

[Paidion]

Paidion, it seems to me, is saying that the reality of free will renders sound predictions capable of not coming to pass. Steve is saying that the known reality of free will is inherent in the predictions themselves.

Your analysis seems correct, Matt. But it's a bit surprising to me that, understanding our positions as you do, it seems to you that Steve and I are saying essentially the same thing.

When I said, "If God told Jonah he was going to destroy Nineveh while He knew that He wouldn't do so, that sure sounds like lying to me!" I took this from an Arminian point of view. That is, God said through Jonah, "Nineveh will be overthrown in 40 days" as a future fact, while knowing that He wouldn't overthrow it. But my view is not that God told Jonah what would happen as an absolute fact, but as a statement of intention — that through Jonah, God made stated his intention based on His total knowledge of the Ninevites, including all of their thoughts and intentions. It seems that all of God's knowledge of the Ninevites indicated that they would not repent. But when they did repent of their own free will, God changed His mind and did not destroy them. God didn't lie to them because He did not make a logical statement about the future (a logical statement is one that is either true or false). Rather God made a statement of His intention, a "sound prediction" as you have said, Matt. In order to lie to someone verbally, you must utter a logical statement which is false . Sentences about future events are neither true of false. Such sentences are either predictions or statements of intention. They are not statements of facts, for the events spoken of, have not yet occurred, and may not occur, depending upon peoples' choices. Predictions and statements of intention in themselves cannot be "wrong" or "mistaken" or "incorrect" or "false". For predictions and statements of intention are not logical statements about the future. The sentence "Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days" is not a sentence which was either true or false when it was uttered. The sentence became false after the Ninevites repented. It would have become true, if they had not repented.

Steve's belief which he clearly stated, is that inherent in every prediction or prophecy is an implied condition. What that means in this case, as Steve wrote, is that God actually meant "In 40 days Nineveh will be overthrown unless it repents." Apparently Steve believes that there are logical statement about the future, and this one is one of them and is true because of this inherent condition. Thus God, through Jonah, uttered a true sentence.

However, it seems that Jonah wasn't aware of the implied condition, since he sat off from the city and watched, expecting disaster to happen, and became quite angry when it didn't.

Also, the following sentence doesn't seem to bear out a prediction with an inherent condition:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:10)

It speaks of "the disaster that [God] had said he would do to them" as if it were God's absolute intention to do so. And I think it was God's intention. He didn't expect them to repent. But when He saw that the Ninevites had changed their mind and repented, He changed His mind and didn't bring the disaster upon them. It's similar to the situation in which God expected Israel to return to Him after having done evil, but they didn't return:

And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return..." (Jeremiah 3:7 ESV)

Oh, I know that the AV, and the NKJV which is based upon it render "return" as a command. But the ASV, Darby, RSV, and Webster all render the verb as a future, as does the JPS (Jewish Study Bible, translated by a group of Hebrew experts).

Also I fail to see that Jeremiah 18:7-10 indicates that "there is always this kind of condition implied in every promise or threat."

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

If the condition were implied, and Yahweh knew that a nation would turn from its evil, He would not have intended to bring disaster on such a nation prior to its repentance. Nor would He have intended to do good to a nation that turned from Him and did evil, had He known they would turn away from them.

Future choices of free-will agents just cannot be known because these choices have not yet been made. If their choices were known in advance, they wouldn't be choices. Their actions would be inevitable.

[psimmond]

Paidion,
I can't help but feel that you're just playing with words now to uphold the reputation of God who, according to your view, can only see the future as possibilities. Since you believe that God doesn't know the future exhaustively because he cannot, it goes without saying that you think all of his predictions cannot be judged true or false at the moment they were uttered.

When backwoodsman and I questioned how God could make incorrect or false predictions (for precision's sake I won't use the word wrong), we weren't questioning the statement at the time it was uttered but rather the fact that the prediction proved false/incorrect with time; this is how predictions, forecasts, and prophesies given by those who don't know the future (or who don't know the future exhaustively) must always be judged.

And while your open viewpoint causes you to read Jonah 3:10 and think that it was God's intention to wipe them out, my closed viewpoint causes me to read it and think that God knew all along that after his warning was issued, they would repent and he would not destroy them.

And once again, since I disagree with your definition of free will, I also disagree with your closing statement:

Future choices of free-will agents just cannot be known because these choices have not yet been made. If their choices were known in advance, they wouldn't be choices.

And I'll reiterate the point I made earlier:

As far as I can see, we have no reason to trust completely in prophesies issued by a God such as this.

[mattrose]

Actually, I am not really sure on Steve's view of open theism. I was simply considering how close your two statements sounded in one sense (mostly semantic difference). You are probably right that your positions are actually quite different.

I, myself, don't find molinism as persuasive a view as open theism. In fact, if I had to pick a view... I'd say I am an open theist. I take the incarnation very seriously. The best way for us to know about God is by studying Jesus. Jesus voluntarily took on limitations. Therefore, God seems to be the sort of god who is willing to take on limitations in order to gain something of great value to Him. In this case, I believe God took on a limitation by creating time and entering into it. He subjected Himself to the limitations of time. One such limitation of time is that the future cannot be known since it hasn't happened yet. God is able to make predictions b/c, as you said, He has perfect knowledge of the past and present. But predictions cannot wholly account for the free choices of human beings. Therefore, one can make a PERFECT prediction in the sense that it is the absolute most likely scenario that WILL play out based on current circumstances. But circumstances change. Just b/c the circumstances changed doesn't mean the prediction was poor. Indeed, it was the right prediction to make at that time. I do, however, believe that some things can be predicted with absolute certainty by God in the sense that He himself may take on the active role of making it happen and/or He himself maintains the right to override human will if he sees fit.

[psimmond]

mattrose, I like your post; it didn't confuse me.
I used to be a big fan of Boyd and Open Theism, but deep down, I always felt a bit guilty of stripping God of so much knowledge. Yes, it gave a reasonable explanation for some of the confusing passages in the Bible, but it did so at a great cost IMO. It gives humans the ability to make choices with full assurance that God cannot know with certainty what they will choose, but it does this by limiting God.

Maybe God did limit himself by subjecting himself to the limitations of time. I just don't see support for that in the Bible.

I don't think Open Theism is an outrageous or ridiculous view; I just don't think it's the best one out there.

[mattrose]

mattrose, I like your post; it didn't confuse me.
I used to be a big fan of Boyd and Open Theism

I like Greg Boyd a lot, but I haven't read his thoughts on open theism (though I know he is an open theist). Clark Pinnock is my influence in these regards.

but deep down, I always felt a bit guilty of stripping God of so much knowledge. Yes, it gave a reasonable explanation for some of the confusing passages in the Bible, but it did so at a great cost IMO. It gives humans the ability to make choices with full assurance that God cannot know with certainty what they will choose, but it does this by limiting God.

Of course, if open theism is true, you don't have to feel guilt for stripping God of so much knowledge In fact, if open theism is true, God hasn't been stripped of knowledge. Knowledge of the future simply doesn't exist because neither does the future yet. Open theism does not limit God, it posits that God voluntarily limited Himself by creating time and space.

I would also question how 'limited' God really is if open theism is true. Such a god would still know everything there is to know. He could still force His will to take place in any given situation (including forcing His predictions to take place as He sees fit). He could do whatever He wants.

Maybe God did limit himself by subjecting himself to the limitations of time. I just don't see support for that in the Bible.

Well, I also don't know how 'biblical' the idea that 'eternity' exists outside of time and that the past, present, and future are all equally present realities for God is. I'm not sure how 'biblical' the idea that there are countless other hypothetical worlds that God is aware of and utilizes, in a sense, to maintain this concept of free will. In other words, I don't think classic arminianism or molinism are really 'biblical' views. They are theological and philosophical views, just like open theism. All three can find some support from Scripture, but all three are theories made by man.

I don't think Open Theism is an outrageous or ridiculous view; I just don't think it's the best one out there.

I think open theism, classical arminianism, molinism... heck even calvinism are legitimate views, I agree. I suppose I would consider myself a tentative supporter of open theism with some remaining allegience to classical arminianism and some interest in molinism.