Two Summaries That Reflect My View of Molinism, Soteriology


Maybe my explanation is not fully formed, but the way I see it… If you don’t want to choose damnation in the actualized world, then DON’T CHOOSE DAMNATION!

God cannot/will not actualize a world that is not feasible with your choices. If you don’t choose damnation, God won’t actualize a world where you are damned. God is not to be blamed for your free choice.

I think this is what WLC means by ‘God plays the cards He is dealt’, He can’t actualize a world where you are damned if you never freely choose damnation in any world

#######

12:24 “All four of those possible futures are filled with free will. By selecting one of those possible futures and saying ‘I want this one to happen’, when God predestined that future, Jackie’s free will is still there. Jackie’s making choices and God’s making choices.”

#######

How natural it is, for example, for Believers, when knowing that their child was on board a particular ship, and learning that the ship has met a terrible calamity and sunk – with some passengers being lost and some others being rescued – to pray to God that their child is among the survivors. Is there any way to rationalize such behavior and render it non-blasphemous?

Modern modal logic again comes to the rescue. Remember, on traditional accounts, God is (along with being all-good) omniscient and omnipotent. God, being omniscient, will have known, since the beginning of time, that the parents would pray (at such and such a time) for the survival of their child. In particular, God would have known at the time of the ship’s sinking that the parents would pray sometime later, and God could have chosen to answer those prayers in advance of their being uttered. On this view, God is not changing the past at all; God is making the past one particular way among the infinite number of different ways it could have been. One must attend to the modalities. Under this view, God does not change the past from the way it was (which activity would be a violation of the principle of non-contradiction), but rather God makes one possibility (the child’s surviving) actual, and makes another possibility (the child’s perishing) nonactual. There is no violation of the principle of non-contradiction, and the parents’ prayers are not blasphemous.

And it bears emphasizing that it is not God’s knowing beforehand that the parents would pray in a certain manner that ‘brings it about’ (‘necessitates’, ‘forces’) their praying that way. It is, quite the contrary: it is the parents praying of their own free will that God have saved their child from death that moves God to do (have done) as he did.


One Response to “Two Summaries That Reflect My View of Molinism, Soteriology”

  1. Ron Says:

    Much more to be said…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: