 |
| 
gershom
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 8/15/2004 7:11 PM (GMT -6) |   |
I'm just curious because the central tenant of molinism is the middle knowledge of the "'would' counterfactuals of creaturely freedom". But what I've read of the OVT, it seems that whenever there is true freedom involved in the choices of moral agents, these must be considered "'might' counterfactuals" and cannot be definitely known if true freedom is to be preserved. Anything then that is known definitely must no longer be a "truly free" choice, as it becomes definitely known only by virtue of being deterministically brought to pass by God.
If this is so, than wouldn't it be true under open view that these "would counterfactuals" are no longer "counterfactals of creaturely freedom" but rather counterfactuals of what is deterministically accomplished by God?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/15/2004 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Gershom-
Greg Boyd argued not too long ago that the open view is "neo-Molinism," but I'm sure he's given that up.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/15/2004 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Check the Search Engine. Do a search on "Molinism" (Match any of the words, all forums, subject only, any date). I turned up five or six good discussions we've had on middle knowledge.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
gershom
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 8/16/2004 2:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Hi Gershom-
Greg Boyd argued not too long ago that the open view is "neo-Molinism," but I'm sure he's given that up.
Tom
Sure he's given that up? It's still a featured article on his site. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, I'm sure. What he hasn't given up is being slow in making changes to his website!  The issue is basically that with Molinism, after the choice to create God knows only "will" and "will not" propositions regarding the future of THIS world. His knowledge of counterfactuals are "what might have been" propositions relative to this world. Because Greg more or less viewed the uniquely openness "might and might not" propositions regarding the future as counterfactuals (which they are not), he argued that the only real difference between Molinism and Open Theism was that Molinists limited God's middle knowledge to counterfactuals of a "might and might not HAVE BEEN" sort where open theists expanded that to include "might and might not YET BE" propositions. Since writing that article he's come to see that "might and might not YET BE" propositions are not counterfactual and that they describe the future of the world God DID choose to create. So there's a bigger difference between Molinism and Open Theism.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Here are those threads. Some good stuff.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/search.asp?mode=DoIt
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 5:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|