Molinism & Divine Aseity

Recent discussions surrounding Molinism and Calvinism, such as the Craig-White discussion that occurred recently on Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? show, have got me thinking about the issues of God, human freedom, and determinism. I’m not going to comment on the discussion since I haven’t listened to it yet (and probably won’t for a long while). What I am going to do, is give a simple reason why I reject Molinism (and basically any view that rejects theological determinism). 


One of the major reasons I reject Molinism (and other views like it) is that it undermines God’s self-sufficiency—His aseity.


There have been various sophisticated treatments and critiques of Molinism by very able thinkers. But mine is a more layman’s reason for rejecting views such as Molinism. I believe Scripture teaches the self-sufficiency of God. But Molinism would seem to imply that God is not self-sufficient. Here’s a simple argument for that claim:


  1. If God knows X but does not determine X, then God’s knowledge of X is dependent on something external to God.

  2. If God’s knowledge of X is dependent on something external to God, then God is not self-sufficient 

  3. God is self-sufficient 

  4. Therefore, if God knows X, God determines X.


Premise (1) is true and I think Molinists (and anyone who rejects theological determinism) would accept the antecedent. Why think (1) is true? Well, if X does not occur in virtue of God’s will, then God cannot know X by simply looking inward and knowing His own will. God’s knowledge of X, then, would imply that there exists a realm of facts upon which God’s knowledge of X depends. God must “look into” this realm of facts in order to know X. This realm of facts may include counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (Molinism), human free choices (libertarian free will), or certain future facts (open theism). The point is that this realm of facts conditions God’s knowledge. God’s approach to knowledge would essentially become synthetic. In this sense, He is no different from human knowers. We, too, have to look into a realm of facts independent of us in order to know things. 


But such a view of God’s knowledge destroys His self-sufficiency. God ceases to be self-contained. He must depend on something outside Himself. The existence of a realm of facts that stands over and above God, which He must consult in order to erect His system of knowledge, brings God down to the level of finite man. God and man become correlative and synthesis achieves epistemological priority over analysis. Apart from making God finite, such a view ultimately ends in epistemological skepticism. This point has been argued in another post.


A god who must synthesize is no God. A god who is finite is definitely not the God Scripture tells us about. In order to hold to the self-sufficiency and aseity of God, we must reject views such a Molinism. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Failure of Classical Apologetics

Classical apologetics attempts to rationally defend the Christian faith by employing, in most cases, the traditional proofs for God's existence. Offering proofs such as the cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral are the first in a two-step approach to establishing Christianity. The second being offering arguments from fulfilled  prophecy, miracles, resurrection, etc. Classical apologists aim to first establish that this is a theistic universe and then appeal to the arguments mentioned in the second step to distinguish Christianity from other forms of theism. In my estimation, such an approach to apologetics proves inadequate and unsatisfactory for reasons I will spell out shortly. I will divide these reasons into two categories - theological and philosophical. Theological Since the conclusion of the classical approach is that Christianity is probably true or is the most probable amongst others, the unbeliever is always left with an excuse to reject the existence of Go
Read more

Brute Facts Are Mute Facts: A Van Tilian Transcendental Argument

Recent discussions on the Internet have led me to believe that there is a need to write this post. Here I will be clarifying, formalizing, and defending an argument which I believe is central to Van Til’s thought. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification and formalization of the argument available and so in writing this article, I hope to bring something fresh to the Van Tilian’s arsenal of arguments. Van Til’s Doctrine of Analogy Central to Van Til’s thought is the doctrine of analogy. Van Til made a distinction between reasoning that is univocal and reasoning which is analogical . Greg Bahnsen describes univocal reasoning in this way: “ Univocal” reasoning does not honor the Creator-creature distinction, but assumes that God and man approach knowing in the same way and under essentially the same conditions. It refuses to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (cf. chap. 4.5 above) and asserts its intellectual autonomy. 1 However, for Van Til, human knowledge must be analogical. Tha
Read more

Why Atheists Can’t Know That 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples...

The title of this article may be a bit misleading. There are obviously very capable and very knowledgeable mathematicians who are atheists. Such people do not only know that two apples plus two apples equals four apples, they can also provide elaborate proofs of the various mathematical theorems that undergird such a truth. This post is not meant as an attack on the intellect of atheists but rather as an attack on atheism as a philosophical system . A more accurate title would be “ Why Atheists Can’t Know that 2 Apples + 2 Apples = 4 Apples If They Were Being Consistent With Their Philosophical System ”. I know, not very catchy! But what is it about atheism as a philosophical system that precludes knowledge of a truth so basic and fundamental that even children know it? The short answer is that atheism commits one to an autonomous epistemology—an epistemology that rejects the necessity of divine revelation. Believing that two apples plus two apples equals four apples is easy enough. Th
Read more