William Lane Craig and Molinism: vain human philosophical speculation. part 1

In this article I wish to consider some of the statements of one William Lane Craig on the subject of molinism. And offer a refutation of the things he says in his broadcast; as it is just a mess of a belief to hold to as Christian.
An important point to show at this state is a biblical argument:

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

And also we have this text,

and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments .... See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Colossians 2: 2-4,8-10).

As Christian our Sole infallible and final authority is the divine writ; it is the highest court of of appeal on all matters pertaining to God; in terms of all he has done in this world on creation and redemption matter and many others. What we believe on any number of issues has to been informed and conformed by the Word of God.
And therefore, all our beliefs must be put to it's infallible test of truth; and on that basis, if it passes it should be believed. If it fails, then it should be rejected. And never to be seen as a possible idea.The thing about Molinism is that it was a Catholic counter reformation idea that now many philosophers are adopting and adapting to a protestant  view point.

It is my  intention here to consider some of the statements that William Lane Craig makes in his broadcast; in order to see if it is a biblical view or not . We must be biblical in all that we believe. Let us turn to the first point he raises:

When I speak of 'possible worlds', Kevin. I use possible worlds as a sort heuristic device a useful tool for talking of possibility and necessity. But as you know from my work on divine aseity I don't think there are any such things as possible worlds. I don't think there are any abstract objects that can objects that can confront God; indeed, contemporary work is that abstract objects do not exist. So I take an anti-realist position on abject objects. I'm zealous  to preserve God's unique Aseity and would not in any way think there are uncreated possible worlds that confront God can exist independent of him.

In this statement we see the two worldview of William Lane Craig come out in the forefront ... his worldview of a philosophical based belief of "possible world" where it is most plausible for the best out come to exist. But then in his other worldview of a "anti-realist" as he calls it, whereby he denies such is case.
It would seem on a basic level that these ideals are very contradictory and self conflicting. And it is even more stringent for us to note that he is trying to rescue himself from a dilemma he has thus led himself into.   How can a "self professed" Christian hold to such worldviews that not only contradict one another; but even more important are anti-biblical in nature.

Consider from his above response, "I use possible worlds as a sort heuristic device a useful tool for talking of possibility and necessity." Is it the job of a Christian to randomly dream up scenario's; whereby, they end up calling into question the nature and being God and his one sole purpose of creating the universe in that his glory would be manifest to us.
Essentially what this kind of philosophical monstrosity  is to render the idea that there is in fact another more legit purpose behind creation; and in his words, "creaturely freedom," or even worse is that behind this view is that there is another source behind the determinative factor of what would be.

This kind of teaching is a direct attack on both God Aseity and his Sovereignty ... in the first place, it is akin to the fact that God does not depend on anything outside his own being in order to bring about creation and redemption. It is entirely all in the realm of his being and decree. It is therefore, important to high light something WLC states, "On molinism, God doesn't determine the truth values of these counter -factuals of creaturely freedom." It would be of more interest to actually ground these kinds of comments, if God does not determine anything at all, then who does, and should we not consider that entity  as our creator.
The only logical inference from this one can get is this: This philosophical proposition leaves more uncertainty than it does in actually providing any legitimate basis for believing in it. It is a mere speculative theory of something which can not be demonstrated to be the truth. And on this basis it should be rejected as it is anti-biblical.

In WLC's next statement we read the following:

What a molinist does is distinguish between "logically possible worlds" and worlds which are "feasible" for God to actualize; given the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom that there are. And on molinism, God does not determine the truth values of these counter factuals of creaturely freedom.

Now we see something of an interesting switch in WLC's position, in stead of defending in the first person singular as he has done elsewhere; such as in an unbelievable broardcast.. where he said, "why can't it be  molinism." He now goes into a third person plural, as in "What a molinist does." but no matter what; let not the language confuse you .. for he holds to this or at least a tweaked up version of it.
But this is the last of of it; we need to take note of the next words, as this is what molinist does "distinguish between "logically possible worlds" and worlds which are "feasible" for God to actualize; given the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom that there are." The argument is not the issue here, it is the underline grounding.. the presupposition that is primary factor in this.

And the the presupposition is creaturely freedom or "free" will that is being smuggled in here as a fact; when it has not been sufficiently proved to be the case based on scripture and not human philosophy which is not God's truth.
Biblically speaking there is not such thing as a 'free-will', now of course, man does have a will... a corrupt, enslaved one .. it is enslaved to sin's power.And this is sufficiently attested by Scripture Jesus tells us in John 8:31-39 Paul tells us the same thing in Romans 6:15-18. Peter tells us the same thing in 2 peter 2:  17-20. Man cannot choose anything that is contra to his nature .. given the choice he will always go to that which he is led to by his nature.

But this does not have to be the case, for when God chooses a person out of his kind Mercy .. he will by regeneration bring that person to faith in his Son who died for them. John 6:44-45 says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learnt from the Father comes to me—"  
God uses the vessels of men, to preach the bible to the lost and the Spirit takes that and applies it to the chosen and frees them from their sin and gives them the ability to understand and submit to Christ as their divine Lord.

There is an issue in this statement that is troubling of supposing something about God's thoughts in regards to the choices surrounding the creative process; of course, that is the idea of  "possible worlds" and  "feasible worlds." This concepts are nothing but theories and speculation of what Craig believes about God. But as always we need to make it clear .. people personal thought do not equate to Divine truth and revelation. It is nothing of the kind.
WLC says at the start of this, "I don't think there are such things as possible worlds"  and then spends his time defending and defining the case for possible worlds. What is the point in this matter?

Next we have these words of WLC:

That is to say, hypothetical conditions about how creatures 'would' behave if they were in a particular set of circumstances. And I think for some  persons that gives the appearence of God being dependant upon creatures in some way; because he does not determine those counterfacuals anymore than he determines volitionally the truth values of necessary truth values of logic for example. 

Now we move onto what I see as a real dangerous statement; notice his words here "That is to say, hypothetical conditions about how creatures would 'behave' if they were in a particular set of circumstances." The question to be considered here is the following: just where does the information come from.. since no creatures exist as of yet and as we will see God has no control over anything.. he is a mere spectator of anothers grand plan. Therefore, where does this information come from. Where is it's origin.
And in fact, I don't see any real rational answer to these kinds of questions; they are left untouched.

Going back slightly for we have something that needs to be considered here as apart of the next stated point. It reads, "And on molinism, God does not determine the truth values of these counter factuals of creaturely freedom."  and we also have these words, "because he does not determine those counterfacuals anymore than he determines volitionally the truth values of necessary truth values of logic for example." This is a very, very troubling thing to read from a Christian.
Putting aside the idea of "creaturely freedom" we do not see how he reaches such a view point that God does not determine anything .. Just who is responsable for creating everything we see.. if it was not God himself.

It is important to realise in his words, "that gives the appearance of God being dependant upon creatures in some way;" Well, this is a likely hood .. that God is dependant on something outside himself for the creation being brought into existence. Or as WLC states, "actualise" which to be honest is not a very legit way of expressing it .. as it suggests that he envision or has a thought of a possible creation but is not able to bring it about.
Now what is the end point on this issue of, "hypothetical condition" well it is remain an unbiblical premise  it is pure speculation on man's part. Let us consider a few biblical texts:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.  (Genesis 1:1-2)

Praise the Lord!
I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart, in the company of the upright, in the congregation.
Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.
Full of splendor and majesty is his work, and his righteousness endures forever.
He has caused his wondrous works to be remembered; the Lord is gracious and merciful. (Psalms 111:1-4)

In these passages, we see that it is beyond dispute that God created everything in the universe for one soul purposes. And that being to bring glory to his name, there was no outside determined factor in creation-- just the inside determining factor, God in his own council .. the triune communion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit decided to create everything we see with that unified purpose of self- glorification.
And it is important to note that in WLC's understanding of things; we are missing this unique purpose. In his presentation the focus is on mankind and not God. And even more, it is on some unidentified being that get the glories.

This concludes part 1 .. I will pick this refutation in Part 2.