William Lane Craig and Molinism: vain human philosophical speculation. part 2

(This is the 2nd part of this article)

Let us consider the next statement from Dr. WL Craig on Molinism; and he states:

But none of these things actually exist on an anti-realest veiw - they are only a neuristic device for talking about modal notions. I take it what he is tring to say is just as counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are independant of God's will; so necessary truth, for example truths of logic and mathmatics are independant of God's will. It's not as though God made it up ,that 2x2 =4; this is something that is necessary and not God's will.

Here we have one of the most perplexing statements to ever be uttered by a man who claims to be a professing Christian; yet it is also important to realise this is why human philosophy is bankrupt and unfounded in scripture. Now it is important for us to see that I am not questioning his faith; I am only critiquing his statements concerning his unbiblical beliefs. And to determine if it is in fact something for a Christian to hold too.
There are a number of things in these words that need to be considered in this matter.

First, Dr WL Craig says this ... "But none of these things actually exist on an anti-realest veiw - they are only a neuristic device for talking about modal notions." Now this brings about an important point .. as we have seen in the first part where he states, he does not believe that "other possible worlds exist" Therefore, it is not a prosperous thing to venture upon what if scenarios.
A Christian's job is not speculate about God in such a manner as to possibilities related to how creation took place. It is in fact, the role of Christian to believe just what his word says.. and when it say that he alone created every thing that is know and unknown to man. (Genesis 1:1--3, Isaiah 45: 18-19, Isaiah 44:24-28). It is important for us to see that it is God's word that declares God is the one alone creates everything. and it is for his sole glory.

Second, Dr WL Craig says this, "just as counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are independant of God's will; so necessary truth, for example truths of logic and mathmatics are independant of God's will." Now this is a very damaging statement for Craig to make! For it is easy to make a statement such as this, but it is harder for any to substantiate. It is a vaccuous attempt at raising some belief that has no credence.
Now lets consider it from another angle, if God is not the one who grounds these things then who does? And it is not good for one who posits such an idea as this, then to turn it back on those who are opposing this follish idea of man. Middle knowledge is nothing more than a philosophical mouse trap .. it is  idea that has no validity and cannot be proven.

Now it is important for us to consider some passages of scripture in order for us to compare and contrast:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. (Colossians 1:15-18)

 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ,  in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Colossians 2: 2c-3)

Now here are 2 important scriptures to which make it clear that "all wisdom and knowledge" is found in Christ. And such wisom and knowledge is what all creation is founded upon as John tell us that it is by the Word of God that all things have there being. So if "counter factuals" however one defines such things are not founded upon God's will and being Then it is only fair to ask just what does ground these things.

Now let's consider the Dr. WL Craig's next statement:

So in the Molinist's  scheme that's quite right to say that these are not are not truth's that are unacceptible- that doesn't make God's existence dependant upon anything because at this point! Nothing exists other than God  It is not  as though there are possible worlds or creature that exist; we're talking purely in of terms a kind of explanatory power of what God knows.  And it is true, that on molinism, that God does not determine by his will which necessary truths are true or which counterfacuals of creaturely freedom are true.

This is a somewhat misguided statement, he first says ... "none of it is in reality provable ... as to the fact, nothing but God existed." And yet on the other hand, he states: "it is purely a kind of explanatory power of what God knows."
Now on what basis can one come to this conclusion, that Molinism a unbiblical proposition that the Catholics invented as a way to get arond the strong emphasis of the Reformers stand on God sovereignty.
It is at this point a number important consideration must be put into focus:

First, if one wants the full explanatory statement on what God does; as he states .. one only needs to turn to the bible as the final and full authority on this matter. This is the only matter that is important to the faith.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

The only place that one can find God's will in a clear and concise manner of God's will and purpose in his creation.  Man only needs to look to his word as recorded in hs divinly revealed word .. the bible.

Second, to look outside the scriptures for some understanding of what God does or has done in the world; is in fact, a attack on the sufficiency and clarity of scripture. By looking to man's philosophy for answers, by adhering to speculative theory such as Molinism.

If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. (2 Timothy 4:6-7)

It is important that we see this as no negotiable commanded for the church, the words "if you" are for translation ease, they are not in the original. it maybe more likely that it is to read as "in pointing these things out,"  and then we are told that we are not to enterain "silly myths."  And the issue here is since Craig has in fact, made it clear that "no possible worlds actually exist" .. then we are dealing with speculation. 

Finally we see in these words of Craig, "And it is true, that on molinism, that God does not determine by his will which necessary truths are true or which counterfacuals of creaturely freedom are true." That is a telling statement! so a molinist is one who believe God is what contingent upon another source of pwer to bring about what exists. And Craig is endorsing this!

For I know that the Lord is great,
and that our Lord is above all gods.
Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,
 in heaven and on earth,
 in the seas and all deeps.
He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,
 who makes lightnings for the rain
 and brings forth the wind from his storehouses. (Psalms 135:5-7)

Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.
Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen.
Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them,
that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. (Isaiah 41:21-22)

So if the God whom Craig speaks of, "doesn't determine anything" then we must ask this question with some persistance: Who or what is the origin of all of this creation, if the God of the bible is not" And why does Craig in make such comments contradict the bible, and also make it clear there is no consistency in his words on this matter.

Now lets consider the next statement by Dr WL Craig:

Now that is not quite true. What this fellow is failing to see is that there is a proper subset of 'possible worlds' which are feasible for God and there are worlds that are possible in and of themselve but are not feasible for God. Given the counter factuals of creaturely freedom that are true; so the unique contribution here is seeing this differentiation between worlds that are "possible"  and world that are "feasible" for God to actualize. And if one doesn't understand that distinction; one has no begun to understand molinism.

Now we seem to have gone from one extreme in saying these 'possible worlds' do not exist as we have previously established by Craig's own words "But none of these things actually exist on an anti-realest veiw - they are only a neuristic device for talking about modal notions" to practically the opposite extreme in these words, "there is a  proper subsetof possible worlds" It would seem that this kind of thing is akin to a contradictory mindset. Either these "possible world do exist or they do not exist! which is it.

First, notice an important element in all of this is "creaturely freedom," now of course all human's have freedom in the sense that they choice to things each and every day they are alive. But that does not mean our choices are completely free ... there are many determining factors in life Such as previous experience, need to establish a life by means of work.

Second, this ability to choice everyday things is to be distinguised from mans inability to choose to come to Christ. For no one can do such a thing; all men are bound and enslaved to their nature of sin.. and can only that which corresponds to that nature. And this is scripturely founded:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,  and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” (John 8:31-39)

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,  and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification. (Romans 6: 16-19)

It is clear that man according God's word is either... (1) a slave of sin  or (2) a slave of righteousness. And that is the final result .. no man has "free-will" in as far the common idea of man being albe to do as he wills towards Salvation.
But the idea that Molinism which is nothing but a speculative theory being the truth need something more than cleverly designed words to make it true; it need contextual exegesis of the biblical passages. And we should never raise a unbiblical thought to the place it being on par with scripture as this seems to be the case.  The Scripture is God's inspired and infallible revelation .. and if iti s not in it then it should not be believed as being the truth.

Third,  we have not seen how these words or the thought they are conveying, "Given the counter factuals of creaturely freedom that are true; so the unique contribution here is seeing this differentiation between worlds that are "possible"  and world that are "feasible" for God to actualize." They don't even live upto to being the truth nor do they even get past the first basis of scrutiny. For they in fact suffer some severe blows:
a) You have not defined these "counter factuals" in order to give them a more solid basis out side of a human mind which concocts the nation of their existence. Therefore, we need a difinition as well as a distiction between one kind and another.
b) You have not even proven the reality of this theory of "possible worlds" to which coincidentally, you have previously abandoned as being non existant. Therefore, it is not our place to make a differentiation when you don't even believe in this theory yourself. Nothing like beaten a dead horse is there. 
c) And for a moment if we allow for such a thing as "feasible"  and possible" world ... what makes one a feasible place and what makes one a possible world .. what do these world look like? As no one can pin point exactly what they would be like or what they might looklike without giving up the fact they do not possess such information.. it is nothing but a theory.