even more on calvinism and middle knowledge

in a previous post, more on calvinism and middle knowledge, i wrote that:

1. according to molinism, man is libertarianly free in God's middle knowledge and libertarianly free in God's free knowledge.

2. according to classical calvinism, man is compatibilistically free in God's middle knowledge and compatibilistically free in God's free knowledge.

3. according to moderate calvinism, man is libertarianly free in God's middle knowledge and compatibilistically free in God's free knowledge.

looking back, i realise that the terms 'libertarianly free' and 'compatibilistically free' are misleading because they carry excess philosophical baggage.

[to be 'libertarianly free' is to be free from internal and external causal determination, while to be 'compatibilistically free' is to be free from external (but not internal) causal determination.]

to this end, i would like to revise my position on molinism, classical calvinism and moderate calvinism.

i now hold that:

1. according to molinism, man is libertarianly free in God's middle knowledge and libertarianly free in God's free knowledge.

- able to resist God's will of command in God's middle knowledge
- able to resist God's will of decree in God's middle knowledge
- able to resist God's will of command in God's free knowledge
- able to resist God's will of decree in God's free knowledge ('open theism')

[God's will of command is what He commands us to do, while God's will of decree is what He decrees we will do in the best possible world. for example, God did not command man to eat the forbidden fruit - just the opposite! at the same time, God decreed that the best possible world is one in which man will freely eat the forbidden fruit.

of course, i don't know why the best possible world is one in which man will freely eat the forbidden fruit. but i know that the best possible world is one in which man will freely eat the forbidden fruit. if it were not so, then God would not have created this particular world in which man will freely eat the forbidden fruit.]

however, it is logically impossible for man to be able to resist God's will of decree in God's free knowledge.

2. according to classical calvinism, man is compatibilistically free in God's middle knowledge and compatibilistically free in God's free knowledge.

- able to resist God's will of command in God's middle knowledge
- unable to resist God's will of decree in God's middle knowledge ('irresistible grace')
- able to resist God's will of command in God's free knowledge
- unable to resist God's will of decree in God's free knowledge

however, the whole point of Scripture presupposing that God has middle knowledge is to affirm that man is able to resist God's will of decree in God's middle knowledge. indeed, man is able to resist God's will of decree in God's middle knowledge precisely because God's middle knowledge - by definition - is not knowledge of what WILL be, but knowledge of what WOULD be.

3. according to moderate calvinism, man is libertarianly free in God's middle knowledge and compatibilistically free in God's free knowledge.

- able to resist God's will of command in God's middle knowledge
- able to resist God's will of decree in God's middle knowledge ('resistible grace')
- able to resist God's will of command in God's free knowledge
- unable to resist God's will of decree in God's free knowledge

again, man is utterly responsible for good and evil (in God's middle knowledge) and God is utterly responsible for creating the best possible world (from His perspective and in His free knowledge), working good and evil 'for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose' (Romans 8:28, NIV).

links: calvinism and middle knowledge (12 oct 08), more on calvinism and middle knowledge (7 jun 09)