The impossibility of God being wrong is attributable to his infallible middle knowledge of what one would freely choose as opposed to could freely choose. Consequently, there is no surface mismatch of God’s beliefs about possible indeterminately free choices that could occur, if certain possibilities are infeasibilities that would not occur. Of course, from a Reformed perspective that’s a big if, and must be addressed in a precise philosophical manner that comports with an orthodox doctrine of God and the nature of undetermined yet eternally true-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

This is a sentiment I’ve seen put forth from skilled compatibilists:
While Molinists say agents can do otherwise in the same circumstances, no Molinist would say that it’s possible for an agent to act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge.
Even if that were true, as the title of this latest entry suggests that I think Molinism as a philosophical system entails that it is indeed possible for an agent to act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge. Whether any Molinist actually thinks that is not my concern, if, in fact, they should think that if they’re to be true to the philosophical implications of Molinism. However, what’s interesting is that the Molinist loses no ground on that concession with respect to God’s infallible foreknowledge, if he also maintains that: although it is possible for an agent to act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge, an agent never would act contrary to God’s actual foreknowledge and God knows that! So, the question is, does Molinism entail that (a) it is possible for free agents to act contrary to God’s foreknowledge and (b) it is impossible that God could have a false believe about the future? I believe Molinism entails both a and b.
William Lane Craig at least affirms a, per 24 minute mark, which would seem to undermine the initial claim made by some skilled compatibilists:
Helm: “Why can’t they [i.e., human libertarian-free agents], as it were, go off in the other direction [i.e., than the direction God decreed]?”
Brierley [echoing Helm’s question]: “Why couldn’t they go off-script?”
Craig: “Well, they could! That’s the whole idea!”
However, my concern, as already stated, isn’t whether any Molinist affirms a and b but whether Molinism entails both a and b. (My suspicion is Craig also affirms b, given that his views seem indistinguishable from the position he champions.)
Points to consider: 

Theological determinists believe that it is possible under identical circumstances that I not to write this post. That’s because it is not a necessary truth or impossible that I would or would not write this post, which implies what I would do is a contingent truth (neither necessary nor impossible).

Once we introduce divine foreknowledge into the mix, it is no longer possible from a Reformed perspective for me to have done otherwise. That’s because from a theological determinist perspective, foreknowledge presupposes a determined free choice. More pointedly, once we move to the actual decreed world, we are no longer talking about mere abstract possibilities of what could occur (within God’s power) but rather which possibilities God has actually determined will occur. In other words, from a Reformed perspective God’s foreknowledge of contingent CCFs presupposes them being causally ensured by a decree that entails their determined truth values. But that’s not how Molinists see things, of course.
Read More
Related Posts:

You cannot pack Jesus up and store him away in an attic space until Christmas season arrives. Our progress in marriage, parenting, managing a family budget that honors God, work-life-balance, time management, and a hundred other daily activities are all very much connected to Jesus (Heb 4:13).

When I was in seminary, I was called to pastor a very small church in farm country south of Louisville, Kentucky. It was one of the great joys of my life. I was young and zealous to serve Christ in pastoral ministry. Very early on in pastoral ministry, one man who opposed me openly within the church. He raised his hand during Sunday school one week as I was teaching the church on evangelism and said, “I don’t think we need to be out advertising our Christianity to everyone.” I thought he was joking. He wasn’t kidding. I ended up meeting with him in the community a few weeks later, and he walked into the door wearing an advertisement button on his jacket for a local state politician.
What we learn as we read the Bible is that Jesus is concerned with far more than our Bible study and evangelism. Far too many people live as if Jesus should be left at the church campus each week or confined to the annual Christmas celebration each year. Did you know that Jesus impacts the way you spend money, the way you parent, your relationship with your spouse, your weekly worship of God, and yes—your politics?
Jesus and My Personal Space
We enjoy privacy fences. It doesn’t matter where you travel, you will see fences lining properties. We like to put up big fences and create personal spaces where we can live life apart from the watching eyes of our neighbors. We enjoy freedom and privacy. We crave autonomy. However, when it comes to Jesus, we can’t leave him in the Sunday school class or coffee shop where we hold our small group meetings. Jesus impacts the whole of life—including the most private details of our family life including health care, education, business, and marriage.
In the book of Hebrews, the first twelve chapters are focused on the highest and most pristine Christology found anywhere in the pages of the Bible. Yet, after looking at the supremacy of Christ over prophets, angels, and the priesthood—we come to the final chapter of Hebrews and we notice something unique. Jesus is concerned with our sex life, our use of money, and interpersonal relationships.
Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body. Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”1
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R.C. Sproul |
Sunday, August 13, 2023
When we close our eyes in death, we do not cease to be alive; rather, we experience a continuation of personal consciousness. No person is more conscious, more aware, and more alert than when he passes through the veil from this world into the next. 

The guns of secular naturalism, when aimed at the Christian faith, resemble not so much shotguns as carefully aimed rifles. The chief target of the naturalist is the biblical doctrine of creation. If the doctrine of creation falls, all of Judeo-Christianity falls with it. Every skeptic understands that. Thus the constant shooting at Genesis 1.
But along with the assault against divine creation comes an assault against the biblical teaching of a historical Adam who is involved in a historical fall, the result of which is the entrance of death into the world. If Adam can be confined to the genre of mythology and the fall set aside with him, then we see death as a purely natural phenomenon with no relationship to sin.
Much is at stake with the biblical teaching of the fall because this doctrine is linked to the doctrine of redemption. The historical function of the first Adam is matched and conquered by the historical life of the last Adam, Jesus Christ.
In the eighteenth century, when Jonathan Edwards wrote his lengthy treatise on original sin, he argued not simply from biblical teaching. He also maintained that if the Bible itself were completely silent about a historical fall, natural reason would have to suggest that idea based on the reality of the universal presence of sin. If sin is simply a result of bad decisions that some people make, we would assume that at least 50 percent of the people born in this world would choose the right path rather than the sinful one that is so damaging to our humanity. The fact that 100 percent of the human race falls into sin indicates that there must be an inherent moral defect in the race. Of course, Edwards points to the fall, a historical event, to account for this universal fatal flaw.
In the Genesis account, we are told that the soul that sins will die. In His warning to our original parents with respect to disobedience, God declared that “the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). But the record goes on to say that the day Adam and Eve disobeyed their Maker, they did not experience the fullness of what the Greek translation of the Old Testament calls thanatos—physical death. Because of this, some have argued that the death that God promised was not physical death but rather spiritual death.
To be sure, spiritual death set in the very day that Adam and Eve sinned.
Read More
Related Posts: