An argument against Molinism

[Melkite]

I don't see how those who are lost could have freely chosen to reject God's grace

The have free will.  They choose not to cooperate.  There is no coercion on them.  And by Divine Providence, God leaves them in this state.

Didn't Hitler have free will, even though God chose to allow him to survive childhood, knowing that he would later reject Grace and reject the Faith?

I think so, yes. But wasn't it providential that Hitler would do everything he did?  If so, could Hitler have chosen anything else?

For those God providentially chooses to respond to his grace, can those people choose not to cooperate?  For those he providentially chooses to leave in a state of unrepentant sin, can they choose to begin to cooperate?  Can either of those human actions be altered outside of providence?

Is the providential act of God determined by Him logically before or after the person's decision to cooperate?  If after, I don't see a problem.  If before, I don't see how we can say anyone truly has free will.

[james03]

But wasn't it providential that Hitler would do everything he did?  If so, could Hitler have chosen anything else?

There is no "else".  Hitler made his choices.

For those God providentially chooses to respond to his grace, can those people choose not to cooperate?

Yes, there is no coercion.   

For those he providentially chooses to leave in a state of unrepentant sin, can they choose to begin to cooperate?

Yes, there is no coercion.

Can either of those human actions be altered outside of providence?

From God's perspective, no.  He is outside of time.

From our perspective, yes if we are talking about metaphysical necessity. 

[Melkite]

From God's perspective, no.  He is outside of time.

From our perspective, yes if we are talking about metaphysical necessity. 

LOL, this is very difficult to understand!  But I think maybe a get it.  Pre-determined and unchangeable from God's perspective, but truly freely chosen and not imminent from ours.  Both/and in some weird way that is beyond us to make sense of?

[james03]

We can make sense of it only in that it is logically necessary because God is outside of time, and we are inside of time.  We can even say some things like "Everything from all times is present before God", because that must be true.  But we can't understand what that is like.  God is God, and we are not.

This observation is pure genius.  I wish I could claim credit for it, but alas, someone else made it.

For the Bible is quite clear in many places that we have Free Will, and in other places preaches Predestination.  How do you iron that out without resulting to special pleading/no true Scotsman type arguments?

You just go back to the basics that we already believe.  God is outside of time, we are inside of time.  There's obviously two perspectives.

[james03]

Here's a story to illustrate some of the concepts.

A thief goes through life thieving.  He see's a poor woman with her orphan kid in the streets, having mercy on them, lets them stay in his garage apartment, dropping off food for them.  Due to his line of work, he ends up shot, bleeding out in the streets.  The Lord has mercy upon him and a priest happens by and hears his confession.  The thief is saved.

And there is a law abiding rich man.  He sees some poor people, and refuses to help them.  Unfortunately he also took a COVID booster and dies of a blood clot to the brain.  He goes to hell, the level 1 area according to Dante's scheme, and is required to hear a Kamala Harris speech one hour a day.

From hell, he calls out to the Lord: "This is unfair.  I followed the laws.  My money is my property and in justice I can dispose of it as I please."  And the Lord replied: "You are correct.  By justice you did nothing wrong by not giving money to the poor, and you are not in hell for this at all.  However you chose justice, and in justice you are being punished for the sins you committed since your last confession."

Why did he end up in hell?  On one hand it is stated he is in hell only for the sins he committed.  However if he had shown mercy on the poor people God would have provided a priest at the hospital to hear his confession (It's my story, so I stipulate that).

So why is he in hell?

By metaphysical necessity, due to his sins.
By modal logic, because he chose justice over mercy.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

However you chose justice, and in justice you are being punished for the sins you committed since your last confession.

God isn't a trickster, and everyone knows at his personal judgment exactly why he's going where he's going.  The soul testifies against itself.

And giving money to poor people isn't an act of perfect contrition, so it wouldn't have remitted any mortal sins since the man's last confession.

This story is wrong.

[Melkite]

Here's a story to illustrate some of the concepts.

A thief goes through life thieving.  He see's a poor woman with her orphan kid in the streets, having mercy on them, lets them stay in his garage apartment, dropping off food for them.  Due to his line of work, he ends up shot, bleeding out in the streets.  The Lord has mercy upon him and a priest happens by and hears his confession.  The thief is saved.

And there is a law abiding rich man.  He sees some poor people, and refuses to help them.  Unfortunately he also took a COVID booster and dies of a blood clot to the brain.  He goes to hell, the level 1 area according to Dante's scheme, and is required to hear a Kamala Harris speech one hour a day.

From hell, he calls out to the Lord: "This is unfair.  I followed the laws.  My money is my property and in justice I can dispose of it as I please."  And the Lord replied: "You are correct.  By justice you did nothing wrong by not giving money to the poor, and you are not in hell for this at all.  However you chose justice, and in justice you are being punished for the sins you committed since your last confession."

Why did he end up in hell?  On one hand it is stated he is in hell only for the sins he committed.  However if he had shown mercy on the poor people God would have provided a priest at the hospital to hear his confession (It's my story, so I stipulate that).

So why is he in hell?

By metaphysical necessity, due to his sins.
By modal logic, because he chose justice over mercy.

Thanks for sharing that.  That was very helpful.

[Melkite]

However you chose justice, and in justice you are being punished for the sins you committed since your last confession.

God isn't a trickster, and everyone knows at his personal judgment exactly why he's going where he's going.  The soul testifies against itself.

And giving money to poor people isn't an act of perfect contrition, so it wouldn't have remitted any mortal sins since the man's last confession.

This story is wrong.

I think his point was that because the thief showed mercy, in turn God showed the thief mercy by providing him an opportunity for confession.  Giving to the poor wouldn't have been an act of perfect contrition, but perfect contrition would have been obviated by a good confession.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

However you chose justice, and in justice you are being punished for the sins you committed since your last confession.

God isn't a trickster, and everyone knows at his personal judgment exactly why he's going where he's going.  The soul testifies against itself.

And giving money to poor people isn't an act of perfect contrition, so it wouldn't have remitted any mortal sins since the man's last confession.

This story is wrong.

I think his point was that because the thief showed mercy, in turn God showed the thief mercy by providing him an opportunity for confession.  Giving to the poor wouldn't have been an act of perfect contrition, but perfect contrition would have been obviated by a good confession.

Where was the thief's mercy for his victims?

[james03]

God isn't a trickster, and everyone knows at his personal judgment exactly why he's going where he's going.  The soul testifies against itself.

And giving money to poor people isn't an act of perfect contrition, so it wouldn't have remitted any mortal sins since the man's last confession.

This story is wrong.

You are overthinking it.  I'm not presenting a theological argument.  It is an argument on logic, specifically showing the difference between metaphysical necessity and modal logic/necessity.

As far as your theological objections, you're probably right. 

[james03]

There is another important facet with regards to Divine Providence.  There is a condemned heresy that God has an inventory of souls waiting in heaven that He can insert willy-nilly into a body.  This is false.

So if God prevents the horrors of WW2, I can't exist.  (for the logic challenged, consider me a stand in for a billion people).  So ultimately I (we) am grateful for the horrors of WW2.

Why God has chosen how reality unfolds He has not revealed.  I'm happy that I exist.  It might turn out that I'm just a byproduct of His efforts to bring forth a Great Saint 50 years from now.  Doesn't matter, I get to exist.

Ultimately God is about Truth.  Without God, nothing at all could exist.

[Michael Wilson]

All Catholic schools on the subject of actual grace agree on the following:
1. God truly wills the salvation of all men.
2. God gives all men sufficient grace to save their souls.
3. Men can freely accept or reject God's grace.

The disputed area is how does God's universal salvific will; man's free wiil; and God's predestination; all work together harmoniously? Thomism favors the primacy of predestination & grace over free will; Molinism, free will over Predestination and grace. The other systems such as Congruism and Augustinianism fall on one or the other side. 

[Michael]

Propositions 5 and 6 are where the argument breaks down.

Premiss 5 is obvious. Middle knowledge, being prevolitional, has to be logically prior to the knower's choice. The content is outside the knower's control, so if one had middle knowledge of their own choices, the truths of those conditionals--their own choices--would be outside their control.

Premiss 6 follows from P's 4 and 5.

There is no unrealized potential within God.  He does not exist in one state and then make a "choice" which results in His existing in a different, more realized state.

Aside from that, He necessarily has perfect knowledge of all of His actions--past, present, and future--because to assert something contrary would mean that He is either not omniscient or that He is bound by time.

Right, but this has no relevance to the question at issue.

[Melkite]

P2. If nothing can occur without God causing it, then any middle knowledge of what creatures would cause is, by implication, middle knowledge of what God would cause.

P3. Nothing can occur without God causing it.


I think the Molinist would have to go after premise 2 and/or 3. I don't yet claim this argument is sound. I want to get feedback first. I can't be the first one to think of this, so I'm sure some Molinist somewhere has addressed this type of argument.

Thinking about these further, how can premises 2 and 3 be true if God is not the author of evil?  I would add to that:

P2.5: Evil is something

P3.5: Evil, being something, cannot occur without God causing it.

P4: God is the first cause of evil, and thus its author.

[Michael Wilson]

God is not directly the author of evil i.e. Evil comes either from the physical or moral shortcomings of His creatures. If we define "evil" as the privation of due perfection: "Physical" evil is the privation of a natural perfection, a privation which has no relation to the moral law, e.g. death, blindness. Moral evil, i.e. sin, is the lack of conformity of a free act with the rule of morality; e.g. a lie. (Thomistic Philosophy-V-II; Henri Grenier, pg. 359)
Physical evil, such as death and blindness result from the essential nature of material creatures.
Moral evil is the result of free will.
pg. 359.
Thesis Divine providence can will no evil directly, wills physical evil indirectly, and cannot will moral evil as such even indirectly, but merely permits it; and this permission is a good.
pg. 360 First part.
Divine providence can will no evil directly; what is not desirable as such,i.e., what is not the direct object of the will. But evil as such is not desirable. Therefore divine providence can will no evil directly
Second part.
Divine providence will physical evil indirectly; to desire good to which evil is annexed in preference to a good of which the evil is the privation is to will indirectly. But divine providence desires good to which evil is annexed in preference to a good of which the evil is the privation. Therefore divine providence wills evil indirectly.
Minor. God, in willing the moral order, v.g., justice, wills the evil of penalty, i.e., punishment; and in willing that the order of nature be safeguarded, He wills that certain things be naturally destroyed; v.g., He will the slaughtering of animals that man may have food.
Third part. 
Divine providence cannot will moral evil as such even indirectly. God can will no good in preference to His own goodness. But moral evil as such is opposed to God's goodness. Therefore divine providence cannot will moral evil as such even indirectly.
Fourth part.
Divine providence merely permits moral evil as such. Divine providence merely permits evil which comes solely from creatures, and is not impeded by God Who could, but is not bound, to impede it. But moral evil as such comes solely from creatures, and is not impeded by God, Who could, but is not bound to impede it.
pg. 361.Fifth part.
The permission of moral evil is a good. if moral evil provides opportunity for a greater participation in divine goodness and a greater manifestation of God's glory. But moral evil provides opportunity for a greater participation in divine goodness and a greater manifestation of God's glory. Ex. The persecution by tyrants provided opportunities for the sufferings of the martyrs. God's mercy is manifested by His forgiveness of sin, and is justice by the punishment of it.