Talk:Molinism

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

It might be noteworthy to add the "Grounding Objection" to the list of criticisms of the Molinist Position. Full details with Molinist response are avaliable in Divine Providence: The Molinist Account by Thomas Flint. See also William Lane Craig's article: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grounding.html

--- thetiger@theologyweb.com

I added the “Grounding Objection” and got rid of the “halting objection”. The halting theory makes no sense in regards to a God who has exhaustive infinite knowledge and is also timeless according to most theories. The “Grounding Objection” is directly geared towards Molinism. I also added William Lane Craig’s response to the “Grounding Objection”.

--- rtmullins@gmail.com

I have made this easier to read.

This was readable if you already know what is being discussed. I reduced the amount of parentheses, and made the synax more staightforward. The content was not changed let me know what you think. Revert it if you think that the change was not helpful. Usually, I discuss before changing, but it does not look life there is a lot of discussion here. Thanks Christian Askeland 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I expanded the criticism section to more fully reflect arguments against Molinism. I'm not sure that either the response to criticism or the reponse to response belong there, but rather than take the former out, I added the latter.

What does the sentence fragment

"couldn’t how they would turn out ground statements about how they would turn out?"

mean?

"Molinism" - Having Been Based on the Word "Moline?"

Hello. I have found a reference that attributes the origin of the term for the doctrine of Molinism to the sixteenth century term "moline" which apparently was a name for the cross that supported a runner above a bedstone in a mill. This isn't from a religious book, and I am slightly dubious as to how credible this notation is. In any case, there is that notation. It's from the book, 'Windcatchers', by Volta Torrey on page 143. The book was copyright in 1976. Have any editors seen anything that possibly could correlate with this? Might it be more likely that the word "moline" came from "Molinism?" Thanks for your participation. --VictorC (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical texts for Molinism

It looks like there is a lot of text in the 'Biblical Texts for Molinism' section which should be moved to the criticism section. This same text looks like original research, but I haven't been able to verify if it is from the citation: "Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the Grounding Objection." Faith and Philosophy 18 (2001): 337-52. If there is no objection, I will move it to the criticism section.

--Torsin (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

independent of God's will

The first is God's knowledge of necessary truths. These truths are independent of God's will and cannot be false.

Does this mean he can't change them? -- Anonymous 19:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean he can't change them?

Necessary truth is the set of facts that are self-existent, such as numbers and the rules of logic. Whether necessary truth was created by God or not is debatable, as well as whether or not God could change it. But if God were to change necessary truth, to say for example that 2 + 2 = 5, it is such a fundamental change to reality that we would all immediately embrace the new truth and that it has always been factual, eternal, necessary truth. Down this road lies madness. DeekGeek (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

The article has the following three maintenance tags on it, added by User Chris Capoccia (link to revision)

I'd like to address these issues, and so I'm tagging @Chris Capoccia: here. I'd like to better understand what specific issues he has in mind with regards to these tags, so we can work on them together. —Approaching (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if you go back to the 2012 rev when these were added, there were fewer cites, and honestly i don't remember exactly what specific issues were 7 years ago. i still see bible listings in a cluster with only a few related to the lane cite. and there are a couple paragraphs synthesizing on their own without any citations. — Chris Capoccia 💬 12:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also looks like William Lane Craig is over-cited and might need to be balanced by other viewpoints. — Chris Capoccia 💬 21:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to the previous comments. There are several places where fairly basic citations remain lacking, which should be remedied. While WLC is one of the most prominent proponents of Molinism today, the dependence upon WLC renders the article heavily bias towards the present day, to the great neglect of the origin of Molinism, its relationship to the concerns of its day, the controversy it generated circa 1600, and the historical line of opinions contra Molinism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstensberg (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text claims Dave Armstrong is a Molinist. Actually he follows the solution of Fr Most cf https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/09/predestination-the-ingenious-solution-of-fr-most.html thus that citation is clearly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.223.226 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems or citation needed wrt Arminianism.

It was said: "It also differs from Arminianism because it claims that God definitively knows how a person would react to the Gospel message if they were put in a particular situation." It seems to imply that Arminianism rejects divine foreknowledge which is untrue. Could this be clarified and/or justified with a citation. Babygoater (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]