MOLINISM AND THE PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTARIAN INCOMPATIBILISM
Here I would simply observe than in my countless conversations, that when push comes to shove, many Molinists will show their true underlying theological commitments and fall back on the preservation of man’s freedom as priority and the affirmation of the “that’s not fair” interlocutor of Romans 9. I do not claim or even think that this is indicative of all Molinists or is somehow a sine qua non of Molinism or me kind of official Molinistic strategy, but rather it simply does constitute a large contingent of those Molinists who are vocal in debates. They will more often than not, in my experience, come from a position where they view any form of determinism, compatiblism or otherwise, to be “unfair” and thus are seeking to find a way to justify a pre-commitment to specifically Libertarian Freedom and find what they are looking for in Molinism. This, I admit, does not count Molinism and right or wrong, reasonable or irrational, but rather it should not be ignored that often a certain level of bias drives exegetical, philosophical, and theological methodology. I am one of the furthest from those who disparage philosophy, or even that philosophy does not in many ways necessarily constitute the boundaries for how all theology and thought progresses and forms. Yet, I would say that in instances like this one,it does appear that a certain philosophical prejudice and belief is used as a controlling factor in how the Molinist does their Biblical theology. That is, rather than allowing their Biblical theology to inform their view of the human will and moral responsibility, they will take purely philosophical considersations of the human will and moral responsibility and then go to the text to find the best reading to fit within that paradigm.
This is likely to be one of the most contentious issues because it does drive at motivations, albeit more likely subconscious than overt or intentional, and so I left it to the end almost as an endnote. Whether or not this is true does not validate or invalidate my arguments above nor does it prove or disprove Molinism. It merely is a cautionary note to those who seek to wade into these often contentious debates.
FOR THE MAIN DIRECTORY OF RESOURCES ON MOLINISM, CLICK HERE.
Here I would simply observe than in my countless conversations, that when push comes to shove, many Molinists will show their true underlying theological commitments and fall back on the preservation of man’s freedom as priority and the affirmation of the “that’s not fair” interlocutor of Romans 9. I do not claim or even think that this is indicative of all Molinists or is somehow a sine qua non of Molinism or me kind of official Molinistic strategy, but rather it simply does constitute a large contingent of those Molinists who are vocal in debates. They will more often than not, in my experience, come from a position where they view any form of determinism, compatiblism or otherwise, to be “unfair” and thus are seeking to find a way to justify a pre-commitment to specifically Libertarian Freedom and find what they are looking for in Molinism. This, I admit, does not count Molinism and right or wrong, reasonable or irrational, but rather it should not be ignored that often a certain level of bias drives exegetical, philosophical, and theological methodology. I am one of the furthest from those who disparage philosophy, or even that philosophy does not in many ways necessarily constitute the boundaries for how all theology and thought progresses and forms. Yet, I would say that in instances like this one,it does appear that a certain philosophical prejudice and belief is used as a controlling factor in how the Molinist does their Biblical theology. That is, rather than allowing their Biblical theology to inform their view of the human will and moral responsibility, they will take purely philosophical considersations of the human will and moral responsibility and then go to the text to find the best reading to fit within that paradigm.
This is likely to be one of the most contentious issues because it does drive at motivations, albeit more likely subconscious than overt or intentional, and so I left it to the end almost as an endnote. Whether or not this is true does not validate or invalidate my arguments above nor does it prove or disprove Molinism. It merely is a cautionary note to those who seek to wade into these often contentious debates.
FOR THE MAIN DIRECTORY OF RESOURCES ON MOLINISM, CLICK HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment