Enter a player name to begin or load your saved progress.
Molinism, named after the 16th-century Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina, seeks to reconcile divine providence and human free will by positing God's possession of 'middle knowledge'.
Answer: True
Explanation: This statement accurately introduces Molinism, identifying its namesake, its central theological problem, and its proposed solution involving 'middle knowledge'.
What is the significance of 'scientia media' in Molinism?
Answer: It is the cornerstone enabling God to orchestrate His plan while respecting free will.
Explanation: 'Scientia media,' or middle knowledge, is considered the cornerstone of Molinism, providing the mechanism by which God can orchestrate His providential plan while simultaneously respecting the libertarian freedom of His creatures.
The core tenet of Molinism is that God possesses 'middle knowledge,' which is His knowledge of all necessary truths and logical possibilities.
Answer: False
Explanation: Molinism posits that God's 'middle knowledge' pertains to the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom—what free creatures *would* do in any given circumstance. The knowledge of necessary truths and logical possibilities constitutes God's 'natural knowledge'.
Middle knowledge, or scientia media, is defined in Molinism as God's knowledge of what free creatures *will* freely choose to do in the future.
Answer: False
Explanation: Molinism defines middle knowledge as God's knowledge of what free creatures *would* freely choose in any possible circumstance, not what they *will* choose. This knowledge of counterfactuals is distinct from simple foreknowledge.
The statement 'If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely do so' exemplifies Molinism's concept of middle knowledge.
Answer: True
Explanation: This statement serves as a pertinent example of middle knowledge, illustrating God's foreknowledge of a specific free creature's hypothetical action under defined circumstances.
Molinists interpret Jesus' statement in Matthew 11:23 to mean that if Sodom had received the same miracles as Capernaum, its inhabitants would have remained unrepentant.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Molinist interpretation of Matthew 11:23 suggests that if Sodom had experienced the ministry performed in Capernaum, its inhabitants *would have* repented, thereby demonstrating God's knowledge of counterfactual creaturely responses.
In Molinism, middle knowledge is distinct from simple foreknowledge because it pertains to what free creatures *would* do in various circumstances, and is logically prior to God's decree to create.
Answer: True
Explanation: This distinction is crucial: middle knowledge concerns counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, understood as logically prior to God's decree, whereas simple foreknowledge pertains to what God knows *will* occur.
How does Molinism distinguish middle knowledge from simple foreknowledge?
Answer: Middle knowledge concerns what *would* happen in various circumstances; foreknowledge concerns what *will* happen.
Explanation: The critical distinction lies in the object of knowledge: middle knowledge pertains to what free creatures *would* do in various hypothetical circumstances, whereas simple foreknowledge pertains to what God knows *will* happen.
Which of the following is an example of 'middle knowledge' as described in Molinism?
Answer: God knows that if Peter were tempted by denial, he would deny Christ.
Explanation: This statement exemplifies middle knowledge, as it represents God's knowledge of what a free creature (Peter) would do (deny Christ) under a specific hypothetical circumstance (being tempted).
What is the significance of 'counterfactuals of creaturely freedom' in Molinism?
Answer: They define middle knowledge: God's knowledge of what free creatures would do in hypothetical circumstances.
Explanation: These counterfactuals are statements about what free creatures would choose to do under specific, hypothetical conditions. They form the essential content of God's middle knowledge.
What principle related to counterfactuals do Molinists suggest plausibly holds true?
Answer: The Law of Conditional Excluded Middle (LCEM)
Explanation: Molinists often appeal to the Law of Conditional Excluded Middle (LCEM) as a logical principle that supports the truth-aptness of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
Molinism suggests God ensures His providential plan by decreeing events that free creatures would choose to perform in certain circumstances.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately describes Molinism's mechanism: God, possessing middle knowledge of creaturely free choices, actualizes a world where He knows individuals will freely choose actions that align with His providential plan.
Molinists categorize God's knowledge into four logical moments: Natural, Middle, Free, and Experiential.
Answer: False
Explanation: Molinism typically delineates God's knowledge into three logical moments: Natural Knowledge (necessary truths), Middle Knowledge (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom), and Free Knowledge (actualized contingent truths). 'Experiential knowledge' is not a standard category in this framework.
Mathematical truths and the law of non-contradiction are examples of God's 'natural knowledge' in Molinism.
Answer: True
Explanation: Indeed, God's natural knowledge encompasses all necessary truths and logical possibilities, such as mathematical axioms and principles of logic, which are independent of His will.
The contingent truths that God actively brings about, such as the actual state of the world, are known as 'free knowledge' in Molinism.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately describes God's 'free knowledge,' which pertains to the contingent truths He actualizes through His sovereign decree, encompassing the specific state of the world He chooses to create.
Molinism posits a logical order of God's knowledge where Natural Knowledge precedes Middle Knowledge, which in turn precedes God's decree to create the world.
Answer: True
Explanation: This sequence—Natural Knowledge, then Middle Knowledge, followed by the decree to create—is fundamental to Molinism's framework for reconciling divine sovereignty and creaturely freedom.
Placing middle knowledge after God's creative decree is crucial in Molinism to ensure God is the direct cause of all creaturely actions.
Answer: False
Explanation: Conversely, Molinism insists that middle knowledge must be logically prior to God's creative decree. Placing it after the decree would imply God's decree causes the creaturely actions, thereby compromising libertarian freedom and potentially making God the author of sin.
According to William Lane Craig, if God's decree were logically prior to His middle knowledge, it would imply God is the author of sin and negate human freedom.
Answer: True
Explanation: William Lane Craig argues that such a reversal in the logical order would indeed make God the author of sin and undermine genuine human freedom, as the decree would establish the truth of the counterfactuals.
Which of the following is NOT one of the three logical moments of God's knowledge in Molinism?
Answer: Experiential Knowledge
Explanation: Molinism typically identifies three logical moments of God's knowledge: Natural Knowledge, Middle Knowledge, and Free Knowledge. 'Experiential Knowledge' is not a standard category within this framework.
According to William Lane Craig, what is the consequence if God's decree logically precedes His middle knowledge?
Answer: It makes God the author of sin and obliterates human freedom.
Explanation: William Lane Craig posits that if God's decree were logically prior to His middle knowledge, it would necessitate God being the author of sin and would negate genuine human freedom.
What is the Molinist perspective on the relationship between God's knowledge and His decrees?
Answer: God's middle knowledge is logically prior to His decree of creation.
Explanation: Molinism maintains that God's middle knowledge of creaturely counterfactuals is logically prior to His decree to create the world. This order is essential for preserving creaturely freedom.
What does the Molinist view imply about God's planning for the future?
Answer: Middle knowledge provides God with the capability to plan His providential actions based on foreseen creaturely choices.
Explanation: Molinism posits that God's middle knowledge equips Him with the ability to plan His providential actions by foreseeing how free creatures would respond in various circumstances, thereby enabling Him to actualize a world that fulfills His purposes.
Molinism suggests God elects individuals for salvation by decreeing that they will freely choose to believe in Christ, based on His middle knowledge.
Answer: True
Explanation: This accurately reflects the Molinist understanding of election: God sovereignly chooses to actualize a world in which He knows, via middle knowledge, that certain individuals will freely respond in faith to His grace.
Molinism's view of election aligns with Calvinism's concept of unconditional election, where God chooses individuals irrespective of any foreseen response.
Answer: False
Explanation: Molinism's 'Sovereign Election' is conditional upon God's middle knowledge of foreseen free responses, distinguishing it from Calvinism's 'Unconditional Election,' which is independent of any foreseen human action.
While both Molinism and Arminianism affirm God's knowledge of human choices, Molinism specifically grounds this knowledge in 'middle knowledge' of counterfactuals.
Answer: True
Explanation: This highlights a key distinction: Molinism's robust doctrine of middle knowledge provides a specific metaphysical grounding for God's foreknowledge of free choices, a concept not typically articulated in the same way within traditional Arminian theology.
In the ROSES summary of Molinism, 'Singular Redemption' refers to the concept of universalism, where all will eventually be saved.
Answer: False
Explanation: The ROSES acrostic defines 'Singular Redemption' in Molinism as the view that Christ's atonement is sufficient for all but applied only to the elect, not universalism.
Molinism's 'Sovereign Election' is unconditional, meaning God elects individuals without regard to any foreseen response, similar to Calvinism.
Answer: False
Explanation: Molinism's 'Sovereign Election' is conditional upon God's middle knowledge of foreseen free responses, contrasting with Calvinism's unconditional election.
How does Molinism propose God elects individuals for salvation?
Answer: By actualizing a world where He knows they would freely choose to believe in Christ.
Explanation: Molinism posits that God elects individuals by actualizing a world where, based on His middle knowledge, He knows they would freely choose to believe in Christ in response to His grace.
What does the ROSES acrostic summarize in the context of Molinism?
Answer: Key tenets of Molinism.
Explanation: The ROSES acrostic (Radical Depravity, Overcoming Grace, Sovereign Election, Eternal Life, Singular Redemption) serves as a mnemonic device to summarize key theological tenets within the Molinist framework.
How does Molinism's 'Sovereign Election' differ from Calvinism's 'Unconditional Election'?
Answer: Molinism's election is based on foreseen faith; Calvinism's is not.
Explanation: Molinism's 'Sovereign Election' is grounded in God's middle knowledge of who will freely respond in faith, whereas Calvinism's 'Unconditional Election' is understood as God's choice irrespective of any foreseen human response.
What does Molinism's 'Overcoming Grace' tenet imply?
Answer: God's grace overcomes depravity, but humans can still freely respond or reject it.
Explanation: The 'Overcoming Grace' tenet suggests that while God's grace is efficacious in overcoming human depravity, it does not override libertarian freedom, allowing individuals to respond to or reject it.
What is the Molinist view on 'Singular Redemption' in relation to the atonement?
Answer: The atonement is sufficient for all but applied only to the elect.
Explanation: Molinism's 'Singular Redemption' posits that Christ's atonement is universally sufficient for all humanity but is applied specifically and effectively only to those whom God foreknows will freely believe.
How does Molinism reconcile scriptural warnings of apostasy with the doctrine of the security of believers?
Answer: By positing that God knows who would freely fall away but providentially ensures believers persevere.
Explanation: Molinism reconciles these by positing that God, through middle knowledge, knows which believers would freely apostatize under certain conditions, and then providentially arranges circumstances to ensure their perseverance.
According to the text, what does Molinism's 'Eternal Life' tenet imply?
Answer: The perseverance of the saints, meaning regenerate individuals will not ultimately fall away.
Explanation: The 'Eternal Life' tenet within the ROSES summary signifies Molinism's affirmation of the perseverance of the saints, asserting that genuinely regenerated individuals will ultimately remain in a state of salvation.
What does the Molinist tenet of 'Radical Depravity' affirm?
Answer: Humans are incapable of saving themselves due to the fall.
Explanation: The 'Radical Depravity' tenet asserts that due to the Fall, humanity is thoroughly corrupted and incapable of initiating salvation or pleasing God apart from divine grace.
How does Molinism address the possibility of sin in its theological framework?
Answer: God permits sin by actualizing a world where creatures freely choose sinful actions, known through middle knowledge.
Explanation: Molinism explains the presence of sin by positing that God, possessing middle knowledge of creaturely choices, actualizes a world where individuals freely choose sinful actions, integrating these into His overarching providential plan.
What is the primary criticism leveled against Molinism regarding the truth of counterfactuals?
Answer: The 'grounding objection,' questioning the metaphysical basis for their truth.
Explanation: The principal criticism is the 'grounding objection,' which challenges the metaphysical basis for the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, questioning what makes such statements true if the creature is genuinely free.
What criticism did Thomists raise against Molinism's concept of middle knowledge?
Answer: It implied God's knowledge was 'passive' and contrary to His nature as Pure Act.
Explanation: Thomistic critics argued that Molinism's middle knowledge suggested a passive reception of truths by God, which they contended was incompatible with the classical philosophical concept of God as Pure Act (actus purus).
What is the core argument against Molinism concerning 'truth-makers'?
Answer: Truth-makers for counterfactuals of free choices do not exist, making the statements potentially untrue.
Explanation: The core argument posits that for a statement to be true, there must be a corresponding reality or 'truth-maker.' Critics question the existence of such truth-makers for counterfactuals of free creaturely choices, thereby challenging their truth-value.
How does Molinism reconcile God's omniscience with genuine libertarian freedom?
Answer: By proposing that God's middle knowledge is comprehensive but not causal.
Explanation: Molinism reconciles God's omniscience with libertarian freedom by positing that God's middle knowledge, while comprehensive, is not causally determinative of creaturely choices; rather, it informs His providential decrees.
Molinists cite John 3:16 as primary biblical evidence for God's middle knowledge.
Answer: False
Explanation: While various biblical passages are discussed, Molinists commonly cite passages like Matthew 11:23, which speaks hypothetically about what *would have happened* in certain cities if specific miracles had occurred there, as evidence for God's knowledge of counterfactuals.
What was the outcome of the historical Molinist-Dominican controversy?
Answer: Pope Paul V ended the dispute, forbidding accusations of heresy.
Explanation: The protracted Molinist-Dominican controversy was ultimately addressed by Pope Paul V in 1607, who issued a decree that ended the dispute by prohibiting either side from accusing the other of heresy.