Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig Molinism vs. Calvanism

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 4:34:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

I think the typical answer goes something like:

The author is using opposites as a tool, see how they used light and darkness in the first part of the verse? Evil is not the opposite of peace, calamity is. The word for "evil" here can also mean calamity*, but the word for peace can only be reasonably interpreted to mean peace*, so whereas it can't be changed to say good/evil, it can be changed to say peace/calamity and still be true to the original text, keeping in line with the opposites theme that's going on here.

*I have no idea if these are actually true, that's just what I've heard in this kind of response.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 5:39:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.

http://carm.org...

I think this one, pretty much pwns that one..
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 5:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 4:34:47 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

I think the typical answer goes something like:

The author is using opposites as a tool, see how they used light and darkness in the first part of the verse? Evil is not the opposite of peace, calamity is. The word for "evil" here can also mean calamity*, but the word for peace can only be reasonably interpreted to mean peace*, so whereas it can't be changed to say good/evil, it can be changed to say peace/calamity and still be true to the original text, keeping in line with the opposites theme that's going on here.

*I have no idea if these are actually true, that's just what I've heard in this kind of response.


Your correct, and in fact only a few translations say "evil" instead of "calamity". However, calamity is still bad and is usually a type of evil.

God creates calamity, doesn't sound much different from-- God creates evil.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:02:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 5:41:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 4:34:47 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

I think the typical answer goes something like:

The author is using opposites as a tool, see how they used light and darkness in the first part of the verse? Evil is not the opposite of peace, calamity is. The word for "evil" here can also mean calamity*, but the word for peace can only be reasonably interpreted to mean peace*, so whereas it can't be changed to say good/evil, it can be changed to say peace/calamity and still be true to the original text, keeping in line with the opposites theme that's going on here.

*I have no idea if these are actually true, that's just what I've heard in this kind of response.


Your correct, and in fact only a few translations say "evil" instead of "calamity". However, calamity is still bad and is usually a type of evil.

Again, I don't say this with a lot of confidence, but I think that it might be considered natural evil, which might have different implications then if you took that as referring to moral evil.


God creates calamity, doesn't sound much different from-- God creates evil.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:35:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:02:46 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/24/2012 5:41:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 4:34:47 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

I think the typical answer goes something like:

The author is using opposites as a tool, see how they used light and darkness in the first part of the verse? Evil is not the opposite of peace, calamity is. The word for "evil" here can also mean calamity*, but the word for peace can only be reasonably interpreted to mean peace*, so whereas it can't be changed to say good/evil, it can be changed to say peace/calamity and still be true to the original text, keeping in line with the opposites theme that's going on here.

*I have no idea if these are actually true, that's just what I've heard in this kind of response.


Your correct, and in fact only a few translations say "evil" instead of "calamity". However, calamity is still bad and is usually a type of evil.

Again, I don't say this with a lot of confidence, but I think that it might be considered natural evil, which might have different implications then if you took that as referring to moral evil.


God creates calamity, doesn't sound much different from-- God creates evil.


Admirable of you to admit uncertainty, however, as I understand it, natural evils were caused by sin.

So... kinda back at square one.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:40:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree, for the most part, with Craig's criticisms of Calvinism but I also am rather uncertain on Molinism (especially the way Craig employs it "solve", like, every theological difficulty that comes up).
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:43:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:40:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree, for the most part, with Craig's criticisms of Calvinism but I also am rather uncertain on Molinism (especially the way Craig employs it "solve", like, every theological difficulty that comes up).


Care to expound on a few of them?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:47:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:43:33 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:40:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree, for the most part, with Craig's criticisms of Calvinism but I also am rather uncertain on Molinism (especially the way Craig employs it "solve", like, every theological difficulty that comes up).


Care to expound on a few of them?

Not really much to expound on considering that Craig lays them out right there in his article.

Molinism vs Calvinism – Five difficulties with the Reformed view

"1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledge that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable. D. A. Carson identifies nine streams of texts affirming human freedom: (1) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands, (2) people are said to obey, believe, and choose God, (3) people sin and rebel against God, (4) people's sins are judged by God, (5) people are tested by God, (6) people receive divine rewards, (7) the elect are responsible to respond to God's initiative, (8) prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God, and (9) God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, pp. 18-22). These passages rule out a deterministic understanding of divine providence, which would preclude human freedom. Determinists reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there's no mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency.

2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one's mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

3. Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility. In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil, and they cannot do otherwise. God determines their choices and makes them do wrong. If it is evil to make another person do wrong, then on this view God is not only the cause of sin and evil, but becomes evil Himself, which is absurd. By the same token, all human responsibility for sin has been removed. For our choices are not really up to us: God causes us to make them. We cannot be responsible for our actions, for nothing we think or do is up to us.

4. Universal, divine, determinism nullifies human agency. Since our choices are not up to us but are caused by God, human beings cannot be said to be real agents. They are mere instruments by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone. Of course, secondary causes retain all their properties and powers as intermediate causes, as the Reformed divines remind us, just as a stick retains its properties and powers which make it suitable for the purposes of the one who uses it. Reformed thinkers need not be occasionalists like Nicholas Malebranche, who held that God is the only cause there is. But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action. Hence, it's dubious that on divine determinism there really is more than one agent in the world, namely, God. This conclusion not only flies in the face of our knowledge of ourselves as agents but makes it inexplicable why God then treats us as agents, holding us responsible for what He caused us and used us to do.

5. Universal, divine determinism makes reality into a farce. On the deterministic view, the whole world becomes a vain and empty spectacle. There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return. The whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself. Far from glorifying God, the deterministic view, I'm convinced, denigrates God for engaging in a such a farcical charade. It is deeply insulting to God to think that He would create beings which are in every respect causally determined by Him and then treat them as though they were free agents, punishing them for the wrong actions He made them do or loving them as though they were freely responding agents. God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame. I'm certain that Reformed determinists, in contrast to classical Reformed divines, will bristle at such a comparison. But why it's inapt for the doctrine of universal, divine, causal determinism is a mystery to me."
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 8:58:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:47:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:43:33 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:40:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree, for the most part, with Craig's criticisms of Calvinism but I also am rather uncertain on Molinism (especially the way Craig employs it "solve", like, every theological difficulty that comes up).


Care to expound on a few of them?

Not really much to expound on considering that Craig lays them out right there in his article.


Ok, so i was hoping for you to specify which one's, in particular were the strongest or the one's you felt were most notable.

not re post the entire article
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2012 9:16:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:35:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:02:46 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/24/2012 5:41:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 4:34:47 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

I think the typical answer goes something like:

The author is using opposites as a tool, see how they used light and darkness in the first part of the verse? Evil is not the opposite of peace, calamity is. The word for "evil" here can also mean calamity*, but the word for peace can only be reasonably interpreted to mean peace*, so whereas it can't be changed to say good/evil, it can be changed to say peace/calamity and still be true to the original text, keeping in line with the opposites theme that's going on here.

*I have no idea if these are actually true, that's just what I've heard in this kind of response.


Your correct, and in fact only a few translations say "evil" instead of "calamity". However, calamity is still bad and is usually a type of evil.

Again, I don't say this with a lot of confidence, but I think that it might be considered natural evil, which might have different implications then if you took that as referring to moral evil.


God creates calamity, doesn't sound much different from-- God creates evil.


Admirable of you to admit uncertainty, however, as I understand it, natural evils were caused by sin.

Uh, thanks? I'm not trying to be admirable. I'm simply providing that as a disclaimer in case someone who knows more than I do feels like calling me out. Anyhow, I don't think you understand my point. Regardless of the cause, God creating natural evil, if I'm understanding that correctly to be things such as violent earthquakes and floods, seems at least slightly more palatable then God creating moral evil, such as causing someone to rape their child repeatedly or shoot up a movie theater full of people. Hence, in my opinion, "calamity" does sound quite different from "evil," given that I think most people associate evil with moral evil. Thus, I would strongly disagree with your comment:

"God creates calamity, doesn't sound much different from-- God creates evil."


So... kinda back at square one.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 12:22:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 5:39:26 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.

http://carm.org...

I think this one, pretty much pwns that one..

I just got hounded for using carm.org in a debate. People saying its not a good source and such. I think it is a good source, but there were some glaring errors in it. Most notably, "Second, Middle Knowledge means that God learns what the actual choices of people will be only when they occur." That is completely false. Middle knowledge would say that God knows what choices people would make in any given situation from an eternities past.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 12:23:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 3:25:25 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.


Hmm, how does a molinist deal with Isaiah 45?

5 I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me;

6 that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

One Bible commentary (enduring word) says, "Simply put, Isaiah knows, Cyrus would know and declare to the whole world, and we should know today, that God is in control. Since this prophecy was given long before God's people went into the captivity Isaiah now announces deliverance from, they could be comforted through the captivity by knowing God is in control.

i. Isaiah's point is that there are not two gods or forces in heaven, one good and one bad, as in a dualistic "yin and yang" sense. "Cyrus was a Persian, and Persian had a dualistic concept of God and th world. Their good god they called Ahura-mazda and the evil god Angra-mainya. The former had created the light, the second the darkness." (Bultema)

ii. But God has no opposite. Satan is not and has never been God's opposite. There is one God. He is not the author of evil; evil is never "original," but always a perversion of an existing good. Yet God is the allower of evil, and He uses it to accomplish His eternal purpose of bringing together all things in Jesus (Ephesians 3:8-11 and 1:9-10). If God could further His eternal purpose by allowing His Son to die a wicked, unjust death on a cross, then He knows how to use what He allows for His eternal purpose.

iii. "Undoubtedly the Lord is no representative of evil as such, but He does make use of evil so that it may bring forth good." (Calvin, cited in Butlema)"
warrior_for_truth
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 5:40:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am not 100% sure on what Calvinists believe, but they are grossly mistaken if they believe that God predestined the majority of his creation to go to hell. The Bible says that God desires all men to be saved. This alone should disprove predestination.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 9:23:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/24/2012 8:47:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:43:33 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 8:40:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I agree, for the most part, with Craig's criticisms of Calvinism but I also am rather uncertain on Molinism (especially the way Craig employs it "solve", like, every theological difficulty that comes up).


Care to expound on a few of them?

Not really much to expound on considering that Craig lays them out right there in his article.

Molinism vs Calvinism – Five difficulties with the Reformed view

"1. Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture. The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledge that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable. D. A. Carson identifies nine streams of texts affirming human freedom: (1) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands, (2) people are said to obey, believe, and choose God, (3) people sin and rebel against God, (4) people's sins are judged by God, (5) people are tested by God, (6) people receive divine rewards, (7) the elect are responsible to respond to God's initiative, (8) prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God, and (9) God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension, pp. 18-22). These passages rule out a deterministic understanding of divine providence, which would preclude human freedom. Determinists reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there's no mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency.

"They acknowledge that the reconciliation of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable."

"The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm: genuine indeterminacy and contingency."

I don't see either of those points substantiated.

2. Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one's mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.

I don't understand how Craig can quote compatibilism above and then attack hard determinism? Compatibilism is a form of determinism but it incorprates internal as well as external influences that Craig seems to gloss over, intentionally.

"since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation." Kinda like God, or most everything else. Axiomatic imho

3. Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility. In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil, and they cannot do otherwise. God determines their choices and makes them do wrong. If it is evil to make another person do wrong, then on this view God is not only the cause of sin and evil, but becomes evil Himself, which is absurd. By the same token, all human responsibility for sin has been removed. For our choices are not really up to us: God causes us to make them. We cannot be responsible for our actions, for nothing we think or do is up to us.

I am confused if Craig is critiquing Compatibilistic Calvinism or hard determinism of hyper-Calvinism. Nothing of his 3rd point resembles Calvinism, but wholly equates to hyper-Calvinism.

4. Universal, divine, determinism nullifies human agency. Since our choices are not up to us but are caused by God, human beings cannot be said to be real agents. They are mere instruments by means of which God acts to produce some effect, much like a man using a stick to move a stone. Of course, secondary causes retain all their properties and powers as intermediate causes, as the Reformed divines remind us, just as a stick retains its properties and powers which make it suitable for the purposes of the one who uses it. Reformed thinkers need not be occasionalists like Nicholas Malebranche, who held that God is the only cause there is. But these intermediate causes are not agents themselves but mere instrumental causes, for they have no power to initiate action. Hence, it's dubious that on divine determinism there really is more than one agent in the world, namely, God. This conclusion not only flies in the face of our knowledge of ourselves as agents but makes it inexplicable why God then treats us as agents, holding us responsible for what He caused us and used us to do.

Unless Craig wants to propose some form of libritarian free will I don't quite see what other options there are. I think Molinism actually does this while affirming Gods sovereignty my asserting a form of 'middle knowledge'. Its all too esoteric to me atm. Still studying it and am interested.

5. Universal, divine determinism makes reality into a farce. On the deterministic view, the whole world becomes a vain and empty spectacle. There are no free agents in rebellion against God, whom God seeks to win through His love, and no one who freely responds to that love and freely gives his love and praise to God in return. The whole spectacle is a charade whose only real actor is God Himself. Far from glorifying God, the deterministic view, I'm convinced, denigrates God for engaging in a such a farcical charade. It is deeply insulting to God to think that He would create beings which are in every respect causally determined by Him and then treat them as though they were free agents, punishing them for the wrong actions He made them do or loving them as though they were freely responding agents. God would be like a child who sets up his toy soldiers and moves them about his play world, pretending that they are real persons whose every motion is not in fact of his own doing and pretending that they merit praise or blame. I'm certain that Reformed determinists, in contrast to classical Reformed divines, will bristle at such a comparison. But why it's inapt for the doctrine of universal, divine, causal determinism is a mystery to me."

http://www.gotquestions.org...
An interesting article on Molinism
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 9:25:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 12:22:49 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/24/2012 5:39:26 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.

http://carm.org...

I think this one, pretty much pwns that one..

I just got hounded for using carm.org in a debate. People saying its not a good source and such. I think it is a good source, but there were some glaring errors in it. Most notably, "Second, Middle Knowledge means that God learns what the actual choices of people will be only when they occur." That is completely false. Middle knowledge would say that God knows what choices people would make in any given situation from an eternities past.

I read that Molinism uses Gods middle knowledge to create the world in which most people are saved. Does this not make God reacting to men?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2012 9:40:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/7/2012 9:25:53 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 7/25/2012 12:22:49 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/24/2012 5:39:26 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/24/2012 3:06:50 PM, stubs wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I think it is a well done article.

http://carm.org...

I think this one, pretty much pwns that one..

I just got hounded for using carm.org in a debate. People saying its not a good source and such. I think it is a good source, but there were some glaring errors in it. Most notably, "Second, Middle Knowledge means that God learns what the actual choices of people will be only when they occur." That is completely false. Middle knowledge would say that God knows what choices people would make in any given situation from an eternities past.

I read that Molinism uses Gods middle knowledge to create the world in which most people are saved. Does this not make God reacting to men?

William Lane Craig would say, in a way, yes. He actually has lots of videos on omniscience vs. free will that I agree with for the most part. Most people think God choosing us vs. us choosing God are mutually exclusive. I don't.