Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Five Difficulties With The Reformed View

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 1:55:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can read the full article here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

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.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:23:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:55:49 PM, stubs wrote:
You can read the full article here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Isn't Molinism a Catholic school of thought?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:30:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:55:49 PM, stubs wrote:
You can read the full article here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

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.

I read this article a while back. I was saddened that Craig seems to not make distinctions that reformed folk would in just about each of these points. Molinism makes no sense to me though.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:32:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:23:20 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:55:49 PM, stubs wrote:
You can read the full article here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Isn't Molinism a Catholic school of thought?

I think it was a Catholic response to attacking the Reformation. By the Jesuits? Can't recall too well.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:33:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:32:54 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:23:20 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 1:55:49 PM, stubs wrote:
You can read the full article here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Isn't Molinism a Catholic school of thought?

I think it was a Catholic response to attacking the Reformation. By the Jesuits? Can't recall too well.

I just looked it up. Molinism was invented by some Jesuit priest in the 1600s.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.

Matt Slick is legitimately hilarious in his blundering.

James White isn't pathetic. I've just listened to several select recordings of him being owned by Catholic apologists.

I'm sure he's intelligent, though.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:42:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:40:50 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.

Matt Slick is legitimately hilarious in his blundering.

Matt, tends to be way over controlling on his radio show.

James White isn't pathetic. I've just listened to several select recordings of him being owned by Catholic apologists.

Selective is probably an understatement (:-p). All I ever see is him owning.... everybody...

I'm sure he's intelligent, though.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:44:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:42:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:40:50 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.

Matt Slick is legitimately hilarious in his blundering.

Matt, tends to be way over controlling on his radio show.

James White isn't pathetic. I've just listened to several select recordings of him being owned by Catholic apologists.

Selective is probably an understatement (:-p). All I ever see is him owning.... everybody...

I'm sure he's intelligent, though.

Well, the thoroughly unbiased description of the bits I listened to said something along the lines of "James White has uploaded the parts of the debate where he clearly had the upper hand. While that's his prerogative, I feel there should be a balance so I'm uploading every part where he was getting owned." (paraphrased)
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 2:46:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:44:22 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:42:59 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:40:50 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.

Matt Slick is legitimately hilarious in his blundering.

Matt, tends to be way over controlling on his radio show.

James White isn't pathetic. I've just listened to several select recordings of him being owned by Catholic apologists.

Selective is probably an understatement (:-p). All I ever see is him owning.... everybody...

I'm sure he's intelligent, though.

Well, the thoroughly unbiased description of the bits I listened to said something along the lines of "James White has uploaded the parts of the debate where he clearly had the upper hand. While that's his prerogative, I feel there should be a balance so I'm uploading every part where he was getting owned." (paraphrased)

Lolz, any time I 'watch' a debate of his I actually watch the whole thing through. He has some really good ones on Calvinism.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 3:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.


"Bill is a brilliant apologist, but his theology is horrible."

This is what Kim Riddlebarger (White horse inn) said about him to me one day at chruch.
: 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.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 3:00:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:30:27 PM, joneszj wrote:
I read this article a while back. I was saddened that Craig seems to not make distinctions that reformed folk would in just about each of these points. Molinism makes no sense to me though.

Can you explain what part of Monilism makes no sense to you?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 3:17:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 2:40:50 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.

Matt Slick is legitimately hilarious in his blundering.

Hey now, don't knock the Slickster.

James White isn't pathetic. I've just listened to several select recordings of him being owned by Catholic apologists.

I'm sure he's intelligent, though.
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 3:19:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 3:17:29 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:40:50 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:39:39 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:38:21 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:37:22 PM, joneszj wrote:
This article really just turns me down. I have a crap ton respect for Mr. Craig, but I feel in this article he takes a pot that is %100 Determinism and slaps a sticker called "Reformed Thinkers" onto the pot. I believe James White did a great job addressing some of these points. If your interested look him up.

Har har.

James White.

I like James White. Lolz, and Matt Slick. How funny lolz.

Matt Slick is legitimately hilarious in his blundering.

Hey now, don't knock the Slickster.

I won't.

Only for you, medic <3
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 4:54:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 3:00:47 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:30:27 PM, joneszj wrote:
I read this article a while back. I was saddened that Craig seems to not make distinctions that reformed folk would in just about each of these points. Molinism makes no sense to me though.

Can you explain what part of Monilism makes no sense to you?

Are you a Molinist?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 4:58:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 4:54:54 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 3:00:47 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:30:27 PM, joneszj wrote:
I read this article a while back. I was saddened that Craig seems to not make distinctions that reformed folk would in just about each of these points. Molinism makes no sense to me though.

Can you explain what part of Monilism makes no sense to you?

Are you a Molinist?

Guess I'll have to look up "Molinist" as I did "Pelagianist", "Arminian", "Semi-Arminian", or whatever they all were. LOL
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 5:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 1:55:49 PM, stubs wrote:
You can read the full article here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

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.

Both things are true AT THE SAME TIME; we have free will to choose AND God is determining every outcome.. We cannot grasp how this is possible now but we will:)
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2012 6:05:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do not see the difficulty in seeing that:
1) God created all things and knows all things
2) God created men and angels with choice or free-will
3) God knows which way thier free-will will lead
4) God knowing who will choose him, blesses those who choose him
5) God knows who will refuse him no matter how much they are given the chance to choose him

This leads into God knowing and giving free-will. We do not know or understand His knowing and choosing while also giving free-will.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 8:58:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 4:54:54 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 10/18/2012 3:00:47 PM, stubs wrote:
At 10/18/2012 2:30:27 PM, joneszj wrote:
I read this article a while back. I was saddened that Craig seems to not make distinctions that reformed folk would in just about each of these points. Molinism makes no sense to me though.

Can you explain what part of Monilism makes no sense to you?

Are you a Molinist?

bump
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 3:46:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/18/2012 6:05:29 PM, Double_Helix46 wrote:
I do not see the difficulty in seeing that:
1) God created all things and knows all things
2) God created men and angels with choice or free-will
3) God knows which way thier free-will will lead
4) God knowing who will choose him, blesses those who choose him
5) God knows who will refuse him no matter how much they are given the chance to choose him

This leads into God knowing and giving free-will. We do not know or understand His knowing and choosing while also giving free-will.

It's like trying to explain the combustion engine to a cat in cat.. We just have the capacity or language, yet..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 4:20:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Jonathan Edwards dealt with all of these issues almost 300 years ago in his book on The Freedom of the Will.

http://www.reformedreader.org...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2012 4:58:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 4:20:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
Jonathan Edwards dealt with all of these issues almost 300 years ago in his book on The Freedom of the Will.

http://www.reformedreader.org...

Wisdom is the ability to condense knowledge; can you tell us briefly his view?
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2012 9:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 4:58:19 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/19/2012 4:20:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
Jonathan Edwards dealt with all of these issues almost 300 years ago in his book on The Freedom of the Will.

http://www.reformedreader.org...

Wisdom is the ability to condense knowledge; can you tell us briefly his view?

I'm afraid I lack the wisdom to condense his view enough to adequately address all these points. That's why I posted a link to the book instead of explaining.

I will say, though, that a major error Craig makes is conflating hard determinism with soft determinism. This is especially relevant in his argument from reason where he argues that determinism makes rationality impossible. I agree with him that hard determinism makes rationality impossible, but I do not agree with him that soft determinism makes rationality impossible. It is relevant what our beliefs are caused by. If our beliefs are merely the necessary result of blind mechanistic cause and effect, then they are not rational. But if our beliefs are the necessary result of reasons and "seeing" logical connections, then our beliefs are rational.

I went into some more of the differences on my blog: http://philochristos.blogspot.com...
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 12:48:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/20/2012 9:29:24 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 10/19/2012 4:58:19 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/19/2012 4:20:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
Jonathan Edwards dealt with all of these issues almost 300 years ago in his book on The Freedom of the Will.

http://www.reformedreader.org...

Wisdom is the ability to condense knowledge; can you tell us briefly his view?

I'm afraid I lack the wisdom to condense his view enough to adequately address all these points. That's why I posted a link to the book instead of explaining.

I will say, though, that a major error Craig makes is conflating hard determinism with soft determinism. This is especially relevant in his argument from reason where he argues that determinism makes rationality impossible. I agree with him that hard determinism makes rationality impossible, but I do not agree with him that soft determinism makes rationality impossible. It is relevant what our beliefs are caused by. If our beliefs are merely the necessary result of blind mechanistic cause and effect, then they are not rational. But if our beliefs are the necessary result of reasons and "seeing" logical connections, then our beliefs are rational.

I went into some more of the differences on my blog: http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

Ok, thanks.. For me, we have to be clever enough to see when we're not clever enough to grasp something..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 2:33:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/19/2012 4:58:19 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Wisdom is the ability to condense knowledge; can you tell us briefly his view?

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: What I can tell you is the point of view of Story book jebus which dupes like you ' allegedly ' hold in higher esteem than any others? LOL! -

According to Story book jebus, the wisest amongst the entire alleged trinitarian god-persons jebus, its god & its h-s person is =

NONE OF THEM! LOL!

. . . . be ye therefore wise as serpents . . . .(Matt. 10:16) KJV Story book

"I30 am sending you out like sheep surrounded by wolves,31 so be wise as serpents . . . . (Matt. 10:16) NET Story book

. . . . Be ye therefore wise as the serpents . . . . (Matt. 10:16) E. Diaglott

Your ONLY literal Saviour moi!
Double_Helix46
Posts: 466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 3:04:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 2:33:56 AM, Composer wrote:
Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: What I can tell you is the point of view of Story book jebus which dupes like you ' allegedly ' hold in higher esteem than any others? LOL! -

According to Story book jebus, the wisest amongst the entire alleged trinitarian god-persons jebus, its god & its h-s person is =

Who the heck is Jebus?
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 7:44:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/21/2012 2:33:56 AM, Composer wrote:
At 10/19/2012 4:58:19 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
Wisdom is the ability to condense knowledge; can you tell us briefly his view?

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: What I can tell you is the point of view of Story book jebus which dupes like you ' allegedly ' hold in higher esteem than any others? LOL! -

According to Story book jebus, the wisest amongst the entire alleged trinitarian god-persons jebus, its god & its h-s person is =

NONE OF THEM! LOL!

. . . . be ye therefore wise as serpents . . . .(Matt. 10:16) KJV Story book

"I30 am sending you out like sheep surrounded by wolves,31 so be wise as serpents . . . . (Matt. 10:16) NET Story book

. . . . Be ye therefore wise as the serpents . . . . (Matt. 10:16) E. Diaglott

Your ONLY literal Saviour moi!

FAIL: "if you loved me you'd be glad that I'm going back to the Father for the Father is GREATER than I"
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2012 9:30:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
One problem I see with Reformed Theology is there seems to be absolutely no reason to adhere to it.

If God decided he wants to save you, you'll be saved whether or not you adhere to Reformed Theology.

If God decides he doesn't want to save you, you won't be saved whether or not you adhere to Reformed Theology.

So it seems to me, you may as well adhere to something else in case it's right. It can only help you; if the second theology you pick ends up being right, following it will result in your salvation. If Reformed Theology is right, your salvation was already determined anyway, so it's not like you passed up any chance.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13