Rate this book. In such case he still affirms PAP. What makes a person a heretic, and why should it matter to Baptists? As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. It appears to me that, in rejecting the PAP as necessary to freedom, Craig has removed the only thing that constituted his model indeterministic. For the classical theist, God chose that world from among the worlds he knew (naturally) to be possible. Gordon United States Dr. craig's response A Molinism vs Calvinism I think you're right, Gordon, that a great many intelligent and godly Christian leaders are Reformed, or followers of John Calvin, in their theology. This is the beauty of divine middle knowledge and also exonerates God from being the author of evil (determining evil by way of cause and necessary effect). The Bible is clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God possesses counterfactual knowledge. ], You: Second, God does not have middle knowledge of His own choices only of our choices. Craig no longer affirms the latter (i.e. It is here that he remains indeterministic where I have moved toward the determinism that makes human freedom compatible with Gods meticulous control. [8] The view that libertarian freedom necessarily requires alternative possibilities has gone out of style. Similar books and articles. He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom (Baker, 1987 ). Which simply means the creature is granted Freedom for that which is Determined. (Does it have the power to do nothing? William Craig says, By knowing what every possible free creature would do in any possible situation, God can by bringing about that situation know what the creature will freely do.. For given that the circumstances C are nondetermining, it must be a brute, contingent fact how S would choose in C.But then it is plausible that there are an indefinite number of . ], You: First, Molinism posits . It seems to me that Craig must think this. Thank you for digging up a charitable and sensible reason for Craigs claims Ive also been puzzled by them, because in other places hes almost seemed to endorse the alternate possibility, which of course makes no sense with Molinism. Yes, the problem (for me) remains the status of the free act in this agent-causation sense (if that is what it turns out to be). Having read that page, I am even more convinced that a move has occurred on Craigs part which is momentous, though Craig himself does not yet seem to be aware of its significance. Take a second to support Evan Minton on Patreon! . Hasker on divine knowledge. Consider donating or inviting us to speak at your church! And thats libertarianism. There is a difference between After I published the above thoughts, I wrote to a friend with expertise in philosophical theology and our conversation has been helpful to me. Middle knowledge (Molinism). Middle knowledge says that (a) God knows that if person P is in a certain set of circumstances, he will trust in Christ, and then (b) God creates the kind of world in which exactly those circumstances will come about, and so predestines person P to salvation. Some folk alerted me to the fact that Dr. Craig briefly responded to my argument in a recent podcast. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life . It looks to me as though Craig is headed towards a soft-deterministic monergism, but he is resisting it because of his objection to hard determinism. Are you positing that Gods freedom is different from ours, making his hypothetical acts unknowable whereas are knowable? Calvinism vs. Molinism: A Commentary on the Debate Between James White In addition, my current situation is a result of Moses deciding to obey God and write the first five books of the Bible, and a result of the apostle Paul deciding to write his epistles which have so significantly influenced my thinking. Thank you, Chad. If youve followed this blog or my podcast for any amount of time, that should come as no surprise to you. Or listen on YouTube: An anti-molinist argument. Through Molinism, I have found a soteriological stance and a stance on divine sovereignty and human freedom that incorporates the insights of the Calvinists while avoiding the exegetical and philosophical problems Calvinism has, while also incorporates the biblical truths Arminians defend. Because it would louse up Gods plans. Your comments have impressed upon me more clearly the extent to which Craig is also rejecting constraint from the features of or inside myself. William Lane Craig - 1994 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):857-861. Knowledge does not stand in causal relation. There is room for disagreement on that score. Perhaps the most serious objection to a Molinist theory of providence which has been circulating of late is that it is too successful in showing how God could sovereignly control a world of free creatures. God has chosen the world he will actualize. That sounds to me like the freedom of spontaneity which many of us compatibilists affirm, and from there I moved to the conclusion that Craig no longer had reason to resist determinism. $14.00. . It isnt something my friend pointed me to, but tallies well with the agent causation of which he spoke. Whichever way you choose, Gods foreknowledge follows. In Determinism creaturely freedom is COMPATIBLE with Determinism. Historians infer this explanation because Molinas writings have been found in Arminiuss library.[2]. So, that is where we are now, and both my friend and I look forward to Craigs further publication in this regard. The recent rediscovery of the medieval philosophical theory known as Molinism brought Molinism to the fore of this debate. I think the same should go for theology; which some have dubbed the mother of all sciences. $22.99. Its often said that if one cannot do other than what God knows, then one does not possess libertarian freedom. But as you note, Im a libertarian who thinks that causal determinism is incompatible with freedom. I was particularly misled, it seems, by his proposal that a libertarian account of freedom requires only the absence of causal constraints outside oneself that determines how one chooses, that is, that we have genuine say-so about our choices (225). You will not only learn of why Molinism is the best explanation of the biblical data, but you will also learn the history and the life of the man who developed the doctrine. But I am classifying it here as a third Arminian viewpoint because, according to middle knowledge, the ultimate factor that determines whether someone is saved is not Gods eternal choice of that individual person but the persons own libertarian free will decision to believe in Christ.. Learning Logic. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Cornell Studies in the As long as God knows all things that WOULD occur including the libertarian free choices of humanity prior to His words Let there be . But does this mean that the barometer determines the weather (like how Open Theists and Calvinists think Gods foreknowledge causes future events)? In conclusion, Molinism proposes a speculative theory that has no explicit biblical support, that is inconsistent with the biblical descriptions of God choosing individual persons, that is a complicated version of the Arminian view that predestination is based on foreknowledge of a persons faith, that requires that God must determine millions of human choices that lead up to any specific set of circumstances, and that is inconsistent with claims that are essential to both Calvinism and Arminianism.. Namely, thatifhe were to stay at Keliah, then Saulwouldpursue him, and thatifSaul were to pursue him, then the men of Keliahwouldgive him over to Saul. This is one of the primary reasons that I consider myself a Molinist. Given Gods immutable determination to create a certain order, those who God knew would respond to his grace are predestined to be saved. My name takes the German rather than English pronunciation of the ie that is, Teesen rather than Tyson. . Do you think this would have satisfied Molina? Through Molinism, I have found a soteriological stance and a stance on divine sovereignty and human freedom that incorporates the insights of the Calvinists while avoiding the exegetical and philosophical problems Calvinism has, while also incorporates the biblical truths Arminians defend. [X] = TRUE and repackaging of Molina (1560-1609), The Arminians publish Remonstrance (1610), The Synod of Dort specifically responding to the incorrect repackaging offered by the Arminians (not against genuine Molinism) (1618-1619), Centuries of confusion within the church (1619-present day). Molinism vs. Calvinism: The Problem of Evil - William Lane Craig & James White In a much-anticipated exchange, Dr. Craig and James White debate one another on Molinism and Calvinism, especially as it relates to the problem of evil. The Case For The Reliability Of The Gospels Part 7: What About Contradictions? Im not sure though. I suspect (as I did when reading Flints Molinist account of providence) that insufficient attention is being paid to the difference between hard (mechanistic/incompatibilist) determinism and soft (compatibilist) determinism. The purpose . I thought that Molinism was endeavouring to preserve a more robust freedom than Craig now calls for. Molinism vs. Calvinism | Reasonable Faith II. Molinism Weekend Seminar. Since source incompatibilism is compatible with the denial of PAP, this means hes retreating from PAP when challenged. Thanks, William, for indicating where the stuff I was commenting on can now be found. However, Grudems soteriological statement, while I do believe it is true, should not be confused with Mere Molinism (that sometimes humans possess libertarian freedom and God possesses middle knowledge). So its not obvious to me that he has given up libertarianism, or at least not self-causation, a version of non-determinism. (Eph. Because of this, many believe that Arminius was actually a closet Molinist of sorts. . As we will see, there is only one position that coherently holds to all ten affirmations, and that is Molinism.. Im going to copy and paste a rather sizable amount of text from Grudems book (Chapter 16) below, but Im only doing this much in case you need some context. Course Curriculum by William Lane Craig | Reasonable Faith Along the same lines, one might think God freely chooses not to create a world in which the person does non-A, but again this is highly problimatic, because God does not have middle knowledge of His own actions. Reasonable Faith provides an articulate, intelligent, yet gracious defense of the Christian faith in the public arena. I'm Kevin Harris. } . then God possesses middle knowledge. The fact that his proposal still faces the problem of the grounding objection indicates that he remains in the Molinist neighbourhood. Whether his present view is intelligible is another question. Craig would be positing that some people are saved by believing, within a particular set of circumstances, though they could not have chosen not to believe, in those circumstances. He referred me to a page on the web site of Reasonable Faith where Craig has spelled out a bit more extensively his understanding of freedom, and the influence of Frankfurt upon the development of his current view. Molinism seems to be a good argument to keep the debate in the realm of his omniscience which is intellectually satisfying but never gets anyore emotionally closer than the old God has his reasons answer weve had since practically day one post resurrection. To clarify: An event is determined ifantecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate the event or effect (often referred to as causal determinism). Kenneth Kealthey explains in a summarized form why he is a Molinist. Thanks, William. . On the direction of the circles, I was noting more things can happen than will happen (or would happen). I havent found a clear and specific defense of source incompatibilism in the context of Molinism, but I did find a clear discussion of source incompatibilism: https://www.academia.edu/7326981/Understanding_Source_Incompatibilism. ], You: Second, even if the person cant do non-A, there are still two possible worlds one where the person does A and one in which he does not. Craig is a brilliant philosopher for whom I have high regard, and from whom I have learned a great deal. But in any case, I will take a shot at reading his comments in a libertarian way. Craig writes: I am explicitly a libertarian about freedom of the will, and so there should be no doubt about that. Craig refers to this freedom as the possibility of mans choosing in any circumstances other than as he does choose79 or the freedom where creatures could act differently under identical circumstances.80 (I earlier explained this as libertarian freedom.) But on Craigs view, Gods knowledge of the circumstances and the persons own disposition guarantee that a certain choice will be madeotherwise, God could not know what the choice would be. Is Molinism Biblical? | Podcast | Reasonable Faith Does God have this knowledge before His decree and creation . I believe Molinism is to systematic theology was Darwinian Evolution is to biology and paleontology (Oh yeah, Im an Evolutionary Creationist too, by the way). In that post, I expressed my surprise concerning William Lane Craigs redefinition of libertarian freedom, in which he denied that it entails the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), often described as the power of contrary choice. Craig proposed instead that a libertarian account of freedom requires only the absence of causal constraints outside oneself that determines how one chooses, that is, that we have genuine say-so about our choices (225).
Bearstail Basketball Tournament, Garcia Summer Program Cost, St George Apprenticeships, 1205 N Fairfield Rd Layton, Ut, Easton Jen Schro Catchers Gear, Articles W