Molinistic prooftext is incompatible with the notion of the transworld damned.

[geebob]

If you haven't read William Lane Craig's article in our headlines section, then you missed out. It's one molinist attempt to deal with the unevangelized (there are other strategies however).

Basically, Craig claims that everyone who is outside the temporal spacial boundaries of the Gospel (someone who has never and will never hear the Gospel) is a person who is transworld damned. What this means is that there is absolutely no circumstance in which these people would have accepted Christ had the opportunity arisen. So it is of little consequence that they never even get a chance to reject it.

For those of you familiar with possible worlds semantics, the molinist would put it that there is no feasible world which God would've created in which these "transworld" damned would freely accept the gospel, hence the name.

Well molinists often use these verses from Matthew 11 as a prooftext for molinism in general.

20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[4] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

I'll also add that it is not only the gospel that is considered salvific but also special revelation itself.

Well here are people who would have responded appropriately in at least one circumstance. Thus these scriptures are not compatible with the notion of the transworld damned.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Today @ 01:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=268154#post268154)
geebob:

If you haven't read William Lane Craig's article in our headlines section, then you missed out. It's one molinist attempt to deal with the unevangelized (there are other strategies however).

Basically, Craig claims that everyone who is outside the temporal spacial boundaries of the Gospel (someone who has never and will never hear the Gospel) is a person who is transworld damned.

Unless I misread the article Craig does not claim that. Again I may have misread it. I, a Molinist, certainly would not claim that. I think that a great many unsaved may fall into that category but I didn't see Craig as saying everyone who is unsaved does, or I don't see him as saying that definitiely but making that a possibility. More on that though later, cause it wold not matter for the purpose of this thread.



Well molinists often use these verses from Matthew 11 as a prooftext for molinism in general.

20Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths.[4] If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

I'll also add that it is not only the gospel that is considered salvific but also special revelation itself.

Well here are people who would have responded appropriately in at least one circumstance. Thus these scriptures are not compatible with the notion of the transworld damned.

Craig rejects that text as a prooftext so there is no issue then with him. I as a Molinist who believes this is a prooftext (though it would not perterb me too much to reject that notion) do not believe that all the unsaved fall necessarily into the "transword" damned. Or alternatively, my Molinism is absolutely intact without that verse either.

[geebob]

Unless I misread the article Craig does not claim that. Again I may have misread it. I, a Molinist, certainly would not claim that. I think that a great many unsaved may fall into that category but I didn't see Craig as saying everyone who is unsaved does, or I don't see him as saying that definitiely but making that a possibility. More on that though later, cause it wold not matter for the purpose of this thread.

Well, my understanding is that Craig does believe this about all the unsaved, however, his article is about the unevangelized, and he does say that all of the unevangelized are constitute people who would not accept the gospel under any circumstance whatsoever. At least not in any possible world that God would create. If you didn't get that out of the article, you did misread it. And it is the unevangelized that I had in mind with this topic. That's what I mean by those who are outside the spacial/temporal boundaries of the gospel/special revelation.

If Craig does believe that God has arranged the world such that all those who are not transworld damned would be saved like I think he does, then this observation is even stronger against his picture, and it closes off one out that just came to my mind which will not be of use against this observation (but I'm not gonna share it :tongue: , at least not until my topic ferments a little bit in terms of allowing more folks the opportunity to wrestle with it.


Craig rejects that text as a prooftext so there is no issue then with him.

interesting, but I don't know whether or not that would help him.


I as a Molinist who believes this is a prooftext (though it would not perterb me too much to reject that notion) do not believe that all the unsaved fall necessarily into the "transwor

I may return to this point, but at any rate, although I'm not sure if you had the unevangelized in mind, there are other molinistic strategies that come to mind. But by these strategies, they may have to consider that the people of sodom and tyre and so on are saved and in heaven since God knows that they would have responded appropriately to the gospel under the right circumstances.

[markporter]

I may return to this point, but at any rate, although I'm not sure if you had the unevangelized in mind, there are other molinistic strategies that come to mind. But by these strategies, they may have to consider that the people of sodom and tyre and so on are saved and in heaven since God knows that they would have responded appropriately to the gospel under the right circumstances

I think Craig makes it clear somewhereorother that he believes God can only hold people accountable for what they have done, not what they would have done given other circumstances.

[geebob]

I think Craig makes it clear somewhereorother that he believes God can only hold people accountable for what they have done, not what they would have done given other circumstances.

yes of course, but he would refer you to depravity. God will punish the transworld damned for the sins that they commit in the actual world. That they would reject Christ no matter what is not the basis for damnation but rather the basis for placing them in regions where they would never hear the gospel.

[geebob]

Well here's the out to my original conundrum, which came to my mind after posting this topic, but as I said, I'm subversive. I'm not really that confident that none of these cities recieved special revelation. Actually, It seems to me to be unlikely with regard to Sodom as the only man, Lot, was something of a compromiser and not a prophet for change but as unlikely as it seems, I don't see that that is an unreasonable suggestion. And perhaps the prophetic word reached tyre and sidon. So these cities do not fall into the category of the unevagnelized after all.

But unfortunately, this will not solve William Lane Craig's problems. He does indeed say that all who are unsaved are transworld damned.


9. God has actualized a world containing an optimal balance between saved and unsaved, and those who are unsaved suffer from transworld damnation.

His essay wasn't just about the problem of the unevangelized, it's about the soteriological problem of evil and that covers all of the damned and thus his solution, transworld damnation, is for all of the damned as well.

There might be one other possible out for craig to save face. He could drop his restrictivism in favor of molinistic inclusivism. In other words, he could suggest that God will indeed save many of the citizens of tyre and Sodom and anyone else who would have accepted the gospel under some sort of plausible circumstance.

[Smitten]

I read that article by William Lane Craig, and was actually pretty disgusted with it.

*Lets give ourselves a big clap on the back for deserving to be born where we were*

On another note, could his logic be extended to further cases? Could God assign transworldly damned souls to bodies which are severely retarded? Abortions? Etc.

Edit: I did'nt even know that [s.arcasm] was a real command =P

[Sheepdog]

Smitten:

*Lets give ourselves a big clap on the back for deserving to be born where we were*



if i were to argue on behalf of WLC, i would ask you where you infered this idea from. the transworld damnation as i understand it would mean they would be damned no matter where were born.

of course, i won't actually argue that, since i am not a molinist :tongue:

[Smitten]

if i were to argue on behalf of WLC, i would ask you where you infered this idea from. the transworld damnation as i understand it would mean they would be damned no matter where were born.

Yes thats true and i understand his notion of transworld damnation.

Instead of being born into circumstances in which we hear the gospel due to God's grace, William Lane Craig's molinism turns it around and logically leads to the notion that we in fact deserved it. God put us where he did because his Middle Knowledge informed Him of how good and responsive we would be.

Postulating that some people are transworldly damned glorifies the free will of Christians, apart from God's grace. If God's prevenient grace does not persuade some, actually ALOT of people, to accept Him in any of the inumerable or infinite amount of possible worlds, it follows that man's will is glorified and the Holy Spirit's work belittled. I think the Arminian view of grace does this anyway, but the molinist notion of transworld damnation does it even more.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 01:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=271928#post271928)
Smitten:
Instead of being born into circumstances in which we hear the gospel due to God's grace, William Lane Craig's molinism turns it around and logically leads to the notion that we in fact deserved it. God put us where he did because his Middle Knowledge informed Him of how good and responsive we would be.

and being responsive means we deserved it? only on planet Calvinus Extremus.

and when you receive a free gift, you deserve it. after all you responsively received it. :?:


Postulating that some people are transworldly damned glorifies the free will of Christians, apart from God's grace.

apart from God's grace? you need to read up on Arminian theology (not suprizing though... most Arminians need to read up on Arminian theology). we believe that it is only by God's grace that anyone would ever come to saving faith. so, to speak of "apart from God's grace" is to do little more than beat up a Pelagian strawdemon.


If God's prevenient grace does not persuade some, actually ALOT of people, to accept Him in any of the inumerable or infinite amount of possible worlds, it follows that man's will is glorified and the Holy Spirit's work belittled.

sigh. how it logically follows is beyond me. but even so, if i were a molinist, i would argue (just as i do as a classic Arminian) that God could determinatively save everyone if He so desires. if free will is "glorified," it is only because God chose to "glorify" it.


I think the Arminian view of grace does this anyway, ...

no. we just seek to understand grace as it is presented in the Bible. God's grace, no more, no less.

[geebob]

This is going off topic. My criticism deals with a very specific criticism of molinism. That criticism is definitely not from the vantage point of calvinistic assumptions. It's strictly about biblical counterexamples to the notion of the transworld damned and then some.

for other criticisms of molinism, please start your own thread or post in threads that are not so narrow of topic.

[Jaltus]

Personally, I do not hold to the "transworld damned" theory. It seems unnecessary.

[Sheepdog]

sorry about that Gebob.