on Molinism, WLC's view in particular

[Smitten]

this is sorta a continuation, if anyone wants to discuss it, of what started in Geebob's thread on Biblical counterexamples to transworld damnation but went off topic. I was saying that William Lane Craig's view of molinism in particular seemed to me to glorify free will and belittle grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Sheepdog, here is my response to you from the other thread, don't want to sidetrack that one anymore.



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.
Sheepdog: 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.

This is a bad analogy and a contortion of reality. Why don't you explain to me why the vast majority of people haven't been/aren't Christians, if it's that simple.




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

I am aware of this and my point stands. If prevenient grace puts everyone on "neutral" ground to where everyone has the same capacity to choose Christ, the only difference between Christians and non lies in free will and not grace. Transworld damnation makes it even worse because the work of prevenient grace and the Holy Spirit is even weaker, as there are many people who don't freely choose Christ in any of the infinite amount of possible worlds that God can place them in.



if free will is "glorified," it is only because God chose to "glorify" it.

I think that's a moot issue, Biblically. We deserve no glory.

[Jaltus]

Today @ 11:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272299#post272299)
Smitten:

this is sorta a continuation, if anyone wants to discuss it, of what started in Geebob's thread on Biblical counterexamples to transworld damnation but went off topic. I was saying that William Lane Craig's view of molinism in particular seemed to me to glorify free will and belittle grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Then you must not understand his take on it.


This is a bad analogy and a contortion of reality. Why don't you explain to me why the vast majority of people haven't been/aren't Christians, if it's that simple.

Because they chose not to be. Pretty simple, isn't it?


I am aware of this and my point stands. If prevenient grace puts everyone on "neutral" ground to where everyone has the same capacity to choose Christ, the only difference between Christians and non lies in free will and not grace. Transworld damnation makes it even worse because the work of prevenient grace and the Holy Spirit is even weaker, as there are many people who don't freely choose Christ in any of the infinite amount of possible worlds that God can place them in.

So what if grace puts everyone on even ground? After all, grace is undeserved for anyone, and thus if everyone gets grace, it means all are underserving. In the Calvinist world, only special people get grace either 1) because God is unfair or 2) because God is capricious. I see no inbetween. I'd rather have a God who loves everyone the same such that all are given the equal ability (not chance, but ability) to choose Him. In the Calvinist world, God keeps people from choosing Him, which I think makes God evil.

Tell me, how is a God who damns people without allowing them to choose Him good? People would be better off not created, and it would be God's fault they were created and God's fault they did not choose Him. At some point, one needs to see the lack of credibility in such a view.


I think that's a moot issue, Biblically. We deserve no glory.

I agree with you there, but choice does not equal glory. Receiving the gift glorifies the giver, not the receiver.

[Kenny]

Today @ 07:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272358#post272358)
Jaltus:

So what if grace puts everyone on even ground? After all, grace is undeserved for anyone, and thus if everyone gets grace, it means all are underserving. In the Calvinist world, only special people get grace either 1) because God is unfair or 2) because God is capricious.

For 1), it depends on what you mean by ‘fair.’ If by ‘fair’ you mean the treatment of everyone in the same way, then, no, God is not fair, but so what. Often, it is moral to be unfair in this respect. I suppose it’s not “fair” that I love my wife in ways that I love no other woman, but it’s definitely moral. If by ‘fair’ you mean ‘just,’ then I beg to differ. You yourself said that grace is underserved. Thus, it would have been just of God to withhold it from all. If it wouldn’t have been unjust of God to withhold it from all, why is it unjust for God to withhold it from some?

As for 2), God is not capricious in delivering divine justice toward sinners. Furthermore, the fact that God has shown such great mercy towards so many who did not deserve it shows that God is far from capricious but kind and compassionate.


I see no in between. I'd rather have a God who loves everyone the same such that all are given the equal ability (not chance, but ability) to choose Him.

What if that would have meant that everyone would have rejected him? Would you think it more loving of God to give all the same opportunity and have all be damned or do you think it would have been more loving of God to create a world where there are unequal opportunities and some are saved? I realize that you don’t think this is a feasible hypothetical (though I think on a Molinist view you have to entertain it as a logical possibility), but I mention it to show that just giving everyone an equal shot isn’t necessarily the most loving thing for God to do.


In the Calvinist world, God keeps people from choosing Him, which I think makes God evil.

I suppose it depends on one’s Calvinism, but infralapsarian Calvinists like myself do not believe that God “keeps” people from choosing him. The problem is that left to themselves, all freely choose to reject God, or, more accurately, they have already chosen to reject God. Furthermore, according to infralapsarian Calvinists, the decree of reprobation comes only after the fall. It is only after God sees people as having freely rejected him that God decides to allow them to remain locked up in their own sinful choices and to be damned.


Tell me, how is a God who damns people without allowing them to choose Him good?

They have already freely rejected God. They are already justly condemned as sinners in God’s sight. God is merely being just by handing them over to the consequence of their own free choices.


People would be better off not created,

This is philosophical nonsense. No one can be “better off” in a state of non-existence. You can’t compare existence and non-existence like that. To speak of persons receiving benefit and harm is only meaningful after they are created. There is no one to receive benefit or harm before that.

Furthermore, if the above were meaningful, you have the same problem since you believe that God created persons He knew would be damned.


and it would be God's fault they were created and God's fault they did not choose Him.

It would be God’s “fault” that they were created, but it is their fault that they chose to reject God.


At some point, one needs to see the lack of credibility in such a view.

Poor caricatures of other positions are rarely credible.

I agree with you there, but choice does not equal glory. Receiving the gift glorifies the giver, not the receiver.

But, here’s the Arminian dilemma. If Larry is saved and Bob is not as a result of differing free choices, we must ask why it is the case that Larry chose God and Bob did not. Either it was because of something inherent in Larry (his character or essence) or it was not. If it was because of something inherent in Larry, say some virtue of humility or openness to God, then the reason that Larry is saved and Bob is not has something to do with Larry’s own merit. But a high view of the grace of God denies that our salvation is in anyway related to our own merits. So we must reject this option.

The other option is that Larry’s choice has nothing to do with Larry’s character or essence at all – that it’s just an inexplicable LFW choice. But if that’s the case, then the reason that Larry is saved and Bob is not has no explanation in terms of Larry or any other cause whatsoever. Larry just got lucky enough in some metaphysical crapshoot to have made the right LFW choice. Poor Bob was just unlucky in this respect. At least in Calvinism the selection of Larry over Bob has something to do with the mysterious loving purposes of God in the context of a broader providential plan even if we do not understand what those purposes are.

So, on Arminianism, unevenness in salvation is either a matter of differing merits or chance. We know it has nothing to do with merit, so the Arminian must go with the latter. Personally, I’d rather see such weighty matters as in the hands of a loving (albeit sometimes mysterious) God than the whims of metaphysical chance.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Smitten]

Jaltus,



smitten: this is sorta a continuation, if anyone wants to discuss it, of what started in Geebob's thread on Biblical counterexamples to transworld damnation but went off topic. I was saying that William Lane Craig's view of molinism in particular seemed to me to glorify free will and belittle grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.
Jaltus: Then you must not understand his take on it.

If that was the case you should explain how. You haven't. All I am seeing is you attacking your own understanding of calvinism.




smitten: This is a bad analogy and a contortion of reality. Why don't you explain to me why the vast majority of people haven't been/aren't Christians, if it's that simple.
Jaltus: Because they chose not to be. Pretty simple, isn't it?

You didn't answer the question at all. I asked why so many people didn't choose, if it's simply a gift they can easliy receive. The analogy is bad and unBiblical.




smitten: I think that's a moot issue, Biblically. We deserve no glory.
Jaltus: I agree with you there, but choice does not equal glory. Receiving the gift glorifies the giver, not the receiver.

Receiving the gift does glorify the giver in reality, the problem is that this view of molinism doesn't do this. It gives glory to the receiver and i've given a few reasons why that is. You didn't address any of those.



So what if grace puts everyone on even ground? After all, grace is undeserved for anyone, and thus if everyone gets grace, it means all are underserving. In the Calvinist world, only special people get grace either 1) because God is unfair

You just said grace is undeserved, and in the next sentence said God would be unfair for not giving it to some. Which is it? Does God owe man something or not?



or 2) because God is capricious. I see no inbetween.

God's ways are higher than our ways. He chooses based on the counsel of his will and his own good pleasure. It's irrelevant that you see no inbetween as we don't have to and probably can't understand why he does all he does. Just because we don't know why God does something doesn't mean it is capricious or unfair.



I'd rather have a God who loves everyone the same such that all are given the equal ability (not chance, but ability) to choose Him. In the Calvinist world, God keeps people from choosing Him, which I think makes God evil.

Tell me, how is a God who damns people without allowing them to choose Him good? People would be better off not created, and it would be God's fault they were created and God's fault they did not choose Him. At some point, one needs to see the lack of credibility in such a view.


No, one sees the logical outcome of what we see in the Bible. I.e., double predestination follows from predestination etc. I understand why you have trouble with it but again, I don't think that has bearing on whether its true or not. Kenny seems to be dealing with calvinism with you, and I don't mind that at all in this thread. But, maybe you or anyone else can comment on WLC's molinism that was brought up?

[Jaltus]

Why is it that when a Calvinist claims mystery it is ok, but when an Arminian does it is illegitimate?

"God's ways are not our ways" is a cop out pure and simple.

I'll try to come back with a more precise post tomorrow, this was just a "drive by" as it were.

[Sheepdog]

Smitten:


Sheepdog: 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.

This is a bad analogy and a contortion of reality. Why don't you explain to me why the vast majority of people haven't been/aren't Christians, if it's that simple.

the analogy is valid, because it represents how the concept of unmarited favor (grace) is used-- even in contexts outside of Judaic/Christian religion. There is simply no precident outside of Calvinist philosophy that a free gift is deserved because it was decisively received. A homeless man didn't deserve a free meal simply because he walked into the door of the homeless shelter. That is silly.

the reason we don't see more people coming ot faith is because they know they would have to give up sin. we (the human race as a whole) love sin too darn much.



Sheepdog: 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.

I am aware of this and my point stands. If prevenient grace puts everyone on "neutral" ground to where everyone has the same capacity to choose Christ, the only difference between Christians and non lies in free will and not grace.

incorrect. the difference is salvation by grace through faith. (i challenge the idea that a truely neutral ground is even possible, but that is another topic). free will is just part of the chain.


Transworld damnation makes it even worse because the work of prevenient grace and the Holy Spirit is even weaker, as there are many people who don't freely choose Christ in any of the infinite amount of possible worlds that God can place them in.

you seem to be confusing potency and affect. if God wanted, he could choose to irresistably save some and not others. the difference is that was not God's purpose for salvation. Grace and the Spirit only go as far as God purposed them to go. Otherwise, i could argue that they are the strongest in Universalism, since all are saved in that theology. i don't think you would accept the notion that the Universalists' theology give more glory to God than yours.


I think that's a moot issue, Biblically. We deserve no glory.

i never really said free will was glorified-- you may have noticed the term was placed in quotes. also, the statement was construed so that it didn't have existential import. my point is, we aren't glorifying free will, because God set up the system so that it would exist. The Arminian doesn't set free will higher any higher than it should be, because as far as we know, it is right where God intended it to be in the grand scheme of things.


Kenny:

For 1), it depends on what you mean by ‘fair.’ If by ‘fair’ you mean the treatment of everyone in the same way, then, no, God is not fair, but so what. Often, it is moral to be unfair in this respect. I suppose it’s not “fair” that I love my wife in ways that I love no other woman, but it’s definitely moral. If by ‘fair’ you mean ‘just,’ then I beg to differ. You yourself said that grace is underserved. Thus, it would have been just of God to withhold it from all. If it wouldn’t have been unjust of God to withhold it from all, why is it unjust for God to withhold it from some?

but, God himself says He is impartial. so there is no way around it. either everyone is given some sort of chance at salvation, or none are, or God lied.


As for 2), God is not capricious in delivering divine justice toward sinners. Furthermore, the fact that God has shown such great mercy towards so many who did not deserve it shows that God is far from capricious but kind and compassionate.

or capricious in how He expresses his kindness and compassion. i think that is Jaltus' point.

How about this Kenny, let's say hypothetically you have 2 daughters. both do poorly in school, both disrespect you, and both are constantly getting in trouble. you choose to ship one daughter off to boot camp, while you take the other out for ice cream. if neither were repentative, are you not being capricious in how you deal with them?


What if that would have meant that everyone would have rejected him? Would you think it more loving of God to give all the same opportunity and have all be damned or do you think it would have been more loving of God to create a world where there are unequal opportunities and some are saved? I realize that you don’t think this is a feasible hypothetical (though I think on a Molinist view you have to entertain it as a logical possibility), but I mention it to show that just giving everyone an equal shot isn’t necessarily the most loving thing for God to do.

heh, time for me to put the molinist hat on again: yes, i would agree that given that possible world (assuming it is possible), it would be more loving for God to choose some and leave others to damnation. however, if there was another possible world where a lot of people would accept salvation if given the choice, i would consider God to be the most loving if He brought that world into existance instead.


I suppose it depends on one’s Calvinism, but infralapsarian Calvinists like myself do not believe that God “keeps” people from choosing him. The problem is that left to themselves, all freely choose to reject God, or, more accurately, they have already chosen to reject God. Furthermore, according to infralapsarian Calvinists, the decree of reprobation comes only after the fall. It is only after God sees people as having freely rejected him that God decides to allow them to remain locked up in their own sinful choices and to be damned.

but practically speaking, is there any meaningful difference? (aside from the fact that "to freely chose" in common understanding means you could have chosen the alternative-- only Pelagians can consistently use the term in the context of chosing God prior to grace). God keeps the unregenerate away from Him, in your theology, simply by doing nothing for their salvation. they are still predestined to damnation, only it isn't by God's decree, but simply by his choice to not act.


They have already freely rejected God. They are already justly condemned as sinners in God’s sight. God is merely being just by handing them over to the consequence of their own free choices.

there is an equivocation problem that always ends up happening in these discussions. we all agree that all of mankind inherented Adam's sin. because of this, we can only choose to reject God, until/unless He grants us the grace to say yes. therefore, you cannot say the natural man "freely chose" to reject God. that qualifier "freely" implies that nothing from outside of one determined or forced one's decision. Yet, only the pelagian or semipelagian would suggest that despite original sin, one can choose God without His grace.

the problem here from a philosophical perspective is, the unregenerate cease to be responsible for their actions, and thus cannot be justly held responsible. Indeed, it makes God responsible for their damnation, since He sits aside and doesn't seek to save them, much like a negligent lifegaurd.


This is philosophical nonsense. No one can be “better off” in a state of non-existence. You can’t compare existence and non-existence like that. To speak of persons receiving benefit and harm is only meaningful after they are created. There is no one to receive benefit or harm before that.

i recalle a quote of Jesus where he said it was better for someone if they weren't born (if one caused a child to stumble, i think?). so, at least there is precident for Jaltus' comment. i'll leave it to him to actually defend, though.


It would be God’s “fault” that they were created, but it is their fault that they chose to reject God.

Just like it is my fault for choosing to not jump over the moon. :shifty:


But, here’s the Arminian dilemma. If Larry is saved and Bob is not as a result of differing free choices, we must ask why it is the case that Larry chose God and Bob did not. Either it was because of something inherent in Larry (his character or essence) or it was not. If it was because of something inherent in Larry, say some virtue of humility or openness to God, then the reason that Larry is saved and Bob is not has something to do with Larry’s own merit. But a high view of the grace of God denies that our salvation is in anyway related to our own merits. So we must reject this option.

I do, at least. I consider such things as character and environment as factors in a free will choice though, but they are not determinative. The choice itself is not meritous (i.e. two people in the same exact circumstances could make different choices).


The other option is that Larry’s choice has nothing to do with Larry’s character or essence at all – that it’s just an inexplicable LFW choice. But if that’s the case, then the reason that Larry is saved and Bob is not has no explanation in terms of Larry or any other cause whatsoever. Larry just got lucky enough in some metaphysical crapshoot to have made the right LFW choice. Poor Bob was just unlucky in this respect.

this is rather inane. self determinism does not necessarily imply random chance as you suggest. perhaps it could, but you'd have to actually show that choice is indeed random. if we don't understand how choice works, we just can't say.


At least in Calvinism the selection of Larry over Bob has something to do with the mysterious loving purposes of God in the context of a broader providential plan even if we do not understand what those purposes are.

i believe we can and should know those purposes, as they are laid out in the Bible for anyone to see (John 6:40 is a good place to start); but that isn't important here. what is important is that the same objections above apply to it-- namely that it is God's fault that Bob is damned, because God chose determinative purposes (unless God's choice was random and arbitrary; the very dilemma you try to place Arminianism in bites you in the butt).

[Kenny]

Today @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=272775#post272775)
Sheepdog:


but, God himself says He is impartial. so there is no way around it. either everyone is given some sort of chance at salvation, or none are, or God lied.

God says He’s no respecter of persons. In other words, no one has any sort of claim on God based on nationality, merit or choice. Thus, God is entirely free to dispense His grace to whomever He wishes because there is nothing within humanity that makes for an inherent bias toward one person or group over another.


or capricious in how He expresses his kindness and compassion. i think that is Jaltus' point.

How about this Kenny, let's say hypothetically you have 2 daughters. both do poorly in school, both disrespect you, and both are constantly getting in trouble. you choose to ship one daughter off to boot camp, while you take the other out for ice cream. if neither were repentative, are you not being capricious in how you deal with them?

I think the flaw in the analogy is that it presumes that we had the status of being God’s children prior to our reception of God’s grace. That’s not the Biblical language. The Bible says that we were once God’s enemies, but that we have now been adopted into the family. Prior to our adoption, God has no familial obligations toward us. We were His enemies, and that was it. God was free to do with us as He pleased because we justly deserved His condemnation. As it stands, He has compassionately adopted some of us into His family and brought us into peace with him.


heh, time for me to put the molinist hat on again: yes, i would agree that given that possible world (assuming it is possible), it would be more loving for God to choose some and leave others to damnation. however, if there was another possible world where a lot of people would accept salvation if given the choice, i would consider God to be the most loving if He brought that world into existance instead.

But why, exactly? Are we going for mere quantity with respect to God’s love here or are we looking at quality also. Suppose, for instance, that God could have actualized a world in which no one would have ever sinned and all would have thus enjoyed eternal fellowship with God. But, suppose also that creating this world and loving its creatures is really “cheap” for God. It really costs God nothing whatsoever to love the creatures within it.

Now consider another alternative. Say that God could create a world where some creatures do sin against Him but where God redeems at least some of them. Suppose also that this world is very costly for God to create and for God to love the creatures within it. Suppose, in fact, that displaying His love in this world requires God Himself to endure great suffering, hardship and grief, even – say – death on a cross.

Intuitively, we recognize that the more costly the expression of love is, the more deeply love is revealed. So, out of these two sets of worlds, in which one is the love of God more fully displayed? Which set of creatures will have the greater existential understanding of the depths of God’s love?


but practically speaking, is there any meaningful difference? (aside from the fact that "to freely chose" in common understanding means you could have chosen the alternative-- only Pelagians can consistently use the term in the context of chosing God prior to grace).

Yes, there is a tremendous practical difference. One view makes human sin God’s fault rather than the fault of humanity. I agree that if were simply the case that God simply directly caused humanity to fall, then it would be unjust of God to condemn humanity for their sin. If God had really done that, He would have owed everyone a way out. God’s subsequent “grace” really wouldn’t have been grace at all but a moral obligation on God’s part (though, I consider it odd how many Arminians seem to argue that God’s grace is precisely just that – a moral obligation on the part of God such that it would not be right for God to refuse to give it). But, if humanity fell by it’s own choice and on that account stood justly condemned before God, then God has every right to decide whether to give grace or to withhold it – to some, all or none.


God keeps the unregenerate away from Him, in your theology, simply by doing nothing for their salvation.

In a sense, yes. The word “keeps” is unfortunate as it still implies some sort of active constraint of human choices on the part of God. Really, it’s the opposite. Humanity has freely chosen to rebel against God and freely wants nothing to do with Him. For the unregenerate, God simply leaves them to that choice without any interference on His part. Really, it's not that God “keeps” the unregenerate from coming to him so much as it is that, through His gracious intervention, He keeps the elect from staying away by means of His drawing them to Himself.


they are still predestined to damnation, only it isn't by God's decree, but simply by his choice to not act.

I would say it’s by a passive decree, yes – God’s choice not to act in a certain way. As an infralapsarian Calvinist, I don’t really like to use the word “predestine” with respect to reprobation. As the term is used Biblically, it is always used in connection predestination to salvation, to conformity to the image of Christ. It is something active that God does not something that God passively allows to run its course.

But, if you want to use predestination in connection with reprobation, then the classical Arminian has the same problem. Even on Arminianism, God creates people that He knows will be damned and God then passively lets that happen. God could have prevented it either by not creating such individuals or by not damning them (say, by annihilating them instead) but God took neither of these options. But, I’m sure the classical Arminian will argue, just as the Calvinist would, that God has morally sound reasons for not taking such options.

And, actually, even though it is mitigated somewhat, even the open theist faces this problem. Open theists believe that there does come a point where one’s eternal destiny is sealed forever. Thus, when that point comes for the damned, God is choosing to shut these persons away for all eternity. God is, at that moment, “predestining” these individuals for a life of eternal misery.


there is an equivocation problem that always ends up happening in these discussions. we all agree that all of mankind inherented Adam's sin. because of this, we can only choose to reject God, until/unless He grants us the grace to say yes.

This matter is complicated by the fact that there are philosophically competing views of free will. As a compatiblist, I hold that even after the fall, we are still acting freely because we are doing exactly what we want to do. No outside force is compelling us to act the way we are acting. We act from within the core of who we are, and, in our current state, we are sinners who want nothing to do with God.

However, I will also hold that there was a time when humanity did have fellowship with God and no such inward disposition away from God. That, of course, was prior to the Fall. Adam (and we through him) then freely chose to reject God through disobedience. Whether this was an LFW choice or not, for the purposes of this thread, I’m willing to leave up for grabs. Since I don’t think LFW is even coherent, I will say it wasn’t, but I think an infralapsarian Calvinist could (ignoring the inconsistencies inherent in LFW itself for the moment) consistently hold that it was.


therefore, you cannot say the natural man "freely chose" to reject God.

Yes, I can. We did it through Adam. I will argue, on account of my semi-realist representational view of the fall, that Adam’s choice was not just made by Adam, but that there is a real sense in which we chose along with him. Thus, the fall was not something imposed on us from the outside by our ancestor, but something we ourselves participated in. See this post (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=213076#post213076) for a more detailed account of this.


that qualifier "freely" implies that nothing from outside of one determined or forced one's decision.

As a soft determinist, I would say that’s true even after the fall. We are free when we act from within ourselves in accordance with who we are. And who we are right now is that we are sinners.


the problem here from a philosophical perspective is, the unregenerate cease to be responsible for their actions, and thus cannot be justly held responsible. Indeed, it makes God responsible for their damnation, since He sits aside and doesn't seek to save them, much like a negligent lifegaurd.

It is not the Biblical view that we are not held accountable to God prior to the offer of redemptive grace. See Romans 1-3, especially the conclusion that is drawn in 3:19-20. Notice that in the train of Paul’s thought, the conclusion that all are shut up in accountability to God logically precedes the offer of redemptive grace through Christ. In fact, this fact is what forms the need and the grounds for the offer of redemptive grace, as no one can be justified by the works of the law. Condemnation logically precedes the offer of grace as grace is what addresses the problem of condemnation.

Turn that around, and you destroy grace. If we are accountable to God after the offer of redemptive grace, then God’s grace is no longer grace at all. It is a moral obligation. It is something, then, which God would have been morally deficient not to give. God owed it to us. Also, you wind up with the paradoxical conclusion that God’s offer of grace actually forms the grounds by which God justly condemns us as it is what allows God to justly damn. You wind up with a grace that not only saves, but a “grace” that justly damns.

The lifeguard analogy is a very poor one for this very same reason. The lifeguard situation already presupposes a scenario where the one doing the saving has a moral obligation to save. It is not grace for the lifeguard to rescue a drowning person – it is moral duty. But, God has no such obligation. A better analogy would be the decision of a governor whether or not to pardon a known criminal. If the governor does so, she shows mercy. If she does not, however, she has not flouted any moral obligations, but has rather allowed justice to take its rightful course.


i recalle a quote of Jesus where he said it was better for someone if they weren't born (if one caused a child to stumble, i think?). so, at least there is precident for Jaltus' comment. i'll leave it to him to actually defend, though.

Yes, though if you want to draw out exact philosophical conclusions from a typical hyperbolic statement (which Jesus often employed), I would note that it says better not to have been born and not better to have never existed. Perhaps it would have been better for such a person to die in the womb, for example, than to grow up and cause a child to stumble.


Just like it is my fault for choosing to not jump over the moon. :shifty:

You have no natural ability to jump over the moon. You could not do so even if you wanted to. Thus, you are not morally accountable for your failure to do so. However, you do have a natural ability not to sin. You could refrain from sinning if you really wanted to. The problem is you don’t want to. This is a moral inability not a natural one – apples and oranges here.


this is rather inane. self determinism does not necessarily imply random chance as you suggest. perhaps it could, but you'd have to actually show that choice is indeed random.

I’ve argued elsewhere (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5896) that LFW is actually incompatible with self-determination as it cannot trace the causal explanation for a particular choice back to anything that makes reference to the agent herself. I believe that people do have a measure of self-determination precisely because their choices causally flow out of who they are rather than being causally disconnected from anything pertaining to character and essence as LFW maintains.

But, I think the onus is on the LFW advocate to tell us how LFW choices are not random. LFW tells us that a given LFW choice has no causal explanation that traces back to the chooser herself (in terms of the qualities pertaining to her character or essence), that there are logically possible worlds where the chooser acts differently in the exact same circumstances, that God does not determine the choice, etc. So we have no explanation in terms of the agent herself, in terms of the causal structure of the world, or in terms of God. One wonders, then, how this is not random. The onus is on the LFW advocate to prove otherwise. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has the internal organs of a duck, the behavior patterns of a duck, etc., there comes a clear point where the burden of proof is on the one claiming that it is not a duck!


i believe we can and should know those purposes, as they are laid out in the Bible for anyone to see (John 6:40 is a good place to start); but that isn't important here. what is important is that the same objections above apply to it-- namely that it is God's fault that Bob is damned, because God chose determinative purposes (unless God's choice was random and arbitrary; the very dilemma you try to place Arminianism in bites you in the butt).

Not really. There is an appeal to mystery in both, but the Calvinist places the mystery in another place. Logically, the Arminian choice implies that unevenness in salvation is ether directly or indirectly related to human merit or there is no ultimate explanation for it whatsoever. Neither is acceptable so the Arminian is going to want to appeal to mystery here to deny both conclusions.

The Calvinist, however, locates the mystery within the broader mystery of God’s providence. This mystery is already one that all Christians accept to some degree anyway, so the Calvinist is not adding mystery that was not already there merely by saying that election is simply another example of the mystery of providence. They are simply appealing to a category of mystery already extant in the Christian tradition. We all recognize that God knows vastly more than we do and that we need to trust in the goodness of His plan even when we don’t understand all the reasons for it.

Furthermore, the appeal to mystery is not being made in such a way as to cover over an apparent logical contradiction. In fact, I don’t like it when Calvinists try to cover over apparent contradictions within their system by making an appeal to mystery and I try to avoid doing so as much as possible. I try to respond to Arminian objections along those lines by showing the apparent contradictions are not real contradictions.

We Calvinists are simply saying that God has purposes in this area which we do not fully understand, not that we have some apparent contradiction here which we must cover over. We are placing the mystery in the hands of the mysterious purposes of a loving God, not some impersonal metaphysical aspect of the world as (I would argue) Arminianism must ultimately do.

In Christ,
Kenny

[Smitten]

Sheepdog,


the analogy is valid, because it represents how the concept of unmarited favor (grace) is used-- even in contexts outside of Judaic/Christian religion. There is simply no precident outside of Calvinist philosophy that a free gift is deserved because it was decisively received.

The issue isn't whether your analogy entails man deserving glory, the issue that i posed was that your analogy is simply not analogous of the salvation experience! Maybe I wasn't clear where i was going with that. I think the wording in your analogy is misleading at best, inaccurate at worst.


A homeless man didn't deserve a free meal simply because he walked into the door of the homeless shelter. That is silly.

the reason we don't see more people coming ot faith is because they know they would have to give up sin. we (the human race as a whole) love sin too darn much.

Thats a good point. But notice, your analogy doesn't include that factor at all. There is no reason a homeless man would not walk into a shelter to seek food/shelter. You correctly pointed out the power of sin, but your gift analogy and homeless man analogy exlude anything like that. They come close to making salvation look like a reflex or something.

Considering that salvation is not as easy as that, as you admitted in your comment on sin, how is free will not glorified and grace belittled? If prevenient grace works the same effect in all people, salvation is contingent on free will and not grace. The person who is better in and of himself, completely independent of prevenient grace, is the one who rises up and receives salvation. The further effects and benefits of faith and salvation come after.

And, transworld damnation makes free will more glorious and grace even weaker since for many people, they will not respond to grace in an infinite amount of scenarios(possible worlds God can put them in). This implies that prevenient grace is very weak, which of course is bad in and of itself, but necessarily also emphasizes the power of free will all the more.



smitten: If prevenient grace puts everyone on "neutral" ground to where everyone has the same capacity to choose Christ, the only difference between Christians and non lies in free will and not grace.
Sheepdog: incorrect. the difference is salvation by grace through faith. (i challenge the idea that a truely neutral ground is even possible, but that is another topic). free will is just part of the chain.

I don't see how you addressed my point at all. Salvation of course is by grace through faith, i never denied that. I pointed out that, given universal prevenient grace, the sole factor that decides salvation is free will. Since prevenient grace is a constant, free will is the key variable. Salvific grace and effects come after the free will decision.

The difference between Christians and non is free will; how can it not be if prevenient grace is universally existent in all? I don't see how arminians can deny this at all, the issue is whether this entails an unBiblical emphasis on the power of man. You deny the latter of course, but surely can't deny the former?



smitten: Transworld damnation makes it even worse because the work of prevenient grace and the Holy Spirit is even weaker, as there are many people who don't freely choose Christ in any of the infinite amount of possible worlds that God can place them in.
Sheepdog: you seem to be confusing potency and affect. if God wanted, he could choose to irresistably save some and not others. the difference is that was not God's purpose for salvation. Grace and the Spirit only go as far as God purposed them to go. Otherwise, i could argue that they are the strongest in Universalism, since all are saved in that theology. i don't think you would accept the notion that the Universalists' theology give more glory to God than yours.

I don't think your comparisons to universalism apply to the issue. God receives glory whether people are saved or not, so a universe in which more people are saved wouldn't entail that God had more glory in that universe. I don't think i have implied contrary to this. The issue isn't how many are being saved, but for those who are, who deserves the praise and glory for the why and how.

I agree that God is perfectly capable of saving whoever he wants to save, and i agree that the issue is what he has decided to do, not what he could do. And i see no Biblical warrant for the notion that man deserves glory in salvation. Especially(as pertains to the topic of this thread), the amount of glory logically entailed by this view of molinism.

[geebob]

Thank you for taking your topic outta my thread.


I was saying that William Lane Craig's view of molinism in particular seemed to me to glorify free will and belittle grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.

A glorious creator makes a glorious creation. That God should do wonderful things doesn't make him less of a great God. It attests to his greatness.

If God's grace cannot compete with our free cooperation in terms of glory, then a paltry glory indeed does God have for his grace.


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.

We don't deserve it but if God acted in that way, he should have destroyed the first couple before they had a chance to produce any reprobate offspring (reprobate meaning someone for whom there is no chance of salvation).

Otherwise, God allows (no worse, he mandates it according to the nature of creation and his image) the lie of intense indiscriminate love for persons regardless of their eternal worth. For a mother loves her child and hopes for her future, and yet as she does this, as she strives, in some of the mother child relationships, God is already set against those desires that he instilled in the mother.

And the problem is compounded when Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as our selves!






Kenny,



God says He’s no respecter of persons. In other words, no one has any sort of claim on God based on nationality, merit or choice. Thus, God is entirely free to dispense His grace to whomever He wishes because there is nothing within humanity that makes for an inherent bias toward one person or group over another.

I suspect that this notion that our free choice does not play a role in God's assesment of us is smuggled into the hebrew concept of equity. That God does not judge us on race or status is the basis of his fairness. He only judges us on consistent moral grounds not that those moral grounds do not slide according to our situations, for example, God judged the israelites more strictly because the situation they were in was that they were given a tremendous advantage. God judged the pagan nations.

If you take the notion that God is not a respecter of persons to far, then you end up with an arbitrary God, and I know you deny that. Since you deny that, you at least have God respecting persons on the basis of an alleged pragmatic basis to the effect that their damnation is or salvation is ultimately for the better no matter what.

[Smitten]

geebob,


A glorious creator makes a glorious creation. That God should do wonderful things doesn't make him less of a great God. It attests to his greatness.

But the very issue is who is responsibile for these wonderful things? Such as one's salvation.


If God's grace cannot compete with our free cooperation in terms of glory, then a paltry glory indeed does God have for his grace.

There's no competition :smile:. I don't think i've implied that man's free will gives him more, or anywhere near that, glory than God has. But my point has been that i think this viewpoint gives credit where, Biblically, it isn't due.

[geebob]

But the very issue is who is responsibile for these wonderful things? Such as one's salvation.

a cooperation implies two, but that does not imply symetry for credit.


I don't think i've implied that man's free will gives him more, or anywhere near that, glory than God has. But my point has been that i think this viewpoint gives credit where, Biblically, it isn't due.

not at all. Our cooperation shouldn't really be compared to God's part. In a rescue, the credit doesn't go to the willing rescue'ee. It goes to the rescuer.

That our cooperation should give us too much credit is a philosophical intrusion on the Jewish thought which denied not boasting for the sake of a free choice but rather boasting for keeping the law and being Jewish.

[Smitten]

smitten: I don't think i've implied that man's free will gives him more, or anywhere near that, glory than God has. But my point has been that i think this viewpoint gives credit where, Biblically, it isn't due.
geebob: not at all. Our cooperation shouldn't really be compared to God's part. In a rescue, the credit doesn't go to the willing rescue'ee. It goes to the rescuer.

Well it's not so much of an issue of "assigning" credit. If someone accomplished something and was humble and so assigned credit elsewhere, it wouldn't change who was really responsible for the accomplishment. I'm discussing the issue of who is responsible or who brought something about(which entails credit, for that event itself), not the potential pride or humility one may display regarding their own accomplishments.

My contention has been that this molinist stance entails a wrong view of how salvation is obtained(by way of lifting up free will and lowering the power of prevenient grace), not that it necessarily engenders arrogance or pride in the believer(although i guess it could do that). So in other words, Geebob could believe this molinist account and and still be very humble and give God the glory for his salvation, but, my criticisms would still be valid.

[geebob]

My contention has been that this molinist stance entails a wrong view of how salvation is obtained(by way of lifting up free will and lowering the power of prevenient grace), not that it necessarily engenders arrogance or pride in the believer(although i guess it could do that). So in other words, Geebob could believe this molinist account and and still be very humble and give God the glory for his salvation, but, my criticisms would still be valid.

alrighty, a person in just about any view of free will theism (so they would all like to claim, because this issue really isn't limited to molinism) is responsible for accepting God's grace. Is grace in this view less powerful? I will concede that it is. But that does not make grace less wonderful. As a matter of fact, it is more wonderful because it is about love which is not about over powering. It is a more humble grace, but paradoxically, it is a greater grace because it is not pompous. It is key in a more genuine loving relationship according to the designs of a mysterious creator. And it is not a grace that is limited to a few but abounds so that anyone may come. So there is no grievious issue of the reprobate. In that it is a far greater and more compassionate grace than irrisistable grace. The only context that view can hope be justified within is universalism.

[Smitten]

geebob,

I think we're at the point, on this issue, where we can't really make more progress, due to our very different presuppositions and concepts of God(you're an open theist if i remember correctly?) I understand where you're coming from with your view on grace but i can't agree because i don't even think it's coherent, given my view of God's attributes.

Biblically, i can't see justification for the amount of autonomy arminians believe in, but again thats an issue with presuppositions as well.


alrighty, a person in just about any view of free will theism (so they would all like to claim, because this issue really isn't limited to molinism) is responsible for accepting God's grace.

I agree that all free will theism has to deal with this issue. I was focusing on it with this view of molinism(WLC's version) in mind because it seemed to me to seriously increase the problem.

[geebob]

Biblically, i can't see justification for the amount of autonomy arminians believe in, but again thats an issue with presuppositions as well.

The bible abounds with evidence that is very favorably interpreted in the favor of free will theism. Of course you don't see the evidence because your wearing calvinist colored shades. And of course you see verses that deny that we have freedom, but we free will theists read those scriptures too and we have understandings of them.

[Sheepdog]

smitten, Kenny: i've been busy, but i'll respond to your monster posts this weekend.

[Sheepdog]

sorry for the length of time, Smitten and Kenny, but Kenneth posted a monster. :smile: i'm going to snip much your material, as i am pushing the 24K limit. i'll leave enough so that anyone who wishes can see look at your posts above to see what i am responding to... i hope i haven't snipped anything vital. Kenny, i must admit there was a shift in my own position, but it is not drastic at all.


Kenny:

God says He’s no respecter of persons. In other words, no one has any sort of claim on God based on nationality, merit or choice.

woah, you've gone a bit too far. God is no respecter of persons because he will judge fairly-- but you make God a respecter of persons: you make an elite class of people known as the elect. in reality, that God is impartial means that as all (Jew, Gentile, rich, poor, slave, free, etc) are under sin and thus all are condemned (Rom. 5:12)-- just like that Christ died for the justification of all (Rom. 5:18, though this should not be construed to imply universallism, see v. 19). Those who believe are saved, those who don't are condemned.


I think the flaw in the analogy is that it presumes that we had the status of being God’s children prior to our reception of God’s grace.

hmm... are you familiar with the parable of the progical son? regardless, replace "daughters" with "nazis" or some equivalent and it still stands remains cogent. If a judge for Nuremburg did the same (show favoritism to one over the other for now obvious reason), don't you think he would be a bad judge?


God was free to do with us as He pleased because we justly deserved His condemnation. As it stands, He has compassionately adopted some of us into His family and brought us into peace with him.

funny thing is, i don't disagree, at least in principle. but you are still unjust in your dealings with your nazi daughters. :evul:


But why, exactly? Are we going for mere quantity with respect to God’s love here or are we looking at quality also. Suppose, for instance, that God could have actualized a world in which no one would have ever sinned and all would have thus enjoyed eternal fellowship with God. But, suppose also that creating this world and loving its creatures is really “cheap” for God. It really costs God nothing whatsoever to love the creatures within it.

ok... and the quality of God's love is the greatest in a world where God the Son has to come and go to the cross for us. not sure why the further hypotheticals are relevant, since i actually agree. but consider the hypotheticals where:

(1) God choses some over others for some unspecified plan, and you had the misfortune-- heck, a tragic roll of the cosmic dice-- to be born in the circumstances where you are nonelect. perhaps you could have been saved if given the oppurtunity, but no.

(2) God chooses to to predestine "whosoever believes" to be saved, and by His grace you are given a chance to put faith in Him.

even as a nonmolinist, one can guess which i would think is preferable. not to say this is proof against Calvinism-- not at all. remember, you were the one who made the loaded hypothetical.

heck, while on the subject of cheap love, don't you think it would be better love, qualitatively speaking, if we loved God by our choice, rather than being the victims of our programing, not unlike robots?


Yes, there is a tremendous practical difference. One view makes human sin God’s fault rather than the fault of humanity. I agree that if were simply the case that God simply directly caused humanity to fall, then it would be unjust of God to condemn humanity for their sin. If God had really done that, He would have owed everyone a way out.

well, at least we can agree that that formulation of predestination is in error. too bad you don't see how your variation of determinism leads to the same conclusion


God’s subsequent “grace” really wouldn’t have been grace at all but a moral obligation on God’s part (though, I consider it odd how many Arminians seem to argue that God’s grace is precisely just that – a moral obligation on the part of God such that it would not be right for God to refuse to give it).

if they do, that is there imparitive. as far as i am concerned, God is not obligated because we could have chosen otherwise (not that we can choose to please God by ourselves, but a lesser of two evils is typically obtainable).


But, if humanity fell by it’s own choice and on that account stood justly condemned before God, then God has every right to decide whether to give grace or to withhold it – to some, all or none.

but according to compatibilism, that so-called "choice" is loaded with desire to begin with. I might as well tell a puppy to fly, then beat it when it doesn't.

we agree that in man's natural state after the fall, no one can come to faith, without the grace of God. but if this is the state of affairs, and God chose to do nothing for those we label the nonelect in terms of saving grace, then in God's choice He has predestined their eternal damnation. He isn't actively foreordaining their doom-- nevertheless, due to their sin nature and God's nonaction, they fate is sealed for eternal contempt. it is simply predestination by virtue of default.

i've noticed even the more deterministic Calvinists have recognized
this, and they argue you can't be a consistent Calvinist without adhering to double predestination.


In a sense, yes. The word “keeps” is unfortunate as it still implies some sort of active constraint of human choices on the part of God. Really, it’s the opposite. Humanity has freely chosen to rebel against God and freely wants nothing to do with Him. For the unregenerate, God simply leaves them to that choice without any interference on His part.

pardon me for my frankness, but this seems like a case of quibbling. i don't mean to imply "action" in the term "keep." perhaps i could have chosen a better term, but it does carry my point. if i go into a pet shop, i can "keep" a bird from flying away by simply leaving its cage door shut. the connotation is there, albeit i could have nuanced it better. but semantics aside, the objection remains. post-fall man unable to be saved, apart from God. hence, God in Calvinism is predetermining the fate of the nonelect by simply sitting by and letting them perish.


I would say it’s by a passive decree, yes – God’s choice not to act in a certain way. As an infralapsarian Calvinist, I don’t really like to use the word “predestine” with respect to reprobation.

that is fair, albeit it is just another semantic issue, really. i agree that we should hold to predestination a la Rom. 8:29, though for different reasons. would it be better if i say, "they are predetermined by God's passive decree"? "To predetermine" doesn't necessarily carry the connotation of divine activity, though some may interpret it that way.


But, if you want to use predestination in connection with reprobation, then the classical Arminian has the same problem. Even on Arminianism, God creates people that He knows will be damned and God then passively lets that happen.

actually, the historical approach that Arminians take is pretty coherent, IMO. We typically interpret verses like John 12:32 and Romans 5:18 as implying that there is a universal aspect to Christ's sacrifice. There seems to be a dispute in Arminianism on how to interpret this, precisely. My perspective, though, is that all mankind is drawn towards Christ through God's grace (even those who will never hear the gospel? dunno how it works out for them, exactly), and those who choose to abide in Christ are saved by grace through faith; those who don't are condemned in their sins.

hence, we escape the predetermining problem. we are often caricaturized as placing free will above God's sovereignty, but you wanna know the bittersweet irony? We believe that it is only because of God's grace, by his sovereignty, that a free will decision to believe is possible. whereas Calvinist say that the elected individuals are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, we argue that whosoever believes are predestined to be conformed to Christ. likewise, if you wished to say that Arminianism does have the "reprobate" as predestined to hell... technically you would be right but a bit ambiguous. God has decreed, in our view, that those who reject Christ are condemned.


And, actually, even though it is mitigated somewhat, even the open theist faces this problem.

sort of. but the answer of the OVer would be the same as the Arminian. God has made predestination conditional to the faith (or lack thereof)
of the person. a person who chooses to reject Christ is predestined to hell, but he has only himself to blame, as he could have chosen otherwise.


This matter is complicated by the fact that there are philosophically competing views of free will. As a compatiblist, I hold that even after the fall, we are still acting freely because we are doing exactly what we want to do. No outside force is compelling us to act the way we are acting.

however, the core of who you are was predetermined when the first couple ate from the forbidden tree. so something external to you (the original sin you inherented from your parents) has indrectly determined your choices-- the desire or "core" as you say is just an intermediate cause. i don't consider compatibilism a real form of free will because of this.


Yes, I can. We did it through Adam. I will argue, on account of my semi-realist representational view of the fall, that Adam’s choice was not just made by Adam, but that there is a real sense in which we chose along with him. Thus, the fall was not something imposed on us from the outside by our ancestor, but something we ourselves participated in.

this is interesting. i'm not going to make an effort to refute this view, but instead will simply state that the NT argues again and again that it is because of our own individual sins, right here in our own lives, that we stand condemned (e.g. Rom. 5:12-- particularly, see the last clause of the verse). I am not sure that this would be mutually exclusive to your view exactly, but it does render it moot in this discussion. The consequences of the fall on us is that we are unable to do that which pleases God-- indeed we can only choose to reject Him unless He steps in and does something. This is orthodox Total Depravity, and any who even imply that we could have done righteous apart from His grace is a Pelagian. And here is where the problem is exposed: your position would seem to imply that someone could choose to not sin, but it simply will never occur. The only way around it is to attach to your view the notion that it is impossible (not just that it doesn't occur) for any of us of outselves-- after Adam-- to do anything but reject God.

ergo, even in the semi-realist representational view you espouse, you
must concede that it is because of the entry of sin (and thus our inherited sin nature) that Adam represents us so perfectly.


As a soft determinist, I would say that’s true even after the fall. We are free when we act from within ourselves in accordance with who we are. And who we are right now is that we are sinners.

you are a sinner because of something external to you-- the sinful nature you inherited.


It is not the Biblical view that we are not held accountable to God prior to the offer of redemptive grace. See Romans 1-3, especially the conclusion that is drawn in 3:19-20. Notice that in the train of Paul’s thought, the conclusion that all are shut up in accountability to God logically precedes the offer of redemptive grace through Christ.

ironically, you made my case. you cannot hold to your view of compatibilism because it would stand in contention with the Bible testimony that God does indeed hold us responsible for our sins. Hence, i propose a libertarian interpretation of Total Depravity. That is, while it is true we cannot choose to do God's will apart from His Spirit; simultaneously, we have a limited range of options available. You could choose to help the old lady across the street, although your motives would not be to do God's will, and thus would still be sin in His eyes; or you could do nothing, and leave the old lady to the mercy of motorists; or you could mug her and take her purse.

what is interesting about this contruct, even in moral choices the unregenerate would have libertarian free will and thus can justly be held accountable. Therefore, Romans 1-3 makes perfect sense in a libertarian free will framework. After all, i'd be suprized if you didn't remember something you did in your lost days, which even at that time you wished you didn't do.


The lifeguard analogy is a very poor one for this very same reason. ... A better analogy would be the decision of a governor whether or not to pardon a known criminal. If the governor does so, she shows mercy. If she does not, however, she has not flouted any moral obligations, but has rather allowed justice to take its rightful course.

even still, a better analogy would be that the criminal had a mental impairment where he was literally out of control of his actions. interestingly enough, there are real precedents in the US court system for persons with mental illness (though the don't get off totally scott free, as one would be held in a facility until they are seen as harmless to society).


You have no natural ability to jump over the moon. You could not do so even if you wanted to. Thus, you are not morally accountable for your failure to do so. However, you do have a natural ability not to sin. You could refrain from sinning if you really wanted to. The problem is you don’t want to. This is a moral inability not a natural one – apples and oranges here.

is that the voice of Pelagius i hear? a very strange statement, if i may say.

the unregenerate are unable to want to do good, due to total depravity. apples to apples.


I’ve argued elsewhere that LFW is actually incompatible with self-determination as it cannot trace the causal explanation for a particular choice back to anything that makes reference to the agent herself.

appeal to ignorance, and a questionable premise (4); nothing less. unless you have decisive evidence or exaustive knowledge, the lack of a "causal explanation" does not imply that libertarian freewill is false. likewise, there are no grounds for Premise 4. you've been taken to task on it, but let me add that premise 4 could only be established inductively on this side of heaven. thus, at best we could say "If E and C, then pF." Where pF is the probability that F will occur. To state that S will do A given C is to suggest you have exhaustive knowledge on the given choice, which you don't have.


But, I think the onus is on the LFW advocate to tell us how LFW choices are not random.

easy! First off, you don't need to know how things work in order to know that they do (otherwise, planes would be falling out of the sky, and it would be my fault!). But beyond that:
1. If the Bible imples A, then A.
2. The Bible implies that man has free will.
3. Therefore, man has free will.

We agree on 1, so that leaves 2: "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. John 15:4. Here, we see that Jesus treats the disciples as though they may freely choose to abide in Him (and likewise chose otherwise, though they would be
foolish not to). Thus, the Bible implies that we have LFW. Thus from above, we have LFW.


Not really. There is an appeal to mystery in both, but the Calvinist places the mystery in another place.

fair enough. note that we are allowed to do so because the Bible doesn't explain how a "free will" choice works. But such is not the case for you...


The Calvinist, however, locates the mystery within the broader mystery of God’s providence. This mystery is already one that all Christians accept to some degree anyway, so the Calvinist is not adding mystery that was not already there merely by saying that election is simply another example of the mystery of providence.

the problem is, you are appealing to a mystery that is clearly revealed in Scripture. John 6:40, among others, reveals that God's will is that any who believe in Christ are saved. The Calvinist has to create a mystery in order to overthrow that fact: that God predestines some to believe and not others. But this isn't evident in Scripture. what is evident is that those who believe are predestined to conformity to Jesus, and subsequent glory.


Furthermore, the appeal to mystery is not being made in such a way as to cover over an apparent logical contradiction. In fact, I don’t like it when Calvinists try to cover over apparent contradictions within their system by making an appeal to mystery and I try to avoid doing so as much as possible. I try to respond to Arminian objections along those lines by showing the apparent contradictions are not real contradictions.

fair enough, but IMHO logical contradictions are not the only problems with Calvinism. good try, so far.


We are placing the mystery in the hands of the mysterious purposes of a loving God, not some impersonal metaphysical aspect of the world as (I would argue) Arminianism must ultimately do.

sorry, but lack of knowledge of how LFW works does not imply work of an impersonal metaphysical aspect. But even so, ultimately our philosophies and theologies must conform to the witness of Scripture. i ernestly believe Arminianism does this, though i'm not prideful enough to say that i am never wrong. wisdom has its place, but in the end, it is nonsense if it conflicts with the written word of God.

the funny thing to me is, you reject the notion that the internal workings of choice should be overlooked as mystery, yet you use mystery to support a notion of predestination which i would argue isn't of Scripture, and i would also argue that said mystery has been revealed.


Smitten:

The issue isn't whether your analogy entails man deserving glory, the issue that i posed was that your analogy is simply not analogous of the salvation experience! Maybe I wasn't clear where i was going with that. I think the wording in your analogy is misleading at best, inaccurate at worst.

why? remember that we didn't make up grace, it existed as a concept in nonbiblical literature.


Thats a good point. But notice, your analogy doesn't include that factor at all. There is no reason a homeless man would not walk into a shelter to seek food/shelter. You correctly pointed out the power of sin, but your gift analogy and homeless man analogy exlude anything like that. They come close to making salvation look like a reflex or something.

the homeless man is probably closer to the truth, as many do have a reason not to seek shelter-- drugs, drunkeness, for instance.

regardless, the analogy does what it seeks to do: it is not needed beyond taht point (and indeed, no analogy could ever be perfect).


Considering that salvation is not as easy as that, as you admitted in your comment on sin, how is free will not glorified and grace belittled? If prevenient grace works the same effect in all people, salvation is contingent on free will and not grace. The person who is better in and of himself, completely independent of prevenient grace, is the one who rises up and receives salvation. The further effects and benefits of faith and salvation come after.

pardon my frankness please, but this is utter bullcrap. an intrinsic part of puting faith in Christ is that you recognize and accept that you cannot save yourself. besides, choice is not a work, and biblically speaking, only works are seen as meritous. Thus if anything, God is only glorified more by our choice, as we choose to die to ourselves and live for Him.


I don't see how you addressed my point at all. Salvation of course is by grace through faith, i never denied that. I pointed out that, given universal prevenient grace, the sole factor that decides salvation is free will. Since prevenient grace is a constant, free will is the key variable. Salvific grace and effects come after the free will decision.

i see what you mean, but none would be saved at all without Grace. coupled with the fact that the free will choice for God rejects self-glory, that is why we are speaking past each other. not that i
accept that previent grace is constant, but that is moot.


I don't think your comparisons to universalism apply to the issue. God receives glory whether people are saved or not, so a universe in which more people are saved wouldn't entail that God had more glory in that universe. I don't think i have implied contrary to this. The issue isn't how many are being saved, but for those who are, who deserves the praise and glory for the why and how.

...and a universalist would argue that his god would get more glory because even those who wouldn't be saved in our theologies would be glorifying God.


I agree that God is perfectly capable of saving whoever he wants to save, and i agree that the issue is what he has decided to do, not what he could do. And i see no Biblical warrant for the notion that man deserves glory in salvation. Especially(as pertains to the topic of this thread), the amount of glory logically entailed by this view of molinism.

Man doesn't, but it is not evidenced that man gets any more glory in Arminianism or Molinist Arminianism than Calvinism.

[Smitten]

Sheepdog,


regardless, the analogy does what it seeks to do: it is not needed beyond taht point (and indeed, no analogy could ever be perfect).

Yes it does what it seeks to do, and it is also misleading and wrong(in the context in which you supplied it, which was as a response to the points i raised about molinism. I agree that it is correct in the strict sense of salvation being a gift). I'll try and elaborate a little as you may wonder why i would complain about a simple analogy.

1. I present reasons for why this view of molinism that posits transworld damnation glorifies free will and belittles grace(similar arguments could be made for arminian free will views in general, but this was the context i made the points in, and i think this view of molinism makes the problem worse).

2. You present an analogy that makes salvation look very easy, which focuses entirely on an active God and a passive creature who simply receives a gift. You present this analogy in order to say that your theology does not glorify free will, etc. etc. and that noone can come w/o grace etc.

Is salvation possible without grace? No. Is salvation a gift? Yes. But your analogy doesn't at all rebut the issues i raised with this molinism. I never said that molinism denied that salvation was a gift or was possible without grace, the issue was the dynamics between the power of grace and free will. Since you seemed to indicate this analogy answered the issues i raised, i critiqued the analogy from the perspective of those issues. You can leave the analogy thing as it is, but it doesn't address my contention that transworld damnation and molinism belittle God's grace and glorify man's autonomy.




smitten: Considering that salvation is not as easy as that, as you admitted in your comment on sin, how is free will not glorified and grace belittled? If prevenient grace works the same effect in all people, salvation is contingent on free will and not grace. The person who is better in and of himself, completely independent of prevenient grace, is the one who rises up and receives salvation. The further effects and benefits of faith and salvation come after.
Sheepdog: pardon my frankness please, but this is utter bullcrap. an intrinsic part of puting faith in Christ is that you recognize and accept that you cannot save yourself. besides, choice is not a work, and biblically speaking, only works are seen as meritous. Thus if anything, God is only glorified more by our choice, as we choose to die to ourselves and live for Him.

I don't see you as addressing what i said, you took off on a tangent. I didn't say anything about faith/works. Regardless of what you define as a 'work' and what you don't define as a 'work', the difference between saved and non is not grace for the arminian. I'm not saying you believe that salvation is possible without grace. Whether you call one choosing faith in Christ as a work or not, it's not of grace and it's not a result of God's work.



i see what you mean, but none would be saved at all without Grace. coupled with the fact that the free will choice for God rejects self-glory, that is why we are speaking past each other. not that i accept that previent grace is constant, but that is moot.

I think i see what you mean, and as i noted in an earlier post to geebob, i don't at all mean to imply that believing in this view will necessarily cause a Christian to be prideful or arrogant or anything. The issue is not the attitude created, but rather the reality(irrelevant of humility/pride) of how salvation is obtained. In other words, if arminianism/molinism is true, we will still give God the glory, but it won't change facts regarding how salvation is obtained. Only a remnant will be saved, and the key variable won't have anything to do with God.




smitten: I agree that God is perfectly capable of saving whoever he wants to save, and i agree that the issue is what he has decided to do, not what he could do. And i see no Biblical warrant for the notion that man deserves glory in salvation. Especially(as pertains to the topic of this thread), the amount of glory logically entailed by this view of molinism.
Sheepdog: Man doesn't, but it is not evidenced that man gets any more glory in Arminianism or Molinist Arminianism than Calvinism.

I think we're thinking of the meaning of 'glory' differently here. This relates to what i said above about feelings of pride/humility etc. not being the issue. Christians display humility and the fruits of the spirit regardless of their theology. I'll rephrase the last sentence above to And i see no Biblical warrant for the notion that man exhibits such a high degree of autonomy(independent of God's gifts) in salvation. Especially(as pertains to the topic of this thread), the amount of autonomy logically entailed by this view of molinism. Since it hasn't been addressed really, i'll point out again that i'm drawing this from the notion of transworld damnation, particularly the view that posits that all those who don't hear the gospel are afflicted with such.

[Sheepdog]

Smitten:

Yes it does what it seeks to do, and it is also misleading and wrong(in the context in which you supplied it, which was as a response to the points i raised about molinism. I agree that it is correct in the strict sense of salvation being a gift). I'll try and elaborate a little as you may wonder why i would complain about a simple analogy.

your original contention was, "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." so, do you still argue that Craig's argument implies we deserve grace? My analogy responds to the statement as it stood. you are shifting the goal posts, and sadly i didn't realize it until now.


1. I present reasons for why this view of molinism that posits transworld damnation glorifies free will and belittles grace(similar arguments could be made for arminian free will views in general, but this was the context i made the points in, and i think this view of molinism makes the problem worse).

all you've done was assert it as if it were so.


2. You present an analogy that makes salvation look very easy, which focuses entirely on an active God and a passive creature who simply receives a gift. You present this analogy in order to say that your theology does not glorify free will, etc. etc. and that noone can come w/o grace etc.

whether or not a gift is deserved by its reception is not dependant on how easy or hard it is to receive.


Is salvation possible without grace? No. Is salvation a gift? Yes. But your analogy doesn't at all rebut the issues i raised with this molinism.

it served it's purpose.


I never said that molinism denied that salvation was a gift or was possible without grace, the issue was the dynamics between the power of grace and free will. Since you seemed to indicate this analogy answered the issues i raised, i critiqued the analogy from the perspective of those issues. You can leave the analogy thing as it is, but it doesn't address my contention that transworld damnation and molinism belittle God's grace and glorify man's autonomy.

it addresses (and smashes to obliteration) the notion it was meant to respond to.


I don't see you as addressing what i said, you took off on a tangent. I didn't say anything about faith/works. Regardless of what you define as a 'work' and what you don't define as a 'work', the difference between saved and non is not grace for the arminian. I'm not saying you believe that salvation is possible without grace. Whether you call one choosing faith in Christ as a work or not, it's not of grace and it's not a result of God's work.

i was applying Biblical language as it seemed fit. the only position that, Biblically, makes salvation contingent on us and not grace is salvation by works (Rom. 11:6). apart from that, there is no Biblical basis for your objection.

here, let me go back and respond to your point again, as it is clear that i did goof up...


If prevenient grace works the same effect in all people, salvation is contingent on free will and not grace.

incorrect, not to mention unbiblical. if anything, Salvation is contingent on both grace and faith (faith, i would argue, being the result of grace and choice). this fits perfectly in line with Biblical language (Eph. 2:8-9). you said it yourself, "I'm not saying you believe that salvation is possible without grace." i'm hoping the contention in your own language would be evident to you now.


I think i see what you mean, and as i noted in an earlier post to geebob, i don't at all mean to imply that believing in this view will necessarily cause a Christian to be prideful or arrogant or anything. The issue is not the attitude created, but rather the reality(irrelevant of humility/pride) of how salvation is obtained. In other words, if arminianism/molinism is true, we will still give God the glory, but it won't change facts regarding how salvation is obtained. Only a remnant will be saved, and the key variable won't have anything to do with God.

not the impression i got, as you retorted,

...We deserve no glory.

but beyond that you are still in error, because if we cannot be saved apart from grace, then grace is indeed a key aspect of this. if you are willing to realize this, then we can stop wasting time and drive space on the TWeb server.


I think we're thinking of the meaning of 'glory' differently here. This relates to what i said above about feelings of pride/humility etc. not being the issue. Christians display humility and the fruits of the spirit regardless of their theology. I'll rephrase the last sentence above to And i see no Biblical warrant for the notion that man exhibits such a high degree of autonomy(independent of God's gifts) in salvation. Especially(as pertains to the topic of this thread), the amount of autonomy logically entailed by this view of molinism. Since it hasn't been addressed really, i'll point out again that i'm drawing this from the notion of transworld damnation, particularly the view that posits that all those who don't hear the gospel are afflicted with such.

actually, that is somewhat better. unfortunately for you, the Bible repeatedly treates us as though we are autonomous, so i would argue that your new statement is incorrect. If you wish, we could cover John 15:1-8, the parable of the Vine, and look at its implications in detail. but i think it would be sufficient on my part to ask a question:
Jesus commands us to abide in Him. Why would he bother to issue such a command if those who will abide in Him were predetermined to do so by God?

[Smitten]

Sheepdog,


your original contention was, "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." so, do you still argue that Craig's argument implies we deserve grace? My analogy responds to the statement as it stood. you are shifting the goal posts, and sadly i didn't realize it until now.

I do admit that i had forgotten this particular that you were responding to, but it doesn't change much because my broader contention leads to and goes hand in hand with this. I do stand by this, and your use of the analogy didn't address the issue with which you tried to apply it.

The use of "deserve" is very clear to anyone who reads the context and sees my points. I stand by the meaning i used it in.

and this:


so, do you still argue that Craig's argument implies we deserve grace?

I don't know where you got this. I said his view implies that we deserve to be born where we were, and "deserve" was qualified by the context, don't exagerate my meaning and run off with it.



smitten: I present reasons for why this view of molinism that posits transworld damnation glorifies free will and belittles grace(similar arguments could be made for arminian free will views in general, but this was the context i made the points in, and i think this view of molinism makes the problem worse).
Sheepdog: all you've done was assert it as if it were so.

No i haven't, i've explained my points. Ill repost some of what i've said in previous posts(in italics).

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.

Note the bold in particular, which helps explain the previous statement. Your gift analogy doesn't address this, as i never denied that salvation is a gift, the issue is God's criteria in putting people where he does in the physical world, not people deserving God's prevenient grace or anything like that. A Christian "deserved" to be born in a "Christian" nation in the sense that God put them there because of their own merits that God foresaw.

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.

Note the bold in particular again. I'll elaborate again on this. There is a buttload of people throughout the history of creation who wouldn't accept Christ in the inumerable amount of possible worlds that God could put them in(transwordly damned). It's more likely that you will spontaneously combust while reading this then that some people will respond to the Holy Spirit in an inumerable # of scenarios. What kind of pitiful and weak prevenient grace does one have to hold to to believe this stuff? The statistics of these people rebelling against God are more static and constant than gravity! The view belittles the work of the Holy Spirit(since the drawing of prevenient grace is apparently very very weak) and elevates the power of free will(a separate issue that could be brought up is how free is one's will if they choose the same thing in an infinite amount of scenarios, but that's another issue).

Here's another time i explained it:
If prevenient grace puts everyone on "neutral" ground to where everyone has the same capacity to choose Christ, the only difference between Christians and non lies in free will and not grace. Transworld damnation makes it even worse because the work of prevenient grace and the Holy Spirit is even weaker, as there are many people who don't freely choose Christ in any of the infinite amount of possible worlds that God can place them in.



smitten: If prevenient grace works the same effect in all people, salvation is contingent on free will and not grace
Sheepdog: incorrect, not to mention unbiblical. if anything, Salvation is contingent on both grace and faith (faith, i would argue, being the result of grace and choice). this fits perfectly in line with Biblical language (Eph. 2:8-9). you said it yourself, "I'm not saying you believe that salvation is possible without grace." i'm hoping the contention in your own language would be evident to you now.

There is no contention in my language, look at the context of what i said. Given the constant of grace, the key variable is free will, independent of grace. The first half of the sentence you responded to makes it clear that i don't mean salvation happens without grace, it's obvious what i meant by contingent, the variable.


unfortunately for you, the Bible repeatedly treates us as though we are autonomous
Let's say i grant that, now, regarding the thread topic, do you think it grants the degree of autonomy and lowers the power of grace's drawing to the extent entailed by this exclusivist molinist account? Or, why doesn't this molinist account entail that?