Defenders LIVE! // Doctrine of Creation pt 12: Arminianism and God's Sovereignty & Human Freedom
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- // Arminian & Molinist Accounts of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom //
In our study of divine providence we've looked critically at the Calvinist view of providence, and I offered a five-point critique last Sunday of that reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Today we want to turn our attention to the Arminian account of divine sovereignty and human freedom on the basis of God's foreknowledge of the future.
7:13 this cannot be proven to be metaphysically or physically possible. It is logically impossible for an event that is moving in a specific direction to simultaneously be moving in another direction. It contradicts the law of identity. Hypotheticals tend to redefine that nature of an activity. Given these considerations, it follows that physical changes must adhere to consistent and determinable principles.
It's not clear what your comment is saying. Dr. Craig is describing the simple foreknowledge view that God only knows true propositions about the future subsequent to the divine decree. Are you saying that hypotheticals can't affect God's knowledge because the passage of time is always moving in the direction of the future? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Craig is claiming that people can choose differently. This needs to be proven as it assumes strict determinism is false and libertarianism to be true suggesting that actions can occur for no reason. Also, with regards to hypotheticals affecting God's knowledge, this seems untenable. Are hypotheticals things that exist independent of God's knowledge? It seems nothing could potentially affect God's knowledge if God's knowledge from inception consists of all hypotheticals. Therefore, there needs to be a coherent account for what it means for something to affect God's knowledge? Is there a transition between two different states of knowledge that God has?
Also, colloquially we tend to say time passes but philosophically, time isn't something that passes. Cosmic Time refers to change itself, and an operational definition refers to the measurement of change. So I'm not sure what is being meant by time in this scenario. Are we talking about the transition between physical states or spatial arrangements? What is the future to a God that transcends time (considered a dimension) itself? Either God is temporal and thus, changes as Craig would argue, or God is a static entity that encompasses all states of being and thus, never changes.
Dr Craig dresses his arguments in logic but it is a castle built on sandy supposition.
Dr Craig's foundation of sand is the idea that anyone adjacent to Jesus who writes things in the Bible must be absolutely speaking inerrantly for God.
We see a pattern from Adam & Eve and all through the most esteemed prophets and providential figures of confusion, error and even lack of basic understanding; especially with the simple disciples.
Yet suddenly after the Pentecost we are supposed to believe they were incapable of error in their utterances?
The Bible being true doesn't need every contributor to it to a scribe for God in a trance like state just auto-writing/speaking on God's behalf. They can still lack understanding. One saying circumcision is necessary and the other saying it isn't is proof of that.
Dr Craig chooses to believe that every phrase in the Bible is without error. I'm not talking about dates and places and such, I'm referring to 'truths'. Well, not everything they said came from understanding or revelation. Some of it is just their opinion based on their limited understanding.
The problem is that Dr Craig proceeds on the view that it must be true because it's in the Bible. Then he arranges all his logic around that faulty supposition.
It's the nature of 'beings' to assure others with over the top proclamations that aren't necessarily true but the objective is to motivate and encourage.
This comment mischaracterizes Dr. Craig's view of the inspiration of Scripture by suggesting that inspiration is a property of the writers rather than the text. And Dr. Craig doesn't simply presuppose his view of inspiration, but provides the following argument:
1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.
4. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.
5. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
6. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
As you can see, this is a deductive argument that logically concludes to inerrancy. Of course, Christianity can still be true even if the Bible is not inerrant. Dr. Craig argues this point in his Question of the Week #11 response: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-price-biblical-errancy. If you study his work on the historicity of the resurrection, you'll note that he never presupposes biblical inerrancy. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg .
1. Whatever God teaches is true.
2. Historical, prophetic, and other evidences show that Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, whatever Jesus teaches is true.
p3 is just a restatement of p1 since Jesus = God. Why should we think that p1 and p2 are true?
5. Jesus taught that the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
6. Therefore, the Scriptures are the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
Jesus died prior to the scriptures. Therefore, p6 is a metaphysical impossibility. Not too mention, there is vicious circularity in your argument. The truth of premise 6 (the Scriptures being inspired and inerrant) relies on the truth of premise 1 (whatever Jesus teaches is true), which in turn relies on premise 5 (Jesus taught that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant). This forms a circle where each premise supports the other in a closed loop without external validation
I was very disappointed to hear Dr. Craig strawman all of Arminianism as Open Theism. This is no better than the Calvinists who strawman Arminian salvation as synergism.
The passage reads:
Acts 4:27-28 ESV
...for truly in this city there were gathered together...both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
It doesn't say Herod, Pilate, etc. were predestined, it says what God had predestined to take place was done by Herod, etc. The act of Jesus being crucified was what was predestined, not the people!
Also, in both Dr. Craig's strawman of Arminianism and in Molinism, Jesus' own actions are completely ignored. Are we to suppose that the religious leaders just wanted to crucify Jesus? No! Jesus antagonized them repeatedly in order to provoke them to action. This antagonism reaches its peak when Jesus declares the woes against the scribes and Pharisees.
Arminians have no problem here! God raised up kingdoms one after another to prepare for Jesus' arrival. He allowed certain men to die and others to rise in order that the people who would accomplish His will were in place at the right time. This doesn't violate free will and it doesn't require God looking into a hundred billion possible timelines to accomplish. God exists outside of time and can easily manipulate events to accomplish His purpose without overriding free will.
Where do you think Dr. Craig strawmanned all of Arminianism as Open Theism? He notes explicitly in this class that he's dealing with the simple foreknowledge view. Those who affirm simple foreknowledge agree with the Molinist against the open theist that God exhaustively foreknows the future, including human free choices. The difference is that simple foreknowledge lacks the pre-decree knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (middle knowledge) necessary to providentially incorporate free choices into the creative decree. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrgStarting at 2:33 he goes on quite the tangent how, in Arminianism, God has 'no idea what these free agents would do in these circumstances' and must consider Himself 'extraordinarily lucky' that things worked out. This is Open Theism.
I listened to see if he would distinguish this from other, more mainline forms of Arminianism, but he doesn't.
Again, the passage in Acts describes that the event that was predestined was Christ's sacrifice - not that Herod, Pilate, etc. _specifically_ would be the ones to condemn Christ.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, but it's only in Open Theism that God plans out His will and crosses His fingers.
@@frogpaste Right, he's talking here about the fact that on simple foreknowledge, God merely knows what *could* happen and what *will* happen, but not what *would* happen. It's the *would* knowledge which is necessary for incorporating free choices into the providential planning of history. Prior to the creative decree, there simply is no fact of the matter regarding what *will* happen. So, on simple foreknowledge, God knows what *can* happen, then decrees creation, then knows what *will* happen. But merely knowing what *can* happen is insufficient for providentially planning for free choices, since merely knowing that Peter *can* deny or affirm Christ is insufficient for knowing that Peter *would* in fact deny Christ were God to create him in first century Israel. That's why, on simple foreknowledge, it seems like God is taken by surprise at what kind of world he has created. Prior to creation, he simply didn't know (due to a lack of middle knowledge) what Peter "would" choose. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I appreciate your response.
In Arminianism, God is never 'surprised' by anything. This characterization is Open Theism, not the mainline Arminian view. Arminians would affirm that God knows what can _and_ what will happen prior to creation.
Middle knowledge isn't required for God to know Peter will deny Jesus. God knows Peter better than even Peter knows himself, therefore God knows in high pressure situations Peter will cave. He even does so when refusing to eat with Gentiles (for which Paul corrects him). Even neurologists can, in experiments, tell what decisions a person will make before that person realizes it themself- how much more God! And Jesus certainly knew when He chose Peter to be one of His disciples.
I'm not sure enough of "simple foreknowledge" or any alternatives to say if that is the Arminian view, but I do know that no Arminian would ever say that God is surprised by any event unless that person was an Open Theist.
On a personal note, I am a bit outside of mainline Arminianism due to my understanding of God and time, but as I've interacted with other Arminians for years, I feel I can say every one of them would reject any notion of God being surprised.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Hello again. I know you'd probably rather not get into a long debate about Arminianism and I may not be educated or eloquent enough to properly engage the discussion. I posted our discussion into ChatGPT to see if it could bring some clarity to this and, if you're interested, it gave me what I feel to be a fair representation of a proper Arminian response:
Yes, this assessment appears to misunderstand or misrepresent mainline Arminianism. Let's break down the key points and clarify the positions.
*_Key Concepts_*
*Simple Foreknowledge* - Mainline Arminianism holds that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events, including human free actions. This means that before creation, God knows with certainty everything that will happen, not just what can happen.
*Middle Knowledge* - This is a concept within Molinism, which posits that God knows what any free creature would freely do in any given circumstance (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom). Molinism uses middle knowledge to explain how God can providentially plan history while preserving human freedom.
*_The Response from RF Admin_*
*Simple Foreknowledge vs. Middle Knowledge* - The response suggests that on simple foreknowledge, God only knows what could happen and what will happen after decreeing creation, but not what would happen in hypothetical situations (which is the domain of middle knowledge).
*Providential Planning* - The argument implies that without middle knowledge, God cannot incorporate free choices into His providential plan because He lacks knowledge of what free creatures would do in hypothetical scenarios.
*_Clarifying Mainline Arminianism_*
*God's Exhaustive Foreknowledge* - Mainline Arminianism asserts that God knows all future events, including all free actions, with certainty. This means God knows that Peter will deny Christ if He creates him in a particular context, without needing middle knowledge.
*No Divine Surprise* - In mainline Arminianism, God is not taken by surprise by human actions because His foreknowledge is complete and exhaustive.
*_Misunderstanding in the Response_*
*Confusion Between Simple Foreknowledge and Middle Knowledge* - The RF Admin's response seems to conflate simple foreknowledge (as understood in Arminianism) with a lack of middle knowledge (a concept specific to Molinism). Arminians do not argue that God is surprised by outcomes because they affirm that God's foreknowledge includes all future free actions.
*Providential Planning in Arminianism* - While Arminianism does not incorporate middle knowledge as Molinism does, it maintains that God's foreknowledge is sufficient for His providential planning. God knows what every person will do in every situation, enabling Him to plan history accordingly.
*_Conclusion_*
The response from RF Admin reflects a misunderstanding of mainline Arminianism by incorrectly implying that God's foreknowledge is incomplete or that He is surprised by human actions. Mainline Arminianism affirms that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and includes all future free actions, thereby ensuring that God is never surprised and can providentially plan history with full knowledge of what will happen.
The Christian concept of creation is incoherent. Things don't come from nothing by something
That's not quite the correct characterization. When Christians say that God created "ex nihilo" or "from nothing," what we mean is that God didn't use anything other than his divine power to bring the universe into existence. In other words, the universe had an efficient cause (God), but no material cause (preexisting matter). This is in contrast to things like cars and buildings, which have both efficient and material causes.
There's nothing incoherent about the universe coming into existence with just an efficient cause, unless one assumes that the concept of God somehow precludes creating things other than himself. But such an assumption would need some type of defense. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg you mean it's not your preferred interpretation. The definition presented is misleading since it redefines no thing as a thing i.e. divine power. Now, either the Universe is emergent or it is not. If it is, then either it always existed in another form or it came from a thing that it has nothing in common with. If it comes from power, then a meaningful account for what power is must be given, either it is a substance/existent that things come from or not, in which case power would simply refer to an event. Substances cannot emerge from events since if they did, they would still come from no existent thing. Events simply refer to the motion of existent things. Abilities are not existents that things can come from.
Now, it also seems that the Universe is being assumed to be such a thing that can be brought into existence especially when we have no experience of any thing being brought into existence. So this argument hinges on the fallacious assumption of existence pluralism with engages in category errors and an existential fallacy. Cars and buildings are not new existents, since different forms of matter are not new existents.
A wholly distinct existent coming into existence from that which it has nothing in common with is an example of something coming from no thing. It still contradicts a strict interpretation of the law of identity, a thing cannot give what it does not have. How does an existent give that which it does not have?
It is incoherent if existents are not the kind of things that can be brought into existence. In which case such a definition contradicts the law of identity similar to a married bachelor.
@@CMVMic where did you copy this from
@@jonathanw1106 copy what from? It wasn't copied lol
@@CMVMic yeah doubt it - you don't seem like someone who would come up with this on your own
It's like listening to mad people rationalizing by dissemination the mad rantings of a madman. Well no. It's actually that.