Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
A Little Molinism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 янв 2018
- Reviewed a William Lane Craig video on the limitations inherent upon God due to "middle knowledge"
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
What's hilarious about this concept is, in spite of everything the molinist says to the contrary, despite these counter factuals, God's act of choosing to go forward with His decree is God determining the outcome anyway. The whole thing is a pointless end around that ultimately accomplishes nothing.
Let's say God middle-knows that Sally would freely choose A given
circumstance F. This entails that Sally would do A (call this
proposition G). If G is already true prior to its being grounded in a
real world decision, then it is no longer possible for her to do ~A, for
doing ~A would falsify the truth value of G. It is not compossible for G
to be true and false of the same concrete world. So if G is true before
Sally even exists, then she must act in accordance with that truth. She
isn't free. (Does this make any sense?)
And truth supervenes on being. Prior to the decree, Sally doesn't exist.
There is no concrete state of affairs to make G true. A hypothetical or
simulated Sally doesn't have free will, so running simulations of Sally
wouldn't provide one with information. If Sally has free will, then
replaying the simulation would give different results anyway. If
simulated-Sally always does the same thing in the same circumstance,
then she seems like a robot.
Fantastic of man, like calvin.
God determines them their think & God will send them to hell no matter what they do. Its determined.
who are you o man to talk back to God?
will the clay say to the potter "why have you made me this way?"
Paul literally anticipated your argument almost 2000 years ago lol
The moment you claim that God is confined by anything, you've lost the plot, period.
Translation of everything White is trying to say: “This middle knowledge model of Craig, Keathley, and others allows for real, libertarian freewill outside of God’s own will, but I can’t accept that, so the whole system is false.”
Molinism is a system that shows how the biblical twins truths of divine sovereignty and libertarian freedom can be compatible. Calvinists do not believe the Bible teaches libertarian freedom so they see Molinism as unnecessary at best, and a defeater of Calvinism at worst.
It is incumbent on molinists, arminians, and any others who promote the idea of man's "free will" or "libertarian free will" to actually show that concept is taught from Scripture in the first place. It cannot just be an assumption that we start with from our own reasonings and try and impose upon the text. Until you can irrefutably show that the free will of man is sound doctrine from Scripture itself, all of the rationalizing and argumentation in the world is mere hand waving.
What we DO see taught in Scripture is God's sovereignty (Genesis 20:6, Genesis 50, Philippians 1:6, Jude 4, Isaiah 10, Deuteronomy 29:4, etc.), His election and predestination of a particular people for redemption (John 6:35-44, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1, Romans 8 and 9, etc.), that we are born sinful and deserving of damnation to hell for eternity(Genesis 8:28, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:19, Ephesians 2:3, etc.) and that it is impossible for man to seek the LORD's salvation in his natural state (Romans 8:8, Romans 3:10-17, Ephesians 2:1, Colossians 2:13, etc.) because the sinner is naturally hostile towards God (Romans 8:7, John 3:19). Therefore the only way for man to be reconciled to God is for God to give man a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26) so that man's desires can be made new and can then love God. If you cannot see the beauty in this message and instead cling onto the notion of man's free will, worshipping at its altar rather than the God who accomplishes our salvation, then I truly pity you and pray you will someday see the clear teaching of the Word of God.
@@douglasmcnay644 I'm assuming you're willing to admit that all your prayers are perfectly pointless. God either decreed for me to "someday see the clear teaching of the Word of God" or he did not. Whatever prayers that God (in your estimation) causally determined for you to pray for me are intrinsically meaningless. Not only because everything is fated according to your doctrine of determinism, but because your prayers are not really a genuine petition from yourself. Though we are spellbound by the illusion of freewill, neither you nor I are ever the source of our choices whether to pray or not to pray, whether to believe to not to believe. In the end, neither your prayers nor your pity really mean anything.
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC One thing some people miss about Calvinism is that we really do believe in both words of that term "secondary cause." Secondary causes are **both** secondary AND causal. Non-calvinists assume them to be secondary, and thus non-causal.
But to arrive there, critics conflate "secondary" with "illusory" or "pointless." They figure that if some cause, decision, or act of volition stands downstream from God's degree, then it is, of necessity, non-existent or pointless. By doing this, however, they tacitly admit the weakness of the critique. Namely, the truth that there can be only one ultimate, one sovereign, one Truth. . . that "secondary sovereigns" and "secondary truths" are are actually NON-sovereigns. This is why Dr. Craig refuses to answer the grounding objection (the "truth maker theory" response is a direct violation if the first law of logic, the principle of sufficient reason, and the sovereignty of Yahweh).
But this limitation on sovereignty does not apply to causes ... secondary causes can be authentic causes all the same, but the category of secondary sovereigns is an empty set. Calvinists and non-calvinists all can agree that secondary causes cannot also be ultimate causes, but non-calvinists are incorrect in assuming that this means that they are in **no** sense causal whatsoever.
However, when non-calvinists posit the existence of truths that are independent of and external to God- I.e. **not** downstream from his sovereign will, and then claim that he's still sovereign in such a paradigm, they are making a category mistake. Secondary causes do not occupy the same ground as an ultimate causes, and can thus coexist, so long as that distinction between ultimate and secondary is kept in mind. That is not true of sovereignty, however- it has no such categories of degrees or gradations.
God is the only one libertarian free will
for anything to be libertarian-ly free would require you to be uncreated by God
therefore, LFW is a myth