Pages

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Chapa on White on Molinism

“James White discussed Molinism on a recent dividing line. (link) His two primary criticisms of middle knowledge (God's know what you would do under any circumstances) were 1) it doesn't accomplish God's goal of giving man freewill, which makes man robots and doesn't escape unconditional election and 2) middle knowledge removes God's sovereignty and places too much in the hands of man's autonomous freewill, thereby limiting what God can do with His creation and robbing God of His glory. Awkwardly for Dr. White, sometimes he would raise both objections in the same train of thought - seemingly unaware of how at odds these to claims are to each other. Both cannot be problems at the same time. Nor were his objections based on two distinct aspects of Molinism; they were both based directly on the idea that God knows what you would do under any circumstances. It's odd that those objecting to Molinism's consistency use such inconsistent approaches such as this.”

http://www.arminianchronicles.com/2009/10/white-on-molinism.html

If Molinism is a compromise position which tries, unsuccessfully, to harmonize conflicting aims or opposing principles, then it’s internally inconsistent. It that case, a critic of Molinism can consistently raise inconsistent objections to Molinism. For the mutually inconsistent criticisms have their basis in the mutually inconsistent implications of the position under review. It’s odd that Dan Chapa overlooks that elementary point.

Inconsistent objections would be a problem in case the critic were judging a position by his own criteria. Inconsistent objections are not a problem in case the critic is judging a position by its own criteria. For in that event, the inconsistency is generated by the incoherence of the position itself.

7 comments:

  1. "....Inconsistent objections are not a problem in case the critic is judging a position by its own criteria. For in that event, the inconsistency is generated by the incoherence of the position itself....".

    Not unless you were Job and coherent with God's plan yet incoherent with regard to its own criteria:::>

    Job 42:1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:

    Then Paul wrote:::>

    Eph 3:8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
    Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
    Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
    Eph 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,
    Eph 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

    Now things won't make any sense at all until like Job and Paul, you too are sifted like wheat!

    Luk 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
    Luk 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
    Luk 13:17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

    and

    inconsistency and incoherent:


    Luk 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
    Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
    Luk 22:33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

    So, I say, "it's payback day":

    Rev 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;
    Rev 18:5 for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.
    Rev 18:6 Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There actually is a far more serious problem with molinism. It violates the strong-unrestricted PSR.

    http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2008/06/ordinary-counte.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Steve,

    Dr. White didn't say or argue that Molinism is internally inconsistent. He used ideas external to Molinism to attempt to show it fails to accomplish it's goal of defending freewill.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan,

    I'm working from your very own summary. Your summary of his position would amount to a standard internal critique of Molinism.

    Of course, a Molinist wouldn't raise the same objections to his own position since he doesn't think those objectionable features are, in fact, internal to his own system. However, that doesn't mean it can't be an internal critique. Just that a Molinist won't regard that as a successful internal critique.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    Seems like you are saying that non-Molinists get to decide what gets included in a Molinist system. I dissagee but if that was true then the Molinist system is absured due to the premises Dr. White inserted.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  6. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "Seems like you are saying that non-Molinists get to decide what gets included in a Molinist system."

    That's entirely irrelevant to whether Molinism successfully resolves the problem it posed for itself (i.e. harmonizing libertarian freedom with divine sovereignty). Seems like you're ducking the issue.

    "I dissagee but if that was true then the Molinist system is absured due to the premises Dr. White inserted."

    Why don't you turn that accusation into a real argument instead of a tendentious assertion. Explain how White inserted extraneous premises into his critique of Molinism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    Dr. White posits: 1) MK undermines God's sovereignty and 2) MK undermines LFW. He doesn't really argue for these ideas; perhaps he takes them as obvious. He does give a ground beef objection to middle knowledge but it's reliant on the idea that God obtains middle knowledge in the way we guess what a person would do in various circumstances - an idea external to Molinism. In any case these ideas are neither consistent nor a part of Molinism, so "their witness agrees not together".

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete