According to Billy Birch, of Classical Arminianism, Dan Chapa, of Arminian Chronicles, is not a real Arminian:
"Dan Chapa would be a Monlinist [sic], then, not an Arminian."
http://snemes.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/is-he-the-author/#comment-55
Since both Dan and Billy contribute to the Society of Evangelical Arminians, this, in turn, raises the question of whether SEA represents true Arminianism.
Perhaps SEA should split into the Real Society of Evangelical Arminians and the Fake Society of Evangelical Arminians.
And when I asked Billy if Molinism makes God the author of sin, he said "Once again, if Molinism is accurately represented here, then yes."
I don't know why you play these silly games, Steve. Way to spin the entire conversation. The only reason I wrote that "Dan Chapa would be a Molinist (and thank you for pointing out my typo), then, not an Arminian" is because you first wrote: "Plantinga and Keathley are Molinists, not Calvinists. Craig is a Molinist, not an Arminian." By this logic, Molinists cannot be Calvinist or Arminian, which would make Dan Chapa a Molinist and not an Arminian.
ReplyDeleteYour lack of integrity is very telling.
And when I asked Billy if Molinism makes God the author of sin, he said "Once again, if Molinism is accurately represented here, then yes."
And that's certainly a BIG if.
Well, here's an interesting question: do you think Molinism was represented accurately in my post?
ReplyDeleteWILLIAM WATSON BIRCH SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't know why you play these silly games, Steve. Way to spin the entire conversation. The only reason I wrote that 'Dan Chapa would be a Molinist (and thank you for pointing out my typo), then, not an Arminian' is because you first wrote: 'Plantinga and Keathley are Molinists, not Calvinists. Craig is a Molinist, not an Arminian.' By this logic, Molinists cannot be Calvinist or Arminian, which would make Dan Chapa a Molinist and not an Arminian. Your lack of integrity is very telling."
What is telling about somebody's integrity is when they get all huffy and abusive because you presume to quote their own words back to them and draw elementary deductions which follow from their stated position.
Nothing is more self-incriminating than somebody who charges you with wrongdoing because you merely quote him verbatim and connect the dots.
That isn't character assassination–that's character suicide.
What is telling about somebody's integrity is when they get all huffy and abusive because you quote their own words and twist them in order to draw elementary deductions which follow from their alleged stated position.
ReplyDeleteI thought Molinists were Arminians, just a particular kind or type of Arminian.
ReplyDeleteTraditionally, Molinists are Jesuits.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, Birth classifies himself as an Arminian rather than a Molinist. And he also concedes the possibility that Molinism makes God the "author of sin." So he hasn't shown how I twisted his words.
So he hasn't shown how I twisted his words.
ReplyDeleteSteve Hays at Steven's blog:
Well, Dan Chapa (of Arminian Chronicles) is a Molinist. An Arminian Molinist.
Plantinga and Keathley are Molinists, not Calvinists. Craig is a Molinist, not an Arminian.
Me at Steven's blog:
Dan Chapa would be a Monlinist, then, not an Arminian. Is that not what you said of Craig? . . . A Molinist cannot be a Calvinist and vice versa?
Steve Hays' reply:
i) No, they can’t.
ii) Moreover, even if they were mutually consistent, that hardly makes them synonymous. It’s consistent for the same man to be both a father and a brother, but to be a brother doesn’t entail one’s fatherhood, or vice versa.
Since by Hays' admission a Molinist can be neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, then that would make Dan Chapa a Molinist, not an Arminian. And yet Hays clearly called Chapa an "Arminian Molinist". I never stated that Chapa was not a "real Arminian," only demonstrating Hays' inconsistency by him calling Chapa an "Arminian Molinist," when apparently that cannot be done.
That is how you twisted my words.
Billy,
ReplyDeletei) What I did was to take your statements at face value. In future, I will make allowance for your dissimulation.
ii) I classify Dan Chapa as an Arminian Molinist because that is how he classifies himself. That doesn't represent my own classification one way or the other.
Craig, Keathley, and Plantinga also self-identify as Molinists.
This isn't difficult to figure out, Billy. Stretch yourself.
You then asked me to give my personal views on the compatibility (or not) of Calvinism and Molinism. So that reflects my own viewpoint, in answer to your question.
Once again, this isn't difficult to figure out, Billy. Stretch yourself.
A conversation can start in one direction, then go in another direction.
Molinists may either hold to the 5 points of Calvinism or the 5 points on the Remonstrants or some combo inbetween. Steven's post seemed to illustrate unconditional election with Molinism. So while it seemed like a fair representation of Molinism to me, it's a representation of Calvinist Molinism not Arminian Molinism.
ReplyDeleteSo even though it's Molinist; that possition doesn't represent me. That's probably what lead to the confussion.
That said, Billy and I probably do have a legit difference of opinion regarding Molinism. But we are both Arminian.
God be with you,
Dan
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steven's post seemed to illustrate unconditional election with Molinism."
How does his post illustrate that?
I have seen that spirit coming in here out of billy birch come out of Peter Lumpkins.
ReplyDeleteIs it contagious or what?
He is a Contagion.
Frightening to consider its powerful effects affecting the souls of men!
Aaaah:::>
Rev 7:15 "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will shelter them with his presence.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe one dude hates the other before and apart from his knowledge of the circumstances that would lead to his downfall. Sounds similar to Suarez's version of Molinism in which God first unconditionally elects and then consults His MK to find the circumstances in which God saves His elect. This being in contrast to Molina's view that God first consults His MK and then chooses 'a feasable world' which includes some people who would believe in that world. In the one case, election is unconditional and in the other it's conditioned on foreseen faith.
God be with you,
Dan