Nevertheless, I felt the prick of the rapier when Craig referred to 1 Cor 10:13. I have often cited the text as evidence that God knows counterfactuals. He knows in what circumstances we would be unable to resist temptation, and he does not allow us to get into such situations. But I am unsure how best to respond to Craig’s proposal that 1 Cor 10:13 also indicates that we have the power of contrary choice. The text does sound, on a natural reading, to indicate that when we yield to temptation, we could have done otherwise, all things being equal.
This is, indeed, a favorite libertarian prooftext. However:
i) There’s a tension between using this as a prooftext for libertarianism and using this as a prooftext for God's counterfactual knowledge. If a libertarian cites this verse as a prooftext for God's counterfactual knowledge, then that, in turn, runs afoul of the grounding objection, viz.
ii) Calvinism doesn’t deny that humans can do otherwise, simpliciter. Humans lack direct power to do otherwise. Instead, there’s a possible world in which God predestined the alternative course of action. Hypothetical decrees.
"The problem is only that it is not grounded in the way it needs to be to serve as middle knowledge. It is not grounded independently of God's or my free decisions."
ReplyDeleteOn that note, Molinists seem to be more open to the possibility that there is an actual multiverse (example), and I could see them using this belief to reply to the above objection. Have you written or could you recommend anything on the multiverse?
i) I don't see how postulating a multiverse relieves the grounding objection.
Deleteii) In principle, a multiverse is not incompatible with Calvinism. God would still decree whatever happens in the world ensemble.
iii) As you probably know, the multiverse is often invoked to underwrite the weak anthropic principle, thereby sidestepping the design argument. However, I think the multiverse only pushes the question back a step, and magnifies the issue. Instead of having to account for just one universe, the atheist must now account for gazillions of parallel universes.
iv) Don Page is a professing Christian who endorses the multiverse. Conversely, Peter Woit is an atheist vehemently opposes the universe. See his blog Not Even Wrong.
Is anyone aware of a philosophically based Calvinistic criticism (and refutation) of Norman Geisler's position on predestination? James White (and others Calvinists) have argued Biblically against Geisler's views, but they are usually not philosophically adept enough to answer Geisler's philosophical and logical arguments.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it seems to me, those Calvinists who are philosophically astute enough to answer Geisler usually don't because his views aren't philosophically rigorous enough to be worthy of refutation. Because of this situation, Geisler's views seems unrefuted (even irrefutable) by his followers and those who oppose Calvinism in general.
What you're pontificating has definite tension with the grammatico-historical method with respect to 1 Cor. passagage. You have to rely on philosophical anachronism to make your assertion the least bit viable.
ReplyDeletePaul A. Himes provides an exegetically rigorous case that Arminians are spot on here: "When A Christian Sins: 1 Corinthians 10:13 and the Power of Contrary Choicein Relation to the Compatibilist-Libertarian Debate" JETS 54.2 (June 2011):329-44. What's your counterargument?
And even under philosophical consideration, your assertion begs the question against serious proposals (e.g., isotemporalism), which do in fact cogently relieve the grounding objection. See Katherin A. Rogers, "God, Time, and Freedom" in Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), esp. 204-09). What is your counterargument?
Either you're aware of these advances in the literature, but do not cite it because you can't rejoind, or you're not aware, in which case you're seriously outdated in scholarship.
i) I was responding to Craig, not to Himes. Your comment is irrelevant to my specific objection.
ReplyDeleteii) Are you suggesting that Rogers is a Molinist?
iii) The grounding objection is the subject of ongoing debate. It's not as if someone has written an article that's the last word on that subject. Don't be gauche.
"i) I was responding to Craig, not to Himes. Your comment is irrelevant to my specific objection."
ReplyDeleteSo what? The point then, as you see it, is to criticize a point raised by Craig the person, rather than the substance of the topic, which has wider proponents? Himes makes a *relevant* contribution, putting far more meat on this bone than Craig does. Your alleged objection is a bust, until you offer a counterargument. Can you try not to be evasive?
"iii) The grounding objection is the subject of ongoing debate. It's not as if someone has written an article that's the last word on that subject. Don't be gauche."
From my suggesting a "serious proposals", you jumped from that to mean "the last word on the subject"? Do you have any command of the English language?
And if you're up to speed on the "ongoing debate", as you pretend to be, why so selective on the relevant literature? Or you're aware of it, but choose not to interact with it because you have no rejoinder?
Sarin
ReplyDelete"So what? The point then, as you see it, is to criticize a point raised by Craig the person, rather than the substance of the topic, which has wider proponents? Himes makes a *relevant* contribution, putting far more meat on this bone than Craig does. Your alleged objection is a bust, until you offer a counterargument. Can you try not to be evasive?"
Try not to be such a twerp. His article is irrelevant to my post. My post doesn't discuss whether or not 1 Cor 10:13 teaches libertarian freewill. Rather, my post discusses the inconsistency between 1 Cor 10:13 as a prooftext both for libertarian freewill and God's counterfactual knowledge. You need to acquire the mental discipline to track the actual argument.
"And if you're up to speed on the 'ongoing debate', as you pretend to be, why so selective on the relevant literature?"
This literature you reference is a red herring.