Pages

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Classic Arminianism is dead!


Classic Arminianism is dead. Ironically, freewill theists delivered the coup de grâce. 

I. Open theism

For centuries, philosophers and theologians have noted the tension between God's foreknowledge and man's libertarian freedom. Open theists admit that this is a genuine contradiction, and they relieve the tension by surrendering divine foreknowledge. Moreover, this isn't just a fringe movement. Within freewill theism, it has substantial representation, viz. David Bartholomew, David Basinger, John Martin Fischer, William Hasker, Nelson Pike, Alan Rhoda, Richard Swinburne, Patrick Todd, Peter van Inwagen, Keith Ward, Dallas Willard, Nicholas Wolterstoff, Linda Zagzebski, Dean Zimmerman.

II. Molinism

William Lane Craig tacitly concedes that classic Arminianism is at odds with God's omnibenevolence. In classical Arminianism, God doesn't do everything within his power to save sinners, consistent with their libertarian freedom. So Craig tries to salvage God's omnibenevolence by two conjectures:

i) He postulates that God has middle knowledge of what every human would freely do in every situation.

ii) He postulates transworld damnation.

According to Craig, some humans will resist God's grace in every possible world which contains them. Because God knows who they are, the only hellbound humans in the real world are humans who'd resist his grace even if they were given the opportunity. Of the feasible worlds God has to choose from, that's the world he chooses to instantiate.

III. Postmortem salvation

Jerry Walls concedes that classic Arminianism is at odds with God's omnibenevolence. In classical Arminianism, God doesn't do everything within his power to save sinners, consistent with their libertarian freedom. So Walls shores this up by postulating optimal grace, which extends into the afterlife. 

I'd add that Walls and Craig both reflect a trend in freewill theism: they erect their theology on a foundation of fanciful conjectures. They begin with their desired result, then postulate whatever they need to achieve the goal. As I put it recently, they are sprinkling pixie dust on the gold at the end of the rainbow. 

3 comments:

  1. I'd add that Walls and Craig both reflect a trend in freewill theism: they erect their theology on a foundation of fanciful conjectures. They begin with their desired result, then postulate whatever they need to achieve the goal.

    Whereas Calvinists (IMO) propose their (sometimes) speculative solutions to the objections raised against Calvinism by beginning with the assumption of the truth of Scripture's teaching despite apparent initial problems. That's one of the main differences between Arminian-like theologies and that of the various flavors of Calvinism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, there are quite a few analytic philosophers listed as open theists I did not know about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When is someone going to break the news to these folks that they've abandoned tGotB in favor of household gods?

    ReplyDelete