tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3433400574333779085..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Why I'm not a CalminianRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23946221626548993202011-09-07T22:18:59.078-04:002011-09-07T22:18:59.078-04:00Blomberg's Calimian position raises it's h...Blomberg's Calimian position raises it's head again.<br /><br />http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/09/calminian-good-biblicist-better-by-peter-lumpkins.htmlMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01410144337505012175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71114982074819414132009-07-22T16:37:19.232-04:002009-07-22T16:37:19.232-04:00TF,
Yeah, I probably should :-DTF,<br /><br />Yeah, I probably should :-DPeter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47606834563598194702009-07-22T15:03:19.179-04:002009-07-22T15:03:19.179-04:00Mr. Pike,
You should check out my blog some time....Mr. Pike,<br /><br />You should check out my blog some time.<br /><br />:-)<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29967285063296438702009-07-22T14:31:24.464-04:002009-07-22T14:31:24.464-04:00It seems to me that Blomberg's argument is ver...It seems to me that Blomberg's argument is very similar to the Pomo argument: "There are so many 'sincere' people who believe opposite things. Surely they all have a valid point to make, but they must all be wrong in their extremes. It's like this: there were these blind-folded men all touching an elephant..."Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26359546355031874082009-07-22T14:18:41.191-04:002009-07-22T14:18:41.191-04:00Another point I've thought of today.
Is it no...Another point I've thought of today.<br /><br />Is it not a valid response to Dr. Blomberg to say: “If a moderate position between five-point Calvinism and pure Arminianism were completely faithful to Scripture, it is doubtful that so many Bible-believing, godly evangelical Christians would have wound up in a non-moderate position”?<br /><br />I mean, if we're going to play "Godly men fall on either side of this issue" then isn't it relevant to point out the paucity of Godly men who fall into the "moderate" position?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19992064641865479172009-07-22T09:52:18.601-04:002009-07-22T09:52:18.601-04:00“…maybe there is a mediating position that is even...“…maybe there is a mediating position that is even more faithful to Scripture than either of the classic, more polarized ones.”<br /><br />But when you put it that way, then you do seem to be entering into the debate over the sovereignty/responsibility tension or paradox. <br /><br />“When I speak of a straw man, I mean something that no one or very, very few people have ever adopted or actually believed.”<br /><br />You implied that a Calvinist wants to preserve the Biblical emphasis on divine sovereignty rather than the Biblical emphasis on human responsibility. But no intelligent Calvinist would accept that characterization of his position. <br /><br />“I don't know if middle knowledge is the best solution to our debate or not. It's the best one I've come across at this point in my life after many years of study. Maybe I will yet learn something that makes me take a different position or accept one that I have currently rejected.”<br /><br />One of the problems with Molinism is that it fails to solve the problem it raises. It tries to harmonize divine sovereignty with human responsibility. But it simply relocates the (alleged) tension. For example, Jeremy Pierce explains one of the basic problems with Molinism:<br /><br />http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=1188#comment-309902<br /><br />“Let's continue to discuss its strengths and weaknesses from a position of epistemic humility, rather than sounding like we know for sure it's right or wrong. If it's not the view we've held, let's not see it as a threat against which we must defend ourselves but an option worth exploring calmly and civilly and then deciding if it has any merit.”<br /><br />There are two separate issues here:<br /><br />i) One is to ascertain the teaching of Scripture.<br /><br />ii) If, after we determine the teaching of Scripture, it seems to us that the teaching of Scripture is counterintuitive, then we might also explore philosophical resolutions which are consistent with the teaching of Scripture.<br /><br />That’s a two-step process. And our level of certainty is not necessarily the same for each step.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63722901787963651902009-07-22T09:51:51.395-04:002009-07-22T09:51:51.395-04:00“The whole debate about whether the sovereignty/re...“The whole debate about whether the sovereignty/responsibility tension is or is not a paradox is one I have no interest even in entering. That's specifically why I qualified my language with ‘seemingly,’ because to the reader it does seem that way in many instances. I was not arguing that it was or wasn't paradoxical, merely using that language to refer to the phenomena in the text I wanted to discuss.”<br /><br />Sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense to me. You were proposing Molinism as a mediating position to relieve the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility while preserving the best elements of Calvinism and Arminianism. If, however, you now distance yourself from that whole debate, then why propose this harmonization in the first place?<br /><br />“Most of the other concerns in the blog have to do with labels.”<br /><br />I discuss labels because you discuss labels. You framed your discussed in terms of two labeled positions. I’m merely answering you on your own terms.<br /><br />“Of course, you can define Calvinism so as to exclude middle knowledge, including of the compatibilist kind which is what I would adopt.”<br /><br />If you subscribe to compatibilism, then you don’t need Molinism. If you subscribe to compatibilism, then that already harmonizes divine sovereignty with human responsibility. Moreover, compatibilism is perfectly consistent with divine omniscience. So a mediating position is superfluous at that point. <br /><br />“Alvin Plantinga and Terry Tiessen would be surprised, though, to be defined out of the tradition that they affirm.”<br /><br />i) Tiessen has retracted his position.<br /><br />ii) You set up a contrast between Calvinism and Arminianism. These represent two extremes along the theological spectrum. You then offered Molinism as a mediating position. If, however, you’re going to use a very elastic definition of “Calvinism,” then there’s nothing left to mediate. You’ve already softened the contrast by defining “Calvinism” so flexibly. Unless Calvinism and Arminianism are opposing positions, what is there to finesse? <br /><br />iii) You yourself defined “Calvinism” as “pure five-point Calvinism.” Is Plantinga a pure five-point Calvinist? If not, then he doesn’t fit your own definition.<br /><br />iv) Put another way, does Plantinga subscribe to the canons of Dordt? <br /><br />v) Contemporary examples of prominent Calvinists would include Roger Nicole, John Frame, and Paul Helm. <br /><br />“And you can define Arminianism to exclude Bill Craig as too centrist as well, and he, too, would be surprised.”<br /><br />I didn’t comment on Craig. But since you bring it up, he seems to have an eclectic position. If you want to call him a “centrist,” that’s fine with me.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14136291084448257662009-07-22T09:50:58.810-04:002009-07-22T09:50:58.810-04:00CRAIG BLOMBERG SAID:
“The sovereignty/responsibil...CRAIG BLOMBERG SAID:<br /><br />“The sovereignty/responsibility tension (to switch to Don Carson's preferred way of labeling it), however, is so pervasive both throughout Scripture and historical theology and so central to Christian doctrine and assessed so differently by people who share all the other same hermeneutical commitments and other fundamentals of the faith that it is harder for me to see it being accounted for by one of these other explanations.”<br /><br />To some extent that’s because it conflicts with facile human intuitions. It is, however, important to distinguish an intuitive sense that sovereignty/responsibility are paradoxical from the claim that Scripture endorses that intuitive impression. <br /><br />“I affirm believers' baptism by immersion, historic premillennialism, and the like, not because I think they are fundamentals of the faith or that Christians who disagree with me are necessarily wrong…”<br /><br />But the question at issue, as you chose to frame the issue, is whether disagreement between godly, Bible-believing Christians is an indicator that neither one of two opposing positions is completely faithful to Scripture. But you yourself wouldn’t subscribe to credobaptism or historic premillennialism unless you thought those positions were completely faithful to Scripture. <br /><br />“It's too bad the blog has to accuse me of ‘lack of clear thinking.’ That's precisely the kind of problem that afflicts these debates way too much and just sheds more heat than light. I could return the ‘favor’ but that would get us nowhere. Can we agree to ban that kind of language in intramural debates of this kind?”<br /><br />You were the one who raised the issue of why godly, Bible-believing Christians take different positions on the relation between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As a general matter, one reason people may disagree on an issue is a lack of clear thinking by one or more parties. Surely you’ve encountered that with your students in your teaching career. Are you saying that we should peremptorily ban a possible answer to the question you raised? <br /><br />I’d add that it’s quite possible for the same individual to be very clear on some issues, but not on others. That can vary with aptitude, training, the amount of attention we give to different issues, &c.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36776376294120859652009-07-21T17:23:23.220-04:002009-07-21T17:23:23.220-04:00Professor Blomberg might also like to look at thes...Professor Blomberg might also like to look at these 2 blog posts:<br /><br />(1) <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/blomberg-at-dc.html" rel="nofollow">Blomberg at DC</a> posted in Triablogue.<br /><br />(2) <a href="http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/is-middle-knowledge-middle-ground" rel="nofollow">Is Middle Knowledge Middle Ground</a> posted at Green Baggins.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89814537824188732662009-07-21T17:09:47.686-04:002009-07-21T17:09:47.686-04:00Steven,
That's another one of my problems. Wh...Steven,<br /><br />That's another one of my problems. What does God's grace actually do in one's life if transworld depravity exists in every possible world? This would also mean that some people are infinitely un-savable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7172328909328086662009-07-21T17:03:38.357-04:002009-07-21T17:03:38.357-04:00Mark: perhaps some people have "transworld de...Mark: perhaps some people have "transworld depravity" and no matter what possible world they are in, they refuse to believe in Christ. But aren't they acting necessarily if they do it in every possible world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36196880572718765192009-07-21T16:46:58.998-04:002009-07-21T16:46:58.998-04:00Is Plantinga a Calvinist? Just checking around the...Is Plantinga a Calvinist? Just checking around the web it doesn't exactly seem so. Just check out Jeremy's comments on <a href="http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2007/02/calvinism_philosophers.html" rel="nofollow">meeting Plantinga</a>, for example.<br /><br />I've lost all respect for Bill Craig upon hearing his conflation of hyper-Calvinism with Calvinism. He might be a philosopher and not a theologian, but I'd expect a philosopher of his stature to be more careful. Also, his stating that Roman Catholicism isn't any different than the contrast between Baptists and Presbyterians.<br /><br />And if Bill Craig is an actual Arminian then he should not continue being a Southern Baptist, IMO.<br /><br />There is (atleast) one thing about Molinism that I can't figure out. If God's possibilities of which world He actualizes are essentially infinite, then why aren't all people saved?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53201913988859312442009-07-21T15:57:46.700-04:002009-07-21T15:57:46.700-04:00I remember hearing Alvin Plantinga say, in a recen...I remember hearing Alvin Plantinga say, in a recent lecture he had at the University of Tennessee with Richard Gale, that hell is not necessarily the sort of place that a person would have to stay in forever. He also said that some Calvinists believe that, and that he was himself a Calvinist. <br /><br />I don't think he's a Calvinist, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86505917964652335132009-07-21T14:56:12.550-04:002009-07-21T14:56:12.550-04:00"Alvin Plantinga and Terry Tiessen would be s..."Alvin Plantinga and Terry Tiessen would be surprised, though, to be defined out of the tradition that they affirm."<br /><br />I know Tiessen's not surprised about this. Unhappy, perhaps, but not surprised. I'm not sure about Plantinga.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11096241641418232642009-07-21T14:33:32.625-04:002009-07-21T14:33:32.625-04:00Steven asked:
---
How exactly is it that God would...Steven asked:<br />---<br />How exactly is it that God would know what libertarian creatures would do in certain circumstances? <br />---<br /><br />The assumption is that God knows all possibilities, and if it is a "genuine" "free" "choice" then all possibilities would obtain in SOME alternate/possible universe.<br /><br />I personally see that as little different than the multi-verse notion, with the exception that Christian philosophers would typically say that God only selects ONE sequence to actually come about, whereas physicists would say that all the multi-verses exist somewhere, etc.<br /><br />Of course, Steve and Paul have both addressed many of the problems with Christians who hold to God selecting such universes or possibilities or however you want to word it.<br /><br />I would add, though, that the question you raised is still one exploited by Open Theists against Libertarians to great effect.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20319583042145967672009-07-21T14:25:38.832-04:002009-07-21T14:25:38.832-04:00Maybe the reason Scripture teaches both Divine sov...Maybe the reason Scripture teaches both Divine sovereignty and human responsibility is because it denies the Arminian view of free-will, LFW.Saint and Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14166699860672840738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36042314975291654282009-07-21T14:22:20.327-04:002009-07-21T14:22:20.327-04:00How exactly is it that God would know what liberta...How exactly is it that God would know what libertarian creatures would do in certain circumstances? All things being the same, in order for them to be free, they've got at least two options. How does he know which one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34786149293530902622009-07-21T13:46:40.805-04:002009-07-21T13:46:40.805-04:00The problem I see with the Middle Knowledge hypoth...The problem I see with the Middle Knowledge hypothesis is that it's a false middle ground in the first place. What I mean is that, sure it SOUNDS like a mediating ground between "sovereignty" and "libertarianism", but that's not actually where the lines are drawn on this issue.<br /><br />The question is whether salvation is monergistic or synergistic.<br /><br />And in that regard, if one side is saying "All" is done by God and another side is saying "Part" is done by God, saying, "It's a different kind of Part" doesn't make it "All."<br /><br />Furthermore, if I am convinced by Scripture (and I am) that salvation is monergistic, then I can't see any meaningful way in which I could view an opposing position as "an option worth exploring" regardless of whether it's done politely. I don't see any synergistic system as worth exploring, because I am convinced monergism is correct. (I daresay that Arminians agree the converse of this. But one cannot simply paper over these starting foundations and pretend that a Christian who believes Scripture teachs X can in any meaningful sense find ~X "worth exploring.")<br /><br />In other words, I see nothing wrong with Arminians and Calvinists both equally standing firm without willing to compromise on this issue, and I personally believe that that is more intellectually honest then trying to mediate the positions between them. After all, not all mediations are beneficial (to take a simple example: if someone believes murder is okay and someone believes it is wrong, a mediating position that says you can murder every other day is not a position worth exploring).<br /><br />BTW: one consequence of the monergism/synergism debate is that ANY "mediating" position must, by definition, be synergistic. It will never be monergistic. So in that sense, the Calvinist will always lose in accepting any "mediating" position.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81271665938631129822009-07-21T12:35:22.310-04:002009-07-21T12:35:22.310-04:00Most of the other concerns in the blog have to do ...Most of the other concerns in the blog have to do with labels. Of course, you can define Calvinism so as to exclude middle knowledge, including of the compatibilist kind which is what I would adopt. Alvin Plantinga and Terry Tiessen would be surprised, though, to be defined out of the tradition that they affirm. And you can define Arminianism to exclude Bill Craig as too centrist as well, and he, too, would be surprised. The burden of my blog was not to argue that middle knowledge belonged to either camp (to me it obviously doesn't, but some obviously disagree), but rather that it was indeed a middle way. But the fact that people have tried to claim it for their own, on both sides, is precisely what I found an encouraging sign that maybe there is a mediating position that is even more faithful to Scripture than either of the classic, more polarized ones.<br /><br />When I speak of a straw man, I mean something that no one or very, very few people have ever adopted or actually believed. In that sense, I've used no straw men, like many do. I did not assert anywhere in the blog that I was stating Calvin's or Arminius' beliefs, merely what a lot of people who have claimed the two traditions those men spawned have believed, rightly or wrongly. <br /><br />I don't know if middle knowledge is the best solution to our debate or not. It's the best one I've come across at this point in my life after many years of study. Maybe I will yet learn something that makes me take a different position or accept one that I have currently rejected. I do know that it's helped a lot of people think more clearly (!) and Scripturally and encouraged them pastorally, so I think it's worth becoming better known than it currently is. Let's continue to discuss its strengths and weaknesses from a position of epistemic humility, rather than sounding like we know for sure it's right or wrong. If it's not the view we've held, let's not see it as a threat against which we must defend oursleves but an option worth exploring calmly and civilly and then deciding if it has any merit.Craig Blomberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12188746177885723565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56302865729981561832009-07-21T12:35:00.176-04:002009-07-21T12:35:00.176-04:00Thanks for taking my blog seriously enough to give...Thanks for taking my blog seriously enough to give such a detailed response. I will try to respond in kind.<br /><br />Your first four points and three examples are all well taken. That's why I qualified my remarks the way I did and ("doubtful that. . ."); had I been alotted more space, I could have qualified them further. There are multiple reasons why godly, Bible-believing Christians disagree: perhaps Scripture is not as clear on the given topic as on some; perhaps they are using different hermeneutical methods, etc. The sovereignty/responsibility tension (to switch to Don Carson's prefered way of labeling it), however, is so pervasive both throughout Scripture and historical theology and so central to Christian doctrine and assessed so differently by people who share all the other same hermeneutical commitments and other fundamentals of the faith that it is harder for me to see it being accounted for by one of these other explanations. I affirm believers' baptism by immerson, historic premillennialism, and the like, not because I think they are fundamentals of the faith or that Christians who disagree with me are necessarily wrong but because I understand the complexities of the debate and still find myself preferring the views I affirm (and sign a document to that effect annually) over the alternatives. In my ideal doctrinal statement they would not be included.<br /><br />It's too bad the blog has to accuse me of "lack of clear thinking." That's precisely the kind of problem that afflicts these debates way too much and just sheds more heat than light. I could return the "favor" but that would get us nowhere. Can we agree to ban that kind of language in intramural debates of this kind? <br /><br />The whole debate about whether the sovereignty/responsibility tension is or is not a paradox is one I have no interest even in entering. That's specifically why I qualified my language with "seemingly," because to the reader it does seem that way in many instances. I was not arguing that it was or wasn't paradoxical, merely using that language to refer to the phenomena in the text I wanted to discuss.<br /><br />Rest of response in next post. . .Craig Blomberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12188746177885723565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51981872633638798222009-07-21T11:39:35.247-04:002009-07-21T11:39:35.247-04:00That also highlights one of the ironies that if Jo...That also highlights one of the ironies that if Joseph's brothers had behaved righteously toward him then the dream would have ended up a false prophecy. Hence, God's plan required human sin in order to come to fruition; something that Arminians have trouble with, even though an even clearer example is Christ's crucifixion.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.com