Friday, June 08, 2018

Thomistic classical theism


  1. Mullins denies divine timelessness, and I think foreknowledge as well. I’d take him to be more of an enemy of orthodox theism than a Thomism.

    1. That's a valid consideration. But does that disprove his factual criticisms of Dolezal?

    2. Quickly:

      1) Dolezal’s book isn’t for a scholarly audience. He has another book for that. He deals with a lot of the arguments Mullins throws up in the book.

      2) The complaint that the Classical view makes scriptures language about God “metaphorical” or “analogical” isn’t really a problem. Most theologians in Church history pointed out it is the way scripture speaks of God’s actions toward us. But let’s say the Calvinist accepts such a view, what reason do we have for taking one set of passages that teach divine embodiment, ignorance and a host of other things we won’t like over the passages that speak of power etc? well, I can tell you how we do it.... those passages aren’t literal! Which is the same thing the Classical theist does. So I see no problem with how they handle those passages, and it also defanga Goldingays turning YHWH into a provincial canannite High God rather well.

      3. I know that you mentioned you think it is a category mistake to claim that a bundle of abstract properties needs something outside of it to compose it, but I’m still trying to figure out why other than not liking Divine Simplicity. I think the modal collapse argument makes a modal fallacy, which is the best argument against classical metaphysics (IMO).

      I’d side with Dolezal over Mullins and his zeuslike deity anyday.

    3. "zeuslike deity"? You've been hanging out with the wrong crowd. I mean, that sounds like something Steve Hays would say. :-)

    4. There are two separate issues here:

      i) Mullins says Dolezal is uninformed. He gave examples and cited literature.

      ii) Mullins alternative sucks.

      But (ii) doesn't refute (i). Both (i) & (ii) can be true!