tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post1274331121492707190..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Koukl and MolinismRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-71271478961506613982012-07-17T23:46:01.144-04:002012-07-17T23:46:01.144-04:00Hi James, thanks for commenting! I have encountere...Hi James, thanks for commenting! I have encountered similar criticisms of Molinism--but I'm afraid my Calvinist friends have not been so charitable as to say that it can be supported biblically! I wish I had such support from them :)<br /><br />In any case, my personal opinion (unsupported other than by anecdotal evidence) is that when people talk about philosophy, they tend to think of this kind of bizarre nonsensical statement, or some really esoteric writings and ideas, and whatnot. As such, they get a kind of anti-God vibe about philosophy, and fail to realize they are simply reasoning. I think this is the case with many laymen; they simply don't understand what philosophy is. With Calvinist theologians, I think the complaint tends to be "it's not taught in Scripture, therefore it's wrong," which seems to be more militant than the still-wrong but at least more charitable principle: if it's not taught in Scripture, then we do not know if it is right or wrong. But oh well. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-412528183774583032012-07-17T12:37:41.163-04:002012-07-17T12:37:41.163-04:00Randy,
I definitely agree with you here. I ju...Randy,<br /> I definitely agree with you here. I just don't understand how anyone who seriously investigates Molinism and has some basic philosophical education can make such blatant errors in understanding it. Even Jerry Walls, a supporter of Arminianism, grossly misunderstands the basics of Molinism and takes no more than 1 or 2 pages in his book, "Hell: The Logic of Damnation" to just hand-wave it away as irrelevant and incoherent. Perhaps I should be more charitable in acknowledging that this book was written way back in 1992 and that he has perhaps remedied his understanding of it, but who knows ?<br /><br />The main problem I have with Calvinism is that if all of humanity has inherited a sinful nature from Adam, and it is affirmed that we are completely and utterly incapable of pursuing God due to this nature, then the idea of genuine responsibility on our part for lack of faith in Christ is illusory and incoherent. Appeals to Romans 9 in this case seem to just be a pat answer for what appears to be a serious logical contradiction.<br /><br />I think Kenneth Keathley put it pretty well in one of his articles, titled "How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian". He said that "Molinism places mystery where it should be located, i.e. in God’s infinite<br />attributes rather than in his character".<br /><br />Fortunately, I have friends who are Calvinists that don't bash me for finding Molinism more plausible, but I still don't understand their objections when they state that while Molinism can be supported biblically, it seems to be stretching itself too far into the field of philosophy.<br /><br />The problem I find with that opinion is that philosophy is very important, especially in pointing out logical problems. I believe everyone utilizes philosophy when trying to piece together free will and election, but it's really a matter of which philosophy best describes the character of God as testified in the OT and NT.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01188876219389875421noreply@blogger.com