Arguments for and against Molinism | Dr. Daniel Rubio

 

Agnostic Joe Schmid and (Catholic?) Daniel Rubio discuss arguments for and (ESPECIALLY) against Molinism. 

Arguments for and against Molinism | Dr. Daniel Rubio
https://youtu.be/y92T1xEBJHk

 

 

Thinking about Middle Knowledge: An Interview with Dr. Travis Campbell

 

Below are links to Dr. Travis Campbell's interview by Reasons To Believe on the topic of Middle Knowledge. Campbell received his PhD in philosophical theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 2004. I was highly impressed by his paper "Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique" when I first read it years ago. Today I found out that he was interviewed by RTB.

I've linked to the two part interview and the original paper below:

Part ONE of the Interview

Part TWO of the Interview

Original Paper: Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique or [HERE]

More Links to Calvinistic Responses to Molinism and Middle Knowledge: HERE 

Is Calvinism Excusing Sinners and Blaming God? A Conversation with Dr. Guillaume Bignon

(posted 2018-03-05)

 https://youtu.be/YdhKfk47RmA

Is Calvinism Excusing Sinners and Blaming God?
A Conversation with Dr. Guillaume Bignon

Bignon was also interviewed in Dale Tuggy's Trinities podcast in two parts:

Part One Episode 216:
http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-216-bignons-defense-of-calvinism-part-1/

Part Two Episode 217:
http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-217-bignons-defense-of-calvinism-part-2/

See also Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology by Paul Manata

A response to Kevin Timpe’s objections [in his book review] by Guillaume Bignon

Definitions of Chance

The word and concept(s) of "chance" is something that often crops up in apologetical, theological and philosophical discussions. For example, discussions regarding evolution, intelligent design, predestination, free will, providence, superstition, mythology, quantum mechanics etc. Unfortunately, the word is often used imprecisely and equivocally. That's because the word "chance" can refer to different concepts and their different meanings are used interchangeably in discussions (often resulting in the fallacy of equivocation).

So, for the sake of clearer and more productive discussions, here are some rough and ready definitions.


Chance is one of those words that has different meanings in different contexts. Here are SEVEN common ways the term is used (there are probably many more).

1. Chance can refer to our ignorance due to (seemingly) random events (to finite minds). For example, we talk about how a flipped coin ends up landing heads or tails "because of" chance (or "by chance"). "Chance" here has no metaphysical existence. It's a description of or reference to our ignorance of the conditions of a certain situation. In flipping a coin we never know the exact amount of spin given to the coin, the distance to the floor, the height of flipping, how air pressure/wind/humidity (etc) affects the flipping and landing of the coin. The same goes for randomly shuffled cards. There's only a limited number of ways in which they can be arranged. Even if we can't predict which way because of limited knowledge or limited mental calculating ability. The key word is "ignorance."


2. Related to the above, "chance" can refer to randomness. For example, after randomly shuffling cards we might say that whatever card ends up being on top was a result of or "by chance".  The key words is "randomness."

3. "Chance" can refer to mathematical probabilities. For example, when we speak about the "chances" of a coin landing heads or tales being 50/50. The statistical probability does not affect the outcome even though some people might think that it does or can.

4. "Chance" sometimes refers to an interesting coincidence. For example, you can try to call someone at the same time he is attempting to call you. As a result both of you may talk about how it was "by chance" you both decided to call each other. Or how "by chance" you met each other at the dentist's office even though neither of you had planned on it. This usage is related to the concept of serendipity. Which Wikipedia defines as a '"fortuitous happenstance" or "pleasant surprise".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity

5. "Chance" can refer to metaphysically contingent events (including "freak events"). That is, events that have no metaphysical and/or epistemic (rational) cause or reason. For example, if a horse were to pop into existence instantaneously without any physical or metaphysical cause. Christians reject metaphysically contingent events because of our doctrine of providence.

6. "Chance" can refer to something that actually has power to do something. "Chance" in this case is a power or entity that can determine things (sometimes called luck, fortune, destiny etc). As if it has some metaphysical existence of its own and power or force to affect events in reality. So for example, some people attribute their meeting and finding their spouse to "chance" in the same way others would refer to fate, destiny or fortune. Another example is how people talk about "Lady Luck" when it comes to gambling or a winning streak. Christians reject this superstitious notion of "chance." However, Christians do believe in providentially appointed events.

7. "Chance" can sometimes be associated with the Three Fates of mythology (cf. Moirai or Parcae).

As noted above, these different senses of the word "chance" is often mixed up, confounded and muddled in conversation. Both between different people and when a single person is speaking about a particular topic. The first four senses are compatible with Christianity, but the last three are incompatible with Christianity.



Here's an EXCELLENT book on the topic of Chance and God's Sovereignty by Vern Poythress. Amazingly it's freely available online!!!!!!!

Chance and the Sovereignty of God: A God-Centered Approach to Probability and Random Events (PDF) by Vern Poythress. 


Related  Blogs:

Three Kinds of Providence

Distinctions in God's Will from a Calvinist Perspective [ My Five Distinctions]

Atheists and Calvinism

Some atheists reject Calvinism because they complain that it's unfair. Or because they might be numbered among the non-elect if Calvinism were true. How can Calvinists respond to that?

Well, let me try to approach it logically. It seems to me that there are several issues involved.

1. The truth or falsity of Calvinism
2. The fairness or justice of Calvinism
3. The reality of one's election or non-election
4. The basis on which one could, would, or should come to believe in (and/or submit to) God.

Before discussing the possible falsity of Calvinism in particular (or theism in general), let's first assume that Calvinism is true.

What if Calvinism were true but unjust? If it were unjust/unfair, one would first have to show the standard and foundation upon which one could evaluate Calvinism and show it is unjust or unfair. But many theists AND atheists have argued that no such standard could exist given the non-existence of God. If that's true, then only some other form of theism (or non-Calvinistic form of Christianity) could possibly provide an ultimate standard to demonstrate that Calvinism is unjust and unfair. But this blog post isn't about comparative religion. Nor is it a post comparing the case for Christianity with the cases for other religions. Other Christian works have dealt with that issue. I'm confining myself in this blog primarily to the issue of how atheists should respond to Calvinism. It should also be noted that justice and fairness need not be equivalent. True justice would have to have some ontological grounding. Whereas in common everyday usage "fairness" is often only a concept that refers to the subjective and emotional consideration people expect from each other irrespective of the philosophical issue of moral grounding.

But despite the difficulty that atheism has in grounding justice and fairness, let's assume for the sake of argument that Calvinism is true AND IT REALLY IS UNJUST AND UNFAIR. With that assumption then, God does exist and WILL inexorably save some and damn others. Atheists may argue that therefore there's no point in trying to believing in God. Either one is elect or one isn't elect. If one is elect, then one will be saved eventually. If one isn't elect, one will never and could never be saved. Since no one can change his elect or non-elect status, there's no point to make any effort to come to God. Besides, who would want to believe in a God who is (per this hypothetical) unjust and unfair?

Well, at the very least one may choose to try to believe in God or look for good reasons to believe in this God (assuming Calvinism is true and unjust per this hypothetical) for PRUDENTIAL reasons. That is, for practical and pragmatic reasons for the sake of his own eternal good; and to prevent an eternal harm (i.e. hell). It's not as if no atheists have ever submitted to the rule of a human tyrants and dictators out of pure self-interest and survival (to increase pleasure and minimize suffering/pain). Of course atheists have. An atheist might argue that for the sake of one's own personal integrity, he would rather choose to go to hell than to believe in such an unfair God. But only if personal integrity were a true and ultimate virtue would such a decision really be rational. As explained above, without God it may not be that there are such ultimate virtues. Another atheist might argue that maybe God wouldn't accept that kind of mercenary and sycophantic belief and submission. Since it's not out of full acceptance. He wouldn't be welcoming and embracing (this unjust Calvinistic conception of) God out of joy. Well, per this hypothesis, this God would be unfair, unjust and unpredictable. Since such a God is unpredictable, it wouldn't hurt to give it a try/shot. Maybe this God doesn't mind that kind of loyalty. Many human tyrants and dictators didn't mind. They would rather be feared than truly loved. Obviously, as a Calvinist myself, I don't believe that God is unjust, tyrannical, arbitrary, or capricious.

Here standard pragmatic arguments for belief in God can be useful. Here's a link to my blog on Pascal's Wager which has links to articles on Pascal's Wager and other pragmatic arguments for belief in God.

Pascal's Wager
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/12/pascals-wager.html

While pragmatic arguments AREN'T the best reasons to believe in God, they aren't impermissible reasons to believe in God either. Remember, there's a different between not being sure God exists and willing to believe in hopes that God, if He exists will makes Himself real in one's life, AND in positively believing God does NOT exist and having to overcome that disbelief (rather than mere unbelief). Pragmatic arguments can be useful in the former even if they may not be for the latter.

Next some atheists may admit and then ask, "Sure believing in God (or at least submitting to the rule of God) for mercenary reasons makes some rational sense, but what if I'm non-elect? I can't change my elect or non-elect status." It's true that one can't change his predestined election or non-election. The same answer can be given here as above. If such a God were unjust and unpredictable, he might change his mind. Or he doesn't change his mind, it nevertheless only makes sense to try to get on his good side. It makes sense that one might have a better chance of being saved by trying to please God. Just as it seems that one would have a poorer chance of being saved by not trying to please him.

As a matter of fact Calvinism does teach that God's predestination is not unjust and that God is good, gracious and loving. Assuming that God is just and good, what follows? How can Calvinists answer the atheist question and complaint that he might be non-elect? Well, while one cannot change one's elect or non-elect status, Calvinism teaches that God not only preordains the "ends" (i.e. what will happen), God also preordains the "means" (i.e. how they will happen). Therefore, if God preordained that someone will be saved because he is elect, God has also preordained that he will believe as a result of seeking God. As I've shown HERE, both the elect and the non-elect can search for God in some sense even if only the elect can do so sincerely and profitably. It's true that God has ordained all of our choices, but He has done so (according to Calvinism) in such a way that it can seem (at least at times from our psychological perspective) that we have libertarian free will and the power of contrary choice. That's why Calvinists can affirm free moral agency, the reality of human wills and the genuineness of choices while at the same time denying libertarian free will to humans (as knowledgeable Calvinists generally do). Both elect and non-elect persons can begin a search for God insincerely but for the elect God may use that initial insincere search for Him to eventually find Him. That is, God can change an initially insincere search for Him into a sincere search by His regenerating power. Since no atheist in this world knows (or can know) whether he is elect or not, he isn't rationally barred from initiating a search for God even if he knows it might initially be insincere. Since God may use such a search by the atheist to bring him into a sincere search. This is also one reason why it's foolish for any atheist to ever give up searching for God. Since one can never know if or when he will find and come to experience God.

Also, since God sometimes ordains that the elect or the non-elect fulfill their destinies via their psychological belief that they are or are not numbered among the elect, that's reason not to prematurely judge oneself non-elect. Psychologically speaking, fear of being non-elect (or resenting that possibility) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If one is non-elect, there's no point in fearing it since you can't change your destiny. But as pointed out above, God ordains ends and means. Therefore, if one were to assume the truth of predestination (or at least its possibility), it's in one's best interest to focus on living in such a way that meets the distinguishing marks of election. Namely, seeking God. Even if one is currently not a Christian, in hopes of finding God. Or if one is currently a professing Christian, to continue pursuing God and living the Christian life of sanctification. That's what 2 Pet. 1:10 is about. It's not about "securing" one's election as if it hangs in the balance or as if it's not yet determined. That verse (2 Peter 1:10) is about living in such a way that you have personal psychological assurance that one is among the elect because one is living in a way that the elect live. By pursuing holiness and living a life of daily faith and repentance.

"Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall." - 2 Pet. 1:10

Atheists might say that's fine and dandy if the God of Calvinism is actually just. Maybe he isn't. But it's also a logical possiblity that He is just. For all the atheist knows, Calvinism may not only be true, BUT ALSO BE JUST (i.e. in keeping with justice). Merel because Calvinism may SEEM unjust to him (according to his limited and finite understanding), doesn't necessarily mean it is. If God is as transcendant as Calvinism claims, it only makes sense that some things may at present seem to be unjust and irrational, yet in the end may be revealed and demonstrated to actually be just and rational on the Day of Judgement. Just as there may be morally and rationally sufficient reasons for God allowing (even ordaining) the evil and suffering in this world even though we might at present not be privy to those reasons, so (in like manner) there may be morally and rationally sufficient reasons for God electing some and passing over the non-elect. That's not to say that Calvinists haven't offered some reasons. They have, but they don't claim to exhaust all the possible reasons for why God elects in the way He does.

We started this blog with the assumption that Calvinism true, and God is unjust. Then that Calvinism is true, and God is just. It's now time to explore the possibility that Calvinism false.

Let's make the hypothetical assumption that Calvinism and any other form of theism is false (even non-Calvinistic forms of Christianity). If God doesn't exist then no one is actually elect or non-elect. In which case, there would be no actual problem with predestination. More importantly, if God doesn't exist it's very difficult to argue for the objective reality of justice and/or fairness. If it's true (as many theists AND atheists argue) that apart from God there are no moral absolutes or no objective moral duties that humans are obligated to obey and follow, then there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the concept of election or non-election. Nor with anyone BELIEVING in those concepts. Therefore, there would really be no basis upon which to judge Calvinism's doctrine of predestination as immoral, unjust or unfair. Believing in Calvinism would be morally equivalent to any other choice of a worldview (whether it be atheism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism etc.). Therefore, there would be nothing morally wrong in believing in Calvinism or being a Calvinist. Given that assumption, atheists cannot judge or criticize Calvinism (as a system) or Calvinists (themselves as people) for being morally abhorent or beliving what they do, or for being "cold hearted." As if it were "wrong" to be "cold hearted."

The question that's left then is whether Calvinism is actually true and how to determine it.

And so, finally, atheists may respond by saying, "I don't want to believe anything for which 1. I don't have sufficient evidence to believe, or 2. which I find irrational, or 3. which I find immoral and abhorrent."

In answer to that, I recommend atheists read a wide range of Christian apologetical literature. By so doing, one can encounter evidence and arguments that may persuade one of the plausiblity or truth of Christianity. For some, pragmatic arguments may be enough to tip the scales that they are willing to pursue God or believe in Him provisionally. That in itself, while not the best way to approach God, is still nevertheless something God sometimes uses to draw someone to Himself. For those who cannot believe something for which they're convinced is false, I applaud them. From a Christian perspective, it's immoral to try to believe something you really don't believe is true or postively believe is false. That's not to say that Christians don't sometimes doubt the truth of Christianity or that they don't have an obligation to strengthen their faith. Christians, if they truly are Christians, already are born again, have been regenerated and are in relationship with God. They should know better than to persist in doubt. That's what Jesus was referring to when He said that those who are to enter the Kingdom of God must do so with child-like faith. It about trusting one's heavenly Father. That's a different context from an atheist who doesn't believe in God and has no relationship with Him. Choosing to believe something is true by sheer willpower (i.e. doxastic voluntarism) is either nearly impossible or actually impossible. The way to overcome negative doubt or postive disbelief belief is to immerse oneself in the evidences for God's existence. Those evidence may eventually lead one to the conclusion that God really does exist.

J.P. Moreland makes some good points about the psychology of belief in the following lecture which I highly recommend:

 "Love Your God With All Your Mind" by J. P. Moreland 
(there are two versions of the lecture at the below link)

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/j-p-moreland-lectures-on-love-your-god-with-all-your-mind/


More of my blogs on J.P. Moreland can be accessed HERE. Which is the same link as the bottom of this blog where J.P. Moreland is one of the labels.


Recommended Books:

A Call to the Unconverted by Richard Baxter (or HERE, HERE, HERE)

Alarm to the Unconverted by Joseph Alleine (or HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE)

Massive Debate between Calvinism and Arminianism

This debate took place between (mainly) Victor Reppert, Steve Hays, Paul Manata, and Dominic Bnonn Tennant. There are many other blogs at Triablogue that persuasively argue for Calvinism which are not included in this debate. But the links included in the following blog link are representative.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/calvinism-vs-arminianism.html



Blueprint predestination by Steve Hays
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/10/blueprint-predestination.html

Annotated prooftexts by Steve Hays
http://triablogue.blogspot.co.za/2014/07/annotated-prooftexts.html

James White Debates on Calvinism

James White vs. Michael L. Brown

Here are links to their FIRST "debate" which took place on their respective radio show and podcast.  Two days on Brown's show, then two days on White's show.

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Their SECOND debate

https://youtu.be/yEU2IuC1d24

This debate took place  at Southern Evangelical Seminary, February 14, 2013.

(another version can be viewed HERE)

Who Controls Salvation?
James White vs. George Bryson
https://youtu.be/O1KJY-PpKFs

Freedom of the Will vs. Bondage of the Will
James White vs. Steve Blakemore
https://youtu.be/r9BEqpiQHDo