Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Christian Philosphy (almost) mainstream?

Expand Messages
  • sn_phillip
    I found this about Alvin Plantinga It sounds to me that he holds to the heresy of middle knowledge The final solution I shall go over is the Molinist solution.
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 31, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I found this about Alvin Plantinga It sounds to me that he holds to
      the heresy of middle knowledge


      The final solution I shall go over is the Molinist solution. It is
      named after the Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina, who first
      formulated this theory. Some contemporary advocates include William
      Lane Craig, Thomas Flint, Alfred Freddoso, and Alvin Plantinga.
      According to Molinism, humans are absolutely free, and God can know
      and plan the future with certain knowledge. God's knowledge of the
      future does not determine human actions because God's knowledge of
      our future choices is dependent on what choices we make. Instead of
      God overriding our free will to force it to do what he wants, God
      works what he wants knowing what our future choices will be.
      According to Molinism, God knows what our future choices would be in
      any given situation, so he can plan and instantiate a world where his
      creation freely acts to bring about what he wants. Thus, free will
      and divine foreknowledge can be simultaneously upheld.


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ben Hart"
      <benhartmail@y...> wrote:
      >
      > A couple of things on Plantinga (that I may get shot for saying,
      but
      > oh well...)
      >
      > Yes, he may be a somewhat 'compromising' Calvinist in certain
      ways.
      > I've only heard this, but never seen it in his writings. The only
      > thing I've read relevant to this point is the Free Will Defense
      > where he says that it is logically possible that God create
      > creatures having free will, and couldn't have therefore stopped
      them
      > from doing what is wrong. I don't see exactly what's wrong with
      > this claim. Plantinga says you don't even need to believe it's
      true
      > for it to work as a defense - it need only be logically possible.
      >
      > Second, even if he is a 4-pointer, I'm going to rejoice that there
      > is an almost-Calvinist who is the leading philosopher in the
      current
      > Christian world. I don't have a problem giving credit where it's
      > due or meeting someone where they're at, especially when they've
      > done a lot to make Christianity more defensable and acceptable
      > intellectually.
      >
      > You may appreciate my comments more after reading his
      > lecture "Advice to Christian Philosophers." He is really a ground-
      > breaking (or perhaps re-breaking) guy and really deserves the
      > credit. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth10.html
      >
      > Pax,
      > Ben
    • Lettermen2@aol.com
      In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:48:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, sn_phillip@yahoo.com writes: I did not know that plantinga was still a calvinist I heard at
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 1 11:06 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 3/29/2005 8:48:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, sn_phillip@... writes:
        I did not know that plantinga was  still a calvinist I heard at one
        time he claimed to be a calvinist but that he had left calvinism  (
        he might still attend a reformed denomination)
        See:
         
         
        sk
      • Lettermen2@aol.com
        In a message dated 3/30/2005 6:32:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, benhartmail@yahoo.com writes: Yes, he may be a somewhat compromising Calvinist in certain
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 1 11:10 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 3/30/2005 6:32:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, benhartmail@... writes:
          Yes, he may be a somewhat 'compromising' Calvinist in certain ways. 
          I've only heard this, but never seen it in his writings.  The only
          thing I've read relevant to this point is the Free Will Defense
          where he says that it is logically possible that God create
          creatures having free will, and couldn't have therefore stopped them
          from doing what is wrong.  I don't see exactly what's wrong with
          this claim. 
          See:
           
           
          sk
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.