Aquest tema està marcat com "inactiu": L'últim missatge és de fa més de 90 dies. Podeu revifar-lo enviant una resposta.
In my research on scientia media and the fact that Arminius had embraced these views, I found a link to the Muslim Sunni views on the ideas behind middle knowledge and found that they rejected it because it diminished God's attributes of absolute foreknowledge (blessed be his name!).
2james_gibson Primer missatge
I also have problems with the NPP folks. For replies to them, I recommend Waters and Westerholm.
On the Eucharist, I would go with John Calvin and Peter Martyr Vermigli. I don't like Keith A. Mathison's: "Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper". Knowingly or unknowingly, a sleight of hand occurs. Did Calvin use the expression, "Real Presence" the same way that Mathison would have us believe or did Calvin clean up his theological vocabulary and redefine it as a "True and Spiritual" Presence? I think it was Peter Martyr Vermigli (or was it Bullinger) who cautioned him on using "Real" Presence.
When was this article published in WTJ? As much as I like John Frame, I haven't seen anything from him on middle knowledge. Ronald Nash said he toyed with the idea for awhile, but eventually dropped it without giving any satisfactory reason why.
There's something of a debate as to whether or not Arminius was actually a Molinist. There's a two-volume dissertation somehwere arguing he wasn't (I can try to find the reference if you'd like). However, I think most are agreed he utilized Molina's philosophy quite knowingly- see Eef Dekker's article in The Sixteenth Century Journal Volume XXVII No. 2 Summer 1996 "Was Arminius a Molinist?"
Tiessen gave a paper last year at ETS attempting to promote a Calvinist interpretation of middle knowledge, I didn't know it's in a book as well. I never really came to a conclusion about what to think of his position. It sounded fishy, but I couldn't figure out why. William Lane Craig has argued that Calvinists can be Molinists. The problem is that we would have to say libertarian freedom exists and for whatever reason he doesn't see why that's in conflict with Calvinism.
Where has Muller discussed Molinism? I probably have it somewhere and never saw it :) I didn't think Turretin was very convincing when I was a Molinist, but it'd probably do be good to return to him now that I'm on the other side.
I found no philosophical problem with Molinism- I didn't think the the grounding objection ultimately had much weight. But I became convinced of Reformed Theology and specifically compatiblism and since it seems to be the case that Molinism dependce on libertarian free will, it had to go. If it is true that libertarian free will is necessary to Molinism, then it can have no place in Reformed Theology. There's my twenty five cents, sorry for the long comment :)
By the way, I myself don't find MK objectionable qua Calvinistic considerations... considerations very limited to the so-called five points of "Calvinism" - a misnomer for a variety of reasons (as you all know, "Calivinism" is often used in a much bigger sense than the five points). Someone could, it seems to me, offer a sophisticated version of MK that incorporates all five points. The best objections to MK turn out, in my view, to be objections from God's attributes and foreknowledge (though foreknowledge itself wouldn't necessarily present a problem if libertarian views don't require alternate possibilities for freedom and/or moral responsibility); and second, MK seems to be a superfluous doctrine if a robust theory of libertarian agency is not available (c.f. Randy Clarke's book, Libertarian Accounts of Free Will).
Apunta-t'hi per poder publicar