tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post7743450002984842953..comments2023-08-05T21:48:58.831-04:00Comments on Philochristos: William Lane Craig against Calvinism: a response, Part 3A of 5Sam Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-34536072876141056952014-03-03T18:55:42.184-05:002014-03-03T18:55:42.184-05:00Acknowledged. Thanks again.
Acknowledged. Thanks again.<br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-76518237181909640202014-03-03T05:52:11.786-05:002014-03-03T05:52:11.786-05:00Thanks Sam,
Due to the word restrictions on this...Thanks Sam, <br /><br />Due to the word restrictions on this blog I have responded on mine.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />http://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/a-reply-to-philochristos-regarding-theistic-determinism/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-59155976372456053442014-03-02T17:09:39.406-05:002014-03-02T17:09:39.406-05:00You know, it just occurred to me that given libert...You know, it just occurred to me that given libertarian presuppositions, it doesn't make sense for libertarians to accuse Calvinism of making God out to be the author of sin. Under Craig's view, a person can only be guilty of sin if they have libertarian freedom and can do otherwise. If a person were causally determined to act, then they cannot be culpable for their action, so they cannot be guilty of sin. So, if God determines somebody to act in some way, then that person cannot be guilty of sin. So given Craig's presuppositions, it's impossible for God to be the author of sin. It makes no sense at all for Craig to accuse Calvinists of making God out to be the author of sin.<br /><br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-67854299459281796462014-03-02T13:03:16.131-05:002014-03-02T13:03:16.131-05:00Now to the subject of whether God is morally justi...<br />Now to the subject of whether God is morally justified in doing whatever he wishes…<br /><br />After quoting me as saying, "He is justified because of his divine prerogatives and absolute autonomy and freedom to do as he wishes with his creation." Then you said, "This notion that God is capable of doing anything at all is often referred to in theology as nominalism." And you ask, "Can one really defend the view that God's actions can be divorced from his nature?"<br /><br />I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what I said. I said God is justified in doing whatever he <i>wishes</i>, not <i>anything at all</i>, whether he wishes it or not. And it is not my position that God's actions can be divorced from his nature. His wishes are <i>part</i> of his nature.<br /><br />And the Bible is quite explicit that God does whatever he wishes (Psalm 115:3, 135:6). If God does whatever he pleases, and he is perfectly good, it follows that God is morally justified in doing whatever he pleases. It does <i>not</i> follow that God can act contrary to his nature or that God can do anything at all.<br /><br />You said, "It is also not good enough to say that God is God and he can do whatever he likes. No he cannot!" Yes, he can. Not only <i>can</i> he do whatever he likes, but in fact, he <i>does</i> do whatever he likes.<br /><br />You went on to say, "The Bible makes it very clear that God cannot sin." Well, yes, of course. But how does that disprove my claim that God can do whatever he likes? Is it your view that God would like to sin, but he is restrained by his nature?<br /><br />I suspect that you just misunderstood me when I said that God is free to do as he wishes.<br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-36490503053270780842014-03-02T13:03:08.169-05:002014-03-02T13:03:08.169-05:00Now, to my quadriplegic scenario which was meant t...Now, to my quadriplegic scenario which was meant to show that the imperative not to cause others to sin is only prima facie and that there are possible exceptions…<br /><br />You claim that the scenario is disanalogous since the quadriplegic did not cause the killer to be a racist or to be willing to kill black people. And you are right. But I don't think this difference is relevant to the point I was making. Even though the quadriplegic didn't supply all of the necessary and sufficient conditions to get the killer to kill the man in the woodshed, he nevertheless <i>did</i> supply some of the conditions. He played an active roll in getting the killer to change his course so that the killer would commit the murder, and he did so because he intended for the murder to happen, and he did so for good and praiseworthy ends. Since he was a causal factor in getting the murder to take place, and since he was morally justified in doing so, it follows that the imperative not to cause others to sin is only prima facie, and it follows that God could have morally justifiable reasons for cause people to sin in all cases.<br /><br />But if you're not satisfied with that scenario, it seems like with a little creativity, you could come up with a better one yourself. Do you really think it's not even possible for somebody to be morally justified in causing another person to sin? Or, I suppose that under your view, it's not even possible to cause another person to sin because if a person were causally determined to act in a certain way, they couldn't be morally responsible for acting that way, so it couldn't be a sin. But if that's' the case, it's incoherent to even discuss the subject of whether it would be a sin to cause another person to sin. That would be like asking whether it's a sin to draw a square circle or any other meaningless combination of words.<br /><br />However, you agreed with me that it's generally wrong to cause another to sin, so you must think there's some sense in it.<br /><br />But let me tweak the scenario anyway to shore up the shortcomings you found in it. Suppose, for whatever reason (fill in the blanks with your own creativity), that the only way to save the school kids from being blown up is to press a button. Pressing the button will cause an evil racist to pop into existence and murder the man in the shed, not to save the children, but just to satisfy his hatred. It seems to me you'd still be morally justified in pressing the button, causing the murder to happen.<br /><br />You raised some additional questions about whether the murderer would be culpable for his crimes if, in my scenario, he was really caused to commit the murder. I dealt with that subject in <a href="http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2014/02/william-lane-craig-against-calvinism_23.html" rel="nofollow">Part 3B</a>, so I won't go into that here. The question for the purposes of this blog entry is whether God is the author of sin, in what sense, and whether God is morally justified in being the author of sin in that sense.<br /><br />to be continued…Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-2141037969357056052014-03-02T13:02:30.679-05:002014-03-02T13:02:30.679-05:00On second thought, I can't leave a comment on ...On second thought, I can't leave a comment on your blog since I don't have any of those accounts (I have a facebook account, but I deactivated it). So I'll leave my response here and maybe see if Kyle will let you know in case you don't come back here.<br /><br />Howdy!<br /><br />Thanks for reading my series, and I'm flattered that you thought it was worth responding to in such detail. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time arguing with you, but I thought I'd at least clear up some misunderstandings.<br /><br />First, you said that I claimed God was the author in some sense even under Molinism because had God not created anything, no evil would have happened, and you object to the "author of sin" language in that case.<br /><br />I can understand why you would object to that language if that were the only sense in which I said God is the author of sin under Molinism. But what you seem to have missed is that I said God <i>means</i> for the sins to happen. He <i>intends</i> for them to happen. He <i>plans</i> for the sin to happen. With God's foreknowledge of what free creatures will do under certain circumstances, he disposes the world in such a way as to make sure these sins happen. And I gave examples in which the text explicitly says that God plans the sin, has a purpose in it, or has an intention behind it.<br /><br />So under Molinism, God is the author of sin in a stronger sense than he would be if it were the case merely that had God not created anything, no sin would've happened. As you said, <br /><br />I went on to say that Craig could object by saying God doesn't actually <i>mean</i> for sins to happen, but they are just inconveniences that he has to work around. Now, if you take that approach, then I quite agree with you that it would be a misuse of language to say God is the author of sin. As you said, we wouldn't consider you and your wife to be authors of sin merely on the basis that you knew your kids would sin before you had them, but you had them anyway. However, if there were specific sins you intended your children to commit, and you arranged their environment in such a way as to ensure that they would commit those sins, then I think you could be considered authors of sin in some sense, albeit in a weaker sense than Calvinists like me would admit to.<br /><br />to be continued…Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-8570789365490042712014-03-01T14:43:44.395-05:002014-03-01T14:43:44.395-05:00Thanks for the response. I just read it. If and ...Thanks for the response. I just read it. If and when I get the time to respond, I'll respond in the comment section of <a href="http://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/a-reply-to-philochristos-regarding-theistic-determinism/" rel="nofollow">your blog</a>.<br />Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10407988.post-82612703473942654222014-03-01T14:16:07.259-05:002014-03-01T14:16:07.259-05:00Hi Sam,
I have written a response to this piece o...Hi Sam,<br /><br />I have written a response to this piece on my blog. Hope you have time to read it. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com