Tag Archive for: Teología

Oposición Dominica al Conocimiento Medio

In 1588 the Dominican theologians Domingo Báñez (1528-1604) and Tomas de Lemos (1555-1629) emerged as the leading opponents of middle knowledge. Báñez and Lemos advanced three major criticisms of the doctrine. [1] First, it contradicts Aquinas’s understanding of God’s general concurrence. For Aquinas, general concurrence constituted God’s sovereign generation of events by acting directly upon secondary agents (e.g., humans), moving them in advance and working through them to bring about those events.

In order to make God the author only of good events and not of bad ones, Aquinas derived a strong distinction between efficacious and inefficacious concurrence. Efficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God intends them to produce; in this case, God’s power over the agents is infallibly and irresistibly directed toward producing their intended effects. Inefficacious concurrence occurs when secondary agents produce effects that God does not intend them to produce; in that case, God’s power over the agents is sufficient or sufficient for those agents to produce the effects God intended, but it is not infallibly or irresistibly directed toward those effects. Thus, imperfect creatures redirect God’s power toward producing sinful events, which cannot happen apart from that power. On Aquinas’s view, efficacious concurrence is intrinsically efficacious, and inefficacious concurrence is intrinsically inefficacious.

While efficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God positively volitions [2] , inefficacious concurrence inevitably produces effects that God does not intend to produce but merely permits. In contrast to Aquinas, Molina declared that general concurrence amounted to God’s sovereign causality of events by acting directly on those events and not on secondary agents. He therefore denied that secondary agents must be moved by God to use their causal power. Furthermore, Molina argued that intrinsically, God’s general concurrence is neither efficacious nor inefficacious. Rather, it is intrinsically neutral and is extrinsically made efficacious or inefficacious by the relevant secondary agents. [3]

Second, Báñez and Lemos argued that middle knowledge implied passivity in God, since making divine concurrence intrinsically neutral seemed to make God relate in exactly the same way to the good and evil actions of creatures. In the words of Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, “God would be neither the author of good nor of evil acts, at least as far as his intrinsic and free determination is concerned, because neither good nor evil acts would come from Him, at least as far as the performance of these acts is concerned.” [4] Accordingly, God’s essence as actus purus (pure act), as defined by Aquinas, is compromised if God were not to decree what free creatures would do in each set of circumstances, but instead sit back as a helpless spectator and watch what happens. [5] Third, Báñez and Lemos asserted that middle knowledge eviscerated God’s freedom, since God would know what He would freely do in any set of circumstances in which He found Himself. [6] Because they found these criticisms persuasive, the vast majority of contemporary Dominicans followed Báñez and Lemos in accusing Molina.

Regarding divine concurrence, Molina defended his position by asserting the incoherence of the Thomistic alternative held by his Dominican interlocutors for three reasons. First, the Dominicans could not explain God’s detailed knowledge of evil events. While the Dominican position had the ability to delineate God’s detailed knowledge of good events, as well as God’s general knowledge that good events would not occur in various circumstances (based on his decisions to concur inefficaciously rather than efficaciously with creatures), Molina held that the Dominican position lacked an explanation of how God knows exactly which evil events would occur. [7] Freddoso illustrates Molina’s point with the following example:

Let us take the state of affairs of Peter remaining loyal to Christ in H, where H is the situation in which Peter actually freely denies Christ. Since God’s concurrence with Peter in H is itself sufficient to produce the desired effect of Peter remaining loyal, it only follows that Peter will not remain loyal. But there are many ways in which Peter could deny Christ, a host of intentions on which he could act, different degrees of cowardice or outright malice that his act could evince, different words he could use. How can God know all the relevant details with precision, given only his prior resolution not to causally predetermine Peter’s loyalty in H? [8]

Second, Molina charged that the radical asymmetry proposed by the Dominicans between God’s causal contribution to good and evil events was nonsensical. For an evil event can differ from its benign analogue only by virtue of some historical circumstance. In this regard, Molina pointed out that the same act of sexual intercourse, with all its physical and psychological characteristics, is good if the couple is married, but bad if they are not. Imagine that the history of the couple’s relationship in both cases is exactly the same, except for the short visit to a priest where the marriage ceremony was performed. Is it not absurd, Molina asked, to suppose that God’s intrinsically efficacious concurrence is necessary in one case but not in the other? If creatures are capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is evil, why are they not equally capable of performing the same act without intrinsically efficacious concurrence when it is good? [9]

Third, Molina argued that on the Dominican view, God cannot truly will the virtuous events that He chooses not to predetermine through His intrinsically efficacious concurrence. For example, if God truly intends that Judas repent after betraying Jesus, and if God can effect this repentance simply through efficacious concurrence, then why does God refuse to grant such concurrence? In general, Molina held that the Dominicans made it impossible to blame creatures for their evil acts, since those acts necessarily resulted from the absence of God’s efficacious concurrence. Sins become acts of God’s omission, making God the author of sins as if they had been produced by God’s omission. Thus, Molina declared:

Again, what resentment will God have on the Day of Judgment against the wicked, since they were unable not to sin as long as God did not effectively incline and determine them to good, but rather solely by His own free will decided from eternity not to determine them to do so? Most likely, if this position is accepted, our freedom of choice is completely destroyed, God’s justice towards the wicked vanishes, and a cruelty and perversity are perceived in God. That is why I consider this position to be extremely dangerous from the point of view of faith. [10]

For these reasons, Molina concluded that if divine concurrence were intrinsically efficacious or inefficacious rather than, as he insisted, intrinsically neutral, then ostensibly free creatures would be nothing more than puppets controlled by God, who alone possesses freedom. [11]

In response to Báñez and Lemos’s second charge that middle knowledge implied divine passivity, Molina claimed that it does so only if one conceives of God in a Thomistic sense as pure act, the determining cause of all that occurs. But Molina insisted that one should abandon the doctrine of pure act as philosophically incoherent and contradictory to Scripture. For if God is pure act, then God’s attributes are not distinct from one another. But surely, for example, God’s omnipotence and God’s omnibenevolence denote two distinct properties, each of which is irreducible to the other. [12] This can be seen conceptually by observing that an entity could be all-powerful without being wholly loving, and an entity could be wholly loving without being wholly good. However, both attributes are philosophically necessary to God’s status, pro Anselm, as the greatest being conceivable, and both attributes are affirmed biblically (Genesis 17:1, 1 John 4:8). [13]

Rather than pure act, Molina believed that God must be understood as essentially infinite and tripersonal, an understanding that precluded divine passivity. God’s infinity, or the sum total of his great making properties, includes his omniscience, which in turn includes his middle knowledge. Taking advantage of this knowledge, the tripersonal God chooses, in his creative decree, all that will happen (the actual world [14] ) from all that could possibly happen given human freedom and natural indeterminism (the set of all feasible worlds [15] ). Far from sitting idly by, God is the active agent whose free decision is the indispensable factor in producing all human actions. [16] And God’s free decision produces these actions indeterministically, so that God cannot be accused as the author of sin. In fact, each of the three Trinitarian persons is grieved by sin (Gen. 6:6; Luke 19:41-44; Eph. 4:30). [17] This sorrow was so strong that it moved God to enter human history and become incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, to solve the problem of sin once and for all and thus redeem all who place their faith in him (Rom. 3:24-25; 8:3-4; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14). [18]

Regarding Báñez and Lemos’ third charge that middle knowledge destroyed divine freedom, Molina emphasized that middle knowledge does not give God knowledge of what he himself would do under any set of circumstances. If God had such knowledge, Molina admitted, that would certainly destroy divine freedom. [19] Middle knowledge only gives God knowledge of what any possible creature would freely do under any conceivable circumstances. Here Molina emphasized that the way God has middle knowledge is supercomprehension, or his ability to infinitely perceive the essence or pattern of each individual or possible creature that exists solely in his imagination prior to the divine creative decree. Because these individual essences are abstract, not concrete objects, and God perfectly understands his own imagination, supercomprehension follows inevitably as a result. But it is logically impossible for God to supercomprehension himself, since God is a concrete object (even more than that, the only logically necessary concrete object), not an abstract object that exists within God’s imagination. God’s individual essence is also not an abstract object existing within God’s imagination, but is one and the same as his existence. [20] Furthermore, Molina insisted that supercomprehension can only occur when the knower infinitely transcends in fullness or totality that which is known. Since God cannot infinitely transcend his own perfection, the idea that God supercomprehended himself again proves to be self-refuting. Tying together the threads of his case, Molina asserted:

God does not know, solely by virtue of the knowledge which precedes the act of His will, what part of His own will will determine itself with respect to any object which may be created by Him, although, by virtue of that same knowledge He does know , on the hypothesis that His will were to choose to determine itself to one or another order of things and circumstances, what each created faculty of choice would volition or do in its freedom within that order. Now the reason of this is, that whereas the divine intellect and knowledge surpass in perfection by an infinite distance every created faculty of choice which they contain eminently in themselves and which for this reason they comprehend in an infinitely more eminent manner than that in which it is knowable (that is, itself [21] ), so they too do not surpass the divine will in perfection nor comprehend it in a more eminent manner than that which is knowable in itself. However, as has been said, it is this kind of understanding that is required to know about free choice, before it determines itself, which part it is going to determine itself in its freedom under any given hypothesis. [22] 

Molina went on to assert that in choosing to create the present world, God freely decides what all of his future actions in that world will be. These actions are in no way determined by God’s prevolitional knowledge, but are entirely dependent on God in his freedom. Therefore, God knows everything that he will do in the world in his free knowledge, not in his middle knowledge. In other words, God has foreknowledge of his own actions in the present world, not by knowing in his middle knowledge what he would do in every conceivable circumstance, but by knowing what he has decided, in his creative decree, to do in every future circumstance, by means of his almighty power to carry out his freely chosen will. [23]

Grades

[1] Robert Joseph Matava, “Divine Causality and Human Free Choice: Domingo Báñez and the Controversy de Auxiliis,” PhD diss. (University of Saint Andrews, 2010), 1 – 24.

[2] Translator’s note. The verb here is “to will” which has no literal translation in Spanish. “To will” expresses an exercise of will or an inclination toward something, not merely “wanting something.” The confusion arises because there are two words in English that are translated into Spanish as “querer” (to want) and “to will.” The first of these is what we know as “wanting something” in the sense of having a desire and intention for it. While the second can be specified as a volition of the agent.

[3] Alfred J. Freddoso, “Introduction,” in Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 18 – 19.

[4] Réginald Gartigou Ñagrange, The One God , trans. Bede Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), 466.

[5] William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience , Studies in Intellectual History 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 270

[6] Domingo Báñez, Pedro Herrera, and Didacus Alvarez, Apologetica fratrum prædicatorum in provinciâ Hispaniæ sacræ theologiæ professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludovici Molinæ nuncupati (Madrid, 1595), 3.25; Thomas of Lemos, Acta omnia et Congregatioum disputationum, quae coram SS. Clement VIII and V Panlo Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa controversy et illa magna de auxiliis divinae gratiæ (Lovain, 1702), 8.5.

[7] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordiam, continens responses ad tres objectiones et satisfactiones ad 17 animadversiones (Libson, 1589), 4 – 7.

[8] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 39.

[9] Ibid., 40; Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , trans. Alfred J. Freddoso (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), 4.14.13.53.2.13.

[10] Molina, Foreknwowledge , 4.14.13.50.14.

[11] The Dominicans did not feel that they were denying human libertarian freedom. In fact, they argued that creatures possessed libertarian freedom, though without using the modern phrase. But Molina found these claims philosophically incoherent and concluded that despite what they said, the Dominicans ended up with a compatibilist freedom.

[12] However, Molina also held that neither God’s omnipotence nor his omnibenevolence is separable from God’s essence. So I don’t think the evidence allows us to conclude what Molina’s position was (or even whether he had one) concerning divine simplicity. It seems to me that Molina’s doctrine is compatible with either divine simplicity (the mainstream Christian view) or divine univocity (the minority view held, for example, by Scotus), depending on whether one thinks the doctrine applies at the level of essence or at the level of attributes.

[13] Molina, Concordia , 1.14.13.19.2.10.

[14] Translator’s note. Original: “the actual world.” It does not refer to a temporal adjective, i.e., to the “contemporary world.” But to the world that God has actualized or made real . “In religious jargon, it is not unusual to refer to God as creating the world. However, in the semantics of possible worlds, this is semantically improper. Rather, God’s creative activity must be referred to as “creating the heavens and the earth,” but as actualizing a particular possible world (since possible states of affairs have no beginning, and the language of creation implies this).” The above excerpt was taken from the Scientia Media section of the article on Middle Knowledge in the Internet Philosophical Encyclopedia. Consulted on July 24, 2020 at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/  See also definitions (3) and (5) of the Royal Spanish Academy: https://dle.rae.es/?id=0d341nz  (3) tr. To put into action, to carry out. (5) tr. To make abstract or virtual linguistic elements become concrete and individual. Consulted on February 15, 2019. See also: http://www.filosofia.org/enc/ros/actualiz.htm ; Consulted on July 24, 2020.

[15] Translator’s note. Original “feasible world”. In modal logic, feasible worlds are a subset of worlds within the possible worlds that, given a set of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, are within the power of God to actualize (see note 14). Others call them “metaphysically possible worlds”. See Moreland, J.P. & Lane Craig, William. “ Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview ”, 2nd Ed. Kerigma Publications, pp. 609-616, Keathley, Kenneth, “ Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach ”. Ed. B&H Publishing Group, 2010, pp. 16-18, 38-41, 149-152, Lane Craig, William. “ The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom ” ed. Wipf and Stock Publishers, pp. 129 – 13, MacGregor, Kirk, “ Luis de Molina: Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge ”. Ed. Zondervan 2015, pp. 79 – 96. For the definition of possible worlds, see What is the logic of possible worlds about? , Jaramillo, Raúl, https://www.apologetica.com.ar/logica-mundos-posibles/ ; consulted on July 24, 2020.

[16] Ludovici Molina, Appenidx ad Concordia , 26 – 27.

[17] Molina, Concordia , 5.19.6.1.26.

[18] Ibid., 3.14.13.46.18, 20.

[19] Molina, Foreknowledge , 4.14.13.52.13.

[20] Here Molina focused on a trivial Thomistic idea, since Aquinas believed that the notion of God as pure act was logically equivalent to the identity between God’s essence and his existence. Molina takes these to be two entirely different notions, interpreting pure act as the actualization of God completely determining everything that happens and the identity between essence and existence as the Anselmian claim that the idea of ​​God in the mind, including in the mind of God, cannot exist apart from a concrete reality of God ( Appendix ad Concordiam , 13, 36, 41).

[21] This reflexive understanding of “what is knowable” is implicit in the immediate context and is in the Latin construction “quodam eminentiori modo, qua,m illud sit cognoscibile” ( Concordia , 4.14.13.52.13).

[22] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.

[23] Freddoso, “Introduction,” 52.

 

Excerpt Luis de Molina: Life and Theology , MacGregor, Kirk, Ph.D.

Translation and Annotations: Eng. Raúl Jaramillo

/by

¿Qué es el posmodernismo?

Since this philosophical movement has become very popular these days on social media, I have found it necessary to write this note to explain what postmodernism really is; since I often notice that many people use the adjective “postmo” as a synonym for “progressive” or “chairo”, when they are not (although I do not mean to say that they are exclusive), or that being postmodern is unique to atheism, which is totally false.

Addressing the topic of postmodernism would require more than a few simple pages, so this writing will be to clarify in a simple and brief way what postmodernism represents in a very general way.

First, postmodernism covers not only the philosophical movement that followed modernism, but also cultural, artistic and literary movements. So keep in mind that the whole thing on social media is about philosophical ideology; so as not to think that when someone criticizes a “postmo” they are referring to some artist or literary person (although this may well be the case, but usually it is the philosopher).

Second, postmodernism covers a multitude of theses (or antitheses, depending on the case), so always keep in mind that one postmodern is not identical to another postmodern, nor does one hold each and every one of the positions we will see below, so it is important that when you come across a postmodern you first ask why he holds that position, what his specific points of view are.

Third. In general, postmodernism, as a philosophical movement, is above all an epistemic reinterpretation; that is, of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge. Postmodernism goes beyond the issue of gender ideology, which is the most well-known topic of debate, but rather a cultural relativism about reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, logic, sameness, among other notions. The main exponents of postmodernism; the best known are Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, among others.

That said, let’s look at the most common philosophical positions held by postmodernism.

Metaphysical anti-realism. Postmodernism rejects the existence of language-independent reality, the reality of the external world, and the application of the laws of logic to reality. In other words you already know, “it’s a social construct,” the old reliable of postmodernism.

Rejection of theories of truth. “There is no such thing as objective truth.” “There are no absolute truths.” You’ve heard that, right? Well, that’s also postmodern. The reason? “It’s a social construct.”

Epistemic subjectivity: Since for postmodernists knowledge is a social construction and not an objective and justified representation of the reality of our mental states, it follows that there is no position from which knowledge itself can be defined without resorting to begging the question.

Anti-essentialism. Essentialism, in simple terms, is the position that some entities have both essential and accidental properties. An essential property is one that if the object were to cease to possess, it would cease to be what it is. For example, being an animal is a property of a cow. Accidental properties are ones that if the object in question were to cease to possess them, it would still be what it is. For example, the dog Snoopy has the accidental property of having white fur and black ears. If Snoopy were entirely brown instead of white with black ears, Snoopy would still be a dog. According to postmodernists, there is no objective distinction between essential and accidental properties, but rather they are relative to our own criteria of classification. At this point you will have noticed those who currently reject essentialism: the gender ideologues. For example, since there is no objective difference between the essential properties that make a man a man and a woman a woman, gender ideologists use this to impose their ideology that any person can be whatever they want.

Subjective meaning of language and thought. First, postmodernists reject the idea that language objects have authorial meaning, depriving the author of interpreting his own work. Second, they claim that thought cannot exist without language and that thought is nothing more than linguistic behavior relative to social groups.

Anti-metanarratives. A metanarrative is either a procedure for determining which conceptual scheme/worldview is true/rational or a reference to worldviews that have come to be accepted by large groups of people, such as atheism or Christianity, among others. By stating that there are no metanarratives, it follows that there is no way to decide which worldview is true or that any worldview is true.

There are other positions that are held by postmodernists, but those mentioned in this note are the most common and the most mentioned in the current social controversy. Therefore, it must be taken into account that although one can make fun of postmodern positions, these are reinterpretations of very deep philosophical positions that are topics of serious study for disciplines such as epistemology, axiology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, etc. Therefore, I invite the reader to dedicate time to study some article on these topics in question.

I also want to point out that postmodernism is not an ideology exclusive to atheism. There are currently theistic philosophers who share one or more of these postmodern positions with certain variations given their commitment to theism. For example, the Christian philosopher Alfonso Ropero maintains that there are no absolute truths, and that if they did exist, they could only be known by God.

Much more could be said about postmodernism, so I will leave a few resources at the end of the note so that the interested reader can delve deeper into the subject in question.

References

“Theories of Truth and Postmodernism” by JP Moreland and WL Craig in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview .

“Modernism and Postmodernism”. See:   http://www.monografias.com/trabajos/modypostmod/modypostmod.shtml (Accessed 30/Dec/2016).

“Do We Live in a Postmodern Society?” See:  http://www.reasonablefaith.org/spanish/vivimos-en-una-sociedad-postmoderna (Accessed 30/Dec/2016).

“Sexuality and Gender: Conclusions from Biology, Psychology and the Social Sciences” See: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface (Accessed 12/30/2016).

 

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Jairo Izquierdo is a member of the Social Media team and an author for the Christian organization Cross Examined . He studies philosophy and theology, with his current focus being classical logic, epistemology, Christian doctrines, and philosophy of language. He is co-founder of Filósofo Cristiano . He is a member of the Christian Apologetics Alliance and a worship director at the Christian Baptist church Cristo es la Respuesta in Puebla, Mexico.

/by

La ciencia y el nuevo ateísmo son incompatibles

Por Shadow To Light

Uno de los argumentos centrales del movimiento del Nuevo Ateismo insiste en que la ciencia y la religión son «incompatibles”. Los científicos no deben ser religiosos y si alguien realmente valora la ciencia, se supone que deben abandonar su religión. El argumento es convincente solo para nuevos ateos, simplemente porque es más un tema de conversación para su propaganda anti-religiosa que cualquier tipo de argumento sólido. De hecho, podemos decir que es solo un tema de conversación debido a la naturaleza injustificada selectiva de la comparación. Es decir, si la ciencia es incompatible con la religión, ¿no podría ser también incompatible con otras formas de expresión humana?

Jerry Coyne recientemente escribió un post racionalizando su uso de ad hominems  y el lenguaje inflamatorio:

¿Sabes qué? Me importa un pepino el tono de las declaraciones. Esto es exactamente lo que es de esperar en los sitios web (no en revistas académicas, nota), en un caso que no es puramente académico, sino político. [….] las invectivas del DI me resbalan por la espalda. Hubo un tiempo en ellos -yo creo que fue William Dembski-, que publicaron una foto de mí junto a una de Herman Munster, señalando el parecido.

Con el tiempo la quitaron, pero no me molestó en absoluto. La sátira es una de las armas en esta batalla entre la racionalidad y la superstición.

Claro. En política, la invectiva y la sátira tienen un lugar. En lo político, se busca cambiar la opinión y el comportamiento con el uso de invectivas, la sátira, y otras formas de propaganda. Pero aquí está la cosa.

Este enfoque es incompatible con el enfoque científico. En la ciencia, podemos cambiar opiniones con los resultados experimentales. Cambiamos de opinión con la evidencia científica. Al tratar de comprender cómo la comunidad científica llegó a aceptar la idea de que el ADN era el material genético, sólo tenemos que tener en cuenta algunos de los famosos experimentos que demostraron esto. La invectiva y la sátira no jugaron un papel.

El mismo Coyne reconoce la diferencia cuando escribe: “Esto es exactamente lo que es de esperar en los sitios web (no en revistas académicas, nota), en un caso que no es puramente académico, sino político”.

Sitios web, revistas no académicas.

No es puramente académico, sino político.

En otras palabras, la ciencia y la política son incompatibles. En las ciencias cambiamos opiniones con los resultados experimentales y en la política cambiamos opiniones con la invectiva y la sátira. La ciencia cambia de opinión, apelando a la razón, Mientras la política cambia de opiniones mediante la manipulación de las emociones.

Ahora, recordemos que los nuevos ateos argumentan que los científicos no deben ser religiosos y si alguien realmente valora la ciencia, se supone que abandonará su religión. La misma lógica también significaría que los científicos no se suponga que sean políticos y si alguien realmente valora la ciencia, deben abandonar toda postura y actividad política. Los científicos, y todos los que valoran la ciencia, deben ser completamente apolíticos. 

Por supuesto, El Nuevo Ateísmo, por su propia naturaleza, es político. Lo que significa que El Nuevo ateísmo es incompatible con la ciencia.  Los Nuevos Ateos nunca lo admitirían, dado que su movimiento es puramente político y no tiene ningún compromiso con la razón.

 

Traducido por Jorge Gil Calderón

Blog Original: https://bit.ly/2Y1Aq3s

/by

¿Cómo sabemos que la Biblia no ha sido cambiada? Parte 2: Dificultades en la biblia y pasajes vergonzosos

Por Carlos E. Rodríguez

En la primera entrega de esta serie de posts establecimos en qué consiste la acusación y/o pregunta, muchas veces de forma sincera, acerca de nuestra confianza al texto bíblico y su fidelidad en transmitir, a través de los años, realmente lo que se escribió al inicio. Para ello hablamos de forma general de algunos casos en donde si cambiar el texto hubiese sido una tendencia general, no tendríamos razón para encontrar pasajes que sirven más como municiones para los críticos que para apoyar las afirmaciones de la creencia cristiana. También, se presentó un sencillo argumento que dice lo siguiente:

  1. Si la Biblia ha sido cambiada entonces la Biblia no puede contener errores.
  2. La Biblia contiene errores.
  3. Por lo tanto, la Biblia no ha sido cambiada.

 Lo más sobresaliente en este silogismo, que usa el modus tolens en su inferencia, es que depende de la condición de que la Biblia contiene errores. Los críticos dicen que sí. Así que usando sus propios casos para validar esta premisa hemos concluido que contiene “errores” y que no ha sido cambiada. No podemos tener las 2 cosas: o contiene errores o ha sido cambiada, pero no ambas a la vez. Como esta serie no trata de corregir o argumentar para explicar los casos de errores en el texto, comenzamos con buen pie en nuestro camino de responder con un no a la pregunta de si el texto bíblico ha sido cambiado. Y la mejor prueba en la línea de evidencia consiste justamente en dar por válida la creencia generalizada entre los críticos del cristianismo.

Lo que haré en esta ocasión es darle un poco más de fuerza a la idea de que el texto no ha sido cambiado viendo pasajes en él que son de dificultad para algunas creencias doctrinales dentro del cristianismo. También mencionaré algunos pasajes vergonzosos que afectan en cierto modo la imagen del mensaje cristiano.

Pasajes con dificultad

Imaginemos por un momento que sí, la práctica de cambiar el texto era habitual o hasta escasa, para ayudar a la idea; y se hacía cuando era necesario corregir un texto, pasaje o libro que entraba en conflicto con las creencias en el momento o con el desarrollo de las mismas a través de los años. Si esto pasó en la antigüedad, no deberíamos encontrar esos pasajes. Pero que creen: los seguimos encontrado. Es más, tenemos evidencia de que están en el texto desde hace siglos, pues la mayoría, sino todos, aparecen en las copias más antiguas de los textos bíblicos que poseemos hoy. Y siguiendo la lógica de la crítica, no debería ser esto posible. Aquí puede surgir una nueva acusación para evitar caer en este absurdo que destruiría la misma acusación en base a lo que ella dice. Alguien puede decir que el cambio a esos pasajes se hizo, pero en los textos que hoy no tenemos o no hemos encontrado aún, y el resultado de ellos es el texto que sí tenemos desde las copias más antiguas. Sí, esto puede ser una posibilidad, pero el punto es: ¿Qué evidencia respalda esta suposición? Ninguna. Así que nunca algo posible va a tener más validez que lo que sí tiene evidencia. En este caso: los mismos pasajes que presentan una dificultad a las doctrinas cristianas están ahí desde las copias más antiguas de los manuscritos que tenemos, y esto es evidencia clara de que por lo menos desde ese punto en adelante, no ha habido cambios en el texto. ¿Cuáles son esos textos que presentan una dificultad a las creencias cristianas y que si la tendencia ha sido cambiar la biblia a nuestro antojo no deberían esta?

Mateo 24:36

Pero del día y la hora nadie sabe, ni aun los ángeles de los cielos, sino sólo mi Padre.

En el cuerpo de doctrina del cristianismo ortodoxo se afirma que Cristo es Dios, y que posee todos los atributos de Dios, como la Omnisciencia. Aquí tenemos a Cristo afirmando no saber algo. Esto supone un problema para la enseñanza de esta doctrina, pues está contenida en los evangelios mismos, los cuales son la fuente más segura para saber de Jesús y lo que dijo, y aquí tenemos que él dice que hay algo que no sabe. En vez de buscar alguna explicación para esto, si la tendencia de la iglesia era de cambiar el texto, es más fácil eliminar esto o cambiarlo, que dejarlo como una dificultad que estaría ahí a través de los siglos, pues déjeme informarle que justamente este pasaje es usado para decir que Jesús no puede ser Dios, pues aquí lo tenemos afirmando algo que lo demuestra.

Job 2:3

Y Jehová dijo a Satanás: ¿No has considerado a mi siervo Job, que no hay otro como él en la tierra, varón perfecto y recto, temeroso de Dios y apartado del mal, y que todavía retiene su integridad, aun cuando tú me incitaste contra él para que lo arruinara sin causa?

Dentro de las creencias centrales del cristianismo está la que dice que Dios no puede ser tentado por el mal ni caer en él, pero aquí tenemos un texto que nos dice que él sí cayó en hacer el mal. No tengo ni que recordar lo mismo que dije anteriormente, pues era más fácil cambiar este pasaje que dejarlo ahí por los siglos para que sea usado en contra de dicha creencia. Pero, aún está ahí, demostrando que el texto no ha sufrido esos cambios que proponen los críticos.

Los pasajes que representan una dificultad para explicar las doctrinas cristianas, su mera existencia textual en la Biblia, es prueba de que esta no ha sido cambiada en la forma de la que se acusa.

Pasajes vergonzosos

Este tipo de texto no debería de existir en una escritura que ha sido vilmente manipulada al antojo. Sin embargo, ahí están. Al igual que con los que presentan una dificultad, estos prueban que no han ocurrido tales cambios propuestos por la crítica.

Algunos pasajes vergonzosos son:

Mateo 3:15-16

Pero Jesús le respondió: Deja ahora, porque así conviene que cumplamos toda justicia. Entonces le dejó. Y Jesús, después que fue bautizado, subió luego del agua; y he aquí los cielos le fueron abiertos, y vio al Espíritu de Dios que descendía como paloma, y venía sobre él.

Esta escena es vergonzosa por el hecho de que el enviado de Dios, Jesús, el cordero sin mancha, tiene que participar de un ritual que consiste en arrepentirse de los pecados. Pero si él es sin pecado, por qué debe arrepentirse de los mismos. Esto demostraría que él no fue tan integro como se supone. Recuerde que estoy hablando lo que la crítica dice, y razonando dentro de sus propias ideas.

Si esta escena está en el texto y no se ha quitado o cambiado, es porque esta práctica no era usada.

Juan 7:3-4

Y le dijeron sus hermanos: Sal de aquí, y vete a Judea, para que también tus discípulos vean las obras que haces. Porque ninguno que procura darse a conocer hace algo en secreto. Si estas cosas haces, manifiéstate al mundo. 5Porque ni aun sus hermanos creían en él.

Esta escena nos muestra como el Cristo, el ungido de Dios, no era ni bien visto por sus hermanos. Ni aun ellos creían en él. Cuando ni tu propia familia lo hace, hay razones para poner en duda de que realmente seas lo que afirmas ser. ¿No se supone que los primeros en creer en él debieron ser sus familiares? Pero aquí vemos que no lo hacían. Esto es más que suficiente para presentar la idea de que él no era realmente el Cristo. Este pasaje vergonzoso sería una razón aun para afirmar que fueron sus discípulos que, posterior a su muerte, le atribuyeron dicho título. Con todo esto, volvemos a preguntar: ¿por qué no fue cambiado este pasaje? Tal vez se debe a que esa no era una práctica ni generalizada ni escasa, en la iglesia antigua.

La idea es simple: pasajes como estos y otros debieron ser eliminados o cambiados. Si no se hizo solo debe tener una explicación: nada se cambiaba en la manera de que se acusa. En este punto alguien puede sugerir, para salvar la idea, de que no se cambiaron porque ya eran bastantes conocidos. Ahora, esto es tan absurdo que supone 2 cosas:

  1. Que los antiguos eran tan tontos que cuando “inventaron” esta historia estaban tan afanados por darla a conocer que no leyeron lo que escribieron. Es decir, nadie lo leyó, solo se escribió y se lanzó.
  2. Que no se les pudo ocurrir usar la misma técnica de la que se les acusa que usaron a su favor en el pasado. Es decir, ellos podrían inventar otro manuscrito corregido, y decir que el que contiene los errores y fallos fue adulterado y/o cambiado tan deliberadamente que su fin era manchar la imagen del cristianismo y lo que este enseña. Digo, para un grupo que tenga tan común el cambio del texto bíblico a su favor, ¿por qué no lo usarían una vez más para salir de este problema?

Al final todo es obvio: los críticos han fallado en esto.

Conclusión

Con elementos que prueban directamente que la sola idea del cambio deliberado a su favor no es plausible, podemos rechazar la validez de la acusación. Ni siquiera entra en la categoría de sugerencia, pues usando las mismas afirmaciones de la crítica y razonando dentro de su propio círculo de ideas, vemos que no hay forma de justificar su caso.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Carlos Enrique Rodríguez Alcántara es de República Dominicana, bloguero, predicador, maestro, conferencista y apologista. Esposo de Carolina. Miembro de la Iglesia Roca de Salvación Central, en donde ha sido director de educación y sub-director de educación del concilio. Tiene un grado asociado en teología de ESFOTEBIC. Certificado en filosofía, filosofía y ciencias (con honores) y pensamiento crítico por la universidad de Edimburgo, además de filosofía, ciencia y religión por la misma universidad.

/by
Teólogos y pensadores: 12 citas sobre Jesús

Teólogos y pensadores: 12 citas sobre Jesús

Por The Poached Egg

“Jesús es absolutamente único en la historia. En la enseñanza, en el ejemplo, en el carácter, una excepción, una maravilla, y Él mismo es la evidencia del cristianismo” A.T. Pierson

“Así que yo me quedo con Él, no con el que afirma ser sabio, Confucio; o el que afirmaba ser iluminado, Buda; o el que afirmaba ser un profeta, Mahoma; sino con el que afirmaba ser Dios en carne humana. El que declaró: “Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy” – y lo demostró” Norman Geisler

“En el Antiguo Testamento tenemos a Jesús anunciado. En los Evangelios tenemos a Jesús revelado. En los Hechos tenemos a Jesús predicado. En las epístolas tenemos a Jesús explicado. En el Apocalipsis tenemos a Jesús esperado. En el Apocalipsis, tenemos a Jesús esperando” Desconocido

“Soy historiador, no soy creyente, pero debo confesar como historiador que este pobre predicador de Nazaret es irrevocablemente el centro de la historia. Jesucristo es sencillamente la figura más dominante de toda la historia” H.G. Wells 

“A medida que pasan los siglos, se acumulan las pruebas de que, medido por su efecto en la historia, Jesús es la vida más influyente jamás vivida en este planeta”  Kenneth Scott Latourette

“Sócrates enseñó durante 40 años, Platón durante 50, Aristóteles durante 40, y Jesús por tan solo 3. Sin embargo, la influencia del ministerio de 3 años de Cristo trasciende infinitamente el impacto dejado por los 130 años combinados de enseñanza de estos hombres que estuvieron entre los más grandes filósofos de toda la antigüedad” Anónimo

“Fue este mismo Jesús, el Cristo, quien, entre muchas otras cosas notables, dijo y repitió algo que, procediendo de cualquier otro individuo, lo habría condenado de inmediato como un fanfarrón ególatra o una persona peligrosamente desequilibrada. Cuando dijo que Él mismo resucitaría de entre los muertos, al tercer día después de ser crucificado, dijo algo que solo un tonto se atrevería a decir, si esperaba una mayor devoción de cualquier discípulo, a menos que estuviera seguro de que iba a resucitar. ¡Ningún fundador de ninguna religión del mundo conocido por los hombres se atrevió a decir algo así!” Wilbur Smith

“Muchos están dispuestos a que Cristo sea algo, pero pocos consentirán que Cristo sea todo” Alexander Moody Stuart

“La vida de Jesús fue una tormenta de controversias. Los apóstoles, como los profetas antes que ellos, difícilmente podían pasar un día sin controversia. Pablo dijo que debatió diariamente en el mercado. Evitar la controversia es evitar a Cristo. Podemos tener paz, pero es una paz servil y carnal donde la verdad es asesinada en las calles” R.C. Sproul 

“La evidencia de la vida, muerte y resurrección de nuestro Señor puede ser, y a menudo ha sido, demostrada como satisfactoria; es buena según las reglas comunes para distinguir la evidencia buena de la mala. Miles y decenas de miles de personas la han revisado pieza por pieza con el mismo cuidado con el que cada juez resume un caso importante. Yo mismo lo he hecho muchas veces, no para persuadir a otros sino para satisfacerme a mí mismo. He sido utilizado durante muchos años para estudiar las historias de otros tiempos y para examinar y sopesar la evidencia de aquellos que han escrito sobre ellas, y no conozco ningún hecho en la historia de la humanidad que esté probado por una mejor y más completa evidencia de todo tipo, para el entendimiento de un justo investigador, que la gran señal que Dios nos ha dado de que Cristo murió y resucitó de la muerte” Thomas Arnold

“El mundo moderno detesta la autoridad pero adora la relevancia. Nuestra convicción cristiana es que la Biblia tiene tanto autoridad como relevancia, y que el secreto de ambas es Jesucristo” John Stott 

“En una civilización como la nuestra, creo que todos deben aceptar las afirmaciones de Jesucristo sobre Su vida, o ser culpables de ignorar o evadir la realidad” C.S. Lewis

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/33gJMsw

Traducido por Jorge Gil

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Cinco Razones para creer que el Molinismo es Verdad (parte I)

Cinco Razones para creer que el Molinismo es Verdad (parte I)

Por Evan Minton

Los no Molinistas usualmente acusan a los Molinistas de leer filosofía sobre la Biblia. Ellos dicen que el Molinismo es una teoría filosófica que no se encuentra en las páginas de la Escritura, y esta es una de las razones por las cuales ellos rechazan el Molinismo como una perspectiva teológica viable. Pero creo que hay varias razones buenas para pensar que el Molinismo es verdadero. En este blog, expondré cinco razones por las cuales acepto la teoría de Luis de Molina.

1 Un Dios verdaderamente Omnisciente sabría contrafácticos

¿Es Dios omnisciente? La Biblia dice que lo es. La Biblia dice “Grande es el Señor nuestro, y de mucho poder; y su entendimiento es infinito” (Salmos 145:7), “Sus ojos están sobre los caminos del hombre, y ve todos sus pasos. No hay tinieblas ni sombra de muerte donde se escondan los que hacen maldad. No hay carga, pues él al hombre más de lo justo, para que vaya con Dios a juicio” (Job 34:21-23) y “Los ojos de Jehová están en todo lugar, mirando a los malos y a los buenos”. (Proverbios 15:3).

Después de que Jesús resucitó de los muertos, él cocinó peces para los discípulos. Jesús y Simón Pedro tuvieron la siguiente discusión: “Cuando hubieron comido, Jesús dijo a Simón Pedro, ‘Simón, hijo de Jonás, ¿me amas más que éstos?’ “Sí, Señor”, él dijo, “tú sabes que te amo’. Jesús dijo, ‘Alimenta a mis ovejas’, la tercera vez que él le dijo ‘Simón, hijo de Jonás, ¿me amas? ‘él dijo, ‘Señor, tú lo sabes todo; tú sabes que te amo”. (Juan 21:15-17). Pedro dijo que Jesús sabía “todas las cosas”, y Jesús no intentó corregirlo (lo que implica que él estaba de acuerdo con la declaración de Pedro). La Biblia afirma que Dios conoce todas las cosas.

Sin embargo, si Dios no posee conocimiento de los contrafácticos, entonces ¿cómo es que él es omnisciente? ¡Habría cosas que Dios no sabría! Dios no sabría qué hubiera sucedido si tú te hubieras salido ayer de tu casa un poco antes o un poco después. Dios no sabría cómo resultaría tu vida si hubieras rechazado la propuesta de matrimonio de tu esposo. Dios no sabe si tú te hubieras intoxicado si hubieras decidido comer en cierto restaurante en cierto día. ¿Cómo es que Dios puede ser un Ser Máximamente Grandioso su él es menos que omnisciente?

2 La Biblia Describe que Dios conoce los Contrafácticos.

Aquellos que son detractores del Molinismo usualmente argumentan contra el Molinismo diciendo que los contrafácticos no tienen valor de verdad (es decir, no pueden ser ni verdaderos ni falsos), así que decir que Dios no es omnisciente porque no conoce acerca de los contrafácticos es como decir que él no es omnipotente porque él no puede crear círculos cuadrados o rocas demasiado pesadas que él mismo no puede levantar.

Dios no puede hacer lo lógicamente imposible, pero no diríamos que él no es omnipotente debido a ello. En la misma forma, Dios no puede conocer lo lógicamente imposible, así que ¿por qué decir que él no es omnisciente a causa de ello? Olvidemos que la posibilidad lógica de conocer los contrafácticos parece intuitiva (basamos nuestros juicios diarios todo el tiempo en lo que pensamos que son contrafácticos verdaderos), el problema más grande con estos negadores del conocimiento medio es que la Biblia presenta diversas ocasiones en las cuales Dios afirma el conocimiento de contrafácticos. Una pequeña muestra de versos se provee a continuación:

[Jesús está hablando aquí]  “¡Ay de ti, Corazín! ¡Ay de ti, Betsaida! Porque si en Tiro y en Sidón se hubieran hecho los milagros que han sido hechos en vosotras, tiempo ha que se hubieran arrepentido en cilicio y en ceniza. Por tanto os digo que en el día del juicio, será más tolerable el castigo para Tiro y para Sidón, que para vosotras. Y tú, Capernaum, que eres levantada hasta el cielo, hasta el Hades serás abatida; porque si en Sodoma se hubieran hecho los milagros que han sido hechos en ti, habría permanecido hasta el día de hoy”.

Mateo 11:21 – 23

“Más hablamos sabiduría de Dios en misterio, la sabiduría oculta, la cual Dios predestinó antes de los siglos para nuestra gloria, la que ninguno de los príncipes de este siglo conoció; porque si la hubieran conocido, nunca habrían crucificado al Señor de gloria”.

1 Corintios 2:7 – 8

“¿Me entregarán los vecinos de Keila en sus manos? ¿Descenderá Saúl, como ha oído tu siervo? Jehová Dios de Israel, te ruego que lo declares a tu siervo. Y Jehová dijo: Sí, descenderá.

12 Dijo luego David: ¿Me entregarán los vecinos de Keila a mí y a mis hombres en manos de Saúl? Y Jehová respondió: Os entregarán.

13 David entonces se levantó con sus hombres, que eran como seiscientos, y salieron de Keila, y anduvieron de un lugar a otro. Y vino a Saúl la nueva de que David se había escapado de Keila, y desistió de salir”.

1 Samuel 23: 11 – 13

Ahora, si piensas que los contrafácticos no tienen valor de verdad, entonces debes de decir que estos pasajes de las Escrituras no son ni verdaderos ni falsos. Pero ello parece absurdo. Si crees que la palabra de Dios es inerrante (así como yo lo creo, y así como implican pasajes como Proverbios 30:5 y 2 Timoteo 3:16), entonces una negación del conocimiento medio parece implicar que la doctrina de la inerrancia bíblica es falsa. Y peor aún, no solo la inerrancia bíblica, sino la inerrancia divina también (dado que fue Jesús quien afirmó el contrafáctico en Mateo 11, y fue Dios respondiendo a David en 1 Samuel 23). Si Dios no posee conocimiento medio, entonces no solo su Palabra no es inerrante, sino ¡él tampoco lo es!

3 Cuando hablamos del Libre Albedrío y la Providencia Divina, el Molinismo es una inferencia a la Mejor Explicación

Cuando hablamos de la providencia divina, yo sólo conozco tres opciones posibles. Dos de ellas son extremos inaceptables. Por una parte, podríamos estar de acuerdo con el Calvinista de que Dios causalmente determina todo lo que ocurre. La manera en la que Dios ordena providencialmente la historia humana es determinando cada pensamiento, palabra o acción de cada ser humano que ha vivido en la Tierra. En esta perspectiva, no hay libre albedrío (excepto, tal vez, una libertad compatibilista, pero no creo que la definición compatibilista del libre albedrío sea “libre” en algún sentido significativo de la palabra). Hay varios problemas con esta perspectiva. Uno de ellos siendo que ésta perspectiva lógicamente implica que Dios es el autor del mal; es decir, Dios es realmente responsable por cada hecho malvado que ha ocurrido en la historia. Si Dios causalmente determinó las acciones de todos, entonces la razón por la cual ellos hacen acciones malvadas es porque Dios esencialmente los hizo hacerlas. Si Dios los hizo hacerlas, entonces Él es finalmente el responsable por el mal de este mundo. Entonces Dios sería el pecador último, Él sería malvado. Dado que sabemos tanto de la teología natural (Argumento Moral y Argumento Ontológico) y de las Escrituras que Dios no es malvado, por lo tanto, el determinismo divino no es verdad. Además, hay una gran cantidad de Escritura que no tiene sentido lógico a menos que se presuponga el libre albedrío cuando se leen pasajes bíblicos. Por ejemplo, todos esos lugares en donde Dios se enoja hacia el pecado y procede a castigar a las personas por el mal que han cometido. Ello no tendría sentido si Dios determinara tus acciones. Si Dios determinara sus acciones, ¿por qué se enojaría con ellos? Si no le agradó lo que esas personas hicieron, ¿por qué no las determinó a hacer cosas que lo harían feliz? Además, ¿acaso no es injusto castigar a personas si tú eres la razón por la que ellos hicieron lo que hicieron?

Por otro lado, tenemos la perspectiva del libre albedrío libertariano y el conocimiento previo simple del Arminianismo. Esta perspectiva enseña que todos los seres humanos tienen libre albedrío libertariano (lo que significa que tenemos la habilidad tanto de escoger como de refrenarnos de escoger entre varias alternativas frente a nosotros, y también de que somos el origen último de nuestras acciones, y no había nada prohibiéndonos de escoger diferente a lo que hemos escogido). Sin embargo, como el Calvinista, el Arminiano afirma que Dios tiene conocimiento previo simple. Es decir, Dios conoce lo que SERÁ en el futuro, lo que todos libremente ESCOGEREMOS, pero él no sabe todos los futuros posible que hubieran sido si hubiéramos tomado decisiones diferentes. Él no conoce los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural. Esto también crea un problema también. Si Dios solo conoce el futuro real, y no cómo el futuro hubiera sido si las cosas fueran un poco diferentes, entonces, ¿cómo podemos explicar la providencia de Dios a través de la historia humana?

Imagina que Dios crea un mundo, y Él solo conoce el futuro real, pero él no conoce los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural. ¿Qué hubiera pasado si Judas, Pilato, o Caifás no hubieran hecho las decisiones requeridas para crucificar a Jesús? ¿Qué hay si Judas libremente escoge no traicionar a Jesús? O ¿qué hay si Pilato no sucumbe a la presión de la multitud para crucificarle? Ciertamente, Dios sería capaz de prever sus decisiones libres, pero Él no sería capaz de hacer algo al respecto sin violentar su libertad. Y en este caso, no habría redención porque Jesús no hubiera sido crucificado. Ahí quedó nuestra redención por nuestros pecados. En el Arminianismo, parece que Dios simplemente es suertudo de que estos eventos tomaron el curso que Él quería que tomaran. En el Arminianismo, Dios simplemente no parece tener el control soberano que la Biblia describe que Él tiene.

Dado que ni el Calvinismo ni el Arminianismo son opciones aceptables (porque implican consecuencias absurdas), la única opción restante es el Molinismo. El Molinismo puede explicar de la mejor manera la providencia meticulosa de Dios sobre la historia humana mientras al mismo tiempo explica el libre albedrío genuino. En el Molinismo, Dios tiene tres momentos lógicos de conocimiento; natural, medio y libre.  El conocimiento natural de Dios es su conocimiento de todas las posibilidades y verdades necesarias, todo lo que podría suceder. El conocimiento medio de Dios es el conocimiento de todos los contrafácticos, todo lo que sucedería. El conocimiento libre de Dios es el conocimiento de lo que realmente va a suceder en el futuro, lo que sucederá. El conocimiento natural de Dios es un conocimiento de todos los mundos posibles, su conocimiento medio es un conocimiento de todos los mundos viables, y su conocimiento libre es un conocimiento del mundo real. El conocimiento libre es un resultado del decreto eterno de Dios (es decir, escoger cuál mundo viable actualizar [hacer real]).

Pienso que esta perspectiva explica de la mejor manera la orquestación de Dios de los eventos humanos y también permite afirmar una perspectiva fuerte de la libertad humana. En el Molinismo, Dios conoce cuales personas situar en aquellas posiciones en el primer siglo para hacer que Jesús sea crucificado. Él sabía que si Caifás era el sumo sacerdote en el primer siglo, entonces él libremente condenaría a Jesús en base a blasfemia y lo llevaría a Pilato para la ejecución. Él sabía que si Pilato era prefecto en el primer siglo, entonces él libremente cumpliría las demandas de la multitud. Y Él sabía que si Judas naciese en el tiempo y lugar en el que en realidad nació, entonces él se volvería un discípulo de Jesús por un tiempo y libremente escogería traicionar a Jesús con el Sanedrín. En el Molinismo, Dios providencialmente produjo la crucifixión al actuar respecto a su conocimiento de cómo las personas libremente actuarían si fueran puestas en esas posiciones. Dios las produjo al situarlos en esas circunstancias, y las personas produjeron estos eventos desde su propio libre albedrío porque ellos fueron los que hicieron esos contrafácticos verdaderos de ellos mismos.

Y al contrario de la opinión popular Arminiana, esto no es determinista. Dios no escoge qué contrafacticos son verdaderos. Las Personas deciden qué contrafácticos son verdaderos. Todo lo que Dios hace es actuar en base a su conocimiento de los contrafácticos de la libertad creatural.

Por ejemplo, Dios puede conseguir que Bob escoja la acción A en lugar de la acción B si lo crea en las circunstancias S. Porque Dios sabía que si Bob estuviera en las circunstancias S, él libremente escogería la acción A en lugar de la B”. Dios logra que Bob escoja A al situarlo en esas circunstancias. Pero Bob no debía [necesitaba] escoger A. Bob bien podía haber escogido B en su lugar. Nada determinó o coaccionó a Bob a escoger A y nada le prohibía a Bob escoger B. Bob pudo haber escogido B y haberse refrenado de escoger A. Si lo hubiera hecho, entonces el conocimiento medio de Dios no hubiera contenido la proposición “Si Bob estuviera en S, él escogería A en lugar de B”. No. Dios hubiera sabido “Si Bob estuviera en S, él escogería B en lugar de A”. Dios no decreta cuales contrafácticos de la libertad creatural son verdad, son las criaturas las que lo hacen. Todo lo que Dios hace es escoger cuales son las circunstancias en las que nos encontramos al determinar cuándo y dónde nacemos (como Hechos 17:26 dice).

El Molinismo me parece la mejor explicación. Por cuestiones de espacio no puedo enlistar los pasajes bíblicos mostrando que Dios tiene providencia divina sobre la historia y los pasajes que muestran que los seres humanos tienen libre albedrío libertariano, pero las enseñanzas están ahí, y creo que mi perspectiva es la mejor para reconciliar esos dos conjuntos de verdades bíblicas. Yo si pienso que Proverbios 16:9 enseña simultáneamente el libre albedrío y la providencia divina (o al menos parece que lo hace), lo cito a continuación:

“El corazón del hombre piensa su camino; Mas Jehová endereza sus pasos”.
Proverbios 16:9

Eso parece reflejar la declaración de Randy Everist (del blog “Possible Worlds”) sobre el Molinismo en un comentario de Facebook, la cual es “Nosotros escogemos lo que haríamos, y basado en eso, Dios escoge lo que haremos”.

[En la siguiente parte se publicarán las últimas dos razones y la conclusión por las que Evan Minton considera que el molinismo es verdad]

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek

 

Evan Minton es un apologista cristiano y bloguero en Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.net). Es el autor de “Inference To The One True God” (Inferencia al único Dios verdadero) y “A Hellacious Doctrine” (Doctrina infernal). Ha participado en varios debates que pueden ser visto en la sección “Mis debates” de Cerebral Faith. El Sr. Minton vive en Carolina del Sur, EE. UU.

Traducido por Raúl Jaramillo de Lira

/by
Por qué el cristiano NO debe rechazar la filosofía (parte II)

Por qué el cristiano NO debe rechazar la filosofía (parte II)

By Xavier Gonzalez

In Part I the author addresses the common objections presented by some Christians who consider philosophy to be anti-biblical.

Consequences of denying philosophy

In an article by FreeThinkingMinistries (FTM), he mentions about 5 problems of theology “ without philosophy” [1] , I will summarize the 5 points he mentions and focus on 3 given their importance. According to the article, the problems would be:

1) The belief that one can engage in theological practices having divorced oneself from all one’s philosophical presuppositions is itself a philosophical presupposition. That is, self-defeating/self-refuting.

2) Saying that we should do theology without philosophy really only means that we should interpret the scriptures without reasoning about them or without having reasoned about how we are going to apply the interpretation assigned to them . In other words, it leads to irrationalism and would lead us to extreme relativism.

3) With that in mind, given the exclusion of philosophy that the “Without-Philosophy” view assumes, it simply remains without any other resources available to the theologian, inferential or otherwise, that can be used to assess the truth value of a theological claim since any resources given to the theologian will be, at root, philosophical. That is, even though we may know various doctrinal concepts, it gives us no guarantee of their truth or falsity or for that matter their philosophical implications.

4) In short, it is through reflection on the prior philosophical commitments that underpin a doctrine that it helps to weigh its plausibility. That is, it helps us to reject false and misleading ideas (yes, as Paul would warn us).

5) If Christians exemplify more seriousness in their beliefs in terms of being able to recognize their own presuppositions, the cultural perception of them will change. That is, we will not be mocked by society and Christianity will be seen as blind belief.

The 3 points I want to emphasize in the 5 that FTM mentions, is that if we are constant in a theology without philosophy, we would be in the middle of a dangerous and catastrophic web. Imagine the following, you are listening to the radio and the station gives a program on Christian doctrines, the announcer begins to talk about the attribute of divine eternity, he exposes several verses about God being eternal, and someone calls the announcer of the program, and the user begins to ask difficult questions, about how God would relate to time? How is God not affected by time? If God is timeless, does he know that it is 4:00 am in Dubai? What is an eternal Being?… And you are attentively listening to the user’s questions and then listening to the announcer’s answers, and the announcer says: “I’m sorry friend, I only abide by what is said in the word and not by philosophical speculations,” you are shocked by such questions and even more so without having answers from the announcer, then you begin to meditate on the user’s questions and without finding an answer, you ask yourself, What do I believe?

Well, this is the problem, that if you are ignorant of philosophical problems and reject philosophy, you will be deceived, you will not have tools to help you evaluate the proposals and ultimately you will have bad theology. And to give a very common example, this has happened a lot by those who support scientism.

The philosophical necessity in Christianity

As we have seen, the consequences of a Christianity without philosophy are harmful, although we should not stop there, and the other side of the coin points out to us many contributions that philosophy has made to Christianity and the philosopher Paul M. Gould & James K. Dew Jr. give us 3 reasons, which are:

1) Philosophy is strategic for evangelism. As Christians we are called to be faithful witnesses for Christ. We want every person on the face of the earth to ask and answer the question, “What do you think about Jesus Christ?” Unfortunately, in our day and age it can be difficult to get people to seriously consider this question. Philosophy helps us understand the collective mindset, its value systems, and the emotional response patterns of the culture. Christian philosophy can help expose the false ideas that keep people from considering Christianity as a genuine option. God has given us minds, and He wants us to use them to help others see the truth, goodness, and beauty of Jesus and the gospel. He wants us to use philosophy (and more so theology) to show that Christianity is faithful to the way the world is and the way the world should be.

2) Second, philosophy prepares us for ministry. I (Paul) can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had students—usually as a prospective pastor or even a doctoral student of theology or some aspect of Christian ministry—ask me why they should take logic. How would logic help them become better preachers or church leaders or Bible students? At first, when I was asked this question, I was dumbfounded. It seemed obvious to me that God wants us to be good thinkers, and logic is one of the tools that will help in that area. Now, when I’m asked to justify the need to take logic, I simply invite them to “come and see.” Fortunately, I’ve found that these same students become the most ardent advocates of the use and benefit of logic for preaching, ministry, and Bible study.

3) Philosophy plays a key role in our spiritual formation toward Christ. Christians are commanded to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12:2 ESV) and to love God with all our minds (Matt. 22:37-39). Part of this process is seeing Jesus for who He is: the source of all wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3). Jesus is beautiful, and we rightly worship Him as such. But Jesus is also brilliant—the smartest person in history. As Dallas Willard presses, “Can we seriously imagine that Jesus could be Lord if He weren’t smart?” The obvious answer is no! As followers of Jesus, we too must cultivate moral and intellectual virtue. God has given each of us a mind. He wants us to use it for His glory. He wants us to live life rightly related to reality and to God, to each other, to ourselves, and to our purpose. Philosophy can help in all of these areas. [2]

Conclusion

In conclusion, we can say that the scriptures do not say that we should emphatically reject philosophy, and as we saw in the section on the problem of a theology without philosophy and its necessity, on the one hand the Christian must embrace philosophy, but be attentive to bad philosophy, as CS Lewis would say: Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. And the Christian philosopher Peter S. Williams invites us to philosophy with the following words:

Philosophy is an artistic discipline, and for the Christian it should be a spiritual discipline. After all, Jesus supported the idea that true spirituality requires one to love the Lord one’s God with all one’s heart, with all one’s mind, and with all one’s strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. [3]

References:

[1] https://freethinkingministries.com/cuales-son-algunos-de-los-problemas-con-la-teologia-sin-filosofia/

[2] Philosophy: A Christian introduction pages 18-21

[3] A Faithful Guide to Philosophy page 18

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

 

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

/by
Por qué el cristiano NO debe rechazar la filosofía (parte I)

Por qué el cristiano NO debe rechazar la filosofía (parte I)

By Xavier Gonzalez

I have often encountered Christians who say “Philosophy is bad”, “we only need the scriptures and no philosophy”, “philosophy is from the devil” and statements like that, but I consider that these ideas that they try to sustain, in the end, are false. The notion that the Christian must reject philosophy is somewhat absurd and catastrophic. And in this article I will mention why and the need for philosophy in Christianity.

To the surprise of some (from what I have been able to study) throughout the history of the Church they have been able to know how to use tweezers (and others not) to approve and reject or modify the theses of various philosophers, even this we can see in certain passages of the Bible where Paul cites certain pagans as in Acts 17:28, where the part that says: “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being [or exist] … For we are his offspring” are quotes attributed to both Aratus (310 BC) and Epimenides of Cretans (600 BC), which already starting from here, we can see that Paul was not against philosophy at all, but wait, what happens with Colossians 2:8? Did Paul change his mind? Was it hypocritical Paul to quote philosophers in his speech in Athens when in Colossae he says not to be carried away by those who use philosophical arguments? Did Paul contradict himself? And my answer is no, Paul neither contradicted himself, nor was he a hypocrite, and much less did he change his mind.

Before moving on to the points of why a Christian should not reject philosophy, it will be appropriate to give the context of Colossians 2:8. According to the verse it tells us the following:

“Be on your guard so that no one takes you captive through empty and deceptive philosophy that follows human tradition, according to the principles of this world rather than according to Christ.” (NIV)

According to commentator AT Robertson, what Paul uses as Philosophos is not a condemnation of philosophy as such, but rather a false philosophy “Science falsely called” (pseudönumos gnösis, 1 Tim. 6:20) which is descriptive of Gnostic philosophy where many of its arguments are misleading and empty. [1] Even the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary says: The apostle Paul does not condemn all philosophy, but the philosophy (so the Greek) of the Judeo-Oriental heretics at Colossae, which later developed into Gnosticism. [2] and according to the Ryrie Study Bible it mentions that Paul uses the vocabulary of the heretics, thus giving their true meaning, and then refutes them with their own terms that they used. Also the Partain-Reeves commentary mentions that according to Josephus, in those times any system of thought or moral discipline was called a philosophy. And in Judaism there were three philosophical schools, which were Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes.

And if this is not enough, Moyer Hubbard’s team.org writes:

“Looking now at Colossians and the specific context of chapter 2, we find Paul addressing a local assembly that had been infiltrated by a form of false teaching that threatened to undermine the gospel he preached. Paul does not give us enough information to identify precisely what sect or ‘philosophy’ he is describing. However, there are some clues that suggest it was perhaps a syncretistic hybrid of Jewish mystical practices and pagan folk belief: he mentions the observance of special days, including the Sabbath (v. 16); visionary experience and worship of angels (v. 18); submission to the ‘elemental spirits of the world’ (v. 20); and abstinence (vv. 21,23). Paul is clearly attacking a peculiar form of religious speculation, but it is impossible to identify it with any of the major schools of philosophy we know from the Greco-Roman world. In fact, it is important to note that the Greek word philosophia (and its Latin cognate) had a variety of meanings in this period and, depending on the context, could be translated as ‘religion’, ‘speculation’ or ‘inquiry’” [3] .

In that case, using Colossians 2:8 to condemn philosophy would not be appropriate because it would be misinterpreting the verse. So we can safely say that Paul was not in any strict sense condemning philosophy as such, but rather a philosophy that (1) followed the principles of this world and (2) was not in conformity with Christ . Now that these doubts have been cleared up, let us address both the why and the need for philosophy in Christianity. [ In the next part of this article ].

References:

[1] Commentary on the Greek text of the NT, AT Robertson

[2] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary

[3] https://www.equip.org/article/is-colossians-28-a-warning-against-philosophy/

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

 

Xavier Gonzalez is from Venezuela and is dedicated to the study of philosophy, early Christianity and theology. He converted to Christianity at the age of 15. He managed the Me Lo Contó Un Ateo website and is in charge of the apologetics section of the Iglesia Cristiana la gracia website ( http://www.iglesialagracia.org ).

 

/by
¿La fe cristiana es una fe ciega o irracional?

¿La fe cristiana es una fe ciega o irracional?

Skeptics sometimes portray Christians as both “unreasonable” and “irrational.” Christian culture only compounds the problem when it advocates a definition of “faith” without evidence. Is true faith blind? How do true believers respond to doubt? What is the relationship between faith and reason? Richard Dawkins once said:

“Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs may lack any evidence, but we thought, ‘If people need a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm?’ 9/11 changed everything.”

This view of the Christian faith is common among skeptics and believers alike. Critics think that Christians accept truths without any justificatory support, and many Christians embrace the claims of Christianity unaware of the strong evidence that supports our worldview. Dawkins is right when he argues against forming beliefs without proof. People who accept truths without any examination or need for evidence are likely to believe myths and make bad decisions.

Christians are called to a reasonable faith

Christians, on the other hand, are not called to make decisions without compelling evidence. The God of the Bible does not call His children to blind obedience. The Gospels themselves are an important form of direct evidence; the testimony of eyewitnesses who observed the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That is why Scripture repeatedly calls us to have a well-founded belief in Christ, and not to resort to the behavior of irrational animals:

Jude 1,4.10

4 For some people who do not have God have infiltrated your churches, claiming that God’s wonderful grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was written long ago, for they have denied Jesus Christ, our only Lord and Master. 10 But these people scoff at things they do not understand. Like unreasoning animals, they do whatever their own instincts tell them, thus bringing about their own destruction.

The Bible uses this word “irrational” in a pejorative way; to be irrational is to act like a brute animal. God clearly wants more from beings created in His image.

Christians are called to an examined faith

Matthew 22, 37-38

“Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. ’”

This kind of faith is not afraid of challenges. In fact, Christians are encouraged to examine what they believe critically so that they can be fully convinced:

1 Thessalonians 5, 19-21

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test everything; hold fast to what is good…

1 John 4, 1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Romans 14, 5

Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.

2 Timothy 3, 14

But continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you learned them…

Christians are called to a faith based on evidence

Critical examination requires us to investigate the evidence, and God holds evidence in high regard. He wants us to be convinced after examining the facts. Jesus values ​​the evidence and continually provides proof to make His case:

John 14, 11

“Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least, believe for the miracles themselves.”

Jesus continued to give evidence to his disciples even after his resurrection: Acts 1, 2-3

…until the day He was taken up, after He had given commandments through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen; to whom also He shewed Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen of them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Early Christians understood the connection between reason, evidence, and faith, and they did not view these concepts as mutually exclusive. In fact, Paul often uses direct evidence to make his case for Christianity:

Acts 17, 30-31

“In ancient times God overlooked people’s ignorance of these things, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and return to him. For he has set a day to judge the world in righteousness by the man he has appointed, and he has shown everyone who this man is by raising him from the dead.”

Acts 17, 2-3

As was his custom, Paul went to the synagogue service and, for three days of rest in a row, he used the Scriptures to reason with the people.   He explained the prophecies and proved that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. He said: “This Jesus, of whom I speak to you, is the Messiah.”

Christians are called to present a case for faith:

When believers use their minds, investigate the evidence, and become convinced, something wonderful happens: We have the courage to stand up for what we believe using the same evidence, logic, and reasoning we so vigorously used to come to faith in the first place:

1 Peter 3:15

…worship Christ as the Lord of your life. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks about the hope you have, but do so with humility and respect.

Christians from all disciplines of inquiry and discovery have used their powers of reason to investigate the evidence. Christians are NOT irrational, and Christian faith is NOT blind. Christianity’s rich intellectual history calls each of us to a faith that is reasonable, examined, evidence-based, and ready to be presented. This kind of faith honors God and stands up to skeptical criticism and personal doubt.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek  

 

J. Warner Wallace is the author of Cold-Case Christianity, has a career spanning more than 25 years as a police officer and detective, holds a Master of Divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and is an adjunct professor of apologetics at BIOLA University.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2UPIWRt

/by
Molinismo: ¿Por qué no todos se salvan?

Molinismo: ¿Por qué no todos se salvan?

By Evan Minton

Molinism is a view of soteriology. It has much in common with Arminianism. It teaches that God wants every human being to come to Christ in order to be saved (2 Peter 3:9; 1 Timothy 2:4), that Jesus died for every human being God has ever created or will create (John 3:16-18; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Timothy 4:10; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 2:9), that human beings are totally depraved, that is, incapable of coming to Christ on their own, because Jesus said that no one can come to the Father unless the Father who sent Him draws them to Himself (John 6:44; John 6:65), and because of this inability to come to Christ in our own strength, God sends the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin (John 16:8) and to draw every person into a relationship with Himself (John 12:32). Molinists also believe, like Arminians, that humanity has libertarian free will. Libertarian Free Will is different from compatibilism because it asserts that we are not causally determined to do what we do (there are no determining factors, although there are certain things that influence our decisions), and also that there is the possibility of doing the opposite. So if I choose A, I didn’t have to choose A. I could have chosen B. There was nothing to prevent me from holding back from choosing A and choosing B instead. Molinists believe that because of the enabling grace mentioned above, we have a choice to make. We can either receive salvation or reject it (Deuteronomy 30:15-19; Joshua 24:15).

Molinism differs from Arminianism in a small number of ways. This is a view called Middle Knowledge. What is Middle Knowledge? According to the Molinist, God has three kinds of knowledge. The first is God’s knowledge of necessary truths or natural knowledge. These are truths that are independent of God’s will and are non-contingent. This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities. Examples include statements like, “All bachelors are not married,” or “X cannot be A and not-A at the same time, in the same way, in the same place,” or “It is possible for X to happen,” or “It is impossible for squares to be triangular.” The second is called “Middle Knowledge” and contains the range of possible things that would have happened given certain circumstances, for example, “If Evan Minton chose to eat fish at this particular restaurant instead of a hamburger, he would get food poisoning and have a miserable weekend,” or “If Evan’s dog broke its leash and started chasing a squirrel, he would chase it.” The third type of knowledge is God’s free knowledge. This type of knowledge consists of contingent truths that are dependent on God’s will; that is, truths that God causes. Examples of this would include, “God became incarnate in the first century B.C.,” or “God created the universe.” This is knowledge that God possesses because he has chosen to cause it.

So according to the Molinist, God not only knows what will happen and what could happen, but He also knows what would happen. God literally knows everything there is to know about everything. He even knows the counterfactuals, (“If X happens, then Y would happen after it.”). This was beautifully illustrated in the Christmas movie It’s a Wonderful Life in which God shows George Bailey what the world would have been like without him. It’s a Wonderful Life shows God’s middle knowledge in that while God knew George Bailey was indeed going to be born when he was, He nevertheless knew what the world would have been like without him.

William Lane Craig calls Molinism “one of the most fruitful theological ideas ever conceived, for it would serve to explain not only God’s knowledge of the future but divine providence and predestination as well.” Under it, God retains a measure of divine providence without impeding human freedom. Since God possesses middle knowledge, He knows what an agent would freely do in a particular situation. So agent A, if placed in circumstances C, would freely choose option X over option Y. Therefore, if God wanted to bring about X, all God would do is, using His middle knowledge, actualize the world in which A was placed at C, and A would freely choose X. God retains an element of providence without nullifying A’s choice, and God’s purpose (the actualization of X) is accomplished.

This is a very profound insight into how God can accomplish His purposes without violating our free choices. God can get us to do what He wants us to do without causally determining us to do it.

I gave this explanation of what Molinism is again because there are many people who are not aware of it. Many Christians know about Arminianism and Calvinism, but Molinism seems to me to be the forgotten middle child of the soteriological family. Maybe that is not an accurate perception, but I think it is one I have because the name is not mentioned very commonly in debates about soteriology. It is usually presented as “Arminianism vs Calvinism” rather than “Arminianism, Molinism or Calvinism.” Maybe it is because Molinism is so similar to Arminianism that the two are mixed together. But in any case, even though I have already explained what Molinism is in a previous blog post, I wanted to do it again for those who are new to the perspective and/or have not read my previous post about it.

Anyway, since God can get us to do something freely by placing us in a set of circumstances, this presents a question.

Couldn’t God simply put everyone in circumstances where they would believe and be saved?

There is no single Molinist answer to this question. There are several. One answer is called Transworld Damnation, in which God saves all who would freely respond to his grace in any circumstance. The corollary of this is that all those lost would be lost no matter what set of circumstances God put them in or no matter what grace God provided. In Transworld Damnation, the answer is “no”—God could not have arranged things in such a way that everyone would end up saved, because some would freely not believe. I, however, find this view extraordinarily implausible. Do you expect me to believe that there is no circumstance, no world that God could actualize in which Christopher Hitchens would become a born-again Christian and be saved? Is there no circumstance in which God could put Caiaphas in which he would plead for Jesus and not Barabbas? Was Judas Iscariot destined for hell in any world that God actualized? I find this view to be stretching the boundaries of plausibility quite a bit. I mean, I suppose it’s possible that this is the case for some individuals . There are certain things that each of us would never do under any circumstances. But to say that this is the case for all the unsaved is a little hard to swallow.

Here is my perspective: Even though God desires all human beings to be saved and Jesus died for all, I do not think there is any world that God can actualize with as many people as this one has where every individual chooses to repent. It may well be the case that God cannot put every individual in just the right circumstances where God knows that if they were put in those circumstances, they would freely choose to repent and be saved. It may be impossible to produce every one of these circumstances in a single world. So while I believe that God desires that none should perish, it may not be possible to produce every circumstance in which God knows would stimulate a free response from all. It may even be the case that some circumstance in which one person is saved is a circumstance in which someone else is lost. For example, I read an article recently written by someone who said that it was through reading Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion that he decided to convert to the Christian faith. Why? It was because he said that the arguments against God and for atheism were so shoddy, so bad, that he concluded that atheism was indefensible. This prompted him to read works in favor of Christianity to see what they had to say about these issues, and that was enough to convince him that atheism is a sham. Now, what if this world is one in which Richard Dawkins became a Christian, say, at the age of 17? If that were the case, then he would never have written The God Delusion . And if that were the case, this person would never have read it and concluded that atheism is indefensible and that theism was a welcome alternative.

In this case, if Dawkins were saved, this other fellow might not have been. If this fellow were saved, it may be the case that this world is one where Dawkins is never saved.

So it could well be the case that no matter what world God chooses to create, there will be circumstances in which God knows that people will freely reject Him, while some will repent.

However, since we have libertarian free will, and our circumstances do not causally determine us to do what we do, no human being has any excuse for not repenting. All can be saved. People can act differently in the situations in which they are placed. God simply knows that they will not act differently. It is a would/would not situation and not a can/cannot situation. So no man can stand before God on the day of judgment and say, “If only you had put me in a particular situation, then I would have repented. But because you did not put me in that particular situation, I did not repent, and now here I stand before you condemned. So it is all your fault, God.” God will say, “No, you had the freedom to choose me or reject me. It was possible for you to do either no matter what situation I placed you in.” God gives prevenient and resistible grace to every individual (as Jesus said in John 12:32). This overcomes his inability to come to Him, mentioned by Jesus in John 6:44 and John 6:65, So even though there may be a possible world where Richard Dawkins is a born-again Christian, it is entirely possible for him to be [born again] in any world God actualizes, It is up to him whether he is or not.

In summary , I just said above that a) God wants all people to be saved; b) God has given man libertarian free will; c) even though God has put us in circumstances where He knows how we will act, there is a possibility to do otherwise. It’s not that I couldn’t reject Christ in the situation God put me in. It’s that God knew I wouldn’t; d) God gives prevenient and resistible grace to every human being so that their salvation would at least be possible; e) Whatever world God actualizes where man has free will in the libertarian sense, He cannot guarantee that every individual will accept Christ as their Savior.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith ( www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com ). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has participated in several debates which can be viewed in the “My Debates” section of Cerebral Faith. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

[Original English blog not available]

Translated by Raul Jaramillo de Lira

/by