Dan Chapa

Geocities is kaput. Sadly , I was unaware they were shutting down the site and don't have backups to all the files out I had out there. For the stuff I do have, I will try to reformat them and run them through this site. I the mean time I apologize for any dead links.

Having identified the core grounding objection as 'how can counterfactual statements about a persons libertarian free will be true, given they do not actually make the choices in the real world?', we are now in a position to address it. In the first place, I am inclined to follow Job and proclaim if it is not he [God], then who is it? (Job 9:24). In other words God must in some ultimate sense ground middle knowledge; enabling counterfactual statements to be true. The chain has to start somewhere. God has libertarian free will; He can create multiple worlds but He actually created one. Given His omnipotence; I see no reason why He could not create multiple universes in multiple dimensions. God is distinct from His creation; He is not His creation. Further, God is distinct from possible creations. What we can do flows from what He can enable us to do. Middle knowledge corresponds to what we would choose, if God created multiple worlds or a different world than the one He did crea

In Dave Hunt's article, Why Simple Foreknowledge is Still Useful, Hunt argues that God uses simple foreknowledge providentially. His primary case is a rock, paper scissors example: The lynchpin of my argument was a counterexample, developed at length and with great care. It involved a version of rock-paper-scissors played between God and Satan. In this version God first declares rock, paper, or scissors, but only mentally, without revealing it; Satan then makes a libertarian free decision to declare rock, paper, or scissors; finally, God reveals what he declared. I claimed that the open theist God, who lacks simple foreknowledge, might well lose this game: victory is not guaranteed. (No open theist would dispute this claim.) But it is equally clear that a God endowed with simple foreknowledge can always make the right declaration of rock, paper, or scissors, based on his foreknowledge of what Satan will freely declare. So if God's objective is to win this game against Satan,

The grounding objection is kinda muddy because of many surrounding issues . My hope is that by parsing the grounding objection from the associated issues, we can see and understand it more clearly. It's a well known rhetorical device that the combination of arguments is more persuasive than the arguments presented individually. However, the arguments should be understood separately and the rhetorical persuasiveness of the combination does not increase the logical soundness of the arguments by themselves or in combination. In parsing the grounding objection from associated issues, I do not in any way mean to deny non-Molinists the right to divide up the grounding objection into their own 'grounding objectionlets'. Indeed, cataloging and comparing variations on the grounding objection may well be an enlightening exercise. But from what I have seen, grounding objections share a common thread, a core, and it's the core that I would like to highlight. The grounding objection

The scriptures teach God's providence and man's choice. Molinism reconciles the two cleanly. In explaining scripture, Calvinism has to 'explain away' man's freedom and Simple Foreknowledge has to explain away God's providence. Consider Acts 4:28 and Matthew 23:37 : Acts 4:27-28 - “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. Calvinist - God planned the events leading up to Christ's crucifixion Molinist - God planned the events leading up to Christ's crucifixion Simple Foreknowledge - Only the crucifixion was planned, not the events leading up to it. Mt 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not wil

I had previously listened to James White's refutation of Molinism on the dividing line, but I just had a chance to listen to the full presentation on youtube . For the most part, it's the same information, with one exception that caught my attention. In the dividing line presentation, James White argued that Molininism conflicts with man freewill. However, the youtube clip (around 35 min. in) James While claims Calvinism provides greater freedom than Molinism; that Molinism makes man robots and Calvinism does not. A cell phone goes off right in the middle of Dr. White's speech. He makes a joke about it, then asks if he had to make that joke and claims he could have chosen not to. He then argues that in Molinism, such an ability is a problem. I wonder if Dr. White believes he was actually able to have chosen not to make that joke. That would be inconsistent with his causal determinism - the idea that our actions are casually necessary and cannot be otherwise. Given Go

Turretinfan says yes. Wes Widner states: "Middle Knowledge (and William Lane Craig in particular) does not teach that God's sovereignty is trumped or determined by man's free will or by God's Middle Knowledge of man's free will." Yes, it does. Consider Craig's claim: What I am simply saying is that God's aims in this life, in this world, are for a maximum number of people to come to know God and His salvation as fully as possible. And it is possible that that would not be achieved in a world that did not involve as much suffering and evil as this world does. Far from being counter-intuitive, I find that very plausible.( source ) That's at least a conditional trumping claim. There's no claim that God is required to create, but if he does, and if he creates free will beings, and if he wishes to save the maximum number of people (as Craig insists), he is restricted to actualizing worlds in which their is suffering and evil on account of the free w

Richard Watson's article on Omniscience (a part of his systematic theology) discusses God's knowledge and foreknowledge . Watson starts out by providing the scriptural passages indicating that God's knowledge is infinite. He then provides arguments from reason supporting God's infinite knowledge; namely, from God's being the First Cause, from His wisdom displayed in His works and finally from Greek philosophers who conclude God is omniscient based on the light of nature and express themselves well, so long as they expressed themselves generally, on this subject. Next Watson takes on the idea that God does not know our future choices; either because He doesn't choose to or because such foreknowledge implies a contradiction. Watson destroys this idea with scripture on prophecies of future choices and demonstrates what damage this does to God's providence. Then Watson reconciles God's foreknowledge with human freedom by pointing out the difference

Turretinfan responded to my comments on Acts 13:48: However, Dan unfortunately seems to have misunderstood how the timing is indicated by the context. In this case, the reference timing is the time when the Gentiles, heard the gospel message, were glad, glorified the word of the Lord, and believed. The pluperfect indicates an action that was "past" with respect to those events. That means that the ordaining was done before hearing, the being glad, the glorifying, and the believing. That does not necessarily specify when exactly the ordaining was done, which is a point that Dr. White tried to emphasize. If we only had this verse we could not say whether the ordaining had been done (notice my own use of the pluperfect) in eternity past, a week before the message was preached, or five minutes before the apostle spoke. ( link ) Emphasis mine. Acts 13:48 states: And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to e