I want to make an argument against Arminianism based on an internal failure in the Arminian predestination scheme.
My argument, in a word:
- “The Arminian position on predestination is inescapably Calvinist (more or less).
- So the only option is to accept open theism or Calvinism?.
In the sixteenth century, the Catholic and Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina (1535-1600) proposed the idea of medium knowledge, later adopted (but modified) by Jacob Armono (1560-1609).
This position became known as Molinism, could it be?Molina’s average knowledge refers to freedom of choice, not predestination; Later, the Arminians diverted Molina’s intermediate knowledge for his personal benefit, that is, Molina is not the villain we assume, which puts the Arminians in a precarious position to be a little innovative. .
Generally, the Arminians argue that God might know, before choosing individuals, what a number of human beings, who are free, would do under certain circumstances, that is, God knows what will happen and what might happen under certain conditions.
Therefore, for armenian, God chooses according to his “average knowledge that some people will respond favorably to the gospel in specific circumstances. God does not choose independently and unconditionally in Christ, but “reacts to the choice of a finite being, whom he knew beforehand He chooses based on a future condition (choice).
If God’s prescience depends on future conditions, we must ask ourselves if he is ignorant in any sense (hence “open theism”), but this is an issue for another time.
In the Arminian scheme, God?occur in a purely conditional world. In this diagram, God knows the conditions conditionally.
In short, Arminianism introduces a different category, in which human decision-making becomes the causal factor that determines the event, it is a form of semi-history.
However, there is a flaw that I would like to draw attention to in this scheme, and a flaw I had never seen proposed before. Someone may have done it, but I haven’t read that particular argument yet.
First, we all agree that God is aware of all possible worlds; their knowledge is not limited to one world, but to all possible worlds in which there are an infinite number of possibilities (for example, there are no dogs in a given world). ).
Due to his absolute freedom, God was not forced to create this particular world in which we live. Theoretically, he could have created a particular different world based on his knowledge of an infinite number of other possible worlds.
By choosing on the basis of a future condition, God chooses on the basis of a certain possible world that He then chooses to make exist. Therefore, this world in which we live.
In this world (i. e. a possible world A), choose the ‘person x’ based on the predicted faith.
But in this very world, he did not choose “anyone there” because faith was not foreeseed.
Person x is predestined to eternal life, but the person is not. All because person x believed (for the freedom of his will) based on a conditional future.
However, in another possible world (i. e. the possible world B), ‘no one there’ believes, while ‘not x’ does not.
We have to ask ourselves the following question
Why did God choose to make the world possible A exist, but not the possible world B?
He chose it that way, says the Calvinist, because of his free and sovereign decision to create the possible world A, but not the possible world B. But the Armenian must grant that God thus chooses a world in which some believe and others do not, when he could having chosen a different world in which the results would have been different. In the end, the choice is always God’s choice.
Could God have made world B possible?Of course, the fact that it does not give existence to the possible world B shows that, therefore, it chooses ‘person x’ and not ‘person y’ because it could have created a different possible world (possible world B) where the person would be saved.
In the end, for armenian, God always chooses. Choose a world in which some have predicted faith and others have not, when in fact you could have chosen to create a different world in which different people would be saved. The Arminian cannot escape the sovereign election. In a sense, Armenian remains a Calvinist, albeit an “anonymous Calvinist. “
Of course, average knowledge is foolish. He is semi-Catholic, gives himself to the god of human freedom and makes God a servant of men, but even when this is done, the Armenian cannot escape a form of Calvinism where, ultimately, God chooses according to his sovereign choice. Therefore, it is not surprising that so many Armenians have become socinians or open theists. Or turn to Leibniz and argue that God chose this world because He is the best of all possible worlds.