Yes, it does. Ra - it has a broad range of meanings defined by context. For example, why did the NET, NASB, and NKJV translate this word as calamity instead of evil. The reason they did so is why I stated what I stated. There are a whole host of scholars who agree. More will be said a few paragraphs down…RickD wrote:...Is the only possible interpretation, "evil"? Does "ra", have any other meanings, besides evil?
What the liberty of the will is has been defined by Craig as …”the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin,” as he defined below. Since he mentions it, we can be certain that is what he means by the use of libertarian free will as posted in WC sec III. That is what I gather he means. On the other hand, I see how people think Craig means by libertarian free will is that God is a slave to it as that sums up the classical definition of it. This does not appear to be the case in light of what He himself so stated quoted below: He sounds almost like you Danny!DannyM wrote:B.W., I think it is fair to say that Craig assumes the argument as a solution to a problem of his (and others’) own making. His premises and conclusion remain unproven. This is the whole problem. What is liberty? And how is it interacted with?B. W. wrote:Craig, I think is using molinsim to look into what comes first, and from what I read, I think his view is that they act together - you can’t have one without the other: You can’t predestine without foreknowing nor can you foreknow without predestining… The use of the term Middle Knowledge helps explore how this is possible, which leaves the integrity of God intact and helps gain a glimpse of the mystery.
Actually, I have no problem with certain classic statements of the Reformed view. For example, the Westminster Confession (Sect. III) declares that
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
Now this is precisely what the Molinist believes! The Confession affirms God’s preordination of everything that comes to pass as well as the liberty and contingency of the creaturely will, so that God is not the author of sin.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8111
Are you and Craig both looking at these matters from man’s perspective thinking its God’s as well? What I gather from Craig’s, philosopher speak, is that molinism helps one discover God’s perspective through the philosophic teacher to student and student to teacher method of inquiry. This loses lots of people. Craig appears one moment teacher learning from students in order to teach them a few moments later. He is basically stating that determinism ultimately makes God the author of all sin no matter how determinist tries to dress itself otherwise. He uses molinism's ‘three knowledge concept’ as a philosophic tool of logic to show that God is not the author of these things. His approach is different from mine and yours. Mine is far more direct and simple and avoids philosopher logic speak… Summed up as: God Knows fore He is all Wise in all His ways...DannyM wrote: In decreeing, God necessarily decrees all that will ever come to pass. Logically, God’s foreknowledge of x presupposes the necessity of x. If x will occur, then it is not the case that x might or might not occur. If God’s foreknowledge of x is not necessary, then it is contingent. No event can be foreknown unless it has by some physical or mental act been predetermined. What determines the certainty of future events is either the foreordination of the Father or some obscure act of fate. God is not a God of fate. If God had not foreordained the course of events but waited until some undetermined condition was or was not met, His decrees would be neither eternal nor immutable. So foreknowledge must presuppose foreordination.
The proposed would-counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which are said to be found within every conceivable world scenario, cannot be grounded in God’s free knowledge of His creative decree - God’s creative decree is logically subsequent to, not prior to, the would-counterfactuals being proposed here. Did God spend time in eternity deliberating on such matters? Did He move from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing?
If God foreknew that Bill would do x tomorrow, then Bill cannot do anything other than x. Therefore, Bill cannot do anything other than x tomorrow. This doesn’t restrict Bill in making his choice, but it does bring to bare the claim that Bill could freely choose to do otherwise. The ability to choose as we want is a sufficient condition for moral accountability. Why is liberty so utterly insufficient that Molinists must make unsubstantiated assertions saying we must be able to choose contrary to what we will in order to be morally responsible agents?
You see, none of these propositions make any sense, either logically or, more importantly, in light of what we know about the sovereign God of scripture….Ephesians 1:3-5 - 2 Timothy 1:8-9, Ephesians 3:7-11
Also, Danny, thank you for the scriptures – these are prime examples of what people mean by the danger of stringing verses together without any balance to other bible verses that share comparable context.( Hmmm, I wonder if people do this in order to justify personal interpretations of whatever Calvin/WC means by using the word Decree imposed to fit a certain worldview? I do not know as - so far no Calvinist seems able to define what Calvin means by the word Decree itself. So we may have to be unfair to Mr. Calvin and the WC - looks like we'll have to use the modern definition that Decree has currently evolved into too in order to go any further with what word means even though that may not be what it meant when Calvin mentions Decree...oh well, what can you do? )Back on topic... It is not wise to string verses unwisely together so that they are out of balanced with other bible verses sharing comparable context.
I’ll show you how, in fact, that Eph 1:3-5, 2 Timothy 1:8-9, and Eph 3:3-7 you cited are not balanced with the following verses which explains, or better said, helps uncover the order how God does things.
Proverbs 3:19 - The LORD by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens. NASB
Psalms 104:24 - O LORD, how many are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all; The earth is full of Your possessions. NASB
John 1:3 - All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. NASB
Now read this in Proverbs: Proverbs 8:12 - Proverbs 8:22-24 (Verse 22 most likely refers to the Godhead here possessing wisdom –first) - Proverbs 8:25-28 - Proverbs 8:29-31 - Proverbs 8:32-33 - Proverbs 8:34-36
It is through Wisdom – a wisdom that is described in Psalms 139:17-18 and Psalms 40:5, "Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders which You have done, And Your thoughts toward us; There is none to compare with You. If I would declare and speak of them, they would be too numerous to count." NASB
This Kind of wisdom God possesses denotes careful thoughtful deliberation of all things. For example, in Genesis chapter one – did God just speak without any forethought of wisdom about what he was doing?
The way you make is sound to me is that God planned without the forethought of wisdom being involved and God just blindly decreed without any thought to what he was doing. Very much like how the Kings did during the time of Calvin who issue forth a decree that all must obey or face severe harshness for not blindly obeying the Kings decree..
A person cannot take verses out of the balance with others. Yes, some tenants of Calvinism indeed do this as you aptly indirectly pointed out without intending to do so. So I ask in non- threatening levity Danny - Did God make you do that, or was that you? if you, then would not that invalidate the Westminster Confession where it states God predestines all things?
Lastly, For PL and Rick Regarding Isaiah 45
As for Isaiah 45:7 I gave ‘Ra’ the same translated meaning as the NET and NASB, and NKJV of calamity just as the translators did , is why I did for the same reasons they did. Ra is a word with a wide array of meanings.
In fact Isaiah 45:8 explains the reason why God shapes calamity - to bring forth His Salvation (Isaiah 45:21-22). In fact, the entire context of this chapter shares in common God’s well thought out wisdom soaked plan. That follows these three themes found in the bible.
One- God set the Stage (Genesis 1:31)
Two – God exposes what makes corrupt and why: (Genesis chapters two thru Revelation 19 Revelation 20)
Three - gets rid of all corruption for good, justly done:. (Revelation 20 Revelation 21 Revelation 22)
Isaiah 45:7 deals with number two – our current now…
Why does Isaiah 45:21-25 state what it says? When will it come about in fulfillment?
That is why God shapes/molds the calamity of RA to finally get rid of it in a most wise manner of justice that does no injustice to God himself – his character/nature, or to those whom he created as morally reasoning beings. God foreknowing, with all his wisdom involved, issues forth a call to humanity (Gen 3:9c) in order to engage humanity with a choice when before there was none open to them to return to him. Since God knows all, he even knows the final result that his engagement has on every person and from that justly can do with whomever, whenever, however He so see’s best to reach his goal mentioned in Revelation 21 and 22. That’s the summery of the message from Isaiah chapter Forty Five.
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Westminster Confession (Sect. III)
In my opinion, Craig should try to use the language of the common ordinary man/woman to express his views and terms when explaining things...