E= Exclusivism
C= Calvinism
U= Universalism
1. E (assumption for reductio).
2. E -> C (the argument of the Triabloggers).
3. C -> U (Johnny-Dee's argument).
4. E -> U (chain argument).
5. E -> ~U (true by definition)
6. E -> (U ^ ~U) 4, 5
7. ~ E
But of course for this argument to work premise 2 has to get around Craig's argument to the contrary, based on Molinism.
1 comment:
Well, Calvinism is more than only a doctrine of Sovereignty, so I wouldn't say C -> U. But his argument could be restated along the lines of:
P1. God is infallible (ultimately shall not fail in His purposes)
P2. God desires for all people to be saved.
C1. God will eventually succeed in saving everyone (from P1, P2)
Solidly establishing the premises would be the challenge, of course. (Including tacit positions prior to the premises.)
But, assuming those premises were established (for purposes of argument), the first (though probably not last) revision of the argument to 7. ~ E, could be:
1. E (assumption for testing)
2. E -> C (argument of Triabloggers)
3. C -> I (where I = Infallibility of God)
4. C -> S (where S = God's desire that all shall be saved, a position which _is_ typically admitted by Calvinists, since it's stated fairly clearly in scripture; after which they work to find some way around it, since the opposite also seems stated fairly clearly in scripture.)
5. I + S -> U
6. E -> U (by chain)
7. E -> ~U (by common definition; note the qualification there, though)
8. E -> (U ^ ~U) 6, 7
9. ~E
(2) could be challenged by Molinism advocates, but I am somewhat doubtful this would involve repudiation of (3) (unless WLC has become an open theist, which would surprise me), much moreso a repudiation of (4).
Jason Pratt
Post a Comment