Quote:
Originally Posted by Spear Dane  Can the Human Will be both compelled and voluntary simultaneously? This objection was raised by the Thomist Peter Kreeft. To Kreeft's credit, it was done in a thoughtful and irenic spirit, which is often lacking today. He considers the "compulsion by God" aspect to be a fundamental premise to Calvinism. He then attempts a rebuttal: Quote: |
What it forgets is that grace, however infinitely powerful, deals with nature according to its nature, and that even divine omnipotence does not extend to logical contradictions such as a human will being simultaneously voluntary (uncompelled) and compelled (involuntary).
| Peter Kreeft, Summa of the Summa, 401 note 101.
[quote[
While I only came across his argument briefly, I will note a few responses from the top of my head:
1. Might not there be other alternatives to viewing the will other than the voluntary vs. involuntary dichotomy? |
You are correct, he misses the boat here. Why accept this disjuction?
Quote:
|
2. Does Calvinism really maintain that way of formulating the issue?
|
No--at least *thoughtful* Calvinists don't.
Quote:
|
3. Is the nature/grace dichotomy essential to this formulation? If so, then would a rebuttal of Thomism's nature/grace constitute a rebuttal of this critique?
|
What do you mean by "this formulation"? Do you mean: "He considers the "compulsion by God" aspect to be a fundamental premise to Calvinism"? If so, then there is no need of a rebuttal of Thomism--just a clear definition of Calvinism should be fine.
Quote:
|
4. Given that many forms of Calvinism seek to preserve the genuine moral choice component of the will, does this really critique Calvinism at all? Isn't this more of a critique of behaviorism and hard determinism? In that case, the Calvinist agrees with the critique!
|
Doesn't critique Calvinism at all. It sound like a critique of a straw man, even of behaviorism or hard determinism--no one explicity hold to a contradiction.
(NOTE: I am only responding to what Jacob has written or quoted in *this* thread. I have not read the rest of the work by Kreeft, so I cannot say whether or not Kreefts "critique" is what he thinks Calvinists *actually* believe, or merely what he sees to be a *consequent* of Calvinsit beliefs. (I have a suspicion it is the latter, but I don't know).)