Joe,
In agreement with you, Marie and Dave on this. Unless Mr. Pratt is being quite careless in his use of the terms
wait and
react, I find it very difficult to see how he would not have to defend against at least a mild form of Molinism. After the opening to which Wes referred, which is quite orthodox, he seems compelled to account for "contingency" by having God "wait and react". How can that be reconciled with WCF 2.2:
In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.
More importantly, how can it be reconciled with the Scriptures. I can't remember who makes the point--Owen, maybe--but the resolution of "non-fulfilled threats/promises" can only, and must always, be resolved by saying that
God uses those very threats/promises as means to accomplish his most holy, determinate will in the lives of people. Mr. Pratt seems to dismiss this premise at the outset, and ends up with God needing to make contingent responses to his creation. He implies that the Lord's return may have been delayed by the Church
. I thought the Father
knows the day and hour. Are we now to think that he also may in fact be merely
waiting to find out, based on how his Church is doing ????
Joe, was there ever any substantive response to this article from RTS or elsewhere?
