Salvation and eternal destiny trilemma

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone, 2 that he can do anything, and 3 that eternal punishment awaits those who persist in wickedness instead of accepting salvation.
There is some tension between these points, which Christians have tried to solve in three ways.
1. Weaken the third; universalism--God will eventually save everyone. The Greek word for eternal is where we get our word 'eon' which is how long it'll take for some of the worst to be saved.
2. Weaken the second; Arminianism--perhaps its not logically possible for God to save everyone, since it depends on wills, and it is by definition impossible to force someone to freely will something.
3. Weaken the first; Calvinism-- God doesn't want to save everyone as much as he wants to demonstrate his justice or otherwise glorify himself.

This is the order of their appeal to me, and also the order of how much they glorify God. Sending people to hell doesn't make God look good any more than smushing an ant that crosses the sidewalk makes a grown man look strong. Universalism does glorify God: the amount of love, patience, and wisdom he would display in saving everyone over the span of ages is wonderful. As a Molinist, I'm not convinced of #2, though it seems to be what kept C S Lewis from being a universalist. It is possible that universalism is too close to making this a 'toy world' where our choices' consequences are limited and thus lack as much significance. A world of greatest significance might bring more glory to God and value to us, but I doubt it; an eon of consequences for our choices seems enough. Anyway I trust God will do what is best.
 

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
I think that part of the problem is that most men tend to equate what seems good to them with what must seem good to God. Thus, they tend to create a "God" in their imaginations, and then impose that view onto the Scriptures they read. That's where Universalism come from.

There are problems with an over-emphasis on free will and unresolvable contradictions within the view.

What Calvinism IS and how it has been perceived, are worlds apart. As a generalization, those who are the most vocally opposed to it are usually found to be the least knowledgeable about it.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone, 2 that he can do anything, and 3 that eternal punishment awaits those who persist in wickedness instead of accepting salvation.
There is some tension between these points, which Christians have tried to solve in three ways.
1. Weaken the third; universalism--God will eventually save everyone. The Greek word for eternal is where we get our word 'eon' which is how long it'll take for some of the worst to be saved.
2. Weaken the second; Arminianism--perhaps its not logically possible for God to save everyone, since it depends on wills, and it is by definition impossible to force someone to freely will something.
3. Weaken the first; Calvinism-- God doesn't want to save everyone as much as he wants to demonstrate his justice or otherwise glorify himself.

This is the order of their appeal to me, and also the order of how much they glorify God. Sending people to hell doesn't make God look good any more than smushing an ant that crosses the sidewalk makes a grown man look strong. Universalism does glorify God: the amount of love, patience, and wisdom he would display in saving everyone over the span of ages is wonderful. As a Molinist, I'm not convinced of #2, though it seems to be what kept C S Lewis from being a universalist. It is possible that universalism is too close to making this a 'toy world' where our choices' consequences are limited and thus lack as much significance. A world of greatest significance might bring more glory to God and value to us, but I doubt it; an eon of consequences for our choices seems enough. Anyway I trust God will do what is best.

Hello and good evening -

Very interesting - if you truly believe that the Bible teaches that God can do anything I am curious to know why you would be a molinist which clearly teaches that God is constrained by something other than himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone, 2 that he can do anything, and 3 that eternal punishment awaits those who persist in wickedness instead of accepting salvation.
There is some tension between these points, which Christians have tried to solve in three ways.
1. Weaken the third; universalism--God will eventually save everyone. The Greek word for eternal is where we get our word 'eon' which is how long it'll take for some of the worst to be saved.
2. Weaken the second; Arminianism--perhaps its not logically possible for God to save everyone, since it depends on wills, and it is by definition impossible to force someone to freely will something.
3. Weaken the first; Calvinism-- God doesn't want to save everyone as much as he wants to demonstrate his justice or otherwise glorify himself.

This is the order of their appeal to me, and also the order of how much they glorify God. Sending people to hell doesn't make God look good any more than smushing an ant that crosses the sidewalk makes a grown man look strong. Universalism does glorify God: the amount of love, patience, and wisdom he would display in saving everyone over the span of ages is wonderful. As a Molinist, I'm not convinced of #2, though it seems to be what kept C S Lewis from being a universalist. It is possible that universalism is too close to making this a 'toy world' where our choices' consequences are limited and thus lack as much significance. A world of greatest significance might bring more glory to God and value to us, but I doubt it; an eon of consequences for our choices seems enough. Anyway I trust God will do what is best.

When the Bible addresses feats that man sees as impossible and says: “It is not impossible for God”, that does not mean God can do that which cannot be done.

There are lots of things which things that by definition cannot be done like: having God make something that has always existed, since if it has always existed it was not made and if it was made then it did not always exist. God could not “make” another Christ since Christ has always existed.

If God makes the choice for a person than the choice is not the autonomous free will choice of the individual, but it is solely God’s choice. Man must have the very little sovereign free will choice to accept or reject God’s charity in the form of forgiveness in order to Love with Godly type Love (to be like God Himself). God is powerful enough and Loving enough to grant all mature adults this small degree of sovereignty, so man can truly become like He is (in Love).
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hello and good evening -

Very interesting - if you truly believe that the Bible teaches that God can do anything I am curious to know why you would be a molinist which clearly teaches that God is constrained by something other than himself.
I've been curious for some time as to how Calvinists view Molinism. Can you explain how molinism constrains God?
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think that part of the problem is that most men tend to equate what seems good to them with what must seem good to God. Thus, they tend to create a "God" in their imaginations, and then impose that view onto the Scriptures they read. That's where Universalism come from.

There are problems with an over-emphasis on free will and unresolvable contradictions within the view.

What Calvinism IS and how it has been perceived, are worlds apart. As a generalization, those who are the most vocally opposed to it are usually found to be the least knowledgeable about it.
I've put a lot of effort into understanding Calvinism, and was raised with it, but maybe it's impossible to fully understand it. My objections to it are more a matter of emphasis than of points of doctrine, though I do object to any doctrine that contradicts Scripture so thoroughly as limited atonement does. There's got to be a reason the apostles so frequently say things like 'Christ died for all.'

I'm not sure universalists are making a god in their own image, when Scripture says God doesn't want any to perish, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rather, they deduce more from God's character as revealed in the Bible, and skim past other verses that talk about eternal punishmment; in Matthew and Revelation. (are those the only books that mention eternal punishment?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dms1972
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I've been curious for some time as to how Calvinists view Molinism. Can you explain how molinism constrains God?
Although I hate to saddle myself with another title - it seems that my particular view concerning predestination and free will pretty much puts me in the Molinism camp as well.

I've even been told by stanch Calvinists that I'm not even "Reformed" because of my Molinist leanings (as well as my stance against limited atonement as often taught by 5 pointers).

I'd like to have the same question answered by a Calvinist as well.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married

Start at about 10:30
Thank you for the link.

That's a good discussion and very well presented.

I see where you are coming from with your statement.

I won't enter into a lengthy debate about all of the points any particular Molinist might believe and teach.

Variables can occur within every camp of theology or philosophy including what we call Calvinism. This could really get involved and I don't think we want it to go into the weeds as it were. That's not the purpose of the OP as I understand it.

I will say though, in a general sense, that where the teacher in the video goes wrong, IMO at least, is in thinking of these "counter-factuals" as being outside of God Himself.

I would think that most people like myself who lean toward Molinism would say that they like all bits of knowledge are in God's mind and not external to Him. He has always known them just as clearly as He knows anything else in Himself because He is the source of all knowledge.

All knowledge includes all possibilities as well as the things that we see actually playing out in our world as realities because of God's chosen actions.

Again - they are not externals, as it were, which would be constraining God from outside of Himself. They are internals in His omniscient mind that are used to fashion His decisions concerning what He will actually do of His own free will.

All wisdom and all knowledge are part of His nature. God is "constrained" constantly by His nature. He cannot deny Himself.

He cannot create a rock too big to lift for the reason, among several others, that it would be unwise for Him to do that.

If He is constrained in His decision making "processes" it is because wisdom (part of His nature) requires that He consider these other possibilities which He has always known.

I hope that makes sense.

Again though - good link and an interesting discussion.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
I've put a lot of effort into understanding Calvinism, and was raised with it, but maybe it's impossible to fully understand it. My objections to it are more a matter of emphasis than of points of doctrine, though I do object to any doctrine that contradicts Scripture so thoroughly as limited atonement does. There's got to be a reason the apostles so frequently say things like 'Christ died for all.'

Personally, I think that the term "Limited Atonement" is a very poor choice of terms. It is often interpreted as Christ did not die for every individual, but then, one must define exactly what it means that "Christ died for everyone". In what sense, and for what purpose? What did Christ's death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection accomplish? If we're not clear on these points, then we wind up talking past each other, and vilifying those who don't seem to align with our definitions of these things.

But I digress. The "L" was convenient for the acronym (TULIP), but it causes more confusion than it resolves. In my view, the Atonement is limited only in its final result, i.e. obviously not all people are saved. That would be more in line with saying that it is limited in its application. The Atonement of Christ is of infinite value, efficacious many times over, and more than enough to save all of mankind. But obviously it doesn't. The reason for that lies outside of the Atonement itself.

I'm not sure universalists are making a god in their own image, when Scripture says God doesn't want any to perish, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rather, they deduce more from God's character as revealed in the Bible, and skim past other verses that talk about eternal punishmment; in Matthew and Revelation. (are those the only books that mention eternal punishment?)

To the extent that anyone ignores certain aspects of the revealed Word of God, to that extent they have molded God into an image that makes them more comfortable. The oft repeated "God doesn't want anyone to perish" is a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:9, lifting it out of its context of who Peter was writing to, and what the concern he was addressing was (and is). As a stand-alone verse, it seems to clearly state one thing, but when it is taken in its context, it does not say what it seems to say, taken alone.

It's unfortunate that so many seem to view the Bible as a collection of stand-alone verses, each to be taken as full theological statements, and assembled in any way one desires. That has led to much bad theology, because one can make the Bible say nearly anything they want, based on how they assemble those "stand-alone theological statements". e.g. "Judas hanged himself". "Go thou and do likewise". What thou doest, do quickly". I think any serious Christian would look at that and agree that such a use of the Scriptures constitutes egregious misuse.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The guy on the youtube clip said you'll never come to molinism by the consistent utilization of the same hermeneutics used to established the trinity, etc. I know from experience that this is totally false. The trinity is established by examining the various relevant scriptures and choosing the interpretation that best fits all of them. That is exactly how I arrived at molinism, which I did years before I knew there was such a thing. Calvinists and Arminians each have verses that make them uncomfortable, that they explain away or avoid. Molinists are comfortable with both sets of verses.
Calvinists are excessively worried about limiting God. The fact is it doesn't reduce God's sovereignty or majesty that he can't make a square circle, an irresistible cannonball and immovable post together, or that he cannot lie or be tempted by evil. Molinism doesn't put any constraints on God greater than those.

I disagree with the caller on the youtube clip who said its bad to theorize about God because he is not analogous to us, etc. We should be humble with our reasonings, knowing there is much we cannot know about God's nature, but to refuse to reason on such things I think goes against Peter's words, "Always be ready to give a reason..." Reason is effective in witnessing, while dogmatic assertions rejecting successful harmonizations of apparent contradictions is not.
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Personally, I think that the term "Limited Atonement" is a very poor choice of terms. It is often interpreted as Christ did not die for every individual, but then, one must define exactly what it means that "Christ died for everyone". In what sense, and for what purpose? What did Christ's death on the cross, His burial, and His resurrection accomplish? If we're not clear on these points, then we wind up talking past each other, and vilifying those who don't seem to align with our definitions of these things.

But I digress. The "L" was convenient for the acronym (TULIP), but it causes more confusion than it resolves. In my view, the Atonement is limited only in its final result, i.e. obviously not all people are saved. That would be more in line with saying that it is limited in its application. The Atonement of Christ is of infinite value, efficacious many times over, and more than enough to save all of mankind. But obviously it doesn't. The reason for that lies outside of the Atonement itself.



To the extent that anyone ignores certain aspects of the revealed Word of God, to that extent they have molded God into an image that makes them more comfortable. The oft repeated "God doesn't want anyone to perish" is a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:9, lifting it out of its context of who Peter was writing to, and what the concern he was addressing was (and is). As a stand-alone verse, it seems to clearly state one thing, but when it is taken in its context, it does not say what it seems to say, taken alone.

It's unfortunate that so many seem to view the Bible as a collection of stand-alone verses, each to be taken as full theological statements, and assembled in any way one desires. That has led to much bad theology, because one can make the Bible say nearly anything they want, based on how they assemble those "stand-alone theological statements". e.g. "Judas hanged himself". "Go thou and do likewise". What thou doest, do quickly". I think any serious Christian would look at that and agree that such a use of the Scriptures constitutes egregious misuse.
I'd say every Christian besides universalists would agree with your understanding of 'limited atonement'. So its not unique to Calvinism and not worth mentioning in that context. Emphasizing the particularity of the atonement emphasizes God's sovereignty at the expense of his love, which is not the ratio of emphasis the Bible makes. Consider that Jesus said, "he who has seen me has seen the Father." Which of these attributes did Jesus exhibit more of on earth?

i am aware of the contexts of the verses in II Peter and I Timothy, and I don't think either of them reduce the force of the statements, rather both show God's choices being affected by that desire.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
.................................. established by examining the various relevant scriptures and choosing the interpretation that best fits all of them. That is exactly how I arrived at molinism, which I did years before I knew there was such a thing. Calvinists and Arminians each have verses that make them uncomfortable, that they explain away or avoid. Molinists are comfortable with both sets of verses
I pretty much arrived where I am by the same method as you.

I generally fell into the Calvinist camp. But I had trouble with a few concepts that they usually espoused.

I agreed with much of what the free willies espoused also. But I had trouble with their seeming to almost leave out the sovereinty of God.

I learned that the truth was a little bit of both side's doctrine.

Many people feel that they need to choose one side or the other. When the proper way is to try to harmonize the two viewpoints.

I find myself generally in the Reformed camp - but incorporating free will doctrine into my beliefs as well.

The result is something along the lines of what most see as Molinism.
 
Upvote 0

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I pretty much arrived where I am by the same method as you.

I generally fell into the Calvinist camp. But I had trouble with a few concepts that they usually espoused.

I agreed with much of what the free willies espoused also. But I had trouble with their seeming to almost leave out the sovereinty of God.

I learned that the truth was a little bit of both side's doctrine.

Many people feel that they need to choose one side or the other. When the proper way is to try to harmonize the two viewpoints.

I find myself generally in the Reformed camp - but incorporating free will doctrine into my beliefs as well.

The result is something along the lines of what most see as Molinism.
I agree. Molinism is an exciting idea to me, since it seems to have good potential to reconcile the debate between sovereignty and free will, which would increase the unity of the church and its witness.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible teaches that 1 God wants to save everyone, 2 that he can do anything, and 3 that eternal punishment awaits those who persist in wickedness instead of accepting salvation.
There is some tension between these points, which Christians have tried to solve in three ways.
1. Weaken the third; universalism--God will eventually save everyone. The Greek word for eternal is where we get our word 'eon' which is how long it'll take for some of the worst to be saved.
2. Weaken the second; Arminianism--perhaps its not logically possible for God to save everyone, since it depends on wills, and it is by definition impossible to force someone to freely will something.
3. Weaken the first; Calvinism-- God doesn't want to save everyone as much as he wants to demonstrate his justice or otherwise glorify himself.

This is the order of their appeal to me, and also the order of how much they glorify God. Sending people to hell doesn't make God look good any more than smushing an ant that crosses the sidewalk makes a grown man look strong. Universalism does glorify God: the amount of love, patience, and wisdom he would display in saving everyone over the span of ages is wonderful. As a Molinist, I'm not convinced of #2, though it seems to be what kept C S Lewis from being a universalist. It is possible that universalism is too close to making this a 'toy world' where our choices' consequences are limited and thus lack as much significance. A world of greatest significance might bring more glory to God and value to us, but I doubt it; an eon of consequences for our choices seems enough. Anyway I trust God will do what is best.

I'm not sure that 2 is Biblical and I would submit that 3 is not Biblical.
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree. Molinism is an exciting idea to me, since it seems to have good potential to reconcile the debate between sovereignty and free will, which would increase the unity of the church and its witness.

What is there to reconcile between sovereignty and free will?
 
Upvote 0

Butch5

Newbie
Supporter
Apr 7, 2012
8,932
767
62
Homer Georgia
Visit site
✟308,497.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why be disingenuous?

You know exactly what he means by that.

Why don't you just go ahead and lay out your viewpoint with out playing games?

Why do you think I'm being disingenuous? I know what I think he means, however, I don't presume to read his mind. I find it much better for the conversation to let the other person express what they mean rather than addressing what I think they mean and being wrong. Some people don't like when you presume to know what they mean and they get angry when you do. I learned that from experience and as such would rather let him express his position in his own words.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why do you think I'm being disingenuous? I know what I think he means, however, I don't presume to read his mind. I find it much better for the conversation to let the other person express what they mean rather than addressing what I think they mean and being wrong. Some people don't like when you presume to know what they mean and they get angry when you do. I learned that from experience and as such would rather let him express his position in his own words.
Obviously, I mean the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism, who emphasize sovereignty and free will, respectively.
Molinism is a straightforward inference from the verse: "whom He foreknew, he also predestinated." Calvinism minimizes the foreknowing, (since the predestination is not influenced by any thing which was foreknown), and Arminianism minimizes the predestination (seeing it as just an extension or result of the foreknowing). Molinism gives significance to each and demonstrates the connection between each. Scripture teaches that God has foreknowledge of possibilities, and that he accomplishes his will. Molinism is simply a development of those facts.
 
Upvote 0