You did not chose Me, I chose you.

[Bible Highlighter]

While I think that it is possible to construe Arminianism as molinist in nature, and some scholars do, most scholars reject that notion and I have cited a couple examples below. Further Arminians argue that to use middle knowledge would be to determine people's actions (misunderstanding the false concept of fatalism qua middle knowledge).

I'm a former Arminian turned Molinist and find that while that Jacob Arminius seems to have been informed by Luis de Molina's work, he and modern Arminian scholars reject middle knowledge as a way that God fulfilled his creative activity and balanced his sovereign purpose with free agents.

See Roger Olsen's work here: Are Arminian Theology and Middle Knowledge Compatible?

Another scholar, Kirk MacGreggor (Molina scholar) suggests Arminius got Molina wrong is several areas:

"
He outlines four ways Molina found Arminius’s version of middle knowledge “incoherent” in light of his doctrine:

1. God’s decision to create the world was made before he knew whether this world would be worth creating, and whether anyone would have freely received Christ;
2. God lacked the freedom to create a world that didn’t feature the incarnation of Christ, which seemed to Molina a denial of God’s sovereignty;
3. Arminius’s version grounded middle knowledge on God’s decision to create free creatures and on the potential of these free creatures themselves, many of whom would never exist, undermining divine perfection;
4. Arminius claimed God decreed salvation for all who received Christ before apprehending his middle knowledge, which meant some individuals obligated God to save them"

For more see: 3 Misconceptions of One of the Most Unknown,… | Zondervan Academic

I agree that molinism has become (in the last 25 years) a big tent that blurs the lines of Calvinism and Arminianism. But I encourage those who have the capability intellectually to put the biblical data of God's sovereignty and Man's free will and examine the four inferences about those data with an eye to which view best explains the data.

If this is true, then I would be an Independent Free Will Libertarian. While I believe God can determine certain things like us having two eyes, one nose, and one mouth, and He can provide favorable conditions for us to be saved, that does not mean we are being forced to be saved in any way. Nudged? Yes. But we are not pushed or forced to be saved. So there is no determinism. Determinism is something that is forced that leads to the end result God wanted all along. God can direct our paths, and place us in situations where we do not want to be, but at the end of the day, we still have to decide to choose God or not of our own independent free will. Two men who are faced with the same set of circumstances can make two different decisions. Jonah still could have ran away from preaching to the Ninevites.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Nothing about if you sin you die. Sorry.

"The wages of sin is death." You mean like that?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So back to the question... how does Christ choose us? The text may not tell us.

The text does tell us. The entire message was given to the Apostles minus one, Judas. who He did not choose.
" I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."

 

[CharismaticLady]

And yet, while we were rebellious sinners and enemies of God, Christ died for us.

He died for the whole world.

This is essentially works-salvation which the Bible flatly and repeatedly denies (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5)

These are all about coming to Christ as a sinner. You don't have to get clean enough to come to the door.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Uber Genius

Do you believe that God determines salvation for a person in the fact that He can influence their free will (by outside circumstances) in some way whereby it was a choice that they did not want to make (or a choice that God desire them to make)? I am not sure how Middle Knowledge (or other possibilities plays into that). I think the point Jesus was bringing up about Middle Knowledge was to help show that God is sovereign, but in the end He cannot force a person to be saved. If the people at Sodom repented if they seen Christ's miracles would not have been a salvation that would have lasted or remained permanent. They would have fallen away. I do not believe God could have saved others for all eternity in some other universe and yet that did not happen in this one. For God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is love, and there is no darkness in God. He desires all to be saved. So if there were some group of believers saved in another alternate possible universe for all eternity, they would be saved in this one.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Ok, so I hear you saying OSAS is not really heresy, but what makes "it" so is the fact that antinomians take it out of its proper context and turn it into something wicked. This is what I get from your response.

However, let me take the statement you made in its proper context:
"I've seen people of the forums say their spirit is saved, but their flesh isn't."
If they are trying to use this idea to justify their sins, then I agree. However, this statement is true also in its proper context. Think about it - Paul wrote "the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness." And do we not also hope with perseverance for the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 8:23-25)? Does not the NT say that our bodies are yet to be redeemed? Therefore the flesh is not yet saved.

Chances are, if someone is antinomian, they are confused about how words are defined in the Bible. For example, they may confuse Paul's usage of the word "flesh" in various contexts with various meanings. Sometimes it means literal flesh, that is, the human body. Sometimes it means natural feelings. Sometimes it is used as a figure of speech meaning the sinful nature.

This very confusion was inherent in the initial translation of the NIV. If you investigate NIV texts earlier than about 1983, you can see it. I suspect the publishers corrected it because of complaints from respectable scholars.

So then, just to be clear, I'd like you to admit that the OSAS doctrine is not a heresy in and of itself, since this is what you appear to be saying in your responses. Since any truth at all can be taken out of context and misused, it is the misuse that is heresy, and not the truth itself. Do you agree?
TD

I can't, because that implies no free will. No willfully sinning and apostatize. You CAN'T lose your salvation no matter what you do. That is heresy.

 

[Hammster]

The distinction comes through regeneration in my belief. Which brings me back to the animal issue, we are all made in His image therefore we all have His love and equal chance to be in the Kingdom of God. If only a few humans in God's creation had the ability to choose Him, that would make the rest of His creation no better than the animals.
I fear we will go round and round on this as we have a different perspective on the matter. Be blessed!

The natural man cannot please God, so nobody in their natural state will choose Him. That’s why regeneration is necessary.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Uber Genius

We have to remember that Matthew 11:23 is not far from Matthew 13 that talks about the Parable of the Sower (Which talks about believers who can be saved for a time and then later fall away due to the cares of this life or in being ashamed and or afraid that they have to be persecuted for Christ).

 

[Hammster]

"The wages of sin is death." You mean like that?

No. The statement was in context of our discussion. I didn’t realize that needed spelling out.

 

[Hammster]

@Uber Genius

We have to remember that Matthew 11:23 is not far from Matthew 13 that talks about the Parable of the Sower (Which talks about believers who can be saved for a time and then later fall away due to the cares of this life or in being ashamed and or afraid that they have to be persecuted for Christ).

That’s not what it teaches because the evidence of true belief is bearing fruit.

 

[Uber Genius]

@Uber Genius

Do you believe that God determines salvation for a person in the fact that He can influence their free will (by outside circumstances) in some way whereby it was a choice that they did not want to make (or a choice that God desire them to make)? I am not sure how Middle Knowledge (or other possibilities plays into that). I think the point Jesus was bringing up about Middle Knowledge was to help show that God is sovereign, but in the end He cannot force a person to be saved. If the people at Sodom repented if they seen Christ's miracles would not have been a salvation that would have lasted or remained permanent. They would have fallen away. I do not believe God could have saved others for all eternity in some other universe and yet that did not happen in this one. For God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. God is love, and there is no darkness in God. He desires all to be saved. So if there were some group of believers saved in another alternate possible universe for all eternity, they would be saved in this one.

I'm not sure to what you are referring "Jesus talked about middle knowledge?" I wasn't aware of such a passage.

Secondly when a molinist talks about other possible worlds they are referring to potential worlds. These worlds are examined by God using his knowledge of what would happen if God placed free creatures in various circumstances. After examining a near infinite number of such hypothetical worlds to see which best accomplishes his will, he chooses one and actualizes it, creates that world. At that point, everything he saw with his middle knowledge would happen now will happen. That explains the predestermination and predestination passages.

But God is not the sole cause. He knows but doesn't cause sinful free choices. God's knowledge is logically posterior to our actions (our actions cause God's knowledge), even though his knowledge is chronologically prior to our actions.

So this view is attractive because it explains the thousands of references to humans making good choices to follow God's wisdom. Secondly, it explains the sovereignty of God in the midst of free agents, thirdly it accounts for God's allowing evil and suffering, fourthly it accounts for a Bible filled with stories of free agents lauded for their good choices, and filled with stories of those who opposed God's will like Luke 7:30, and who are shamed.

It avoids the incoherence of Calvinism and Open Theism.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not sure to what you are referring "Jesus talked about middle knowledge?" I wasn't aware of such a passage.

According to Gotquestions:

"Middle knowledge is a theological concept developed by Luis Molina and espoused by modern Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. Middle knowledge is the philosophical cornerstone supporting the theology of Molinism. In short, middle knowledge is God’s omniscient awareness of what “would” happen if certain circumstances were to occur, including the free, un-coerced choices of creatures in those scenarios."​

Source:
What is middle knowledge? | GotQuestions.org

Jesus talked about how if the might works (miracles) were done in Chorazin, and Bethsaida, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:21-23).​

This is Middle Knowledge or possibilities that never happened.

Secondly when a molinist talks about other possible worlds they are referring to...

You got cut off, my friend.
I hope everything is okay.

Anyways, blessings to you in the Lord today.

 

[tdidymas]

I can't, because that implies no free will. No willfully sinning and apostatize. You CAN'T lose your salvation no matter what you do. That is heresy.

Apparently you have OSAS confused with antinomianism or universalism, which is what your OP implies. Your argument "You CAN'T lose your salvation no matter what you do" is a straw man, as Biblical truth makes it obvious:

1. Salvation from sin means we are dead to sin, therefore how can we live therein? (Rom. 6:7). Your statement presumes the saved person is not free from sin, and so he is "free" to live in it after being saved from it. This logic is irrational, in view of the teachings of the NT.

2. Since a saved person has the Holy Spirit, such person is being led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14). Your statement presumes that such a person chooses to reject the Spirit's leading, and become unsaved again, not being led by the Spirit. Such an idea is preposterous, since that kind of choice would not be led by the Spirit, so the implication is that the promise to be led by the Spirit is a "yes and no" to you, when Paul states clearly that the promises of God are "yes and amen." (2 Cor. 1:20). Since to you it's a "maybe," you are in error.

3. Your statement implies that the faith of the person saved is precarious - maybe believing, maybe not. This also is ludicrous, since Paul wrote "he who believes in him shall not be disappointed." Your "maybe" faith anticipates disappointment.

I'll stop here, as I'm wondering if this is too much for you, since you apparently have an agenda to claim OSAS is heresy, no matter how Biblical my explanations. If you don't want to believe that you are kept by the power of God, that's your prerogative.

My reading of the NT tells me that God is in control of my salvation, and thus in control of me, which is contrary to the "free will" salvation idea which implies that people are in control of their own salvation. It is the nature of that teaching. If you are in control of your salvation, your faith has to be in yourself, that is, in your "free will" ability to make right choices. My faith is in God who is in control, since the Bible tells me that God is able to keep me from falling.
TD

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Secondly when a molinist talks about other possible worlds they are referring to potential worlds. These worlds are examined by God using his knowledge of what would happen if God placed free creatures in various circumstances. After examining a near infinite number of such hypothetical worlds to see which best accomplishes his will, he chooses one and actualizes it, creates that world.

Yes, I am aware of that. But I fail to see how this defends Determinism in some way. Yes, God determines many things upon our lives. He places us in situations that we may not want to be in for a greater good. But I do not see how alternate possibilities changes the fate of those who ultimately be saved, and those who would ultimately be damned. I believe God does not tempt us beyond what we are able to bear. But that is not determinism. Our free will is still effective while God seeks to protect us. God does everything in His power for people to be saved, but at the end of the day, one has to decide who makes the ultimate call on whether or not to accept the Lord or reject Him. If this choice was coerced to the level that would make the person do something other than what they normally would do beyond their own control, then it is no longer free will.

 

[Oldmantook]

That was from John 15:16, but...


I hope you read all of chapter John 15.

2. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away

14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

Jesus died for the whole world, but not all of the world will remain and not be lopped off because they did not keep the commands of Jesus.

Partial truths taking one verse out of the context of the whole like many have done produces heresies. Two heresies in the Church are Universalism and OSAS.

I see how this passage applies to OSAS but how does it apply to Universalism?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not sure to what you are referring "Jesus talked about middle knowledge?" I wasn't aware of such a passage.

Secondly when a molinist talks about other possible worlds they are referring to potential worlds. These worlds are examined by God using his knowledge of what would happen if God placed free creatures in various circumstances. After examining a near infinite number of such hypothetical worlds to see which best accomplishes his will, he chooses one and actualizes it, creates that world. At that point, everything he saw with his middle knowledge would happen now will happen.
That explains the predestermination and predestination passages.

But God is not the sole cause. He knows but doesn't cause sinful free choices. God's knowledge is logically posterior to our actions (our actions cause God's knowledge), even though his knowledge is chronologically prior to our actions.

So this view is attractive because it explains the thousands of references to humans making good choices to follow God's wisdom. Secondly, it explains the sovereignty of God in the midst of free agents, thirdly it accounts for God's allowing evil and suffering, fourthly it accounts for a Bible filled with stories of free agents lauded for their good choices, and filled with stories of those who opposed God's will like Luke 7:30, and who are shamed.

It avoids the incoherence of Calvinism and Open Theism.

Yes, I believe Calvinism and Open Theism are two wrong extremes. I can see how Middle Knowledge plays a part in Scripture, but I would be careful to label myself as a Molinist because there are Unconditional Election type Molinists (Calvinist lite Molinists), and Conditional Molinists (Molinists who are more like an Arminian, although not precisely according to some folks). If I was in your shoes and convinced that Molinism is the truth, I would be more specific and clarify what kind of Molinist I was. By your defense of free will in the Bible in other posts, I take this to mean that you are Conditional Molinist or a Molinist with leanings more towards Arminianism (because Arminius defends free will - whereas the Calvinist seeks to speak against it in regards to a person choosing God). Personally, I do not see how Molinism is different in a person making a free will choice with God. Sure, there are nudges, and influences, and right circumstances that God may provide for us to believe (Which may not have been possible in another hypothetical world or reality), but I just do not see how that is Determinism in regards to effecting our choice ultimately in the end. Yes, in another possible world, God knows some could have been saved (like with Chorazin), but I believe strongly that this would only be a temporary salvation and not an eternal one whereby they would endure to the end. God knows who His people are, and He would not let them perish. I see this as God knows every person's heart, thoughts, and actions. God knows if they are pure in heart and if they seek to justify sin or not. Most today want Jesus and their sin. God knows who those people are. We may not know this because people can change before it is too late. All we can do is pray and ask God to open their eyes to the very Bible they claim is the basis for their faith.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@Uber Genius

I suppose my question to you is: How does libertarian free will (or limited free will) differ from the kind of free will in Molinism? Prevenient grace (or enabling grace) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology. So regardless of what Arminius thought, his followers also taught "Prevenient Grace" (Which is an enabling or illumination from God at the right time or times in a person's life to hear the gospel message so as to either accept it or reject it of their own free will).

Source:
Prevenient grace - Wikipedia

 

[Uber Genius]

According to Gotquestions:

"Middle knowledge is a theological concept developed by Luis Molina and espoused by modern Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. Middle knowledge is the philosophical cornerstone supporting the theology of Molinism. In short, middle knowledge is God’s omniscient awareness of what “would” happen if certain circumstances were to occur, including the free, un-coerced choices of creatures in those scenarios."​

Source:
What is middle knowledge? | GotQuestions.org

Jesus talked about how if the might works (miracles) were done in Chorazin, and Bethsaida, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matthew 11:21-23).​

This is Middle Knowledge or possibilities that never happened.



You got cut off, my friend.
I hope everything is okay.

Anyways, blessings to you in the Lord today.

GotQuestions is a good resource. He is not a molinist, seem to recall him defending Calvinism. But he has a good site that all believers should reference.

Thanks for your reference. That indeed is a molinist reference that in ten years of reading about molinism I have never seen referenced once!

Bravo.

 

[Uber Genius]

Yes, I believe Calvinism and Open Theism are two wrong extremes. I can see how Middle Knowledge plays a part in Scripture, but I would be careful to label myself as a Molinist because there are Unconditional Election type Molinists (Calvinist lite Molinists), and Conditional Molinists (Molinists who are more like an Arminian, although not precisely according to some folks). If I was in your shoes and convinced that Molinism is the truth, I would be more specific and clarify what kind of Molinist I was. By your defense of free will in the Bible in other posts, I take this to mean that you are Conditional Molinist or a Molinist with leanings more towards Arminianism (because Arminius defends free will - whereas the Calvinist seeks to speak against it in regards to a person choosing God). Personally, I do not see how Molinism is different in a person making a free will choice with God. Sure, there are nudges, and influences, and right circumstances that God may provide for us to believe (Which may not have been possible in another hypothetical world or reality), but I just do not see how that is Determinism in regards to effecting our choice ultimately in the end. Yes, in another possible world, God knows some could have been saved (like with Chorazin), but I believe strongly that this would only be a temporary salvation and not an eternal one whereby they would endure to the end. God knows who His people are, and He would not let them perish. I see this as God knows every person's heart, thoughts, and actions. God knows if they are pure in heart and if they seek to justify sin or not. Most today want Jesus and their sin. God knows who those people are. We may not know this because people can change before it is too late. All we can do is pray and ask God to open their eyes to the very Bible they claim is the basis for their faith.

I am not familiar with these two extremes inside molinism.

On Molinism God elects those who freely choose him! They were elected before the foundation of the world because God knew they would freely choose to respond to his gift of salvation!

So both views above are conflating how God elects under Molinism.
He elects the same way he determines by creating this world. After creation free creatures choose to follow or reject God freely. Now some Molinist have hypothesized that the people God puts in the Europe or America are the ones he knew would respond positively to the gospel but that view is pure conjecture and has no scriptural data in support.

As to Charozin, who knows? Some have theorized that God as a result of his maximal loving nature would have produced a world with the least suffering and the most number of people freely choosing a relationship with him.

The whole area of how God administers his world is extremely complex, Incomprehensible by human minds, and not unfolded in scripture even when directly asked.

 

[aiki]

He died for the whole world.

Which is implied in my use of the word "us."

These are all about coming to Christ as a sinner. You don't have to get clean enough to come to the door.

These are all about the sinner being unable to contribute anything to the perfect, finished atoning work of Christ. God accepts us - and continues to accept us - only because the believer is in Christ, redeemed, clothed in his perfect righteousness and fully sanctified by his cleansing blood shed at Calvary (1 Corinthians 1:30). There is no other basis upon which God will accept any of us.

It is specious reasoning of the highest order to pretend that works-salvation is not what you are espousing. If a believer only remains saved so long as s/he performs good works, s/he is essentially saved by those good works.

 

[BBAS 64]

Which is implied in my use of the word "us."



These are all about the sinner being unable to contribute anything to the perfect, finished atoning work of Christ. God accepts us - and continues to accept us - only because the believer is in Christ, redeemed, clothed in his perfect righteousness and fully sanctified by his cleansing blood shed at Calvary (1 Corinthians 1:30). There is no other basis upon which God will accept any of us.

It is specious reasoning of the highest order to pretend that works-salvation is not what you are espousing. If a believer only remains saved so long as s/he performs good works, s/he is essentially saved by those good works.

Good Day, Aiki

Reminded me of Clement of Rome:

"And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from well-doing, and abandon charity? May the Master never allow that this should happen to us! but let us rather with diligence and zeal hasten to fulfil every good work. For the Maker and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his works. By his supreme power he founded the heavens, and by his incomprehensible understanding he ordered them. The earth he separated from the water that surrounded it, and fixed it on the firm foundation of his own will. The animals which inhabit therein he commanded to be by his ordinance. Having made beforehand the sea and the animals that are therein, he shut them in by his own power. Man, the most excellent of all animals, infinite in faculty, he moulded with his holy and faultless hands, in the impress of his likeness. For thus saith God: Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness. And God made man. Male and female made he them. When, therefore, he had finished all things, he praised and blessed them, and said, Be fruitful, and multiply. Let us see, therefore, how all the just have been adorned with good works. Yea, the Lord himself rejoiced when he had adorned himself with his works. Having, therefore, this example, let us come in without shrinking to his will; let us work with all our strength the work of righteousness." (First Clement 32-33)

Thank you for the memory!!

IN Him,

Bill