Arminianism, Calvanism, isn't there ANY other option?

[Sola Gratia]

Patrick seems to be a follower of Molinism, a disciple of Luis de Molinia, not Modalism. They have been denounced by the church as 2 different heresies.

If you like, I'll see if I can find you a nice online resource about Molinism.

It looks like I read him wrong ,
. But molinism is also considered a Heresy is it not ,as it denies the nature and attributes of God?

 

[CCWoody]

It looks like I read him wrong ,
. But molinism is also considered a Heresy is it not ,as it denies the nature and attributes of God?

Yes, Molinism redefines the Omniscience of God so that they can couch their doctrines under the guise of Orthodoxy. They also play this silly game with hyperbole.

I'm not sure why this thread was even allowed in our Reformed room of the forum. And I'm not sure why the posters are allowed to post in the orthodox sections. I'm going to have to ask some of the mods about this.

 

[skylark1]

Could anyone who is familiar with Molinism please tell me if what I posted as "The Interaction View" is considered Molinism? I never heard of Molinism until I read this thread.

Thanks.

 

[PatrickM]

Just so I have it straight, are you actually claiming to be a Molinist? You do know that the orthodox church has soundly denounced this deviation from the Omniscience of God a heresy?

Well, yes. One might take consolation in being denounced by the "orthodox church". I believe Luther was denounced by the "orthodox church" of his time.

BTW, some very renowned theologians of our time do not consider it a heresy, i.e. Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. William Craig. Both of which are very conservative in their theology, Dr. Craig is a Research Professor at Biola, for example.

Oh yes, and I believe Jesus was denounced by the "orthodox" people of His time, too.

 

[BBAS 64]

Patrick seems to be a follower of Molinism, a disciple of Luis de Molinia, not Modalism. They have been denounced by the church as 2 different heresies.

If you like, I'll see if I can find you a nice online resource about Molinism.

Good Day, CCWoody

If you have a link I would surely be thankful!


BBAS

 

[PatrickM]

Good Day, CCWoody

If you have a link I would surely be thankful!


BBAS

Well, for anyone truly interested in a thought provoking explanation of Molinism, try http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/. He uses the term "Middle Knowledge", borrowed from de Molina, for his points.

He's got a few papers on the subject which will make you think. Also check out his bio before you judge him!

 

[Sola Gratia]

Arianism, Docetism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism... you've got lots of options to choose from!

What always surprises me is that as Solomon noted there is there is nothing new under the sun .

The "new" " heresies of today are simply recycled ones from the early church.

The difference is of course in the early days men were striving to sort out scripture teachings . As each one came they were examined and addressed.

A heresy then is still a heresy today . They are just wrapped up in new flashy paper

 

[James Sez]

What always surprises me is that as Solomon noted there is there is nothing new under the sun .

The "new" " heresies of today are simply recycled ones from the early church.

The difference is of course in the early days men were striving to sort out scripture teachings . As each one came they were examined and addressed.

A heresy then is still a heresy today . They are just wrapped up in new flashy paper

I did a search on Calvinist, Arminian, heresy. They both accuse each other of heresy a lot.
One persons favorite doctrinal system is another persons heresy. Someone said that a heretic is a person that does not agree with us. I think it was a Tulc sig but maybe not.

 

[PatrickM]

What always surprises me is that as Solomon noted there is there is nothing new under the sun .

The "new" " heresies of today are simply recycled ones from the early church.

The difference is of course in the early days men were striving to sort out scripture teachings . As each one came they were examined and addressed.

A heresy then is still a heresy today . They are just wrapped up in new flashy paper

IF you are referring to Middle Knowledge, or Molinism, could you be specific in your accusation of heresy, or can you merely throw out insults?

And who, exactly, defines heresy?

This will probably revert to the centuries-old debate between Calvinism and the rest of the world.

 

[Sola Gratia]

I did a search on Calvinist, Arminian, heresy. They both accuse each other of heresy a lot.
One persons favorite doctrinal system is another persons heresy. Someone said that a heretic is a person that does not agree with us. I think it was a Tulc sig but maybe not.

Heresy is definded by the church.
Having beed both an arminian and Calvinist I believe that I can safely say that neither are heresies. They share a belief in the nature of god and the means of salvation. Both groups agree with the Nicene creed.
Below is the defination and nature of heresies.

What is heresy?
Heresy is defined an opinion or doctrine at variance with religious orthodoxy. This, of course, begs the question, "what is religious orthodoxy?" Given the immense variety of of Christian sects, ranging from the traditional Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Episcopalian churches, all the way through Calvinism, Adventist churches, and the Society of Friends, it is impossible to define one set of beliefs which can be held up as orthodox Christianity. However, the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381, came up with a statement of faith which is considered orthodox by a vast majority of Christians world wide. This statement was later modified into the Nicene Creed .

Heresy, apostasy, and schism
It is important, when discussing such matters, to acknowledge the fine lines between heresy, apostasy, and schism: heresy is a variance from orthodox opinion; apostasy is an abandonment of faith; and and schism is division of a religious body.
According to the new Catechism, the Roman Catholic church now considers it schism to deny the authority of the Pope. A few hundred years ago, this would have been considered heresy. Gnosticism was originally condemned as a heresy, but it can easily be classified as apostasy, because it is separate religion, and an abandonment of primal Christian ideas.
What are these "primal Christian ideas?" I, of course, risk venturing into heresy myself by stating this, but hold the single tenant, "we are dependent upon the redemptive work of Jesus Christ to gain salvation," as the defining idea of Christianity. Onto the heresies!
Major heresies
The major heresies fall into three categories: heresies of the nature of Christ; heresies of the Trinity; and heresies of man and salvation.

Heresies of Christ
The orthodox idea of Christ was that he is fully God, yet existed as fully human, the two natures being "eternally distinct and uniquely united" at the same time, and that he suffered as a human.
Apollinarianism
(named for Apollinarius) Belief that Christ had no soul, but rather was filled with logos , or the Word, and was neither fully human nor fully divine.
Arianism
(named for Arius) Belief that the Father existed before the Son, the Son was created by the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.
Docetism
(from the Greek word dokesis , which means to seem ) Belief that Christ was wholly God, and his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real.
Dynamic Monarchianism
Claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God, and teaches that Christ "became" God.
Ebionitism
Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divin. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul's teachings.
Eutychianism
(name after Eutyches of Constantinople) belief that Christ had only a divine nature, not a human one.
Monophysitism
This heresy denies the humanity of Christ. It removes the value of Christ's redemptive work, because it denies that Christ suffered as a man. It declares that Christ had a single ( mono ), divine, nature. This doctrine is still taught by the Oriental Orthodox churches: Coptic Church of Egypt; Ethiopian Orthodox; Syrian Orthodox; Armenian Orthodox; and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox.
Monothelitism
Belief that Jesus posessed one divine-human energia , not two cooperating (divine and human) wills. Still held by the Maronite Church in Syria.
Nestorianism
(named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos , that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.
Noeticism
(named for Noetus) Belief that God moved as a single spirit into Mary, and was transferred into Christ at birth. God himself was crucified and raised himself from the dead.

Heresies of the Trinity
The orthodox idea of the Trinity is that God (the Father), Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit are simultaneously three distinct beings, and all the same being, none subserviant to another, all three with complete equality and a single will. There was no time when any did not exist.
Macedonianism
(named for Macedonius) Denied the diety of the Holy Spirit, asserting it was a servent, similar to the angels.
Monarchianism
The denial of three seperate beings in the Trinity. A famous Monarchianist, Sabellian, claimed the three persons of God are three facets of one personality, in the way that the sun is simultaneously hot, round, and bright. He became so associated with Monarchianism, that in the early church, heresy of any kind was called Sabellianism .
Modalist Monarchianism
Held that God was a single being, and that Father / Son / Spirit were simply three modes of the same being, only one being possible at a time. Taken to its logical extreme, it would have been impossible for the Spirit to descend as a dove and God's voice to be heard during Christ's baptism.
Subordinationism
Any doctrine that subordinates one being of the Trinity to another.

Heresies of Man and Salvation
The orthodox idea of man and his need for salvation is that God already knows all who are chosen for eternal life (the elect ), yet man has the free will to choose whether or not to believe in Christ's redemptive work. These concepts hold so many paradoxes that men have frequently attempted to reconcile them with logic, leading to many heresies.
Donatism
(name for Donatus the Great) belief that the validity of a church office is determined by the "personal holiness" of the individual; that "morally unworthy" individuals are not qualified to perform the ecclessial duties of their office.
Marcionism
(named after Marcion) a denial that the Old Testament "Creator God of the Jews" and the "God of Goodness" revealed in the New Testament are the same God. Marcion developed a canon consisting of Luke and ten Pauline epistles, with all references to the Old Testament removed.
Pelagianism
(named for Pelagius) Claims that sin is a choice, and by choosing not to sin, man reach salvation on his own without need for Christ's forgiveness of sin.


This can be found at Apostecy Cafe

 

[PatrickM]

Yes, Molinism redefines the Omniscience of God so that they can couch their doctrines under the guise of Orthodoxy. They also play this silly game with hyperbole.

I'm not sure why this thread was even allowed in our Reformed room of the forum. And I'm not sure why the posters are allowed to post in the orthodox sections. I'm going to have to ask some of the mods about this.

Gee, "Cordial" Woody, sorry to hear your fears. First of all, this is not "sola" Reformed forum. Second, there are no rules pertaining to your narrow view of "orthodox".

And as for silly games with hyperbole, please help us understand why the English speaking world uses certain definitions, and Calvinists use the excuse "depends what the definition of 'is' is". For example, words like "all", "world", etc, for everyone else, means just that, all, to the exclusion of none. But when Scripture says God desires "all" men to be saved, ah, there must be some detailed explanation to this tiny, three lettered word.

When God so loved the "world" it isn't really the world, as we all use the word, it's a specially defined meaning for word.

I'm sure this will dissintegrate into another Calvinism vs. the world debate, again. As if you don't have enough *other* threads?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Patrick,

In layman's term's. . .would you please define Molinism for me? Please don't refer me to a site but spell it out for me here please. Thankyou,

Quaffer

Oh. . .and please no one else answer for him . . .thanks

 

[PatrickM]

Oh. . .and please no one else answer for him . . .thanks

LOL, I feel like I'm at an inquisition!

Patrick,

In layman's term's. . .would you please define Molinism for me? Please don't refer me to a site but spell it out for me here please. Thankyou,

Well, I’ll give it my best shot, not being as scholarly as some here.

Molinism has been modified in recent times to refer to God’s Middle Knowledge. This term was also used by de Molina. However of late has been given more specifics, from such theologians as I mentioned earlier, those whom you, apparently, do not wish to read for yourself.

God, in His Omniscience, before He created the world, or anything, foresaw what all possible outcomes would be in all possible scenarios regarding His creating free-willed people. Acts 15:18, “Known to God from eternity are all His works.” This is His Middle Knowledge, which is knowledge of all possible outcome as opposed to actual knowledge of facts, such as 1+1=2. That is His general knowledge.

That varying choices determine various outcome is evident in such passages as Acts 27:22-31. An angel of God told Paul all would be saved from the storm if, and only if they stayed in the boat. If they chose to exit, there would be another outcome.

Also, God told David in 1 Sam 23:6-13, if he (David) stayed at Keliah, Saul would come after him, and the people of the city would hand him over. God’s words are definitive, not subjective in these verses, such as vs. 11 “He will come down” and vs. 12 “they will deliver you.” Did these events take place? No, for David chose a different path.

God desired, out of His Omnipotence, to make people with a free-will in this world, as opposed to creatures who could only do His bidding, i.e. angels. Although it is entirely possible for the Sovereign God to make any possible world, He choose this one in which we now live.

This was “according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved”, Eph 1:5b, 6. The crux of the issue is what is the circumstances in which He made us acceptable.

That He alone did this, made us acceptable, is without debate. As to the why, this is what Middle Knowledge is about. In foreseeing how each free-willed person would react to His offering, freely without coercion, and completely by His sovereign grace, He then predestined these people to “become conformed to the image of His Son”, Ro. 8:29. This is the obvious determinant to His predestination, the conformity of those who choose to accept His free gift, to the image of His Son. The context of the verse is not eternal life, per se, but conformity to Jesus.

In other words, in His providence, in the circumstances with which according to His sovereignty He foresaw the fall of man, He alone provided the way of salvation. He is under no obligation to save anyone who simply believes, as this act in and of itself is of no effect. Also, faith is not any work by which we earn anything, as is made clear in James chpt 2. But according to His grace, He uses this process to save those who freely believe in the work of Christ on the cross.

This is a rough outline of the matter, and I’m sure you’ll have a heyday dissecting it. But allow me, as you go, to clarify such things as I may have missed on this go-round.

Please remember, James’ admonishments in 3:17, 18 as you prepare your response.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

LOL, I feel like I'm at an inquisition!

Well, I’ll give it my best shot, not being as scholarly as some here.

Molinism has been modified in recent times to refer to God’s Middle Knowledge. This term was also used by de Molina. However of late has been given more specifics, from such theologians as I mentioned earlier, those whom you, apparently, do not wish to read for yourself.

God, in His Omniscience, before He created the world, or anything, foresaw what all possible outcomes would be in all possible scenarios regarding His creating free-willed people. Acts 15:18, “Known to God from eternity are all His works.” This is His Middle Knowledge, which is knowledge of all possible outcome as opposed to actual knowledge of facts, such as 1+1=2. That is His general knowledge.

That varying choices determine various outcome is evident in such passages as Acts 27:22-31. An angel of God told Paul all would be saved from the storm if, and only if they stayed in the boat. If they chose to exit, there would be another outcome.

Also, God told David in 1 Sam 23:6-13, if he (David) stayed at Keliah, Saul would come after him, and the people of the city would hand him over. God’s words are definitive, not subjective in these verses, such as vs. 11 “He will come down” and vs. 12 “they will deliver you.” Did these events take place? No, for David chose a different path.

God desired, out of His Omnipotence, to make people with a free-will in this world, as opposed to creatures who could only do His bidding, i.e. angels. Although it is entirely possible for the Sovereign God to make any possible world, He choose this one in which we now live.

This was “according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved”, Eph 1:5b, 6. The crux of the issue is what is the circumstances in which He made us acceptable.

That He alone did this, made us acceptable, is without debate. As to the why, this is what Middle Knowledge is about. In foreseeing how each free-willed person would react to His offering, freely without coercion, and completely by His sovereign grace, He then predestined these people to “become conformed to the image of His Son”, Ro. 8:29. This is the obvious determinant to His predestination, the conformity of those who choose to accept His free gift, to the image of His Son. The context of the verse is not eternal life, per se, but conformity to Jesus.

In other words, in His providence, in the circumstances with which according to His sovereignty He foresaw the fall of man, He alone provided the way of salvation. He is under no obligation to save anyone who simply believes, as this act in and of itself is of no effect. Also, faith is not any work by which we earn anything, as is made clear in James chpt 2. But according to His grace, He uses this process to save those who freely believe in the work of Christ on the cross.

This is a rough outline of the matter, and I’m sure you’ll have a heyday dissecting it. But allow me, as you go, to clarify such things as I may have missed on this go-round.

Please remember, James’ admonishments in 3:17, 18 as you prepare your response.

My question was not based on me responding back with any negativity, but so that I could better understand what the objections to it were. Also, it was not that I did not want to "read it for myself", but for the sake of time I just wanted to better understand.

Thank you

 

[PatrickM]

To quote Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", "Boy, don't I feel the fool!" Sorry for the pre-empitive strike, I guess I'm a little punch-drunk over this issue! You have not given me any reason for the remarks.

BTW I love Tozer, especially his "Man, the Dwelling Place of God"!

 

[Dismas]

Orthodox Christians believe in the Providence of God. Here is a homily for your consideration:

None of our own attempts and efforts can save us without the help of God, but neither can God's help be beneficial to us without our own wish for it.
No other subject was brought up by the Lord to His disciples so frequently as lack of faith. He warned everyone against lack of faith not only by His words, but also by the multitude of events which amazingly proved the power of faith and the powerlessness of mistrust or doubt in God's protection and salvation from danger.
Lack of faith comes in different forms: some people have little faith in God because He does not punish His enemies; others doubt they would be able to entreat God to grant them their desires, especially when their conscience bothers them with the thought that God will not forgive them their sins; still others fear that God will deprive them of all earthly goods and subsistence. This triple manifestation of lack of faith estranges many people from God and immerses them in various forms of perdition.
The source of our lack of faith is our excessive conceit, i.e. when we think more of ourselves than of God, rely more on our own powers than on God's help.
What is the reason for God allowing the destruction of such a great number of people, who are injured or killed through sorcery? It is not surprising: lack of faith has become so widespread among the people that it merits punishment. Many do not look for other doctors except sorcerers (extrasensorists), nor other pharmaceuticals except deviltry. God justly punishes us by the same means that we use to sin against Him.
As our faith and hope in God increase, so increase His mercy and benevolence to us. But woe unto us, that there are so few of us who believe in God with all their heart! If we analyze human customs and habits, we will see that in all places and at all times lack of faith becomes prominent and widespread, which gives rise to empty and false fears. People often fear a shortage of food supplies; sometimes they fear that they will lack necessary items during an illness; at times they fall into despair over ever-growing rumors of war. All of this occurs because they have an erroneous and doubtful understanding of God's benevolence and His omnipotent strength: this is also the cause of our mind's poor and sad concern over temporal things, as opposed to a concern for achieving a blessed eternal life.
God's Providence manifests itself with the greatest wisdom: not every transgression is normally punished straightaway; however, neither is it left totally unpunished. If God never punished vileness, many people would think that there is no Providence. On the other hand, if every transgression were immediately followed by punishment, it would then be thought that there is no reward or punishment after death. Therefore God, by punishing only some people, reveals His Providence; by not punishing others directly after their transgressions, He threatens them with punishment directly after death, in the next life, if they do not repent in this life. Everything is done by God with great wisdom and forethought.
In a like manner, all the contradictory manifestations that we come across in our lives, are all wisely directed by God's Providence; all earthly misfortunes are transformed by God into a benefit and advantage for us; even sinful transgressions are tolerated in order to bring us to our senses, and to achieve our salvation through repentance. For to do good deeds and to tolerate heinous ones is characteristic exclusively of divine Providence, since God would never allow the existence of evil were He not as mighty and good as to produce good consequences from all evil deeds.
God's Providence is concealed from us, unfathomable to us, but it comprises an all-encompassing order for ruling the world rationally and justly. We are usually quite observant of the external order of universal and particular events; however, the wondrous and wise Providence of God, which activates the cosmic mechanism and preserves and directs its activity, is hidden from us, and we cannot see it. It is for this reason that many people, seeing a contradiction from a human point of view in the well-being of bad persons and the tribulations of good ones, assert that God's Providence does not exist, but that everything occurs through man's will and reason, or through blind luck or misfortune.
However, all these things are seen and understood quite differently by those who believe in the great wisdom of God and in His Providence, which directs everything to the good. If, seeing how God-fearing people are often humiliated and insulted, while heinous scoundrels prosper, we think that Providence is sleeping, this is because we are looking upon only one side of God's Providence, while the other side is hidden from us because of our narrow viewpoint, which is unable to extend itself to fully encompass God's destinies. Only in the second coming of Christ will we learn of God's just judgment of everyone and everything.

 

[CCWoody]

Could anyone who is familiar with Molinism please tell me if what I posted as "The Interaction View" is considered Molinism? I never heard of Molinism until I read this thread.

Thanks.

Middle Knowledge! ~ A Reformed perspective

MOLINA, ARMINIUS, PLAIFERE, GOAD, AND WESLEY ON HUMAN FREE-WILL, DIVINE OMNISCIENCE, AND MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE ~ An Arminian perspective

It is clear from the own testimony of the Wesley Center Online that classic Arminians are Middle Knowledge disciples. Any of you who claim the name Protestant and are not Reformed should ponder what this means.​

Let me add here a comment directed towards another poster about Calvinists and Arminians calling each other heretics.​

This is a rather simplistic statment to make simply for the historical fact that Arminianism was born as an anti-Reformation movement opposed to the Reformers. The Reformation happened without the help of Arminianism and when she did enter the church, she did so as a divider of the Reformation. Until she entered the church, the entire Reformed & Protestant movement was united under the doctrines of Grace. This is simply historical fact.​

I'm not about to call any non-Calvinist here heretics. I doubt that most of you know the true historical origins of Arminianism.​

 

[PatrickM]

It is clear from the own testimony of the Wesley Center Online that classic Arminians are Middle Knowledge disciples. Any of you who claim the name Protestant and are not Reformed should ponder what this means.[/left]
However, John Wesley never considered himself a strict Arminianist. There are no quotes from him regarding this.

Let me add here a comment directed towards another poster about Calvinists and Arminians calling each other heretics.​

This is a rather simplistic statment to make simply for the historical fact that Arminianism was born as an anti-Reformation movement opposed to the Reformers. The Reformation happened without the help of Arminianism and when she did enter the church, she did so as a divider of the Reformation. Until she entered the church, the entire Reformed & Protestant movement was united under the doctrines of Grace. This is simply historical fact.​

But what was the church during the 1400 years before the reformation? Apostate? Of course not. God has His remnant, regardless of what man likes to do with labels.

I'm not about to call any non-Calvinist here heretics. I doubt that most of you know the true historical origins of Arminianism.​

Jacob Arminius in the early 17th century had a hard time with the logical conclusion of Calvinism, which, though vehemently denied, is clearly implied. This is that if God pre-ordains some to eternal life, the ones not pre-ordained to eternal life, by means of the definition of Omnipotence, are pre-ordained to hell. This logical conclusion cannot be denied, except on the basis of emotion.

I already know the pro-Calvinists are going to jump on this with denials, but the logic of it cannot be denied.

BTW, just as Calvin himself never penned the 5 points, but were a rebuttal by the Synod of Dort, Arminius never actually penned that men can or cannot loose their salvation. He left it open, stating he needed further study.

Middle Knowledge Christians do not deny the Omnipotence or Omniscience of God. Neither do they adhere to any position which implies that God is dependent upon anyone for doing His will. He simply allows certain events to take place. Else, if all is actions are of and from Him, who, then is responsible for sin originally entering the Universe?

 

[CCWoody]

Jacob Arminius in the early 17th century had a hard time with the logical conclusion of Calvinism, which, though vehemently denied, is clearly implied. This is that if God pre-ordains some to eternal life, the ones not pre-ordained to eternal life, by means of the definition of Omnipotence, are pre-ordained to hell. This logical conclusion cannot be denied, except on the basis of emotion.

I already know the pro-Calvinists are going to jump on this with denials, but the logic of it cannot be denied.

I'm not sure where you are getting your infomation, but Jacob Arminius was objecting to the Biblical beliefs of the Reformers. At that point and time, there was no such thing as a "Calvinist." That was a term which came about much later. Though, I don't object to your use of the term to describe the Reformers which preceeded those who would be called Calvinists.

Secondly, the only accepted definition of Omnipotence was that which was held by the entire Orthodox church. The heterodox redefinition of Omniscience in an attempt to escape the Biblical conclusion of Election and Reprobation, was nothing but a recapitulation of the heresies which had come before.

This matter had been settled. It was already settled during Augustine's day, when the Pelagian heretics sought to deny God's Omniscience. Augustine merely led a Reformation back to Biblical Election. And, it was already settled when Luis de Molinia decided that he knew better than the ENTIRE church about God's Omniscience. And, it was still settled when Arminius decided that he knew better than the ENTIRE church about God's Omniscience.

Thirdly, why should I object to your penning the belief of Election and Reprobation to we Reformers, i.e. Calvinists. I could find a multitude of voices from the past to affirm this to be the belief.

I happily claim the title "Absolute Double Predestinarian." If you want to shoot your arrows at the poor creatures called Calvinist, I suggest you fire away at this. At least here you will be actually shooting at the right target.

BTW, just as Calvin himself never penned the 5 points, but were a rebuttal by the Synod of Dort, Arminius never actually penned that men can or cannot loose their salvation. He left it open, stating he needed further study.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to point this out. It seems out of place in a discussion of God's Omniscience. Though, the logical conclusion would be that, since Arminius denied God's Omniscience, there would be no way to know if man would perservere to the end or not.

Middle Knowledge Christians do not deny the Omnipotence or Omniscience of God. Neither do they adhere to any position which implies that God is dependent upon anyone for doing His will. He simply allows certain events to take place. Else, if all is actions are of and from Him, who, then is responsible for sin originally entering the Universe?

Why, the Biblical answer to your question is God; He is the first cause of all things. If you answer "NO" then you are actually a believer in dualism, yet another error which seems to pervade the church these days.

Now, Middle Knowledge Molinists, like all who wish to couch their unorthodoxy, simply redefine the terms to suit their purposes. Molinists can choose to believe that they don't deny the Omniscience of God if they wish. This is just a shell game. It is an undeniable fact of history that the Orthodox church never defined Omniscience the way that the Middle Knowledge disciples do.

 

[PatrickM]

I'm not sure where you are getting your infomation, but Jacob Arminius was objecting to the Biblical beliefs of the Reformers.

They weren't Biblical according to Jacob!

Secondly, the only accepted definition of Omnipotence was that which was held by the entire Orthodox church. The heterodox redefinition of Omniscience in an attempt to escape the Biblical conclusion of Election and Reprobation, was nothing but a recapitulation of the heresies which had come before.

You toss around this term "orthodox church" rather authoratively. Almost as much as Catholics use the term, "infallibility of the Pope".

As to the debate re: Pre-destination, Election, etc., there are miriads of other threads for you to do this. I was rather hoping to open a discussion to, shock of shocks, other possibilities.

Now, Middle Knowledge Molinists, like all who wish to couch their unorthodoxy, simply redefine the terms to suit their purposes. Molinists can choose to believe that they don't deny the Omniscience of God if they wish. This is just a shell game. It is an undeniable fact of history that the Orthodox church never defined Omniscience the way that the Middle Knowledge disciples do.

How can they deny Omniscience of God by saying that He foreKNEW every possible actions, and choose the possiblity we have today? You many have Molinists confused with Arminists.

Perhaps Middle Knowledge doesn't match up with your "orthodox churches". Isn't that why there was a Reformation in the first place?

I would rather prefer if you wish to carry on the fight for Calvin, to do so in your other threads? Take this as a capitulation if you wish. I am simply weary of the circular debate regarding all this. Ok? You win.