Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ian90 said:These websites defend what I've said about Calvinism and Molinism pretty well. They are worth reading.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Foreknowledge/
http://www.afcmin.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=32&limit=1&limitstart=1
Calvinist said:In this paper, the heresy I am re-refuting surrounds Theology Proper, or the doctrine of God. It is specifically in terms of the doctrine of the knowledge of God, or His Omniscience. The error is called Molinism, or Middle Knowledge (Today Open Theism is its close brother.).
Molinist said:I know of no actual argument that Molinism contradicts God’s omnipotence. So referencing verses about God’s omnipotence can only strengthen the Molinist case.
The idea that Molinism in some way denies God’s omniscience is even more problematic. However, it appears to be one of the most prominent misconceptions concerning the doctrine of middle knowledge that is offered. This confusion shows itself in the misrepresentation of Open View Theism being re-labeled as Neo-Molinism. Using the terms in this way is about as appropriate as calling an apple an orange. At the very core of the Molinist’s view is the omniscience of God, meaning that God foreknows not only all truths, but also all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. At the core of the Open View is a limited omniscience of God, meaning that God is perfectly intelligent. In their view, God knows nothing about the future, except that which He specially ordains, and He definitely does not know the large scope of counterfactuals. So the very foundations that these views are predicated on are entirely different. Therefore, any accusation that Molinism denies God’s omniscience is a blatant misconception.
The God of the Bible is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, sovereign, just, loving, holy, and much more. Molinism brings to light these attributes in exciting ways that no other view can. The Molinist view of God is theologically bigger than any other view. God is not limited by His own decree; instead He chooses to allow creaturely freedom. God is not limited to knowing only the truths of the actual world; instead He knows the counterfactuals, or what would happen had the circumstances been different. Scripture makes it clear that God knows counterfactuals. Molinism is the only view that takes into account the Biblical nature of God’s knowledge, His sovereignty, and human freedom in a logically coherent formulation.
Cygnuxx1 said:Molonists verses Thomists
I find open theism of any kind , rank Atheism.
Van said:Thanks Ian90, I was wondering if anyone else knew that equating Mo with O was bogus, demonstrating the lack of credibility in the arguments used against me.
Van said:Yes it does not reflect what the bible teaches, but some on this board assert God degrees every detail of every thing, or exhaustive determinism. Never mind Lamentations 32:35, they say it means something other than what it says. Ditto for all the verses that prove RT is a mistaken view.
Van said:Ian90, I see you use the term foreknowledge as if it meant knowledge of the future. If you look at everyplace the word appears (foreknowledge and foreknew or foreknown) you will see all the bible speaks about is God using knowledge (implimenting plans) formulated or acquired in the past in the present. The term only and always refers to something known before the present. Thats it.
Van said:This too is wrong and unbiblical. God knows the future which He has predestined. What He says will happen will happen because He will make it happen. If God chose to do this, exercise determistic control of everything, then the future would be closed, and God would exhaustively know the future.
Van said:But we have Lamentations 32:35 telling us God does not exercise exhaustive control sometimes, and Acts 2:23 saying He does sometimes.
Van said:So the Biblical answer is not Exhaustive Determinism, and is not Open Theism, but a hybrid. This is what the Bible actually teaches.
ian90 said:These websites defend what I've said about Calvinism and Molinism pretty well. They are worth reading.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Foreknowledge/
http://www.afcmin.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=32&limit=1&limitstart=1
cygnusx1 said:Van meant Jeremiah ........... a simple mistake they are the same author
van said:Psalm 147:4 says God counts and names the stars. Matthew 10:29 and 30 relates that God knows what is happening in the life of relatively worthless sparrows, and knows the number of hairs on our heads, indicating with Proverbs 15:3, that God knows everything He chooses to know concerning the present status of creation.
ian90 said:Welcome all the Lord's followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don't criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours.
Rom 14:1
Unity based on the gospel is what the church needs and what works. The inerrancy of interpretation before love for each other is a recipe for disaster.
nobdysfool said:
There's that scripture citation in an non-existant chapter of Lamentations. You may fool the lazy and unwise with that, but you'll never fool a Calvinist, Van. Lamentations 32:35 does not exist.
Van said:God remembers our sins no more forever. Therefore all the verse shows is God knows whatever He chooses to know. QED.
Van said:Here is the fallacy. God uses descriptions of His actions as if He had a physcial body. So when scripture says God's eyes are on us, it means God is aware of us. God is spirit, non-material so He has no actual physical eyeballs. But to take this too far, and say when God says his eyes are on us, it means He is not aware because He has no eyes is twaddle. RT uses this fallacy all the time to dismiss the verses that indicate RT doctrine is mistaken, not reflective of scripture.
Yet another falsehood, no quote will be forthcoming where I say God has a limited mind. God's mind is beyond our poor ability to comprehend.Yet Van fails to recognize that God's memory is not tied to God having a limited Mind
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?