Molinism and you (Counter Perspective to Determinism)

[Grip Docility]

Done.

What criteria are they “chosen” on, from your understanding?

 

[Hammster]

What criteria are they “chosen” on, from your understanding?

That passage doesn’t say. But it doesn’t say that they chose to be there.

 

[Grip Docility]

I’ve looked at that. The word for called is different. But even if they weren’t, we can see be the context that there’s a difference. In Romans, something happens. They are justified. Not maybe justified, or possibly justified, or only some are justified. So, if we look at the letter as a whole, we see that we are justified by faith. So the calling leads to faith.

In Matthew, it appears that it’s a general call. It’s the preaching of the word. People ignored. What happened? They had to go and gather people because nobody wanted to come. Those gathered are the chosen. So we can see that many were called, but few were chosen.

That passage doesn’t say. But it doesn’t say that they chose to be there.

The passage builds from previous dialogue where people refused to show up, despite being (invited/called). How do you reconcile this implied presence of Human Libertarian Free Will with your posit? Matthew 22:3

 

[Hammster]

The passage builds from previous dialogue where people refused to show up, despite being (invited/called). How do you reconcile this implied presence of Human Libertarian Free Will with your posit? Matthew 22:3

You mean the depravity of man?

 

[Grip Docility]

You mean the depravity of man?

Interesting “choice” of words.

If I then take the idea that man couldn’t respond to God and place that within the implications of Matthew 22, we have a conundrum.

Per the premise of “Total Depravity” and “Disability Of the Human Will”, after Sin... we can isolate an issue, IMO.

Matthew 22:3 has the group called and not responding. Your implication is that it is total Depravity that is causing the first group to be incapable of responding. Though the text specified they “Refused” to come.

Let’s mark this thought to the text. Guests are called and don’t go, due to reasons of their own refusal... versus God’s refusal to invite them in the first place.

Then, in Matthew 22:5, the group prefers their worldly concerns to responding to the Kings invitation.

Then in Matthew 22:6 the servants of the King are captured and killed at the hands of a wicked group.

Then in Matthew 22:10 the King has Everyone rounded up that can be found, both good and bad, per the text.

Matthew 22:11 shows the man among the gathered group that is not wearing the prescribed attire and is cast out from the group that the King has had gathered, forcibly by your personal implications, despite the gathering with all previous context referring to the conscious choices of men, before it.

Matthew 22:14 is our discussion point and thusly draws from your idea (not mine) that total inability to respond is the culprit of the fate of the lost.

Matthew 22:3-10 implies a will that is responsive within the groups being gathered and names the reasons they discount the Kings invitation.

Matthew 22:11-13 shows what is wrong with the one that gets cast from the number gathered.

Matthew 22:14 differentiates invited/called from chosen, while Matthew 22:11-13 shows that some among the “invited” are cast out as “not chosen”.

If Total depravity is at the heart of those cast out and that refuse to attend, why are the motive or situation of each of those not chosen, given... instead of the text reading... only the chosen were invited?

What I mean is, why show a responsive group that is not chosen in contrast to a group that doesn’t respond, then go further to distinguish responsive parties that were not Chosen, from within the responsive group, from those who are chosen?

The disabled will of man that is incapable of receiving the invitation, unless God forces them to hear His voice isn’t supported in the contextual, exegetic flow of the passage, IMO.

Some type of logical Exegesis that keeps the entire content of the parable in mind as it is responded to would certainly help.

 

[Hammster]

Interesting “choice” of words.

If I then take the idea that man couldn’t respond to God and place that within the implications of Matthew 22, we have a conundrum.

Per the premise of “Total Depravity” and “Disability Of the Human Will”, after Sin... we can isolate an issue, IMO.

Matthew 22:3 has the group called and not responding. Your implication is that it is total Depravity that is causing the first group to be incapable of responding. Though the text specified they “Refused” to come.

Let’s mark this thought to the text. Guests are called and don’t go, due to reasons of their own refusal... versus God’s refusal to invite them in the first place.

Then, in Matthew 22:5, the group prefers their worldly concerns to responding to the Kings invitation.

Then in Matthew 22:6 the servants of the King are captured and killed at the hands of a wicked group.

Then in Matthew 22:10 the King has Everyone rounded up that can be found, both good and bad, per the text.

Matthew 22:11 shows the man among the gathered group that is not wearing the prescribed attire and is cast out from the group that the King has had gathered, forcibly by your personal implications, despite the gathering with all previous context referring to the conscious choices of men, before it.

Matthew 22:14 is our discussion point and thusly draws from your idea (not mine) that total inability to respond is the culprit of the fate of the lost.

Matthew 22:3-10 implies a will that is responsive within the groups being gathered and names the reasons they discount the Kings invitation.

Matthew 22:11-13 shows what is wrong with the one that gets cast from the number gathered.

Matthew 22:14 differentiates invited/called from chosen, while Matthew 22:11-13 shows that some among the “invited” are cast out as “not chosen”.

If Total depravity is at the heart of those cast out and that refuse to attend, why are the motive or situation of each of those not chosen, given... instead of the text reading... only the chosen were invited?

What I mean is, why show a responsive group that is not chosen in contrast to a group that doesn’t respond, then go further to distinguish responsive parties that were not Chosen, from within the responsive group, from those who are chosen?

The disabled will of man that is incapable of receiving the invitation, unless God forces them to hear His voice isn’t supported in the contextual, exegetic flow of the passage, IMO.

Some type of logical Exegesis that keeps the entire content of the parable in mind as it is responded to would certainly help.

Let’s go back to what I said here.

That passage doesn’t say. But it doesn’t say that they chose to be there.

I was going to leave it at that, but you wanted me to respond to your argument. So I did.

Could they have accepted the invitation? I think Reformed Theology says yes. But why would they? The darkness hates the light. So why would they attend a banquet given by the Light? They wouldn’t.

 

[Grip Docility]

Let’s go back to what I said here.

I was going to leave it at that, but you wanted me to respond to your argument. So I did.

Could they have accepted the invitation? I think Reformed Theology says yes. But why would they? The darkness hates the light. So why would they attend a banquet given by the Light? They wouldn’t.

You denoted ability! This is where I can sincerely find peace with some determinism. Peace, but still disagreement... but, What I’m saying is, your expression is much different than hard Determinism having God actively disabling these people. I know you fully disagree with full blown Liberation Free Will, but I’m certain you believe in degrees of Divine Willed Will Within Creation... including “permissive will” and so forth.

This is a sincere moment of respect towards you.

 

[Hammster]

You denoted ability! This is where I can sincerely find peace with some determinism. Peace, but still disagreement... but, What I’m saying is, your expression is much different than hard Determinism having God actively disabling these people. I know you fully disagree with full blown Liberation Free Will, but I’m certain you believe in degrees of Divine Willed Will Within Creation... including “permissive will” and so forth.

This is a sincere moment of respect towards you.

Without knowing exactly what is meant, I cannot quite agree.

 

[Grip Docility]

Without knowing exactly what is meant, I cannot quite agree.

This is a rather genius reply.

 

[Hammster]

This is a rather genius reply.

I just want to make sure I understand what you’re getting at.