Molinism

[Easystreet]

Quoting from page 7 of Dr. Kenneth Keathley's book "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach"

"So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced the Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvatoin or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, Accomplisher, and Completer of salvation (i.e. salvatoin is a work of grace from beginning to end); (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ.

However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced the Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvatoin of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God's grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvatoin was genuinely available to the unbeliever). As we will see, there is only one positoin that coherently holds to all ten affirmation, and that is Molinism."

While I like the Molinist view I personally lean more toward a mixture of modern day Arminiansim and Molinism. For me the first 5 affirmations need some revision but this is Dr. Keathley's work. I personally hold to the view "Once Saved Always Saved" I believe that election is conditional Luke 7:50. I do not agree that faith is a special infused gift. We are created in God's image and when we have an object to believe in we have that capacity. It is true that all comes from God and in this manner all that is - is a gift, but as far as believing faith no it is not a gift specifically given to man so that he will believe, he has this ability or capacity because he is created in the image of God. Once man hears the gospel he then has an object to trust in. There is sufficient proof that a pre saving grace exist and that faith is prior to salvation (regeneration) and in fact it is impossible to scripturally prove that regeneration is first and faith follows, this simply cannot be proved from the bible, faith first and salvation second (regeneration)

 

[AndOne]

My issue with molinism is the teaching of "God's knowledge of counterfactual realities" - or middle knowledge. That is certainly a philosophical view that is nowhere represented in scripture.

Weather or not you agree with Calvinism or Arminianism you can see where each side has tried to present its case strictly from scripture. But molonism is just an idea that is nowhere even mentioned or alluded to in scripture. Seriously - molinism is not an argument that can made be for at all from a scriptural point-of-view.

I have heard it over and over again from folks who say Calvinism is nothing more than a philosophy - which just isn't true - it is a position made from scriptural exigesis. But you simply can't make that statement about molonism - because there is no scripture anywere that brings up "middle-knowledge." It is soley a philosophy brought about by the Roman Catholic Jesuit Luis de Molina in the 16th century to respond to the reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God. It is a philosophy - and nothing more.

 

[nobdysfool]

If I can act contrary to how God knows I will act, then God’s decree might not come to pass

It is false that God’s decree might not come to pass

Therefore, I cannot act contrary to how God knows I will act

Q.E.D.

Molinism refuted in a nutshell. Libertarian Free Will also refuted.

 

[Easystreet]

My issue with molinism is the teaching of "God's knowledge of counterfactual realities" - or middle knowledge. That is certainly a philosophical view that is nowhere represented in scripture.

Weather or not you agree with Calvinism or Arminianism you can see where each side has tried to present its case strictly from scripture. But molonism is just an idea that is nowhere even mentioned or alluded to in scripture. Seriously - molinism is not an argument that can made be for at all from a scriptural point-of-view.

I have heard it over and over again from folks who say Calvinism is nothing more than a philosophy - which just isn't true - it is a position made from scriptural exigesis. But you simply can't make that statement about molonism - because there is no scripture anywere that brings up "middle-knowledge." It is soley a philosophy brought about by the Roman Catholic Jesuit Luis de Molina in the 16th century to respond to the reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God. It is a philosophy - and nothing more.

Have you read Dr. Keathley's book? He supports the Molinist View soundly with Scripture.

 

[AndOne]

Have you read Dr. Keathley's book? He supports the Molinist View soundly with Scripture.

No I have not - but I think I will check it out when I get a chance.

In the mean time can you provied a quote or example from the book in which middle-knowledge is substantiated with scripture? I would be very interested in that.

Also - do you know from what background Dr. Keathley comes from? Is he Baptist, Catholic, etc.?

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoting from page 7 of Dr. Kenneth Keathley's book "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach"

"So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced the Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvatoin or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, Accomplisher, and Completer of salvation (i.e. salvatoin is a work of grace from beginning to end); (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ.

However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced the Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvatoin of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God's grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvatoin was genuinely available to the unbeliever). As we will see, there is only one positoin that coherently holds to all ten affirmation, and that is Molinism."

While I like the Molinist view I personally lean more toward a mixture of modern day Arminiansim and Molinism. For me the first 5 affirmations need some revision but this is Dr. Keathley's work. I personally hold to the view "Once Saved Always Saved" I believe that election is conditional Luke 7:50. I do not agree that faith is a special infused gift. We are created in God's image and when we have an object to believe in we have that capacity. It is true that all comes from God and in this manner all that is - is a gift, but as far as believing faith no it is not a gift specifically given to man so that he will believe, he has this ability or capacity because he is created in the image of God. Once man hears the gospel he then has an object to trust in. There is sufficient proof that a pre saving grace exist and that faith is prior to salvation (regeneration) and in fact it is impossible to scripturally prove that regeneration is first and faith follows, this simply cannot be proved from the bible, faith first and salvation second (regeneration)

Is there a link to that source? Also, do you have permission to quote it?

 

[Easystreet]

If I can act contrary to how God knows I will act, then God’s decree might not come to pass

It is false that God’s decree might not come to pass

Therefore, I cannot act contrary to how God knows I will act

Q.E.D.

Molinism refuted in a nutshell. Libertarian Free Will also refuted.

Actually I agree with you in that this represents your view from your set of rules (hermeneutical approach). However, from the Molinist view your statement is not applicable, except as only an alternative understanding of God’s decree/s. From the Molinist premise your statement is not accurate or representative of Molinism but of your view. The issue here in not if you are wrong or right but that there are different views of which your view and Molinism are two of those views which do differ. So to say that Molinism is refuted by your view is contained within your view or isolated to your thinking from your hermeneutical understanding, but not correct in the Molinist view and does not of itself hold true when view from a different hermeneutical approach to God’s word that is not of your view which this view sees your view in the same light you described Molinism. So they are mutually disagreeable and should we say opposed to each other yet both held by their followers as Biblically credible. Molinist embraces certain aspects of Calvinism and Arminianism but it seems from the data offered that from your perspective you see it differently, yet your view is reject by Molinism and in its rejection Molinism is understood to answer critical issue in Scripture that are not, in the Molinist view, answered by your view such as the evidence of counterfactuals among other differences.

 

[AndOne]

Is there a link to that source? Also, do you have permission to quote it?

I believe this is the book: Amazon.com: Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (9780805431988): Kenneth Keathley: Books

ES - if you don't want to post the answer to my questions here feel free to PM me... I honesly would like to know what the scriptural support is for middle-knowledge...

I got the answer to my question on his background from Amazon. Thanks.

 

[nobdysfool]

Actually I agree with you in that this represents your view from your set of rules (hermeneutical approach). However, from the Molinist view your statement is not applicable, except as only an alternative understanding of God’s decree/s. From the Molinist premise your statement is not accurate or representative of Molinism but of your view. The issue here in not if you are wrong or right but that there are different views of which your view and Molinism are two of those views which do differ. So to say that Molinism is refuted by your view is contained within your view or isolated to your thinking from your hermeneutical understanding, but not correct in the Molinist view and does not of itself hold true when view from a different hermeneutical approach to God’s word that is not of your view which this view sees your view in the same light you described Molinism. So they are mutually disagreeable and should we say opposed to each other yet both held by their followers as Biblically credible. Molinist embraces certain aspects of Calvinism and Arminianism but it seems from the data offered that from your perspective you see it differently, yet your view is reject by Molinism and in its rejection Molinism is understood to answer critical issue in Scripture that are not, in the Molinist view, answered by your view such as the evidence of counterfactuals among other differences.

Would you mind making that answer a bit less cryptic, and a little more understandable? Please try not to use run-on sentences. I had a very hard time trying to figure out what you were saying. I may not be the most intelligent guy around, but I'm far from the least intelligent (IQ of 140), and if I had trouble following that rambling paragraph, I'm sure others did as well.

From what I've read about Molinism, it is an attempt to uphold the Sovereignty of God, AND Libertarian Free Will. As I posted before, Scripture teaches that God is Absolutely Sovereign over all, and man is responsible for his moral choices. Molinism tinkers with the attributes and knowledge of God, while basically not tinkering with their idea of free will in man at all. On its face, that is unbalanced, and suspect. Seeing how Molinism's origin is from the RCC, I'm surprised that you, as a Baptist, would even consider it, except maybe as a means to pursue the quixotic idea of defeating Calvinism. You should know by now that that will never happen.

 

[Jpark]

Quoting from page 7 of Dr. Kenneth Keathley's book "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach"

"So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced the Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvatoin or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, Accomplisher, and Completer of salvation (i.e. salvatoin is a work of grace from beginning to end); (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ.

However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced the Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvatoin of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God's grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvatoin was genuinely available to the unbeliever). As we will see, there is only one positoin that coherently holds to all ten affirmation, and that is Molinism."

I agree entirely with #3, 4, 6, 7, 8 (Jesus died for everyone but the promise, the benefits of His death, is only for those who believe and abide in Him (John 3:16; 15:5-6)), and perhaps #5 and 1.

But regarding #2, I disagree. Man has the desire to be with God. All people have inherent desire for God (Eccl. 3:11). This is the result of God giving us a spirit, which is nearest to God (Acts 17:27-28). Why else would God tell Cain to master sin? Take a look at Gal. 5:17. This could also be referring to the spirit God gives.

Regarding #1, God is capable of controlling everything, but He does not control our deeds, desires, etc., for God never possesses. Rather, our deeds, desires, etc. are either controlled (directed, determined) by predetermination (although God can intervene anytime) or by our own will (when we are given free will) (although God can intervene anytime). God can influence our deeds, desires, etc. though and He can manifest His desire through us (I believe this is known as "moved by the Holy Spirit") (i.e. when you see someone getting beaten down, you will likely go and help them. Sometimes, that can be God helping the person through you).

Regarding #5, while it is true that God will not cast out someone who is in Him, I believe it is possible for someone who is abiding in Him to leave Him (although this is difficult, since he has experienced the presence of God). How is this possible? Neglecting repentance and neglecting continuous abidance. Read John 13:8 and 15:6. Being unclean separates the person from God.

Regarding #10, humans only have free will when God gives them it. He does not give it to them their entire life and He does not allow them to retain it. The giving of free will is conditional. It is usually given by God before (with the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30-31)) and after sinning, but it can also be given in special instances (i.e. Satan was presented with the choice to serve God or refuse).

It can also be given permanently but the only time God gave it permanently was after Adam and Eve sinned and only to them. Compare Gen. 3:17 to Gen. 3:14. Adam and Eve were spared a direct cursing. Since Gen. 3:15 is obviously directed at Satan, clearly, Gen. 3:14 is two-fold. "On your belly you shall go" could refer to God taking away Satan's free will. For God controls the duration of how long we have free will.

Concerning responsibility,

During predetermined instances, people will not be judged for their deeds (since they are predetermined), but for not repenting of the predetermined deeds.

What I believe:

Basically, I believe predetermination is involved in our lives, but not always, and that our eternal fate (heaven or hell) is predetermined by God. I believe God gives free will in intervals, periods of time. We do not typically retain free will and the duration of the time we have free will is determined by God.

 

[Easystreet]

Would you mind making that answer a bit less cryptic, and a little more understandable? Please try not to use run-on sentences. I had a very hard time trying to figure out what you were saying. I may not be the most intelligent guy around, but I'm far from the least intelligent (IQ of 140), and if I had trouble following that rambling paragraph, I'm sure others did as well.

From what I've read about Molinism, it is an attempt to uphold the Sovereignty of God, AND Libertarian Free Will. As I posted before, Scripture teaches that God is Absolutely Sovereign over all, and man is responsible for his moral choices. Molinism tinkers with the attributes and knowledge of God, while basically not tinkering with their idea of free will in man at all. On its face, that is unbalanced, and suspect. Seeing how Molinism's origin is from the RCC, I'm surprised that you, as a Baptist, would even consider it, except maybe as a means to pursue the quixotic idea of defeating Calvinism. You should know by now that that will never happen.

Augustine and Calvin both accepted the RCC practice of infant baptism:

32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.


Source

 

[nobdysfool]

Augustine and Calvin both accepted the RCC practice of infant baptism:

32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.

OK, so what? What does that have to do with Molinism? Answer: absolutely nothing! So, in essence, you did not even address my request, which would be to the benefit of all.

 

[Easystreet]

OK, so what? What does that have to do with Molinism? Answer: absolutely nothing! So, in essence, you did not even address my request, which would be to the benefit of all.

I would say that the following answers your question:

"The Bible presents us with a remarkable juxtaposition: God's sovereign control and certain foreknowledge on the one hand, and contingent, conditional human choices on the other hand. At times, both are affirmed in the same passage (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23). We have also seen that Scripture teaches God has perfect counterfactual knowledge of contingent human choices.

Molinism does not merely argue that God knows all counterfactual truths of creaturely freedom; it contends that God uses all such counterfactual knowledge. As Craig explain, "Thus, by employing his counterfactual knowledge, God can plan a world down to the last detail and yet do so without annihilating creaturely freedom, since what people would freely do under various circumstances is already factored into the equation by God." ..................."

Pages 38 and 39 "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach" by Dr. Kenneth Keathley

I would remind you that Dr. Kenneth Keathley is a Southern Baptist and the limited number of Calvinist in the SBC do not control the SBC. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of SBC members are not Calvinist; they are closer to OSAS Arminian, or Molinism or Geisler's understanding as he labels himself as "Moderate Calvinist".

It has been the attempt by some Calvinist to frame the argument concerning SBC members as a Calvinist body of believers but this notion is far from reality, I recently recall reading that the rank and file of the SBC as it pertains to Calvinism is less than 10 percent. So that would mean that the vast majority of SBC members do not identify with Calvinism.

 

[drstevej]

I would say that the following answers your question:

"The Bible presents us with a remarkable juxtaposition: God's sovereign control and certain foreknowledge on the one hand, and contingent, conditional human choices on the other hand. At times, both are affirmed in the same passage (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23).

Why not just state the juxtaposition and not try to unscrew the inscrutable?

QFT, if I do say so my own self.

 

[nobdysfool]

I would say that the following answers your question:

"The Bible presents us with a remarkable juxtaposition: God's sovereign control and certain foreknowledge on the one hand, and contingent, conditional human choices on the other hand. At times, both are affirmed in the same passage (Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23). We have also seen that Scripture teaches God has perfect counterfactual knowledge of contingent human choices.

Molinism does not merely argue that God knows all counterfactual truths of creaturely freedom; it contends that God uses all such counterfactual knowledge. As Craig explain, "Thus, by employing his counterfactual knowledge, God can plan a world down to the last detail and yet do so without annihilating creaturely freedom, since what people would freely do under various circumstances is already factored into the equation by God." ..................."

Pages 38 and 39 "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach" by Dr. Kenneth Keathley

I would remind you that Dr. Kenneth Keathley is a Southern Baptist and the limited number of Calvinist in the SBC do not control the SBC. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of SBC members are not Calvinist; they are closer to OSAS Arminian, or Molinism or Geisler's understanding as he labels himself as "Moderate Calvinist".

It has been the attempt by some Calvinist to frame the argument concerning SBC members as a Calvinist body of believers but this notion is far from reality, I recently recall reading that the rank and file of the SBC as it pertains to Calvinism is less than 10 percent. So that would mean that the vast majority of SBC members do not identify with Calvinism.

So, once again, this is drifting into an anti-Calvinist exercise....Calvinism is not evil. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but that does not extend to trying to portray it as something it is not.

Let's see Scriptural support for your Molinistic views, not philosophical stuff. If it is true, you should be able to demonstrate it convincingly from Scripture. So far, we have not seen it.

 

[AndOne]

It has been the attempt by some Calvinist to frame the argument concerning SBC members as a Calvinist body of believers but this notion is far from reality, I recently recall reading that the rank and file of the SBC as it pertains to Calvinism is less than 10 percent. So that would mean that the vast majority of SBC members do not identify with Calvinism.

Where are you getting these figures from?

Regardless - my wife and I are Southern Baptist - attend a Southern Baptist Church - do not hide the fact that we are Calvinist - and yet no one has asked us to leave. If the Southern Baptist church has a problem with Calvinists - why are we still members?

 

[Easystreet]

20 Then He proceeded to denounce the towns where most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes long ago! 22 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today. 24 But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Matt 11:20-24 (HCSB)

 

[AndOne]

Augustine and Calvin both accepted the RCC practice of infant baptism:

32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.


Source

What's the point of this post? Should we automatically preclude those who believe in padeobaptism (regardless of their sotorieological position) from fellowship? Is that what you are trying to say?

 

[Easystreet]

Where are you getting these figures from?

Regardless - my wife and I are Southern Baptist - attend a Southern Baptist Church - do not hide the fact that we are Calvinist - and yet no one has asked us to leave. If the Southern Baptist church has a problem with Calvinists - why are we still members?

I don't remember where I read the percentages. There are I know for sure two Calvinist where I go to church and out of 500 and that would be .0147 percent.

 

[nobdysfool]

Paedobaptism and the relative theology of SBC members has no relevance to this thread. Stick to the subject, please.