Molinism

[Benefactor]

Actually I am typing. You seem to be impressed with philosophy.

I go in spurts, my attention span varies. Some are like Calvinist Theologians - How so? Long winded taking hundreds of pages to explain a single point, but it sell books.

One of my main interests is prophecy. I have had a consistent thirst to study and review prophecy once I found out that Amillennialism could not answer adequately passages concerning the future millennial kingdom, Israel and the Bride of Christ.

My most recent interest is "worship" and we are already reading a book on worship.

Reagan's Diaries take up some of my time, so my interest is eclectic

 

[Benefactor]

In all honesty regarding this book - it is by far the best book written "against" Calvinism I've seen. It is a very scholarly piece of work. The writer knows his stuff - I would love to see a Calvinist response to it someday. I think this one would give some of our own top theologians a run for their money.

I can see it as a serious thorn in the side of Calvinism.

 

[AndOne]

I can see it as a serious thorn in the side of Calvinism.

It is challenging I admit - but I remain unconvinced by his exegesis and arguments. I'm sure some will buy into it though - which is unfortunate...

 

[nobdysfool]

See 179

Scripture citations, and claims made about them collectively, all attached to a buzz word or two. That's not exegesis, it's not defending your own belief with anything substantial. Constantly pointing to extra-biblical works and authors as "proof" does not convince me, nor should it convince anyone. Molinism provides an easy refuge to continue to resist and fight against Calvinism. That's all it is. it tells you what you want to hear, so it's easy to embrace. The fact that there has been no in-depth Scriptural analysis is proof enough that there is none, or at least none that you can provide. If you cannot provide that analysis, why should we even listen?

 

[nobdysfool]

It is challenging I admit - but I remain unconvinced by his exegesis and arguments. I'm sure some will buy into it though - which is unfortunate...

People hear what they want to hear, and embrace what confirms what they want to believe...no matter how wrong it may be....

 

[Hammster]

I think he makes that statement in one of his u-tube videos. In context of all that he speaks to it makes sense. In addition to William Graig – Keathley’s book has my attention and he explains Molinism in a way that is, for me, very convincing. I am presently working my way through some of Graig’s material and other sources on the subject.

So is it possible, then, that in one possible world Person A would be saved, but in this world Person A isn't saved because that will lead to three more people being saved?

 

[Benefactor]

So is it possible, then, that in one possible world Person A would be saved, but in this world Person A isn't saved because that will lead to three more people being saved?

I apologize but I am having difficulty understanding your line of thinking. But I will try: Are you suggesting that person A in a given world is lost but if that person was saved it might result in three others being saved?

If this is the case the counterfactual is unknown and all the guessing cannot be know because we are not God. Would three people be saved if Person A was saved cannot be know by us, only God, but that would not guarantee that three others get saved. Now the several counterfactual sets of data we have are those that we can be sure of because it is recorded in Scripture and one example I have given is Matthew 11. We don't have to hypothesize because God directly tells us what the outcome would be, they would have repented.

 

[Hammster]

I apologize but I am having difficulty understanding your line of thinking. But I will try: Are you suggesting that person A in a given world is lost but if that person was saved it might result in three others being saved?

If this is the case the counterfactual is unknown and all the guessing cannot be know because we are not God. Would three people be saved if Person A was saved cannot be know by us, only God, but that would not guarantee that three others get saved. Now the several counterfactual sets of data we have are those that we can be sure of because it is recorded in Scripture and one example I have given is Matthew 11. We don't have to hypothesize because God directly tells us what the outcome would be, they would have repented.

You picked up what I was laying down.

The thing is, though, about Molinism is that you only seem to have the one passage in Matthew 11, and some other passages that may or may not speak of a contingency. What you are lacking, and what is completely necessary to make your view biblical (at least as far as discussing it is concerned) is scriptural support that says that God used middle knowledge to create this world. Give us some scripture that we can discuss concerning creation and Molinism. Otherwise, all you have is an entire view built upon one passage (which is about all I've seen from Craig).

 

[Benefactor]

You picked up what I was laying down.

The thing is, though, about Molinism is that you only seem to have the one passage in Matthew 11, and some other passages that may or may not speak of a contingency. What you are lacking, and what is completely necessary to make your view biblical (at least as far as discussing it is concerned) is scriptural support that says that God used middle knowledge to create this world. Give us some scripture that we can discuss concerning creation and Molinism. Otherwise, all you have is an entire view built upon one passage (which is about all I've seen from Craig).

I see that you are having a difficult time accepting the answers you have been given.

Let me illustrate: The rich man asks Jesus to send someone to tell his brothers so they would not come to this place (torment). Jesus told the rich man that they (his brothers) have Moses and if they won't hear Moses they will not hear someone sent to them from the dead.

Jesus who is from the dead is telling us that if Trye and Sidon had seem the mericals they would have repented. Rejection of this truth will not land you in the place of torement but the emphasis is that you have Jesus stating this counterfactual truth and you are not accepting it so you will not accept any more truth if you reject this truth and if you accept this one as Keathley explains it then you would not be seeking other proofs.

 

[themuzicman]

Did God gain knowledge ????
Does God learn new stuff.

Tozier rightly notes... God cannot learn. He's omniscient.

I realize Open Theism is an EasyStreet but it's the wrong road.

Might be the wrong road for Calvinism, but it's very biblical.

Gen 22:12 has been given as an example. Jer 3:6-7 is another. One could even make a case for Exo 32, where God changes His mind.
\

To be fair to Molinism, it was a philosophical attempt at demonstrating compatiblism, so one isn't going to see a lot of Scriptural evidence. Unfortunately, it only gets as far as demonstrating that God has free will.

 

[Hammster]

I see that you are having a difficult time accepting the answers you have been given.

Let me illustrate: The rich man asks Jesus to send someone to tell his brothers so they would not come to this place (torment). Jesus told the rich man that they (his brothers) have Moses and if they won't hear Moses they will not hear someone sent to them from the dead.

Jesus who is from the dead is telling us that if Trye and Sidon had seem the mericals they would have repented. Rejection of this truth will not land you in the place of torement but the emphasis is that you have Jesus stating this counterfactual truth and you are not accepting it so you will not accept any more truth if you reject this truth and if you accept this one as Keathley explains it then you would not be seeking other proofs.

Those passages are true, and I'm not arguing against that. So let me be really clear, again, that I'm MOT arguing against counterfactuals. What I'm asking for is the scriptural support that says that this is how god created this world...that He picked the best possible solution. The way you keep trying to avoid this question leads everyone to believe that you have no further Scriptural support and that all you have are giant leaps in philosophy.

 

[Benefactor]

One of the key components of Molinism is the consequent will of God and the Armanian view concerning salvation which is the same in that faith is a required condition prior to regeneration. Romans 10 and Luke 7:50 are knowkout punches of Scriptural text that settle the order of salvation as faith first and salvation second.

Also, to say that God decreed that a few of the all would be saved and the rest be damned does not square with this verse. Regardless of how the lost are lost when a side holds that God arbitrarily picked a few and not all does not matter. This view in earnest tries to focus the attention on why the lost are so condemned which takes the reader away from the most pivotal point in this system of belief, that being that salvation is set by decree and it does not matter regardless of why the lost will never ever be saved. Again the reason for the unpicked lost not becoming saved does not matter when one posits the arbitrary theory of salvation as this view does.

I Tim. 2:3-4 “3. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior 4. who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

You ask why? Because God who desires “wants” all to be saved who could have saved all but only saved a few of the all does not add up. These are contradictory. On the one hand we have clear verses that tell us God desires the salvation of all but on the other hand there is not support in God’s word that tell us God pick a few arbitrarily.

The issue here is God’s Holiness. God cannot violate His Holiness to accommodate Himself to a view that dethrones Himself. The sovereignty of God which is subordinate to His Holiness is destroyed when anything diminishes God’s Holiness. All power apart from Holiness is tyrannical.

Molinism as I understand it, based upon Keathley’s book, proves to the reader the balance between God’s Sovereignty and Holiness. Always remember sovereignty can never overrule Holiness for when it does God ceases to be God. Speak highly of God’s sovereignty but higher of His Holiness of which apart from or without or in contradiction of sovereignty becomes evil.

 

[Benefactor]

Those passages are true, and I'm not arguing against that. So let me be really clear, again, that I'm MOT arguing against counterfactuals. What I'm asking for is the scriptural support that says that this is how god created this world...that He picked the best possible solution. The way you keep trying to avoid this question leads everyone to believe that you have no further Scriptural support and that all you have are giant leaps in philosophy.

The answer to your question is found in a question?


Could God have created another world? Yes or No

The world of Tyre and Sidon of which Jesus commented that if they had seen the miracles they would have repented could this world have been created by God ?

If you say no He could not have done so then how is it possible for God to know that which is not possible?

 

[Benefactor]

10 Then David said, “Lord God of Israel, Your servant has heard that Saul intends to come to Keilah and destroy the town because of me. 11 Will the citizens of Keilah hand me over to him? Will Saul come down as Your servant has heard? Lord God of Israel, please tell Your servant.” The Lord answered, “He will come down.” 12 Then David asked, “Will the citizens of Keilah hand me and my men over to Saul?” “They will,” the Lord responded. 13 So David and his men, numbering about 600, left Keilah at once and moved from place to place. When it was reported to Saul that David had escaped from Keilah, he called off the expedition. 14 David then stayed in the wilderness strongholds and in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. Saul searched for him every day, but God did not hand David over to him.
1 Sam 23:10-14 (HCSB)



What if David had not left Keilah? It is not a trick question and the answer is in the text so we do not have to guess about it. God knows all possibilities and David made a free choice for what purpose is the record of sacred scripture relating to us such a dialogue between man and God if David was somehow some why programmed or made to do what he did, then in such a case the text becomes fallacious.

 

[Benefactor]

Those passages are true, and I'm not arguing against that. So let me be really clear, again, that I'm MOT arguing against counterfactuals. What I'm asking for is the scriptural support that says that this is how god created this world...that He picked the best possible solution. The way you keep trying to avoid this question leads everyone to believe that you have no further Scriptural support and that all you have are giant leaps in philosophy.

I was reminded about the past when my children were young. One of the statements every parent hears is "everyone or everybody" is doing it or has one or this or that. I doubt seriously that a part represent the whole but is seems in this case the "whole represents a few (synecdoche of the whole to represent the part).

 

[Benefactor]

Those passages are true, and I'm not arguing against that. So let me be really clear, again, that I'm MOT arguing against counterfactuals. What I'm asking for is the scriptural support that says that this is how god created this world...that He picked the best possible solution. The way you keep trying to avoid this question leads everyone to believe that you have no further Scriptural support and that all you have are giant leaps in philosophy.

In that we are in this particular world it would stand that based upon Scriptural testimony that this is the world God wanted, for is sure is the one we find ourselves in. Genesis makes that very clear. The record stands with regard to God's choice and I would hope that you are in agreement with God's Holy Word. I would hate to know that you see it otherwise, actually I would be somewhat taken back because even though you are a Calvinist I don't know any Calvinist that would deny this truth, unless you are the first of which I seriously doubt you are.

The Genesis account answers your concern.

 

[Hammster]

The answer to your question is found in a question?


Could God have created another world? Yes or No

The world of Tyre and Sidon of which Jesus commented that if they had seen the miracles they would have repented could this world have been created by God ?

If you say no He could not have done so then how is it possible for God to know that which is not possible?

That is still purely philosophical. Just because God could have done something a certain way doesn't mean He did. What do you have that says He did create this way? Nothing? That's what I thought.

 

[Benefactor]

I found it fascination when I read what Keathley stated concerning David Engelsma concerning the gospel.

Most, if not all believers, would affirm that the Gospel is necessary to the salvation of souls. Keathey views his work as follows, “Preaching does not offer the gospel. Preaching operates as the instrument by which faith is activated in the elect. The reprobate may hear the gospel, but its message is not for them. Engelsma contends that his position is not hyper Calvinism but consistent Calvinism.”

This information is found on page 50 of “Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach”

I think the book Keathey is referring to is “Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel” Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1994 (see page 213 in Bibliography – Keathey book)

 

[Benefactor]

That is still purely philosophical. Just because God could have done something a certain way doesn't mean He did. What do you have that says He did create this way? Nothing? That's what I thought.

OK, I take it by your answer that you are saying God could not have created another world other than this one?

Also, it seems you are saying that the world where Jesus tells us that if miracles were done in them they would have repented was not possible and are you affirming also from your view that this does not teach that another world could have existed when in fact this is what Jesus teaches us from this verse?

 

[Hammster]

In that we are in this particular world it would stand that based upon Scriptural testimony that this is the world God wanted, for is sure is the one we find ourselves in. Genesis makes that very clear. The record stands with regard to God's choice and I would hope that you are in agreement with God's Holy Word. I would hate to know that you see it otherwise, actually I would be somewhat taken back because even though you are a Calvinist I don't know any Calvinist that would deny this truth, unless you are the first of which I seriously doubt you are.

The Genesis account answers your concern.

Still waiting for ANY verse that says that says that this world was not Gid's first choice.