Molinism

[Hammster]

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

No, I'm saying that you have shown zero scriptural evidence that supports that God didi ndeed pick the best possible world to save the maximum number of people. Zero.

 

[drstevej]

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

Gap Theory.

 

[Benefactor]

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

As touching this specific issue in our dialogue your questions have been answered, therefore we are to move on to other issues. I do not wish to continue to answer your questions on this particular issue or any variation of it for as stated they have been addressed.

 

[Benefactor]

Gap Theory.

The Gap Theory was a view that was taught at DTS or by those who graduated from DTS if my memory serves me correctly. Do you hold to the GT? Does DTS teach this today?

 

[Benefactor]

Here is an interesting comment Keathley notes on page 56 that Engelsma makes. Quoting Engelsma from his book "Hyper-Calvinism and the Will-Meant Offering of the Gospel, page 41.

"You can now preach to all men that God loves them with a redemptive love and that Christ died for them to save them from their sins, but at the same time you must whisper to yourself, "But He will actually save only some of you and He will not save others of you according to His own sovereign will." What you whisper to yourself makes the message of universal love, universal atonement, and a universal desire to save, which you proclaim loudly, a fraud."

Again this quoted from Engelsma is found on page 56 of Keathley's book as noted in other post in this thread.

 

[drstevej]

I have to say I get a big rush to see infighting among Calvinist.

What a sad reaction. Are we your enemies? We are brothers in Christ with you. Why would you enjoy seeing fighting in the family of God?

 

[Hammster]

As touching this specific issue in our dialogue your questions have been answered, therefore we are to move on to other issues. I do not wish to continue to answer your questions on this particular issue or any variation of it for as stated they have been addressed.

Still waiting.

 

[drstevej]

The Gap Theory was a view that was taught at DTS or by those who graduated from DTS if my memory serves me correctly. Do you hold to the GT? Does DTS teach this today?

Some, including Dr. Bruce Waltke, taught it at DTS but it is not and has not been the position of the seminary, per se. I have no idea who hold what there today.

I do find the Hebrew of Genesis1:2 supportive of some type of judgment between verse 1 and 2. If so then Genesis 1:2ff is a refashioning not original creation. The rest often linked with this GAP is speculative.

 

[Benefactor]

What a sad reaction. Are we your enemies? NO We are brothers in Christ with you. YES Why would you enjoy seeing fighting in the family of God? I don't see it as fighting but healthy disagreement that reveals the inconsistency of this particular view.

.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On​

This thread has been cleaned to remove some off topic posts.
Please stick to the subject rather than making personal comments.

Thanks

Mod Hat Off​

​

 

[Benefactor]

Some, including Dr. Bruce Waltke, taught it at DTS but it is not and has not been the position of the seminary, per se. I have no idea who hold what there today.

I do find the Hebrew of Genesis1:2 supportive of some type of judgment between verse 1 and 2. If so then Genesis 1:2ff is a refashioning not original creation. The rest often linked with this GAP is speculative.

It is fascinating but there is allot of unknowns. It has intrigued me too concerning Melchizedek. If there were priest of the most High God then - then there was a witness about God perhaps more so that we allow the Scripture to teach us. The limited history within the first 2000 or as the GT has suggested much more so in their area of 10K does invite adventure into conjecture when we have isolated passages like the one concerning Melchizedek.

There is a person who has some U-tubes on the topic but I don't recall his name at the moment. I have listened to some of the material and it is fascinating.

 

[drstevej]

I have to say I get a big rush to see infighting among Calvinist.

I don't see it as fighting but healthy disagreement that reveals the inconsistency of this particular view.

Which statement is factual and which statement is counter-factual? As to these two statements, I think imcompatibilism take on new meaning.

 

[drstevej]

It is fascinating but there is allot of unknowns. It has intrigued me too concerning Melchizedek. If there were priest of the most High God then - then there was a witness about God perhaps more so that we allow the Scripture to teach us. The limited history within the first 2000 or as the GT has suggested much more so in their area of 10K does invite adventure into conjecture when we have isolated passages like the one concerning Melchizedek.

There is a person who has some U-tubes on the topic but I don't recall his name at the moment. I have listened to some of the material and it is fascinating.

Speculation, whether on the issue you mention or Molinism, needs to be labeled as such before we forget it is speculation.

 

[Benefactor]

Which statement is factual and which statement is counter-factual? As to these two statements, I think imcompatibilism take on new meaning.

In this case it would take God's absolute knowledge of our heart's intent to answer without reservation. Imcompatibilism is that a word or a miss type?

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

"Knockout punches"? Hardly! All that is felt is the puff of air going by from a swing and a miss. Neither verse is even addressing an order of events. Then to top it off with another buzz word ("consequent" will of God). Let's face it. You don't have any real Scriptural support for Molinism, let alone for the opposition to Calvinism.

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.

Calvinism attempts to, and I believe does, explain the tension between what is stated as God's desire for mankind, and what has, is, and will transpire.

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.

Calvinism explains that seeming contradiction, while Arminian and other non-Calvinist theologies either gloss over it, or get all emotional and make emotional arguments about it. If God wants everyone to be saved, why is that not happening? It can't be because God can't make it happen, He's all-powerful. So there's something else at play here. As for your claim that there is no support for God choosing some, but not all to Salvation (the claim of "arbitrary" is fallacious), the bible is filled with examples of exactly that, with Israel being a prime example. So that claim is also fallacious.

The issue here is God’s Holiness.

Actually, the issue is God is God and we are not. Salvation is only part of His Purpose. Ultimately, God desires to display His Glory, which encompasses ALL of His Attributes, in not only the salvation of sinners, but in the Holiness of His Justice, the Sovereignty of His majesty and Glory, and the absolute proof of the utter sinfulness and folly of Sin and Rebellion.

God cannot violate His Holiness to accommodate Himself to a view that dethrones Himself.

And nothing does so much to dethrone God as the idea that man's "free will" is the deciding factor in his own salvation.

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.

Please provide us with Scriptural support for this statement.

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.

Once again, Molinism is not defended from Scripture, but from Philosophy. Not good enough.

 

[Benefactor]

Molinism and Arminianism both believe that the following:

nobdysfool states -
I am not impressed by someone who makes scripture say what they want it to say, I am impressed and blessed by those who expound on what the Scriptures DO say!

It is good that you believe "What the Scriptures Do say!"

[FONT='Verdana', 'Arial', 'Helvetica', sans-serif]50[/FONT] And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace
Luke 7:50 (HCSB)

It says here that the woman's faith has saved her, not the other way around. Saved did not faith her.

 

[Easystreet]

"Knockout punches"? Hardly! All that is felt is the puff of air going by from a swing and a miss. Neither verse is even addressing an order of events. Then to top it off with another buzz word ("consequent" will of God). Let's face it. You don't have any real Scriptural support for Molinism, let alone for the opposition to Calvinism.



Calvinism attempts to, and I believe does, explain the tension between what is stated as God's desire for mankind, and what has, is, and will transpire.



Calvinism explains that seeming contradiction, while Arminian and other non-Calvinist theologies either gloss over it, or get all emotional and make emotional arguments about it. If God wants everyone to be saved, why is that not happening? It can't be because God can't make it happen, He's all-powerful. So there's something else at play here. As for your claim that there is no support for God choosing some, but not all to Salvation (the claim of "arbitrary" is fallacious), the bible is filled with examples of exactly that, with Israel being a prime example. So that claim is also fallacious.



Actually, the issue is God is God and we are not. Salvation is only part of His Purpose. Ultimately, God desires to display His Glory, which encompasses ALL of His Attributes, in not only the salvation of sinners, but in the Holiness of His Justice, the Sovereignty of His majesty and Glory, and the absolute proof of the utter sinfulness and folly of Sin and Rebellion.



And nothing does so much to dethrone God as the idea that man's "free will" is the deciding factor in his own salvation.



Please provide us with Scriptural support for this statement.



Once again, Molinism is not defended from Scripture, but from Philosophy. Not good enough.

If you take Holiness away from God what kind of sovereignty would God's sovereignty be? Sovereignty controlled by Holiness or by the absence of Holiness?

 

[Hammster]

It says here that the woman's faith has saved her

Are you saying God didn't save her? Sounds a bit hetetical.

 

[Benefactor]

Over time the Christian community has, to a degree, allowed proponents of Calvinism to hijack the doctrine of believing faith. The view they posit of course is the child of Augustine and popularized by Calvin but that does not make it correct.

Molinism as well as Arminianism and Moderate "Calvinism" do not agree with the extreme view of hyper Calvinism.

Keathley is correct to point out that the Bible does not present faith as a work as Calvinism does when viewing saving faith from the non Calvinist model. Salvation is by Grace through faith and the opposite of this is Salvation is not by Grace through works. When reading the NT the reference of works has as its identitfy the keeping of the Laws of Israel. Even within the community of Israel as a Nation which included gentiles who accepted the Jewish faith there were those who in their keeping of the law did so by faith, but most relied on the obedience of the law to save, which cannot save for apart from faith no one can please God.

Salvation and justification is by faith not works. Man must believe to be saved not be saved to believe. It is absolutely impossible to find one single verse in God's word that teaches believing faith is the result of salvation, no it is the total pattern in sacred writ that the sinner first believes then because of belief God regenerates the soul/spirit. Calvinism has yet over these 100s of years to prove their order from Scripture of salvation.

As Keathley puts it on page 109 of "Salvation and Sovereignty A Mollinist Approach"

"Anyone who wishes to contend that faith is a type of work finds the burden of proof is on them."

Faith is the instrument of salvation and the evidence of one’s relationship in Christ, it is from faith to faith. The Christian life starts with faith and continues on in faith.

Keathley cites Engelsma and Sproul Sr. as holding to the model of regeneration first and salvation second (which cannot be supported from Scripture) and see Erickson moving away from this toward the Molinist / Arminian scriptural model of faith first and salvation / regeneration second. According to Keathley Erickson follows "Effectual calling then Conversion then Regeneration.

One area I part with Keathley's view is that believing faith is a gift. The evidence to support this view is highly suspect, but it is a popular view across lines. Being popular however does not make it Biblical. Nowhere in Scripture is "believing faith called a gift" Eph. 2:8 and 9 does not support faith as a gift.

 

[nobdysfool]

Over time the Christian community has, to a degree, allowed proponents of Calvinism to hijack the doctrine of believing faith. The view they posit of course is the child of Augustine and popularized by Calvin but that does not make it correct.

Molinism as well as Arminianism and Moderate "Calvinism" do not agree with the extreme view of hyper Calvinism.

The argument begins to drift, right here. Calvinists do not "hijack" the doctrine of faith. Nor are Calvinists who teach that regeneration (not salvation) precedes believing faith properly called "hyper Calvinists", nor do they teach "hyper Calvinism". Hyper Calvinism is an extreme, false form of Calvinism that discourages evangelism, as well as other views that mainstream Calvinists do not teach, and reject. The majority of Calvinists on this forum are NOT hyper Calvinists by any accurate definition.

Keathley is correct to point out that the Bible does not present faith as a work as Calvinism does when viewing saving faith from the non Calvinist model. Salvation is by Grace through faith and the opposite of this is Salvation is not by Grace through works. When reading the NT the reference of works has as its identitfy the keeping of the Laws of Israel. Even within the community of Israel as a Nation which included gentiles who accepted the Jewish faith there were those who in their keeping of the law did so by faith, but most relied on the obedience of the law to save, which cannot save for apart from faith no one can please God.

Salvation and justification is by faith not works. Man must believe to be saved not be saved to believe.

This is a mis-statement of the Calvinist teaching. In Calvinism, regeneration is the very beginning of the entire process called Salvation. The terms are not equivalent or interchangeable. Thus, the correct representation of Calvinist theology is that regeneration comes before faith, and this is considering the process of Salvation logically, not temporally.

It is absolutely impossible to find one single verse in God's word that teaches believing faith is the result of salvation, no it is the total pattern in sacred writ that the sinner first believes then because of belief God regenerates the soul/spirit. Calvinism has yet over these 100s of years to prove their order from Scripture of salvation.

Again, the Calvinist model is mis-stated. Regeneration comes first, which is followed by believing faith, that faith having its source in the preaching of the Gospel. God first regenerates the sinner, which opens their ears and newly regenerated heart to the Gospel, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, and as a result of believing, they are justified, forgiven, sanctified, and receive adoption into the family of God, being joined to Christ in spirit, and indwelt by his Holy Spirit, as a seal of that adoption.

As Keathley puts it on page 109 of "Salvation and Sovereignty A Mollinist Approach"

"Anyone who wishes to contend that faith is a type of work finds the burden of proof is on them."

Another misstatement of the Calvinist view. The opposing view, presented above, where God rewards the one believing with regeneration ("because of belief God regenerates the soul/spirit."), actually looks more like regeneration as a reward for right behavior, which is more like a "works-reward" model.

Faith is the instrument of salvation and the evidence of one’s relationship in Christ, it is from faith to faith. The Christian life starts with faith and continues on in faith.

No one argues that the Christian lives by faith, and that without faith it is impossible to please God, that is a given.

Keathley cites Engelsma and Sproul Sr. as holding to the model of regeneration first and salvation second (which cannot be supported from Scripture) and see Erickson moving away from this toward the Molinist / Arminian scriptural model of faith first and salvation / regeneration second. According to Keathley Erickson follows "Effectual calling then Conversion then Regeneration.

I wasn't aware that Keathley had replaced the Word of God as the source to refer to regarding doctrine. Nor was I aware that Engelsma, Sproul Sr., or Erickson were also references of first resort when defending doctrine. Perhaps Benefactor could provide us with justification for doing so, rather than referring to Scripture, which I believe is the final authority.

One area I part with Keathley's view is that believing faith is a gift. The evidence to support this view is highly suspect, but it is a popular view across lines. Being popular however does not make it Biblical. Nowhere in Scripture is "believing faith called a gift" Eph. 2:8 and 9 does not support faith as a gift.

One thing missing here is the clear statement "in my opinion". Free will advocates don't like to accept that faith is a gift, because it undermines their belief that they materially participate in the beginning of their life as a Christian. Yet, Scripture DOES teach that faith is a gift, when properly understood.

Bottom line, if one is going to try and refute Calvinism, or parts of it, they need to have their facts straight, and properly and accurately portray that which they oppose, not by lose definitions of terms, or redefinition of terms, but by being accurate, truthful and respectful, accurately stating what they disagree with, and not engaging in "talking points" which attempt to fog, conflate, and confuse the discussion.