Molinism

[Benefactor]

Dr. Keathley did affirm on notion of Molinism that the OP decried...mainly that there are possibly some in one world who would be saved who, because a greater number would be saved in this world, will not be saved. Which reinforces my claim that Minism is just a numbers game to God.

Harsh I think but it is your evaluation. If it is a numbers "thing" how is it then that your view escapes the "numbers" test?


I am not sure exactly what flavor of Calvinism you hold, but I understand Calvinism to hold that God picked less than half and using percentages to make sure we allow for the maximum number of lost to be pre picked we will assume that God picked 49.9999999999 percent of all humans from Adam to the last soul to live on planet Earth when it comes to its end. This would mean that 50.111111111111111111 percent is absolutely damned to hell regardless of how the reprobates wind up in hell in the Calvinist viewS (plural).

It seems reasonable in that you are introducing numbers which you correctly reference in Keathley's book. Can you refute that all systems are not number conscious because the Bible is and all we are doing is trying to figure out how it is meant to be understood.

It seems that the focus is to find a way to discredit Keathley and Molinism. The book offered as an approach. Your system is too an approach. Are not all soteriologies approaches to understand what God's word teaches on this great subject that fascinates us? The doctrine of salvation is one of the more attractive topics that intrigue believers and unbelievers.

I am not afraid of the number game or approach. It would be impossible for any soteriology to escape this reality.

 

[Benefactor]

Well, I went through to the end of the chapter and didn't find the Scriptural support for that statement. In fact, he keeps claiming that Molinism has all of this scriptural support, but rarely produces any.

Now that you have read the book and claim that it has no scriptural support is of itself strictly your opinion. We both know that the scripture he offers in support of the Molinist Approach is valid but no one can make you accept it. Pages 226 to 232 list all the passages he uses to deal with the content of the book. I dare say that this host of references to God's word supports your claim. You may not agree with his view but to say he does not used Scripture to support the ROSE model and its relationship to Molinism well that is just not so.

Because you read the book and assert what you said does not invalidate the fact that Keathley legitimately argues his view with Scripture.

I have a number of Calvinist books in my library and all of them support their view with Scripture. I have a number of Arminian books in my library and all of them support their view with Scripture. I have Keathley's book and he too supports his view with Scripture.

I could disingenuously claim that all my books do not scripturally support their views, but that would be disingenuous.

 

[Hammster]

Now that you have read the book and claim that it has no scriptural support is of itself strictly your opinion.

Actually, I said I read through the end of the chapter you referenced in your previous post, the one I asked for scriptural references to support. You gave page numbers, but since they don't line up with my app, I read to the end of the chapter. And he gave no scriptural support for the statement you quoted.

 

[Benefactor]

Actually, I said I read through the end of the chapter you referenced in your previous post, the one I asked for scriptural references to support. You gave page numbers, but since they don't line up with my app, I read to the end of the chapter. And he gave no scriptural support for the statement you quoted.

The answers to your questions are there in the book. I cannot make you accept them. The entire book is filled with Scripture supporting His thesis.

 

[Hammster]

The answers to your questions are there in the book. I cannot make you accept them. The entire book is filled with Scripture supporting His thesis.

"Molinism simultaneously affirms meticulous, divine sovereignty and genuine human freedom. How does it do this? In short, Molinism argues that God is able to exercise His sovereignty primarily by HIs omniscience. In this way God controls all things but is not re determinative cause of all things."

Here is the quote you gave. I looked it up and there was no supporting scripture immediately following. So I did as you suggested and read to the end of the chapter. There was no scripture given that referred back to this comment. So since you can't give scripture to support it (at least for those who haven't read the book), and Keatley doesn't bother to give scripture to support it, we ate left to conclude that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[Hammster]

I am not afraid of the number game or approach. It would be impossible for any soteriology to escape this reality.

Well, at least this time you admit that Molinism is a numbers game. Last time you said that it didn't work that way. Progress.

 

[nobdysfool]

As can be seen, Scriptural support for Molinism is nearly non-existent, and what is passed off as support is "Keathley says this, Keathley says that...." ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad absurdium. The Scriptural support is so scanty, that it calls into question just how Scriptural it can be. Calvinism, by contrast has FAR more Scriptural support.

 

[Benefactor]

".......I welcome the present volume, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathley, Professor of Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. This book will answer the need for all those Baptists and probably for a host of others outside of our Baptist Zion - all of whom are intensely uncomfortable with the conclusions of Calvinism, especially with the Dortian Calvinism and its logic, exegesis, and potential effect on the question of the sincere offer of salvation in Christ to all people." For those who find themselves in that position, here is an irenic proposal attempting just assessment of the proposals of the biblical text."

Forward ix Dr. Page Patterson

Emphasis mine
Easy Ben

 

[themuzicman]

As can be seen, Scriptural support for Molinism is nearly non-existent, and what is passed off as support is "Keathley says this, Keathley says that...." ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad absurdium. The Scriptural support is so scanty, that it calls into question just how Scriptural it can be. Calvinism, by contrast has FAR more Scriptural support.

LOL... The Scriptural support for what Calvinism claims regarding the compatibility between foreknowledge and free will is just as scant as Molinism.

 

[Benefactor]

"Finally, an approach to the doctrines of salvation that breaks the impasse between the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism... I migrated from Calvinism to Molinism several years ago, but have been unable to point others to a suitable primer - until now." Gordon Johnston, OT department, Dallas Theological Seminary


These comments are on the back outside cover of Dr.Keathley's book

 

[nobdysfool]

"Finally, an approach to the doctrines of salvation that breaks the impasse between the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism... I migrated from Calvinism to Molinism several years ago, but have been unable to point others to a suitable primer - until now." Gordon Johnston, OT department, Dallas Theological Seminary


These comments are on the back outside cover of Dr.Keathley's book

Well, please explain to us how that is "proof"? Repeatedly we have asked for it, and this is the kind of answer we get. It's not proof, it's opinion.

Opinions are something that everyone has, and they aren't known for their sweet smell....

What happened to "The Bible. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else"?

Too limiting?

 

[heymikey80]

"[Calvinism] go[es] much further in unpacking the revelatory material on this subject and demonstrating, not just asserting, its non-contradictory relationship, than Keathley does. In fact, the irony of his caveat against Calvinism is that it comes immediately after he confessed mystery concerning how God foreknows precisely what “genuinely free creatures will choose”. When Calvinists explain the world in terms of divine decrees of creation, providence, and election and God’s purposive use of and energetic involvement with secondary causation, including human activity, that is harsh; when Molinists reject divine decree, but substitute God’s decision to create in the full knowledge that human freedom would bring about exactly this kind of world, that is not harsh." Tom J. Nettles, "The Founders Journal", Summer 2010

 

[Hammster]

One thing Keathley does repeatedly is assert that Scripture bettersupports Molinism than it does Calvinism or Arminianism. Yet he never gets around to producing the Scripture. He regularly points out verses that support the idea of counterfactuals, but can never quite show how that proves that God used middle knowledge to create this world.

Mostly for his proof he uses extra-biblical references such ad It's A Wonderful Life, or Eisenhower and Normandy. And while these may be good examples to illustrate counterfactuals, they do nothing to prove Molinism.

 

[Hammster]

I looked in the back of the book at the Scriptural references. Now may my Kindle version doesn't have them listed due to formatting, but there are no corresponding page numbers to go along side. So I guess the OP will have to provide them to us to support each argument. But I wouldn't imagine that would be too difficult.

 

[drstevej]

Has Keathley reached canonical status yet?

 

[Hammster]

The way he is presented without biblical support, maybe.

 

[nobdysfool]

Has Keathley reached canonical status yet?

I think someone here thinks he's there, his words are referred to when scripture is asked for many times. I've searched, but my Bible doesn't have a book of Keathley, or a book of Molinism in it. Is my Bible defective?

 

[Benefactor]

What do you make of these words,

"from HIs knowledge of all possibilities, he chose and ordained the course of action that He willed to set in motion -............"

Where would you place this comment?

Open View - Theism

Simple Foreknowledge View - Arminiaism

Middle Knowledge View - Molinism

Calvinist View

 

[Hammster]

What do you make of these words,

"from HIs knowledge of all possibilities, he chose and ordained the course of action that He willed to set in motion -............"

Where would you place this comment?

Open View - Theism

Simple Foreknowledge View - Arminiaism

Middle Knowledge View - Molinism

Calvinist View

What verse is that? I can't find it in the NAS or ESV. Thanks.

 

[drstevej]

What do you make of these words,

"from HIs knowledge of all possibilities, he chose and ordained the course of action that He willed to set in motion -............"

Where would you place this comment?

Open View - Theism

Simple Foreknowledge View - Arminiaism

Middle Knowledge View - Molinism

Calvinist View

Google says it is the view of Robert Picirilli, Professor Emeritus at Free Will Baptist Bible College.