• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Molinism

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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
This is at least a partial view of every theology mentioned but (as far as I can tell) Open Theism.

But it's not about everything.

The fact that God freely injects Himself into His Creation for our salvation is the fact that Calvinism tries to comprehend -- and theology itself must conclude this free action of God is totally, completely outside this kind of foreknowledge. It comes from an entirely different place than simple omniscience. It comes from the character of God, and thus His mercy. Not His omniscience.

In other words, Picirilli's statement can't characterize the salvation of God's people. It can characterize a lot of other things, like reprobation. But it's not omniscience that implements God's free choice of His people, when no one warrants this choice. It's His mercy.
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
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?

I am not trying to prove to anyone what they do not want to accept. Everyone is free to decide what they believe, that is if they are not determined from eternity to believe as they do.

Those who are determinist, all things are necessary, then I must do what I do and you must do what you do, we don't have an ounce of choice for everything has been settled, all questions addressing any choice are null and void.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
I am not trying to prove to anyone what they do not want to accept. Everyone is free to decide what they believe, that is if they are not determined from eternity to believe as they do.

Those who are determinist, all things are necessary, then I must do what I do and you must do what you do, we don't have an ounce of choice for everything has been settled, all questions addressing any choice are null and void.

The fact that you will not just let it be, pretty much negates what you just said. Apparently the underwhelming response in favor of your view is something you didn't expect. The remarks about determinism are uncalled for, as that does not accurately describe Calvinism, but then again, you've never accurately described Calvinism or any part of it, so this is just more of the same.

I'm beginning to think that you are like the joke about the early Puritans, who laid awake nights because of the nagging feeling that someone, somewhere was having fun. In your case, it's that nagging feeling that someone, somewhere might be a Calvinist....You just can't seem to stop from attacking, bad-mouthing, and denigrating Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,188
2,677
63
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟115,334.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am not trying to prove to anyone what they do not want to accept. Everyone is free to decide what they believe, that is if they are not determined from eternity to believe as they do.

But if it cannot be proven by scripture, or found in scripture, or backed by scripture, in which case, as far as I have read, Keathley's "Molinism" is nothing more than what Paul described as:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -Col. 2:8 (KJV)

And Paul further warns:

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." -2 Tim. 3:5 (KJV)

Definition: Molinism- Jesuitism fashioned after the doctines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Molinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Molinism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

Charles Hodge said many, many years ago concerning Molinism:

Intermediate between things possible and actual, some theologians assume a third class of events, namely, the conditionally future. They do not actually occur, but they would occur provided something else should occur. Had Christ come a thousand years sooner than the date of his actual advent, the whole history of the world would have been different. This is a popular mode of regarding the concatenation of events. It is constantly said, that if Cromwell had been permitted to leave England; or, if Napoleon had failed to escape from Elba, the state of Europe would have been very different from what it is at present.

God, it is assumed, knows what would have been the sequence of events on any or every possible hypothesis. It is therefore said that there must be in God, besides the knowledge of simple intelligence by which He knows the possible, and the knowledge of vision by which He knows the actual, a scientia media, by which He knows the conditionally future. Illustrations of this form of knowledge, it is thought, are found in Scripture. In 1 Samuel xxiii. 11, it is said that David inquired of the Lord whether the men of Keilah would deliver him, should he remain among them, into the hands of Saul; and was answered that they would. Here, it is argued, the event was not merely possible, but conditionally certain. If David remained in Keilah, he certainly would have been delivered up. Thus our Lord said, that if his mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, the people of those cities would have repented. Here again is declared what would have happened, if something else had happened.

The Origin of this Distinction.

This distinction was introduced into theology by the Jesuit theologians Fonseca and Molina; by the latter in his work "De Concordia Providentiae et Gratiae Divinae cum Libero Arbitrio Hominis." Their object was to reconcile the foreordination of God with the freedom of man, and to explain the reason why some, and not others, were elected to eternal life. God foresaw who would repent and believe, if they received the knowledge of the Gospel and the gift of the Spirit, and these He elected to salvation.


This theory of a
scientia media was, for a like purpose, adopted by the Lutheran and Remonstrant theologians, but was strenuously opposed by the Reformed or Augustinians.


(1.) Because all events are included under the categories of the actual and possible; and, therefore, there is no room for such a class as events conditionally future. It is only possible, and not certain, how men would act under certain conditions, if their conduct be not predeterminmod, either by the purpose of God, or by their own decision already formed. Besides, it is the fundamental principle of the theologians who adopt this theory, or at least of many of them, that a free act must from its nature be uncertain as to its occurrence. A free agent, it is said, can always act contrary to any amount of influence brought to bear upon him, consistent with his free agency. But if free acts must be uncertain, they cannot be foreseen as certain under any conditions. (2.) The futurition of events, according to the Scriptures, depends on the foreordination of God, whc foreordains whatever comes to pass. There is no certainty, therefore, which does not depend on the divine purpose. (3.) The kind of knowledge which this theory supposes cannot belong to God, because it is inferential. It is deduced from a consideration of second causes and their influence, and therefore is inconsistent with the perfection of God, whose knowledge is not discursive, but independent and intuitive. (4.) This theory is inconsistent with the Scriptural doctrine of God's providential government, as it assumes that the free acts of men are not under his control. (5.) It is contrary to the Scriptural doctrine, inasmuch as it supposes that election to salvation depends on the foresight of faith and repentance, whereas it depends on the good pleasure of God. (6.) The examples quoted from the Bible do not prove that there is a scientia media in God. The answer of God to David, about the men of Keilah, was simply a revelation of the purpose which they had already formed.



Our Lord's declaration concerning Tyre and Sidon was only a figurative mode of stating the fact that the men of his generation were more hardened than the inhabitants of those ancient cities. It is not denied that God knows all events in all possible combinationis and connections, but as nothing is certain but what he ordains to effect or permit, there can be no class of events conditionally future, and therefore there can be no scientia media. By conditionally future is meant what is suspended on a condition undetermined by God.


For further study, Cf. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 148—on this page Hodge gives a succinct and helpful list of the standard Reformed criticisms of the doctrine of middle knowledge, which are presented more thoroughly by Turretin, Institutes, 1:212-18. For other helpful criticisms of the scientia media from a Reformed perspective, see Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:201-2;

I also suggest: The Heresy of Middle Knowledge, by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Found: here

Molinism...:swoon:

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,577
27,117
77
Lousianna
✟1,024,141.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Great post, Dean.

Hodge, Turretin and Bavinck are solid scholars.

Benefactor, are you willing to read the rebuttals or are you happy just bolstering what you pre-decided?
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
The fact that you will not just let it be, pretty much negates what you just said. Apparently the underwhelming response in favor of your view is something you didn't expect. The remarks about determinism are uncalled for, as that does not accurately describe Calvinism, but then again, you've never accurately described Calvinism or any part of it, so this is just more of the same.

I'm beginning to think that you are like the joke about the early Puritans, who laid awake nights because of the nagging feeling that someone, somewhere was having fun. In your case, it's that nagging feeling that someone, somewhere might be a Calvinist....You just can't seem to stop from attacking, bad-mouthing, and denigrating Calvinism.

Let it be -- Words that cannot be - Is there one topic on the sub-form that you have partisipated in and repeated yourself over and over? How does let it be apply to your repeat post? If we all let it be then no one would post.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟36,128.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I'm beginning to think that you are like the joke about the early Puritans, who laid awake nights because of the nagging feeling that someone, somewhere was having fun. In your case, it's that nagging feeling that someone, somewhere might be a Calvinist....You just can't seem to stop from attacking, bad-mouthing, and denigrating Calvinism.

...or maybe its somewhere some Calvinist is having fun....
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
Moreover, he fails to consider the full scope of the evidence. As I explain in my essay, it is impossible to have a biblically sound doctrine of providence on the open view. Consider the account of Saul’s death in 1 Samuel 31:1-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:8-12. Both writers describe Saul’s suicide. But then the Chronicler adds this stunning comment: “Therefore the Lord slew him and turned the kingdom over to David” (1Chron 10:14). Now how is the open theologian to make sense of this assertion? Saul’s suicide was considered a sinful and disgraceful deed and therefore could not have been causally determined by God. Yet his suicide, says the Chronicler, was God’s doing. Or think of Joseph’s statement to his brothers in Egypt: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result” (Gen 50:20). Again, the brothers’ crime could not have been caused by God; and yet God sovereignty directed events toward his provisioned end. Open theology is impotent to explain this coalescence of human freedom and divine sovereignty. Ironically, open theology is forced to revert to Calvinistic determinism to account for God’s providence and thus actually winds up destroying human freedom. By contrast, Molinism provides a perspicuous account of divine sovereignty and human freedom in terms of God’s middle knowledge.”

Divine Foreknowledge - Four Views Editied by James K Beilby and Paul R. Eddy - Location 691-700 at 24% of 3,003 Kindle for PC
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
“But then what, Boyd demands, is the truth communicated by such anthropomorphic portrayals of God? That leads me to my second point: Molinism can make sense of the passages adduced by Boyd in defense of his view. In general, the truth communicated to by these passages is that God’s sovereignty does not consist of blind decrees operation irrespective of free human responses; rather, God’s decrees take into account and are conditioned by the free acts of creatures. This truth is expressed anthropomorphically from the human point of view in terms of God’s disappointment or frustration or relenting on planned action. Thus, I agree with Body that such passages do undermine a Calvinistic conception of an all-determining God. But Boyd’s problem is that the only alternatives he knows are either Calvinistic determinism or openness. His essay shows no awareness of a Molinist alternative. Luis de Molina developed his view precisely in response to the theological determinism of Calvin and Luther, and the brilliance of his achievement is that he did so without sacrificing divine sovereignty. ……….”

24% - Locations 705-9 of 3,003 “Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views”
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Let it be -- Words that cannot be - Is there one topic on the sub-form that you have partisipated in and repeated yourself over and over? How does let it be apply to your repeat post? If we all let it be then no one would post.


Funny how the point never seems to be acknolwedged. You say that you are just putting out there, and whoever agrees, agrees. But you insistently post, and most of your posts in some way attack Calvinism on some level, so it's not hard to see what the end-game is. The sad part is, you can't even get Calvinism straight. There are so many straw men and false statements about Calvinism in your posts, that you wind up chasing your own tail.

I have said some things many times, because some individuals continue to perpetuate falsehoods and misrepresentations about what I believe despite being corrected many times. That shows a clear unwillingness to be taught, to learn, and to want to cling to false ideas even when they are shown to be false. We are expected to accept what non-Calvinists say without question, but the Calvinists' words are challenged, denied, and we are accused of deliberately lying, engaging in subterfuge and deception, and of not even being Christian. All because there are some with an agenda, whose main purpose is not Truth for Truth's sake, but to silence and eliminate a theological view that they don't like, and don't even have correct understanding of.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
“But then what, Boyd demands, is the truth communicated by such anthropomorphic portrayals of God? That leads me to my second point: Molinism can make sense of the passages adduced by Boyd in defense of his view. In general, the truth communicated to by these passages is that God’s sovereignty does not consist of blind decrees operation irrespective of free human responses; rather, God’s decrees take into account and are conditioned by the free acts of creatures. This truth is expressed anthropomorphically from the human point of view in terms of God’s disappointment or frustration or relenting on planned action. Thus, I agree with Body that such passages do undermine a Calvinistic conception of an all-determining God. But Boyd’s problem is that the only alternatives he knows are either Calvinistic determinism or openness. His essay shows no awareness of a Molinist alternative. Luis de Molina developed his view precisely in response to the theological determinism of Calvin and Luther, and the brilliance of his achievement is that he did so without sacrificing divine sovereignty. ……….”

24% - Locations 705-9 of 3,003 “Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views”


Not a Scripture in the whole of it. Merely the opinions of men. Scripture does not teach Molinism. Never has, never will.
 
Upvote 0
B

Benefactor

Guest
"If Molinism were simply the overlaying of a philosophical grid on top of Scripture, then it woujld be a very bad idea and should not be done. Rather, Molinism is a precise philosophical system that arose out of a commitment to certain principles clearly taugh tin the Bible:.............."

Page 19FF "The Biblical Case for Molinism" "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathely.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟49,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
[In Calvinism] the glory will reside, not in our free choice of Him, but in His free choice of us, His purchase of us, and His sustaining gifts to us, and how His wisdom and mercy are shown in such a choice and such gifts. Molinism completely empties God of this kind of glory, because His gifts are not wholly the result of His choices, but are suspended on His precognition of our choices. That view has no conformity to Paul’s recitation in Ephesians 1.
That God loves some with a redemptive love not given to others is not secret in the Bible. “In love he predestined us for adoption ... But God being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ... You have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him ... I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me ... God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us ... God commends his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us ... [Nothing] will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord ... Herein is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins” (Ephesians 1:3; 2:4, 5; John 17:2, 23; Romans 5:5, 8; 8:39 1 John 4:10, ESV)
Tom J. Nettles
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
"If Molinism were simply the overlaying of a philosophical grid on top of Scripture, then it woujld be a very bad idea and should not be done. Rather, Molinism is a precise philosophical system that arose out of a commitment to certain principles clearly taugh tin the Bible:.............."

Page 19FF "The Biblical Case for Molinism" "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathely.

More opinion, no proof
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Power without knowledge is blind
Power without love is malicious
Power with knowledge less Holiness is cruel and unjust.
Holiness controls sovereignty and honors contingency

More opinion. no proof. Just words....
 
Upvote 0