Molinism

[drstevej]

Interesting - where is all this going?

Nowhere, bye

 

[Benefactor]

What is Amyraldianism?
Amyraldism developed historically following the Synod of Dort as a compromise between Calvinism and the early Arminianism by giving up some aspects of Calvinism which some found hard to embrace. The Amyraldian view, named after French Theologian Moses Amyraut, 1569-1664, is associated with Calvinism because it retains a particularistic element by acknowledging God's distinguishing grace in the election of individuals.
Amyraldians, however, place divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. It is also known, perhaps more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism. According to B. B. Warfield, "it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism," (Plan, p. 98).

Source

Less than 100 years ago when I was in school in a place in a northern state we, (students) understood that many, not all, perhaps the majority of Dallas grads as Four Point Calvinist - Amyraldians. Amyraldians are one stem in the right direction toward Molinism and even better "0" point Calvinism that’s me.

 

[Benefactor]

Nowhere, bye

See you around, drive, fly, or walk safe.

 

[Benefactor]

I'm OSAS Arminian. I believe God predestinated by foreknowing our free choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints (OSAS).

Molinism is true but OSAS Arminian Molinism.

When talking about unconditional or conditional election, I believe you are using the term inappropriately because we are talking about that which is prior to be saved not after. Before being saved electional is conditional not unconditional otherwise it is hard irresistible grace. What love is that?

What man can do is come to God with an honest heart and so shall be saved. He can't will worship himself to be saved but he can genuinely search God out and God will grace with him with repentance and faith to be regenerated.

God provides sufficient grace to all.

I am too more than anything elase, but I like the Molinist view too. I am finding it refreshing and interesting. I never gave it any consideration until I read Keathley's book. OSAS Arminian or "0" point Calvinist. I like OSAS Arminian it sounds better.

The comment in red: Where in my comments do I lead to this understanding?

 

[Benefactor]

It's funny to watch the steam coming out James White's ears when he hears the term Molinism.

Even the 5th point of Calvinism is false since were are not once-saved-always-saved by being irresistibly forced into it. We are given a choice to give our lives to the God who keeps, and He keeps His word to keep.

It's amazing more people don't use the term OSAS Arminian, for Jacob Arminius said never one did he ever teach a person could lose salvation.

It was the Remonstrants who played with fire, bearing false witness of Jacob, in claiming a person could lose salvation.

Technically we only need say Arminian but we say OSAS Arminian out of courtesy to all the confusion out there.

The Roman Church would be non-OSAS Arminian. That would be a strange kind of salvation if a person could get saved, lose it, get it back again to lose it yet again.

Have you listened to U-tubes by 'white'? Have you heard the outlandish statement he made on one video about God making a man rape a girl, sick, sick, I mean repulsive? Molinism and OSAS A would not tolerate that to be taught in its churches. If a person believed that they might be sent to the buggy house. I can't put my mind around anyone believing that extreme. Disturbing to say the least!

If you know of some U-tube videos he deals with Molinism let me know. I don't watch him or read him for reasons I cannot express on the board.

 

[Benefactor]

It's funny to watch the steam coming out James White's ears when he hears the term Molinism.

Even the 5th point of Calvinism is false since were are not once-saved-always-saved by being irresistibly forced into it. We are given a choice to give our lives to the God who keeps, and He keeps His word to keep.

It's amazing more people don't use the term OSAS Arminian, for Jacob Arminius said never one did he ever teach a person could lose salvation.

It was the Remonstrants who played with fire, bearing false witness of Jacob, in claiming a person could lose salvation.

Technically we only need say Arminian but we say OSAS Arminian out of courtesy to all the confusion out there.

The Roman Church would be non-OSAS Arminian. That would be a strange kind of salvation if a person could get saved, lose it, get it back again to lose it yet again.

p.s. I was responding to Easystreet specifically critiquing his opening post.[/quote]

It is a SOCK things I am Easystreet/Benefactor

 

[Benefactor]

Ok then. It's when you said "(4) individual election is unconditional." You already said in (5) what (4) says (after election).

I would rephrase it and say, "Election is conditional before salvation," i.e. conditional election as distinguished from Calvinism which says election is unconditional (irresistibly imposed).

The first two Paragraphs in the OP is a quote from Dr. Kenneth Keathley, those are his views.

Easy Ben.

 

[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."

 

[AndOne]

Have you listened to U-tubes by 'white'? Have you heard the outlandish statement he made on one video about God making a man rape a girl, sick, sick, I mean repulsive?

Post this please. I believe it is a flat out lie - prove me wrong.

 

[nobdysfool]

Calvinism in ignoring the order of salvation in the Bible must go a Calvinistic Logic to come up with something that supports their view. You won't find their order of salvation in the Scripture no they must appeal to a "Calvinistic Logic" to conclude that salvation is the reverse that is revealed in Scripture

The only "ISM" that does not follow the Order of Salvation as laid out in Scripture is Calvanism.

Molinism, Arminianism, even Moderate Calvinist (technically not Calvinist) don't either.

Your opinion is noted, and for the benefit of the readers, please note that it is ONLY opinion.

The logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum is being employed here, as though because some undefined number of people oppose a theological view, that proves that it cannot be correct. Such an argument has no p;lace in a serious theological debate. It is phony, fallacious, and downright juvenile.

Calvinists are expected to just lie down and accept such arguments, which is something that we will never do. The end-game of this entire exercise has been to kick dirt on Calvinism, and by extension, Calvinists. We have the spectacle of an uninformed brother in Christ dabbling with historically false doctrines, as though they were new toys, simply because they seem to support his already-decided view that Calvinism can't be right. If Molinism were supportive of Calvinism, no matter how Scriptural and convincing the argument was, he wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and would be ranting against it as vociferously as he does against Calvinism now. That's the touchstone of his examination of doctrines: does it oppose Calvinism?

Folks, do not be swayed by the mere opinions of someone who doesn't truly know what he's speaking against, as any Calvinist (and most rational, thinking people) can see immediately.

 

[nobdysfool]

I smell a retread......

 

[Hammster]

I smell a retread......

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[nobdysfool]

We have to be really careful how we use terms.

That should be posted as a sticky at the head of this forum. It is a true statement, which, unfortunately hasn't been adhered to by the opponents of Calvinism....

 

[nobdysfool]

Why can't Calvinists find even one verse to support their belief that they were irresistibly regenerated?

The problem is not that Calvinists cannot supply Scripture to show this, it's that the one's asking will not accept that which is shown. Also, it should be kept in mind that for most doctrines, there is no one verse that says it in so many words, but doctrines are formed from multiple Scripture references, considered together.

While I am asking questions, why can't the Roman Church find even one verse to support their belief a person can lose salvation?

A variation on the above answer will have to suffice.

Why do people hold on to beliefs even when shown to be wrong? You tell me, and then we'll both know.....

 

[Hammster]

Why can't Calvinists find even one verse to support their belief that they were irresistibly regenerated?

Where are you getting your idea that they can't?

 

[Benefactor]

Your opinion is noted, and for the benefit of the readers, please note that it is ONLY opinion.

The logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum is being employed here, as though because some undefined number of people oppose a theological view, that proves that it cannot be correct. Such an argument has no place in a serious theological debate. It is phony, fallacious, and downright juvenile.


Color and under line emphasis mine' Benefactor as well the words in blue after this are mine.
(From the time I introduced Molinism as a discussion a hand full of die hard Calvinist embarked in an effort to do exactly what you have accused me of. I found that very entertaining. You accept that your view is a "theological view" as Molinism does. It is the classic example of the kettle callings itself black.)

Calvinists are expected to just lie down and accept such arguments, which is something that we will never do. The end-game of this entire exercise has been to kick dirt on Calvinism, and by extension, Calvinists. We have the spectacle of an uninformed brother in Christ dabbling with historically false doctrines, as though they were new toys, simply because they seem to support his already-decided view that Calvinism can't be right. If Molinism were supportive of Calvinism, no matter how Scriptural and convincing the argument was, he wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole, and would be ranting against it as vociferously as he does against Calvinism now. That's the touchstone of his examination of doctrines: does it oppose Calvinism?

Folks, do not be swayed by the mere opinions of someone who doesn't truly know what he's speaking against, as any Calvinist (and most rational, thinking people) can see immediately.

I almost choked on my Pop Corn that was hilarious, you crack me up.

 

[nobdysfool]

Do you deny that the argument of argumentum ad populum is in fact a fallacy?

 

[Benefactor]

Well you have given me a reason not to read his book then, but he was right in everything else you gave.

We have to be really careful how we use terms.

I think that you would enjoy reading it regardless, if not but to at least become more knowledgeable of this view and how it uses both Calvinism and Arminiansim in its own approach.

Have you read Robert E. Picirilli’s book “Grace Faith Free Will” Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism

 

[Benefactor]

Do you deny that the argument of argumentum ad populum is in fact a fallacy?

I believe there is a fundamental refusal of Calvinism to own the flaws of its theological construct.

 

[Hammster]

I think that you would enjoy reading it regardless, if not but to at least become more knowledgeable of this view and how it uses both Calvinism and Arminiansim in its own approach.

So which points of Calvinism do you agree with? You've said recently that your a zero point Calvinist. But now you agree with some it. Which parts?