Molinism

[nobdysfool]

The fact remains that God purposely withheld the miracles, thereby ensuring that those cities would not repent and believe. He did not withhold the miracles from Bethsaida, and they still did not repent and believe. Either the miracles alone were not enough, which God knew, or as He said, their eyes were blinded lest they should hear, see and believe, in which case, He was making a point that no matter what, men are without excuse. You can believe that this proves something about God's knowledge, but what I see is that God is still in complete control of history, and every event within it.

Do you have any other Scripture that you believe prove your view?

 

[Hammster]

And really, what the scriptures DON'T say is that if God had created them different, they would have believed differently.

 

[Easystreet]

4 and so that the Lord will carry out His promise that He made to me: ‘If your sons are careful to walk faithfully before Me with their whole mind and heart, (then) you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’
1 Kings 2:4 (HCSB)

Here is a "if - then" verse. This counterfactual tells us that one or the other is true and whichever in reality is the opposite would have been had the contingency place before them gone the other way, this way instead of that way which is based upon the freedom to obey or disobey, contingency.

We know that in the case of Matthew 11 that God demonstrated a counterfactual in his own words which we cannot deny. That being the case we judge I Kings 2:4 "if then" (statements of contingency) in the same light as Matthew 11:21-23. In other words God had FOR REAL made it possible for man to make a free choice to obey or disobey God's directive. We cannot call God a liar because He Himself clearly makes this reality clear in Matthew 11:21-23. Regardless of the interpretations we manage try and come up with in Scripture Matthew 11:21-23 settles the argument or difference or we might say it overrides any Scripture that may seem to be contradictory, which it would not be if it is interpreted in light of this very clear specific verse.

 

[nobdysfool]

John 3:16 is an "if-then" verse, too. You have to be careful with OT verses, because many are spoken to Israel, who were already God's chosen, and such statements cannot be applied to the Gentiles, who were specifically excluded at that time. Context matters.

 

[AndOne]

We know that Jesus is God and God made the statement that if the miracles that were done in Bethsaida were done in Tyre and Sidon they would have repented. We know that God is not a liar so we can "FOR REAL" believe this counterfactual. This truth which is stated by God because Jesus is God, it being a counterfactual, stands as real had they seen the miracles.


If I had not typed this statement I would have done something else, what that would have been is open to my environment, but with God and Jesus is God and He does not lie and has told us that if they had seen the miracles they would have done this and this in their case is "Repent". Now the fact is this they did not see the miracles and they did not repent but if they had they would have repented. This counterfactual does not say if this then they might have no it says if this they would have. We cannot refute this clear counterfactual. This then proves Molina's application of God's middle knowledge. Now the label "Middle Knowledge" is only a label for the facts stand and cannot be refuted.

Middle-knowledge however is made up of multiple counterfactuals - not just one or two possibilities. If the counterfactual of a repentence in Sodom was a possibility - the only other possibility - which the verse indicates - then it cannot support Molina's tennant. Molina's philosophy is based upon multiple counterfactuals being possible.

 

[Easystreet]

The fact remains that God purposely withheld the miracles, thereby ensuring that those cities would not repent and believe. He did not withhold the miracles from Bethsaida, and they still did not repent and believe. Either the miracles alone were not enough, which God knew, or as He said, their eyes were blinded lest they should hear, see and believe, in which case, He was making a point that no matter what, men are without excuse. You can believe that this proves something about God's knowledge, but what I see is that God is still in complete control of history, and every event within it.

Do you have any other Scripture that you believe prove your view?

To say that God purposely withheld miracles form Tyre and Sidon cannot be proved. What can be proved is that if they had been done they would have repented. This we know as a fact if we accept God as telling us the truth. So your case is an assumption against the facts as they are stated by God.

 

[drstevej]

God withheld miracles from T&S (TRUE)

Was this purposeful ?

How could God do otherwise?

Did it not occur to Him?
Did He not care one way or the other?

===

Molinism = unscrewing the inscrutable

 

[nobdysfool]

To say that God purposely withheld miracles form Tyre and Sidon cannot be proved. What can be proved is that if they had been done they would have repented. This we know as a fact if we accept God as telling us the truth. So your case is an assumption against the facts as they are stated by God.

Actually, no. The fact is, God didn't perform those miralces in Tyre and Sidon, or in Sodom and Gomorrah. either He purposely did not do so, OR He "forgot" to do so. I think it is clear that God does not forget such things, so it is reasonable to assume that since He didn't, that was His intention. Just because it isn't specifically stated that He purposely did not do so, does not preclude coming to the conclusion that He purposely did not do so.

The fact is, Jesus specifically stated that IF the miracles had been done, they would have repented. The fact that the miracles were NOT done implies a purposeful withholding of those miracles. Jesus points out that the miracles WERE done in Bethsaida and other towns, and the people did not repent. One thing that can be concluded from that is that the latter people were more corrupt and sinful than the former, because that which would have turned the former failed to turn the latter, and therefore the judgment on the latter would be more severe, as Jesus specifically states.

I don't think that this passage was intended to be a proof text for Molinism. It seems more like grasping at straws to me....

 

[Hammster]

I guess God didn't love Tyre and Sidon.

 

[Easystreet]

Middle-knowledge however is made up of multiple counterfactuals - not just one or two possibilities. If the counterfactual of a repentence in Sodom was a possibility - the only other possibility - which the verse indicates - then it cannot support Molina's tennant. Molina's philosophy is based upon multiple counterfactuals being possible.

Here are the facts: God made the statement not Molina, me or you. You may argue the case of mutable counterfactuals and of which we both can agree are, but we are not dealing with those but his particular one which is undisputable and a solid counterfactual God given declaration, if we accept that Jesus is God and as well accept that God is not a liar. Diverting conversation to the "FACT" that there are multiple counterfactuals has no bearing on this one counterfactual which we cannot dispute as it relates to the facts contained in what we are told and told by God Himself. There is absolutely no way around it over it under it period.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I think salvation is a mystery and not something we can dissect rationally. Whatever your "system" is it isn't equal to reality.

 

[nobdysfool]

Here are the facts: God made the statement not Molina, me or you. You may argue the case of mutable counterfactuals and of which we both can agree are, but we are not dealing with those but his particular one which is undisputable and a solid factual God given declaration, if we accept that Jesus is God and as well accept that God is not a liar. Diverting conversation to the "FACT" that there are multiple counterfactuals has no bearing on this one counterfactual which we cannot dispute as it relates to the facts contained in what we are told and told by God Himself. There is absolutely no way around it over it under it period.

Well, please pardon us if we don't see it that way, as this passage was not meant to teach primarily about some Molinistic idea, it was a statement of the growing corruption of mankind, and the fact that man is accountable to God, and responsible for his actions.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no entitlement to demand that others accept it, especially if that rejection is based on good and solid reasons, whether or not they are seen as such by the Molinist.

 

[Easystreet]

Well, pardon us if we don't see it that way, as this passages was not meant to teach primarily about some Molinistic idea, it was a statement of the growing corruption of mankind, and the fact that man is accountable to God, and responsible for his actions.

You are entitled to your opinion, but there is no entitlement to demand that others accept it, especially if that rejection is based on good and solid reasons, whether or not they are seen as such by the Molinist.

And so it is you have also offered your opinions.

 

[drstevej]

Here are the facts: God made the statement not Molina, me or you. You may argue the case of mutable counterfactuals and of which we both can agree are, but we are not dealing with those but his particular one which is undisputable and a solid counterfactual God given declaration, if we accept that Jesus is God and as well accept that God is not a liar. Diverting conversation to the "FACT" that there are multiple counterfactuals has no bearing on this one counterfactual which we cannot dispute as it relates to the facts contained in what we are told and told by God Himself. There is absolutely no way around it over it under it period.

Undecipherable to this PhD. I highlighted what I understood. The rest made my hair hurt, sorry.

 

[nobdysfool]

Undecipherable to this PhD. I highlighted what I understood. The rest made my hair hurt, sorry.

I asked for an explanation and so far, haven't seen one.

 

[Easystreet]

Undecipherable to this PhD. I highlighted what I understood. The rest made my hair hurt, sorry.

Well I guess you may be entitled to an answer so here it is: My answer is clear and it does not take a PhD to understand it. Good try anyway appealing to your PhD. I hope your hair gets well it must be very painful to have hurting hair.

 

[nobdysfool]

From this article at A Puritan's Mind

The real basis for this doctrine is not the Bible, but a twisted form of logic. The Molinian logician will argue that an action must first occur before it can be true. God, then, cannot know anything in this manner as true and absolute unless it has first occurred. God, then, becomes dependent upon the acts of men instead of on His own eternal decrees. And since the actions of men are contingent, the knowledge of such acts would be contingent as well. The Molinian logicians will also argue this in the manner of something being true. The free acts of men cannot be true acts until they are actually acted. Thus, God cannot know something as true until men, in time, act out their free choices. Then God’s knowledge becomes true.

It is certainly easy to see what the doctrine of Middle knowledge is attractive here. Men are ultimately their own little saviors, and every good Roman Catholic loves the idea of working for their own salvation. Secondly, it seems to provide answers to “theological conundrums” such as “hell” and the “problem of evil.” In reality, all of the above is but part of the Molinian facade.

 

[Hammster]

But this counterfactual cannot be said to apply to how God created.

 

[nobdysfool]

And so it is you have also offered your opinions.

And they are equal before the reader.

 

[drstevej]

Well I guess you may be entitled to an answer so here it is: My answer is clear and it does not take a PhD to understand it. Good try anyway appealing to your PhD. I hope your hair gets well it must be very painful to have hurting hair.

Now, this is understandable.

===

Molinite jargon hurts my noggin,
it's the truth,
it's actual,
everything's counterfactual!