Molinism

[AndOne]

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.

But my point is that the verse you cited does not support molinism or middle-knowledge. If molinism is true and scriptural there needs to be something in scripture that is more specific about it than this. The verse no where speaks of counterfactual events or middle-knowledge specifically. The point Jesus was making in the text was not molinism.

 

[Hammster]

In the Molinist view, has God selected the model in which the most people will be saved?

 

[Easystreet]

One thing is certain - he's probably more qualified on historical Calvinism than any of us around here... When the man points out that there is some inconsistancy in what Dr. Keathley's understanding of what true Calvinism is perhaps his educational background should lend him some credence. Don't you think?

OK the test is in the rule now prove what you assert. Give facts not assumptions: What is the suggested fact you see that Dr. Keathley makes that you have a fact to compare it with. Is your concern historical, theological or something else, but please demonstrate with He said this and this is what history records or so and so writes or said. You see a PhD must produce valid information not an appeal to having a PhD. Dr. Gordon Johnson is a Graduate of Dallsa too and he supports Dr. Keathley and in know this so what and where does the kind of "straw man" approach lead? No Where it is total none sence.

Facts please not nebulous appeals to PhDs.

Here is what we have been ask to do and if in any of my post I have failed to do the same point it out and I will be sure to correct them. So if you don't mind please in this case answers the following in regard to your assertion.

"X means Y because of Z", must be followed especially when posting claims that are widely considered to be controversial."

By the way Dr. Gordon Johnston DTS in the OT department states concerning Dr. Keathley's book "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."

 

[Easystreet]

But my point is that the verse you cited does not support molinism or middle-knowledge. If molinism is true and scriptural there needs to be something in scripture that is more specific about it than this. The verse no where speaks of counterfactual events or middle-knowledge specifically. The point Jesus was making in the text was not molinism.

Of all that I have read on the term "counterfactual" Matthew qualifies 100 percent as a counterfactual. Words are used to describe the content of a statement. The Matthew 11 qualifies as a counterfactual. One of my posts addresses this concern, but being on the new have access to a great deal of data on the subject pro and con and you will find that the definition of a counterfactual does not set itself against this pure counterfactual. I am confident that you will discover that the statement Jesus made is the purest set of data that demonstrates the meaning of "counterfactual". But if you continue to disagree so be it. I will respect your view in completed disagreement if you should continue to hold to your present view or a view that sugget that Jesus' revelation is not a counterfactual.

 

[Hammster]

Of all that I have read on the term "counterfactual" Matthew qualifies 100 percent as a counterfactual. Words are used to describe the content of a statement. The Matthew 11 qualifies as a counterfactual. One of my posts addresses this concern, but being on the new have access to a great deal of data on the subject pro and con and you will find that the definition of a counterfactual does not set itself against this pure counterfactual. I am confident that you will discover that the statement Jesus made is the purest set of data that demonstrates the meaning of "counterfactual". But if you continue to disagree so be it. I will respect your view in completed disagreement if you should continue to hold to your present view or a view that sugget that Jesus' revelation is not a counterfactual.

So assuming that the statement is indeed counterfactual, in what way does that presuppose that God went through His rolodex of possible worlds to create and then created the one in which the most people would be saved? (Granted, and oversimplification of the view, but pretty accurate)

 

[Easystreet]

I do have the diplomas
None of it was online
Ga Tech, DTS and WTS are well accredited

I'll make you a $1,000 wager that I can provide the proof with the $1,000 going to the charity of my choice if I do and your choice if I don't.

So are you interested in facts, or just making speculative slurs?

I wanted to ask if you knew Dr. Wendall G. Johnston former Ex. VP during your time at DTS.

As well in today’s world schools are moving away from class room and are using the internet to teach. Are you suggesting that in today’s world that Instructions like DTS and others that offer on line degrees are less than those offered on Campus? I witness my daughters courses at a reputable school and quite frankly I think I had rather be on Campus because the extent of and format of the on line courses at this institution my daughter is studying is very close to a real class room process. They actually interact with other students and the teacher on the internet. The reading assignments are huge and the type of assignments she has are very demanding and intense.

 

[AndOne]

Of all that I have read on the term "counterfactual" Matthew qualifies 100 percent as a counterfactual. Words are used to describe the content of a statement. The Matthew 11 qualifies as a counterfactual. One of my posts addresses this concern, but being on the new have access to a great deal of data on the subject pro and con and you will find that the definition of a counterfactual does not set itself against this pure counterfactual. I am confident that you will discover that the statement Jesus made is the purest set of data that demonstrates the meaning of "counterfactual". But if you continue to disagree so be it. I will respect your view in completed disagreement if you should continue to hold to your present view or a view that sugget that Jesus' revelation is not a counterfactual.

I just want something more specific from scripture is all. I don't pretend to be a PHD or anything of the sort. I'm a simple man who leans on scripture for his understanding. If molinism is truth then it should be evident in scripture.

I plan on reading Keathley's book as soon as I'm done with what I'm currently reading...

 

[nobdysfool]

Simply put, someone is relying on a extra-biblical source (or sources) to inform his understanding of Scripture, and the appeals to proof are more from the extra-biblical source(s) than they are from Scripture. If Molinism were actually a Biblical doctrine, one would think that it would be all over Scripture, with multiple references readily available for citation. So far, that hasn't been the case. There's been a lot of posturing about the relative merits of peoples' educations, as well as a bit of indignation that the conclusions of Molinism would even be questioned.

I don't find that convincing in the slightest. Scripture is the standard, Scripture is the final word, and for a subject as all-encompassing as God's Sovereignty in Salvation, there should be multiple Scriptures that would demonstrate the Truth of it. I believe there is, but they do not support Molinism, which so far has only one passage where it is claimed that Molinism is demonstrated, and that not all that convincingly.

 

[Easystreet]

I just want something more specific from scripture is all. I don't pretend to be a PHD or anything of the sort. I'm a simple man who leans on scripture for his understanding. If molinism is truth then it should be evident in scripture.

I plan on reading Keathley's book as soon as I'm done with what I'm currently reading...

Thanks, I think once you look at it more it will be a challenge and interesting. I was aware of it and had not given it much thought until I read his book. I still am caught between Molinist and OSAS Arminian. I can see myself as a full blown Molinest but I too continue to ponder study and consider this views and to review all other view as I have time. and interest. You may not change but I think you will have a greater respect for the view at that time.

At the present time I consider myself a Zero Point Calvinist and I hold the security of the believer or OSAS. As most of us do I have my own specific version of what I associate with and that has as a component a modest amount of maybe – maybe not. However, at this point in my life I find myself gravitating further away from all points of the TULIP and they are becoming more firm. This is not to say that certain aspects of Calvinism are not true as I hold but that not in the same light and under the same set of criteria. I really do like solid honest opinions and exegesis. Over the years I have changed view that was not easy to let go of and I am sure this is true for all on all sides of these discussions concerning salvation. Believers have moved across lines in both directions and that in and of itself is a testimony to the complexity of this doctrine. In closing this specific post I must stop and get ready for Church.

 

[AndOne]

Thanks, I think once you look at it more it will be a challenge and interesting. I was aware of it and had not given it much thought until I read his book. I still am caught between Molinist and OSAS Arminian. I can see myself as a full blown Molinest but I too continue to ponder study and consider this views and to review all other view as I have time. and interest. You may not change but I think you will have a greater respect for the view at that time.

At the present time I consider myself a Zero Point Calvinist and I hold the security of the believer or OSAS. As most of us do I have my own specific version of what I associate with and that has as a component a modest amount of maybe – maybe not. However, at this point in my life I find myself gravitating further away from all points of the TULIP and they are becoming more firm. This is not to say that certain aspects of Calvinism are not true as I hold but that not in the same light and under the same set of criteria. I really do like solid honest opinions and exegesis. Over the years I have changed view that was not easy to let go of and I am sure this is true for all on all sides of these discussions concerning salvation. Believers have moved across lines in both directions and that in and of itself is a testimony to the complexity of this doctrine. In closing this specific post I must stop and get ready for Church.

Yes - it does strike me as an interesting topic. I've tried reading William Lane Craig's stuff on this and it was very hard to follow - so I'm hoping Keathley will be easier. In all honesty I seriously doubt there will be anything there to convince me but I do find the concept interesting regardless. I'm also interested in reading a Roman Catholic perspective on this - do you know of anybody in that camp that has written on this?

See ya after church....

 

[AndOne]

At the present time I consider myself a Zero Point Calvinist and I hold the security of the believer or OSAS. As most of us do I have my own specific version of what I associate with and that has as a component a modest amount of maybe – maybe not. However, at this point in my life I find myself gravitating further away from all points of the TULIP and they are becoming more firm. This is not to say that certain aspects of Calvinism are not true as I hold but that not in the same light and under the same set of criteria. I really do like solid honest opinions and exegesis. Over the years I have changed view that was not easy to let go of and I am sure this is true for all on all sides of these discussions concerning salvation. Believers have moved across lines in both directions and that in and of itself is a testimony to the complexity of this doctrine. In closing this specific post I must stop and get ready for Church.

Just a quick comment on this - I think it is more important that one believes in eternal security than in Calvinism. That's just my opinion - but I think when talking of grace this aspect of it is most important. If there is no security - there is no grace...

 

[Easystreet]

Simply put, someone is relying on a extra-biblical source (or sources) to inform his understanding of Scripture, and the appeals to proof are more from the extra-biblical source(s) than they are from Scripture. If Molinism were actually a Biblical doctrine, one would think that it would be all over Scripture, with multiple references readily available for citation. So far, that hasn't been the case. There's been a lot of posturing about the relative merits of peoples' educations, as well as a bit of indignation that the conclusions of Molinism would even be questioned.

I don't find that convincing in the slightest. Scripture is the standard, Scripture is the final word, and for a subject as all-encompassing as God's Sovereignty in Salvation, there should be multiple Scriptures that would demonstrate the Truth of it. I believe there is, but they do not support Molinism, which so far has only one passage where it is claimed that Molinism is demonstrated, and that not all that convincingly.

Let us cut the chase. There are thousands of "if - then" in the Bible.

 

[nobdysfool]

Let us cut the chase. There are thousands of "if - then" in the Bible.

Yes, they're called "promises".....

It is up to you to prove that they are Molinistic. So, cut to the chase? Have at it!

 

[Easystreet]

Yes, they're called "promises".....

It is up to you to prove that they are Molinistic. So, cut to the chase? Have at it!

Matthew 11 is sufficient as a factual Molinist proof text. I personally take Jesus who is God at his word. I am not in a position to tell God he is lying about this counterfactual. If you want to question other verses then please go ahead and look them up. We know that God knows all actual, but when as you call it "a promise" "if-then" takes place in most cases we know the recorded outcome to the extent of its recording what the counter fact would be. The fact is what is and the counter fact would have been otherwise had a free will decision gone the other way. First we have a fact that could have been a counter fact. Do you deny that promises are of this nature? You made a decision today to do something that is a fact but what could have been the counterfactual of events if you had not made the decision you made? You see Mike the Bible is loaded with counterfactual data. You must deny that contingency exist in Scripture to avoid counterfactuals. Are you willing to do that? Food for thought


If Cain had offered a correct sacrifice then _______________?

 

[AndOne]

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Matthew 11 is sufficient as a factual Molinist proof text. I personally take Jesus who is God at his word. I am not in a position to tell God he is lying about this counterfactual. If you want to question other verses they you look them up and make comments and if I feel compelled to answer then I will.[/font]

How do you know its a counterfactual and not a hypothetical? The Bible doesn't specify. Are you saying God can't speak hypothetically? If so where is that in scripture?

 

[Easystreet]

How do you know its a counterfactual and not a hypothetical? The Bible doesn't specify. Are you saying God can't speak hypothetically? If so where is that in scripture?

Word games

 

[Seabreezer]

Start a new thread with this post and I will reply.

You start another thread if that`s what you want. You called, on this thread, the view that the "any" of 2 Peter 3-9 is a reference to mankind, "Arminian exegesis." I quoted Calvin`s commentary to demonstrate beyond doubt that such was his intepretation as well. I also noted that many Calvinists scholars, past and past, ascribe to the same, some even openly shunning the "the any is the elect" nonsense of some of their fellows. I`d post links but don`t have that privilege, but any interested can Google around and find this. You made a statement on this thread and I decisively refuted it on this thread. Done.

 

[AndOne]

< staff edit > < staff edit >

< staff edit > . The following statement from Calvin's text that you quoted is hardly arminian: But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

Do you think Arminians would agree with this statement?

 

[drstevej]

< staff edit > < staff edit > <staff edit >
< staff edit > < staff edit >
< staff edit >

For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

... nope that is Calvinism which affirms the free offer of the gospel. There is no Arminian exegesis in this passage. Perhaps you do not understand Calvinism. Before you decry my education, do the homework.

Pony up 1 grand and I'll demonstrate my credentials. (Actually you could just contact Dr. Peter Lilback, the President of WTS. He was a fellow graduate with me from both DTS and WTS and is a good friend).

Start a 2 Peter 3:9 thread and I'll teach you some Calvinism.

Or continue on here and assume you are right. I'm fine with that.

 

[Seabreezer]

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

Do you think Arminians would agree with this statement?

Hi Behe. You are correct. Classical Calvinism resolves the dilema with the two separate wills of God, forging a separation between desires and decrees. Nonetheless, Calvin did not pervert the text as DrSteveJ does, who teaches that the "any" of verse 9 is "the elect." Calvin and many other Calvinists possessed the integrity to refrain from trampling on the obvious intentions of the author of 2 Peter. They rightly divide the text and see the "any" as a reference to mankind.

P.S. This "the any is the elect" interpretation is very popular on the internet.