Molinism

[Benefactor]

The problem with Molinism is that it assumes foreknowledge and free will, and never even attempts to deal with the obvious contradiction.

Interesting statement: Please rethink your comments. On the one hand you make a statement that is assuming two things (1) foreknowledge and (2) free will. Next, you posit that they are not longer assumed but real and in your view are contradictions.

I doubt you intended it to come out the way it did but you are asking me to on the one hand defend foreknowledge and free will as an assumption and on the other hand taking a stand that affirms their existence but in contradiction.

Which is it that you believe? The assumed foreknowledge and free will are nonexistent or they exist and contradict each other.

 

[Benefactor]

statement without evidence = dogmatism *pounds pulpit to make statement true*

First, are you saying that some Calvinism do not believe in a secret will of God?

Second, if you acknowledge that a second will of God is believed by some Calvinist then of necessity you must agree that such a view is counterproductive to revealed truth because it cannot be substantiated. That is not pounding the pulpit. Actually pounding the pulpit would come from the "hidden will" view.

Do you deny that some Calvinist believe in a hidden will of God?

 

[themuzicman]

Interesting statement: Please rethink your comments. On the one hand you make a statement that is assuming two things (1) foreknowledge and (2) free will. Next, you posit that they are not longer assumed but real and in your view are contradictions.

I stated that MOLINISM assumes these two concepts as reality, not that I accept them both as reality, and Molinism never makes an effort to prove that they are compatible. It is simply assumed.

I doubt you intended it to come out the way it did but you are asking me to on the one had defend foreknowledge and free will as an assumption and on the other hand taking a stand that affirms their existence but in contradiction.

Maybe you should re-read my post, then. The only conclusion you can draw from my statement is that I believe that holding both exhaustive, definite foreknowledge and free will is contradictory.

I think you're confusing what I've stated that Molinism embraces and what I believe the contradiction is.

Which is it that you believe? The assumed foreknowledge and free will are nonexistent or they exist and contradict each other.

First, that is a false dichotomy. One can embrace foreknowledge without free will and vice versa. So one does not need embrace or reject both.

Second, this thread and my post are about Molinism, not my position.

 

[drstevej]

First, are you saying that some Calvinism do not believe in a secret will of God?

Second, if you acknowledge that a second will of God is believed by some Calvinist then of necessity you must agree that such a view is counterproductive to revealed truth because it cannot be substantiated. That is not pounding the pulpit. Actually pounding the pulpit would come from the "hidden will" view.

Do you deny that some Calvinist believe in a hidden will of God?

I am describing YOUR views. I do not unscrew the inscrutable nor do I defend everything any Calvinist affirms, afterall -- I am a Christmas Calvinist (i.e. No-l)

 

[Benefactor]

"Molinism understands God to work His will through free creatures is summed up in three concepts: contingency, conditionality, and conunterfactuals. The Bible gives us numberous examples of all three." Page 28 "Salvation and Sovereignty" Keathley

 

[Benefactor]

Contingency - "might" "must" "possibly" "necessarlily" "ought to" "could not have done otherwise," Gen. 19:2-3; I Sam 13:13-14; 2 Kings 13:19; Isaiah 38:1-5; Amos 7:1-6 Matt. 13:57-58: Mark 6:47-49; Luke 24:28-29; Matt. 23:37; Acts 5:4; I Cor. 10:13; James 1:13-15. (views outside Scripture are theological fatalism and open theism) The opne theist does not believe God has exhaustive forekowledge and the theological fatalist tells us that because God knows free choice that the free choice is not fee. To the fatalist contingency is an illusion. pages 28-31 "Salvation and Sovereignty" Keathley

Everyone must make up their own mind about contingency. I believe Dr. Keathley is correct in his views and avoids the extremes of Calvinism (theological fatalism) and Arminiams (open theism)

Keathley soundly supports Molinism from Scripture and attempts to label this view other than Biblical is simply a case of sour grapes.

 

[Hammster]

Benefactor, Dr. Craig says that God created this world because out of alll of the possible worlds He could have created, this one yields the most saved. Do you agree with that?

 

[nobdysfool]

It is not sour grapes, we have serious concerns about Molinism, concerns which are being avoided. I have asked several times for some substantial Scriptural support, and Only one actual scripture has been given. One Scripture does not a doctrine make, so I believe it's time to either produce, or vacate the receptacle. Constantly being a cheerleader for an particular author who says what you want to hear does not constitute proof.

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor, Dr. Craig says that God created this world because out of alll of the possible worlds He could have created, this one yields the most saved. Do you agree with that?

I think he makes that statement in one of his u-tube videos. In context of all that he speaks to it makes sense. In addition to William Graig – Keathley’s book has my attention and he explains Molinism in a way that is, for me, very convincing. I am presently working my way through some of Graig’s material and other sources on the subject.

 

[AndOne]

It is not sour grapes, we have serious concerns about Molinism, concerns which are being avoided. I have asked several times for some substantial Scriptural support, and Only one actual scripture has been given. One Scripture does not a doctrine make, so I believe it's time to either produce, or vacate the receptacle. Constantly being a cheerleader for an particular author who says what you want to hear does not constitute proof.

Same goes for the book - scant scriptual evidence provided for molinism there. I'm done with it today. The book was not about molinism - despite its title. It was nothing more than an attempt to debunk Calvinism.

Molinism was only discussed in detail in the introduction and the first chapter. The rest of the book was nothing more than an effort to refute every Reformed Theologian from Luther/Calvin to Piper/Sproul.

I wanted to learn about molinism - total waste of my time...

 

[Benefactor]

It is not sour grapes, we have serious concerns about Molinism, concerns which are being avoided. I have asked several times for some substantial Scriptural support, and Only one actual scripture has been given. One Scripture does not a doctrine make, so I believe it's time to either produce, or vacate the receptacle. Constantly being a cheerleader for an particular author who says what you want to hear does not constitute proof.

See 179

 

[drstevej]

Benefactor, Dr. Craig says that God created this world because out of alll of the possible worlds He could have created, this one yields the most saved. Do you agree with that?

"Die Beste aller möglichen Welten" -- Gottfried Leibniz

 

[Benefactor]

When a passage lends itself to contingency, such as Genesis 22:12, we cannot then say that this was determined and that Abraham was forced, by decree, to do exactly what he did, which demonstrates free will meaning he could have not obeyed. God did not in any way force Abraham to do what God ask him to do. God told Abraham "For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from Me".

 

[drstevej]

God told Abraham "For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your only son from Me".

Did God gain knowledge ????
Does God learn new stuff.

Tozier rightly notes... God cannot learn. He's omniscient.

I realize Open Theism is an EasyStreet but it's the wrong road.

 

[Benefactor]

"Die Beste aller möglichen Welten" -- Gottfried Leibniz

How about that you are speaking in tongues, should I be impressed?

 

[Benefactor]

Did God gain knowledge ????
Does God learn new stuff.

Tozier rightly notes... God cannot learn. He's omniscient.

I realize Open Theism is an EasyStreet but it's the wrong road.

Your point is?______________________

 

[drstevej]

Actually I am typing. You seem to be impressed with philosophy.

 

[Benefactor]

Same goes for the book - scant scriptual evidence provided for molinism there. I'm done with it today. The book was not about molinism - despite its title. It was nothing more than an attempt to debunk Calvinism.

Molinism was only discussed in detail in the introduction and the first chapter. The rest of the book was nothing more than an effort to refute every Reformed Theologian from Luther/Calvin to Piper/Sproul.

I wanted to learn about molinism - total waste of my time...

I am not surprised Behe. Your evaluation of his book will encourage others to read it. Now you are not the least bit biased are you?

 

[AndOne]

I am not surprised Behe. Your evaluation of his book will encourage others to read it. Now you are not the least bit biased are you?

I admit I'm biased - but thats not the point of my statement. The book is not adverstised as a rebutal to Calvinism (which is all that it turned out to be) - it's packaged as a Molinist's view on Sovereignty and Salvation. I knew going into the book that it would have portions devoted to trying to debunk Calvinism - and had no problem with that. Had I known it was giong to discuss molinism only briefly and be devoted entirely to debunking Calvinism I doubt I would have read it. I had a sincere interest in molinims which is why I read the book - what was provided in this book on molinism I could have just as easily gotten off of Wikipedia and saved myself 10 bucks.

 

[AndOne]

In all honesty regarding this book - it is by far the best book written "against" Calvinism I've seen. It is a very scholarly piece of work. The writer knows his stuff - I would love to see a Calvinist response to it someday. I think this one would give some of our own top theologians a run for their money.