Molinism

[Easystreet]

Now for all the PhDs I will quote a PhD.

In this case I will summarize to save space.

Views pertaining to "Does God Desire the Salvation of All"?

This PhD offers 4 views.

A. Universalism; B. Double predestination; C. Two wills (1) revealed will and (2) hidden will; and last (D) again two wills (1) antecedent will and (2) consequent will.

The correct view is D.

This information comes from the PhD who is Dr. Kenneth Keathley and He loves ROSES instead of TULIPS. This information is located in his book "Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach" pages 42-62

 

[drstevej]

Now for all the PhDs I will quote a PhD.

In this case I will summarize to save space.

Views pertaining to "Does God Desire the Salvation of All"?

This PhD offers 4 views.

A. Universalism; B. Double predestination; C. Two wills (1) revealed will and (2) hidden will; and last (D) again two wills (1) antecedent will and (2) consequent will.

The correct view is D.

This information comes from the PhD who is Dr. Kenneth Keathley and He loves ROSES instead of TULIPS. This information is located in his book "Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach" pages 42-62

Tell him to do a better exegesis of 2 Peter 3:9 and this exercise is moot.

 

[Easystreet]

Tell him to do a better exegesis of 2 Peter 3:9 and this exercise is moot.

No surprise here.

 

[drstevej]

Dr. Kenneth Keathley

B.A., Tennessee Temple University; M.N.S., Southeast Missouri State University; M.Div., Ph.D., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Some interesting things about his education.

** He has a masters in nursing at SEMO. My wife taught nursing at SEMO at about the time he might have been a student. Cool.

** All of his theological training is at the school where he now teaches. Not too helpful for accreditation I would think.

SEBTS dean of faculty Ken Keathley’s dissertation offered a critique of Pinnock’s inclusivism—see “An Examination of the Influence of Vatican II on Clark Pinnock’s ‘Wider Hope’ for the Unevangelized” (Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000).

** his dissertation is not in the area of Calvinism


----------------

drstevej
BS (Ga Tech), ThM (Dallas Seminary), PhD (Westminster Seminary)
dissertation: "The Soteriology of the English General Baptists to 1630"

 

[drstevej]

No surprise here.

Start a thread on the text and I'll show you why the Arminian exegesis results in Jesus not being able to return ever.

 

[nobdysfool]

No surprise here.

Then perhaps you could provide a better exegesis.

In this forum, we do not just make statements with the expectation of not being challenged on them. We are not interested in the exclusive citation of others as proof, especially when the citations may not be available to everyone who wishes to follow them up. The expectation here is that you can justify your belief, or at least attempt to, in your own words.

Please feel free to begin to do so...

 

[Easystreet]

Now, this is understandable.

===

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

Now I can add the approval of a PhD to my resume.

 

[drstevej]

Now I can add the approval of a PhD to my resume.

Please note the approval is for the one post only.

 

[Seabreezer]

Start a thread on the text and I'll show you why the Arminian exegesis results in Jesus not being able to return ever.

"Arminian exegesis"?? Yes, God is not willing that any should perish, but as is the anaology in 2 Peter, and like in the days of Noah, he will not always strive with man (Genesis 6-3). Both truths hold true to bible literature, in spite of some of the preposterous interpretations forwarded in order to try and be rid of a problem verse. Forget Arminius, look at what CALVIN had to say about 2 Peter 3-9. It`s also worth noting that many Calvinists, past and present, agree with Calvin`s most natural and obvious reading of the text. Google around. I could provide links but my post count is too low to do so.


“But the Lord is not slack,” or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shows a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent. This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.
“Not willing that any should perish.” So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way. 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.
But as the verb choresai is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.
Calvin, Commentary, 2 Peter 3:9

 

[Seabreezer]

Now I can add the approval of a PhD to my resume.

Friend, no point in assuming. Calling oneself "Dr" on an internet message board doesn`t necessarily = a degree earned in the classrooms of a well accredited institution. Religion has more mail order stuff going than any other field, and that`s all assuming he has the paper at all. Something to think about is all, in tthe matter of assuming...

 

[AndOne]

Friend, no point in assuming. Calling oneself "Dr" on an internet message board doesn`t necessarily = a degree earned in the classrooms of a well accredited institution. Religion has more mail order stuff going than any other field, and that`s all assuming he has the paper at all. Something to think about is all, in tthe matter of assuming...

Those of us who have been around these boards for awhile know he's the real deal.

 

[Easystreet]

Friend, no point in assuming. Calling oneself "Dr" on an internet message board doesn`t necessarily = a degree earned in the classrooms of a well accredited institution. Religion has more mail order stuff going than any other field, and that`s all assuming he has the paper at all. Something to think about is all, in tthe matter of assuming...

Hi Seabreezer,

I have run into some that have received these kinds of degrees.

 

[drstevej]

Friend, no point in assuming. Calling oneself "Dr" on an internet message board doesn`t necessarily = a degree earned in the classrooms of a well accredited institution. Religion has more mail order stuff going than any other field, and that`s all assuming he has the paper at all. Something to think about is all, in tthe matter of assuming...

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?

 

[drstevej]

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?

Hi Seabreezer,

I have run into some that have received these kinds of degrees.

Same wager is open to you too, sir.

 

[drstevej]

"Arminian exegesis"?? Yes, God is not willing that any should perish, but as is the anaology in 2 Peter, and like in the days of Noah, he will not always strive with man (Genesis 6-3). Both truths hold true to bible literature, in spite of some of the preposterous interpretations forwarded in order to try and be rid of a problem verse. Forget Arminius, look at what CALVIN had to say about 2 Peter 3-9. It`s also worth noting that many Calvinists, past and present, agree with Calvin`s most natural and obvious reading of the text. Google around. I could provide links but my post count is too low to do so.


“But the Lord is not slack,” or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shows a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent. This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.
“Not willing that any should perish.” So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way. 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.
But as the verb choresai is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.
Calvin, Commentary, 2 Peter 3:9

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

 

[Easystreet]

Some interesting things about his education.

** He has a masters in nursing at SEMO. My wife taught nursing at SEMO at about the time he might have been a student. Cool.

** All of his theological training is at the school where he now teaches. Not too helpful for accreditation I would think.



** his dissertation is not in the area of Calvinism


----------------

drstevej
BS (Ga Tech), ThM (Dallas Seminary), PhD (Westminster Seminary)
dissertation: "The Soteriology of the English General Baptists to 1630"

I would take it that you are implying that all who do not have a dissertation in the area of Calvinism are not qualified to comment on Calvinism?

Don't take this in the wrong light. I am not attacking you personally or your education, but you have opened the door with your statement that on its face suggest that only all who have earned dissertations in the area of Calvinism are only those qualified to understand and comment correctly in these matters.

Are you suggesting that Dr. Keathley is not qualified to deal with Calvinism simply because he did not do his dissertation in the same area as you did?

 

[Easystreet]

"Arminian exegesis"?? Yes, God is not willing that any should perish, but as is the anaology in 2 Peter, and like in the days of Noah, he will not always strive with man (Genesis 6-3). Both truths hold true to bible literature, in spite of some of the preposterous interpretations forwarded in order to try and be rid of a problem verse. Forget Arminius, look at what CALVIN had to say about 2 Peter 3-9. It`s also worth noting that many Calvinists, past and present, agree with Calvin`s most natural and obvious reading of the text. Google around. I could provide links but my post count is too low to do so.


“But the Lord is not slack,” or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance. For our minds are always prurient, and a doubt often creeps in, why he does not come sooner. But when we hear that the Lord, in delaying, shows a concern for our salvation, and that he defers the time because he has a care for us, there is no reason why we should any longer complain of tardiness. He is tardy who allows an occasion to pass by through slothfulness: there is nothing like this in God, who in the best manner regulates time to promote our salvation. And as to the duration of the whole world, we must think exactly the same as of the life of every individual; for God by prolonging time to each, sustains him that he may repent. In the like manner he does not hasten the end of the world, in order to give to all time to repent. This is a very necessary admonition, so that we may learn to employ time aright, as we shall otherwise suffer a just punishment for our idleness.
“Not willing that any should perish.” So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way. 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.
But as the verb choresai is often taken passively by the Greeks, no less suitable to this passage is the verb which I have put in the margin, that God would have all, who had been before wandering and scattered, to be gathered or come together to repentance.
Calvin, Commentary, 2 Peter 3:9

Because God desires all to be saved is perhaps the strongest number one reason I reject Calvinism. For God to desire the salvation of all and not save all but only pick a few of the all does not add up. I doubt I need a PhD to understand this. I am not sure at what point in a life in becoming more educated one finally arrives at enough education to understand what the bible teaches. However, Scripture tells us He died for all, commands all to repent, loved all and with this verse desires all to be saved. Therefore any view that suggests that man has not been given the responsibility as a second cause to receive Christ I reject completely. Jesus told the woman "your faith has saved you". Jesus is God and when she believed the Holy Spirit regenerated her, but the Holy Spirit would not have regenerated her if SHE did not believe, so her faith is required before God saves. I am a "0" point Calvinist and the more I study the more I am opposed to this view of God's word. Calvinism is full of contradictions. God's sovereignty can never over rule His Holiness and this is where, as I see it, Calvinism jumps the tracks.

Dr. Keathley's book on Molinism for me was a very welcome work. Calvinism cannot adequately answer the counterfactual that Jesus, who is God, illustrates for us in Matthew 11. We have proven that in our post and the Calvinist have not been able to directly answer these facts.

 

[nobdysfool]

Friend, no point in assuming. Calling oneself "Dr" on an internet message board doesn`t necessarily = a degree earned in the classrooms of a well accredited institution. Religion has more mail order stuff going than any other field, and that`s all assuming he has the paper at all. Something to think about is all, in tthe matter of assuming...

I know drstevej personally, and I can assure you, he is the real deal. It's no mail-order degree, no internet degree. I have spent time with him, and seen the degrees hanging on the wall in his office, at the church he pastors. So I believe you owe him an apology for even raising the possibility that he would be a fake.

 

[nobdysfool]

Because God desires all to be saved is perhaps the strongest number one reason I reject Calvinism. For God to desire the salvation of all and not save all but only pick a few of the all does not add up. I doubt I need a PhD to understand this. I am not sure at what point in a life in becoming more educated one finally arrives at enough education to understand what the bible teaches. However, Scripture tells us He died for all, commands all to repent, loved all and with this verse desires all to be saved. Therefore any view that suggests that man has not been given the responsibility as a second cause to receive Christ I reject completely. Jesus told the woman "your faith has saved you". Jesus is God and when she believed the Holy Spirit regenerated her, but the Holy Spirit would not have regenerated her if SHE did not believe, so her faith is required before God saves. I am a "0" point Calvinist and the more I study the more I am opposed to this view of God's word. Calvinism is full of contradictions. God's sovereignty can never over rule His Holiness and this is where, as I see it, Calvinism jumps the tracks.

Dr. Keathley's book on Molinism for me was a very welcome work. Calvinism cannot adequately answer the counterfactual that Jesus, who is God, illustrates for us in Matthew 11. We have proven that in our post and the Calvinist have not been able to directly answer these facts.

Justify it however you want, on this board you cannot attack Calvinism, or make disparaging remarks about Calvin, Calvinism, or Calvinists. Them's the rules, and you agreed to them.

Here are the relevant rules:

II. No flaming opposing theological views

The Soteriology forum is for discussing and debating the various theological doctrines of salvation. All member's who participate in Soteriology are self-identified Christians through adherence to the Christian Forums' Statement of Faith and the Trinitarian nature of God. It is expected that people who post in the Soteriology forum will respect all members of the Christian faith.

• Always remember that you are first and foremost brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of your theological differences on the topic of salvation.
• If you would be offended by a word or phrase applied to your theological viewpoint, then someone of the opposing viewpoint would be offended as well.
• Do not identify a group of members or a theological viewpoint with a derogatory or inflammatory label.
• Do not use words or phrases which other members have indicated are offensive and derogatory.
• Words and phrases which have a negative connotation in Scripture should not be used to describe a member, group of members, or a theological viewpoint.
  
  

  • Examples (including but not limited to): false gospel, false prophet, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing, different God.

III. Off-topic threads

• Biographical discussions of historical church theologians or clergymen are to be carried out in the Church History forum.
• Threads that derail from the OP may be subject to a mod hat; a clean-up of off-topic posts, or a split into a separate thread.
• If a thread has run it's course staff may chose to permanently close the thread.
• Report major thread derailments and refrain from reporting individual off-topic posts which do not cause a thread derailment.

Divisive, disruptive, and demeaning comments directed towards other members or groups of members will result in violations.


As for your supposed "proof", I am still waiting for your explanation of WHY this is a problem for Calvinism. So far, all I have seen is the quotation of the verse, and a confusing rambling post filled with undefined terms that even drstevej couldn't understand. So before the declaration of victory, perhaps it would be good if YOU explained, in simple terms, why the passage you claim can't be answered by Calvinists is actually that.

 

[AndOne]

I would take it that you are implying that all who do not have a dissertation in the area of Calvinism are not qualified to comment on Calvinism?

Don't take this in the wrong light. I am not attacking you personally or your education, but you have opened the door with your statement that on its face suggest that only all who have earned dissertations in the area of Calvinism are only those qualified to understand and comment correctly in these matters.

Are you suggesting that Dr. Keathley is not qualified to deal with Calvinism simply because he did not do his dissertation in the same area as you did?

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?