Molinism

[Jpark]

Isn't the basic issue for molinism the same basic problem as any philosophical position that injects independent human will as the tilting-weight in a person's salvation?

The philosophical question of whether middle knowledge exists or not for an omniscient God doesn't really impede the basic issue on Scriptural terms -- God chooses people, not on the basis of human will or work.

Right?

This is what Scripture indicates:

God has absolute knowledge of the future.
He has foreknowledge of the future deeds man will do (when man is under predetermination).
He has foreknowledge of the future deeds man will do (when man is given free will by God).
God's foreknowledge does not apply to Him, to what He will think, say, and do. To say that it does is setting a limit on Him.

So what caused Molina to stumble in his theology (by denying God's foreknowledge, he sets a limit on God)?

My diagnosis: Misunderstanding of salvation.

In conditional salvation, salvation is by God's decision, which God bases on what He sees (His observations of the man's heart and the actions, words, desires and thoughts of man; 1 Samuel 15:22; 16:7; 2 Kings 20:1-6; 1 Kings 14:13; Psalm 14:2) rather than His foreknowledge.

In unconditional salvation, God's decision is based on His foreknowledge. For example, He knows that a person (who is predetermined to go to hell) is going to live a sinful life without repentance yet He decides to allow the person to go to heaven rather than to his predetermined fate (hell) without desiring to see something that He wants.

In conditional salvation, God is saying something like:

"I know that majority of mankind is going to sin and not genuinely repent of their sins and many will go to hell (and I know their eternal fate) but I want to see them do otherwise (repent) regardless".

Gen. 3:9-13 shows that God wants to see confession, despite already knowing that Adam and Eve would have and had sin (Luke 22:22; Acts 4:27-28; Acts 2:23; 1 Peter 1:20). This is the only obstruction towards establishing perfect doctrine regarding this matter. If God foreknows everything that happens in the physical and spiritual world and man can only come to Him when He grants them repentance yet man will inevitably fail to repent when given the chance because of his sinful nature, then why does God want to see confession?

The only answer I can say is that God's mercy can be unconditional (Rom. 9:15) and His mercy is not subjected to predetermination. Therefore, God can help a person anytime, despite having foreknowledge of everything the person will think, say, do, etc.

 

[Easystreet]

Against compatibilism, I argue for Molinist understanding of the interaction between God's sovereignty and human choice. Molinism understands God to carry out His sovereign plans through His exhaustive foreknowledge. It views man's freedom as the freedom to refrain (i.e., the freedom to choose something or refrain from choosing that thing) and sees him as the causal agent of his decision. This is known as soft libertarianism or concurrence. The attractiveness of Molinism is that it presents a logically coherent view of providence, which holds that God is meticulously sovereign, while at the same time humans are genuinely free. In short, this book affirms divine sovereignty but rejects universal necessity; it affirms the reality of human depravity but rejects causal determinism."

Page 9 "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach" Kenneth Keathley

 

[Jpark]

Against compatibilism...

Well, that is not what I preach.

I believe predetermination and free will do not typically occur simultaneously. I believe they occur in interchangeable intervals.

In one instance, the deeds of a person is predetermined. In the next instance, the deeds of a person are not predetermined but done by free will.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism teach that man has free will. I teach that man is given free will but does not retain it and the duration man can have it is controlled by God.

 

[Easystreet]

Well, that is not what I preach.

I believe predetermination and free will do not typically occur simultaneously. I believe they occur in interchangeable intervals.

In one instance, the deeds of a person is predetermined. In the next instance, the deeds of a person are not predetermined but done by free will.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism teach that man has free will. I teach that man is given free will but does not retain it and the duration man can have it is controlled by God.

If you have not read “Salvation and Sovereignty” I think you will enjoy reading Keathley's book, not to change your mind but to appreciate the art of understanding he demonstrates and the clarity with which he presents his position and as well his balance in understanding. His view will not change things over all for the most, but I do believe he has made this view viable as a legitimate player in the understanding of the doctrine of salvation. I think we will be hearing a lot more on this model because of Dr. Keathley’s book. I predict that others will openly identify and began to write books too. As Dr. Gordon Johnston expressed “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.”

Source of quote back outside cover

 

[Seabreezer]

Interesting, I never figured that arminians would agree with the following statement of Calvin's:

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.

That of course was never claimed, nor was it the point. Here it the point again in case were really interested. I just cut and pasted it over for you.

Regarding 2 Peter 3-9

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.

 

[AndOne]

That of course was never claimed, nor was it the point. Here it the point again in case were really interested. I just cut and pasted it over for you.

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.

Do you mind if I ask then - what is the point you are trying to make with all of this? Is there one other than that you are trying to prove that DrSteve translates a text different than Calvin did? Most of us know that DrSteve does not adhere to classic Calvinism as he does not accept Limited Atonement to be tenable - yet we have no problem discussing and conversing with him on these subjects without it sinking into a discussion of credentials....

 

[drstevej]

That of course was never claimed, nor was it the point. Here it the point again in case were really interested. I just cut and pasted it over for you.

Regarding 2 Peter 3-9

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.

Can you provide a link to my exegesis? I do not think I have provided any during the time you have been a member on CF under the name Seabreezer. If you are going to critique my views you should document them.

 

[drstevej]

This is the essence of the understanding of Counterfactual, as I understand it.

Regardless of your position on Election and Salvation matters this factual data is a big issue and cannot be Easley ignored.

Factual counterfacuals ignored by Easley?

As I said before:

Molinism = unsuccessful unscrewing the inscrutable.

 

[AndOne]

I started reading Dr. Keathley's book last night and right out of the gate it appears that he might have either a misunderstanding of Calvinism or he is purposely trying to misrepresent it. Please note this excerpt from the introduction:

The Reformed view of providence which embraces casual determination has been given the (rather misleading) label of compatibilism (also often called soft determinism). Compatibilism views human freedom as compatible with causal determinism (hence the term "compatibilism"), but only after redefining free will. Human freedom is understood merely to be the freedom of inclination (i.e. freedom to do what you want). Therefore many Calvinists argue for casual determinism, through which God's will is the cause of all things.

The problem that I have with this statement is that it simply does not reflect properly what Calvinists think regarding free will. Dr. Keathley is essentially saying here that Calvinists believe that God forces those who become Christians to be Christians - essentially against their will. In other words if God wills a person to be Christian it somehow will force that person to be so when he doesn't really want to be.

But that simply is not the case of what Calvinsts believe regarding free will. Calvinists believe that man by his nature is only inclinded toward evil and has no desire or inclination to know or love God whatsoever. Such a person is not forced into believing - instead the inclinations of his heart and will are miraculously changed to where he wants to believe. It is a very big difference from what Dr. Keathley is portraying.

Dr. Richard Phillips sums up the Calvinist position on this best in his book "What's So Great About The Doctrines of Grace?" - God does not compel us to believe against our wills. Instead, He sovereignly changes our wills so that with new eyes we see Jesus as He is, with new hearts we embrace his salvation, and with new affections we love Him as the Savior of our souls.

 

[nobdysfool]

Factual counterfacuals ignored by Easley?

As I said before:

Molinism = unsuccessful unscrewing the inscrutable.

As I said before:

Merriam-Webster defines counterfactual thusly:

: contrary to fact <counterfactual assumptions>

Something that is contrary to fact would be....False. So Molinism is built on the idea of falsehoods.....

Ver-rrry interesting.....

Seems to me that this whole exercise is an attempt to find justification for an assumed viewpoint, rather than letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. What seems to be the underlying goal is to undermine Calvinism through the back door. The reason I say this, is because the salient points are almost always compared against Calvinism. We don't see similar comparisons to Arminianism, it's always "this presents a problem for Calvinists, who believe_________." And what is stated that Calvinists "believe" is wrong, 99% of the time.

 

[Dark_Lite]

As I said before:

Merriam-Webster defines counterfactual thusly:

: contrary to fact <counterfactual assumptions>

Something that is contrary to fact would be....False. So Molinism is built on the idea of falsehoods.....

Ver-rrry interesting.....

Seems to me that this whole exercise is an attempt to find justification for an assumed viewpoint, rather than letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. What seems to be the underlying goal is to undermine Calvinism through the back door. The reason I say this, is because the salient points are almost always compared against Calvinism. We don't see similar comparisons to Arminianism, it's always "this presents a problem for Calvinists, who believe_________." And what is stated that Calvinists "believe" is wrong, 99% of the time.

Don't ever use a regular dictionary for philosophical definitions. In philosophy, words take on different and usually more complicated meaning. A good example is "necessary." In philosophy and logic it implies a logical necessity: something that must happen. It cannot not happen. Compare this with the common definition of the word. In common parlance, "necessary" has a much looser meaning.

Also, it would help if you use the word in the proper context. The definition you cited is for an adjective. In the context of this thread, it is being used as a noun (which is really just a shortened form of "counterfactual conditional").

I believe a definition for counterfactual has already been posted in this thread. That is the definition you should operate on. In case you need another definition, here is an article to skim that will tell you what counterfactuals are in philosophy and logic.

Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[AndOne]

Don't ever use a regular dictionary for philosophical definitions. In philosophy, words take on different and usually more complicated definition. A good example is "necessary." In philosophy and logic it implies a logical necessity: something that must happen. It cannot not happen. Compare this with the common definition of the word. In common parlance, "necessary" has a much looser meaning.

Also, it would help if you use the word in the proper context. The definition you cited is for an adjective. In the context of this thread, it is being used as a noun (which is really just a shortened form of "counterfactual conditional").

I believe a definition for counterfactual has already been posted in this thread. That is the definition you should operate on. In case you need another definition, here is an article to skim that will tell you what counterfactuals are in philosophy and logic.

Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Thanks for clarifying DL - I agree with you on this one. Do you know of a book written on Molinism from a Catholic perspective?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thanks for clarifying DL - I agree with you on this one. Do you know of a book written on Molinism from a Catholic perspective?

Nope. But I should find one. I am sort of a Molinist, so I figure at some point I should probably read a book on it.

 

[AndOne]

Nope. But I should find one. I am sort of a Molinist, so I figure at some point I should probably read a book on it.

If you find one - let me know. I'm quite interested in this subject and the problem I have with the protestant writings on this is that they are very anti-calvinist. I'd like to read something on just the philosophy without all of the criticisms. For some reason I think a book by a catholic theologian might meet that criteria...

 

[nobdysfool]

Don't ever use a regular dictionary for philosophical definitions. In philosophy, words take on different and usually more complicated meaning. A good example is "necessary." In philosophy and logic it implies a logical necessity: something that must happen. It cannot not happen. Compare this with the common definition of the word. In common parlance, "necessary" has a much looser meaning.

Also, it would help if you use the word in the proper context. The definition you cited is for an adjective. In the context of this thread, it is being used as a noun (which is really just a shortened form of "counterfactual conditional").

I believe a definition for counterfactual has already been posted in this thread. That is the definition you should operate on. In case you need another definition, here is an article to skim that will tell you what counterfactuals are in philosophy and logic.

Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Whatever. The so-called "definition" given is convoluted and rather rambling, and as such does nothing to clarify. Scripture is not a philosophical treatise. It is written so that we who are Christians may understand, learn, and be edified. If common words are imbued with "philosophical meanings" that are different than common understanding, then some will be excluded from clear understanding unless they know and are facile with the "special" definitions of words employed. I am not comfortable with accepting some scholar's word on what Scripture means when it involves such "special" definitions. It smacks of a "gnostic" approach to Scripture understanding.

 

[Easystreet]

I started reading Dr. Keathley's book last night and right out of the gate it appears that he might have either a misunderstanding of Calvinism or he is purposely trying to misrepresent it. Please note this excerpt from the introduction:

The Reformed view of providence which embraces casual determination has been given the (rather misleading) label of compatibilism (also often called soft determinism). Compatibilism views human freedom as compatible with causal determinism (hence the term "compatibilism"), but only after redefining free will. Human freedom is understood merely to be the freedom of inclination (i.e. freedom to do what you want). Therefore many Calvinists argue for casual determinism, through which God's will is the cause of all things.

The problem that I have with this statement is that it simply does not reflect properly what Calvinists think regarding free will. Dr. Keathley is essentially saying here that Calvinists believe that God forces those who become Christians to be Christians - essentially against their will. In other words if God wills a person to be Christian it somehow will force that person to be so when he doesn't really want to be.

But that simply is not the case of what Calvinsts believe regarding free will. Calvinists believe that man by his nature is only inclinded toward evil and has no desire or inclination to know or love God whatsoever. Such a person is not forced into believing - instead the inclinations of his heart and will are miraculously changed to where he wants to believe. It is a very big difference from what Dr. Keathley is portraying.

Dr. Richard Phillips sums up the Calvinist position on this best in his book "What's So Great About The Doctrines of Grace?" - God does not compel us to believe against our wills. Instead, He sovereignly changes our wills so that with new eyes we see Jesus as He is, with new hearts we embrace his salvation, and with new affections we love Him as the Savior of our souls.

Dr. Richard Phillips does write it in words that are soft and palpable, however, the statements are out there that lend themselves to a harder approach to special election. One example is where "white" clearly stated that God ordained the rape of a woman. If this line of thinking is present in some versions of Calvinism then it becomes a legitimate point of conversation. Granted not all Calvinist are as he and others that ascribe to his flavor of Calvinism. I would not place all in the same box as this is also true of Arminians. That being said I would compel you to look at his comments in the broader writings over the years of all self claimed Calvinist, some who do not comment in the softer manner as Dr. Phillips has.

As well, in the mind of most of us that are not Calvinist even the genital view of Dr. Phillips has as it component the absence of free will. As I understand it free will is after the fact not before, whereas, whatever freedom is said to exist is captured by the sin nature which to most of us that are not Calvinist come across as the absence of free will and taken to mean forced. This may not be the best term to describe the operation of pre faith regeneration but the implication suggests this result from the other side.

Free will implies a real choice and if one cannot make a real choice because of nature he has no choice at all. And this is shared by Arminians too, but handled differently. We are created in the image of God, flawed as it is by our nature, but we are not animals absent of God’s image and this is a huge difference.

This is where pre saving grace enters the discussion. Calvinism for the most part if not all of it has regeneration first and non Calvinist - less universalist - see pre saving grace as the grace that enables the lost sinner to accept Christ. That really is the difference, as I see it. I think the bridge from what you hold dear and Keathley understands lies in this area not in the area of lack of understanding, as I would explain it. Our view determines the nuisances of our definitions. A rock is hard and this hardness can be illustrated and explains in a variable of ways, yet it is hard, how hard and what are its properties that cause it to be hard. Are they the same as other hard objects, why, for what reasons are they hard. What softens them if they can be softened and how long does it take; what are the elements that cause something to become softer. So I don’t’ thing disagreeing is simple and one man’s approach does not fit all especially in theology.

 

[drstevej]

Our view determines the nuisances of our defilations.

"Now who can argue with that."
-- Olson Johnson

 

[Easystreet]

"Now who can argue with that."
-- Olson Johnson

I Hate Spell Checking

 

[nobdysfool]

I Hate Spell Checking

Spell checking is your friend.....

 

[Easystreet]

Spell checking is your friend.....

I am going to blame it on the Spell Checker in the word processor.