Molinism

[Benefactor]

The question is this, do we believe a system of theology that is contrary to the clear teaching in Scripture or do we accept what Scripture teaches?


Where is faith in the order of the following:


Proof Text 1: 50 And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” Luke 7:50 (HCSB)

In this verse what is necessary for this woman to be saved? "Your Faith"

Proof Text 2: 8 On the contrary, what does it say? The message is near you, in your mouth and in your heart.

[16] This is the message of faith that we proclaim: 9 If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation.

Romans 10:8-10 (HCSB)

In these verses what two things are requird to be saved (regenerated - anothen or born from above)? Believe with the heart and confess with the mouth.

That which is a result is that which follows something and in this case the result is salvation (born from above / regeneration) which was preceded by belief and confession.

Proof Text 3: 24 The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. 25 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:24-26 (HCSB)

Paul is speaking to Galatians who are already saved in this verse. What is the one thing in these verses that makes them the "sons of God" (just another use of words to discribe salvation or regeneration)? The answer is through faith in Chirst Jesus


Proof Text 4: 29 Then the jailer called for lights, rushed in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he escorted them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:29-31 (HCSB)

The question was not, "Now that I am saved do I now believe? No the question is "What must I Do to be saved? Paul did not rebuke Him when he said What must I Do. Paul did not say to the jailer, sir you cannot do anything or you are not to do anything. What Paul did do was tell them exactly what they must do to be saved. That aswer is "believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" Saved is the same as born from above which is defined by Paul or explained by him as regeneration (new birth).



Proof Texts are endless that support faith first and salvation, justification as the result: Molinism and Arminianism accept faith first and all else second. It is what the Bible tells us.

One cannot be born from above until he or she first repents and trust in Christ. Once this takes place God regenerates the Soul/Spirit and that is regeneration / salvation or becoming saved in a split second not a long drawn out process designed by some miss guided theologian.

 

[drstevej]

The question is this, do we believe a system of theology that is contrary to the clear teaching in Scripture or do we accept what Scripture teaches?

Or do we cling to the philosophical machinations of Molinism?

 

[themuzicman]

Calvinists who are compatiblists (and not Molinist) fall into the same category: They have to appeal to philosophy to try to explain compatiblism, because the bible doesn't address it.

Again, Molinism is an attempt to explain what they believe Scripture says about free will and foreknowledge. So, other than proving the free will and foreknowledge exist, there won't be any Scriptural support for it, as Scripture doesn't attempt to explain it at all.

 

[Benefactor]

Molinism mirrors the methods and message or the Biblical manuscript, unlike the mess made by the intrigues invented by other systems.

 

[themuzicman]

Molinism mirrors the methods and message or the Biblical manuscript, unlike the mess made by the intrigues invented by other systems.

That's a fairly extraordinary claim. Are you claiming to be able to demonstrate middle knowledge and feasible possible worlds and actualization of this possible world from the bible?

 

[drstevej]

Molinism mirrors the methods and message or the Biblical manuscript, unlike the mess made by the intrigues invented by other systems.

Says who?
Documentation?

 

[DeaconDean]

You know, its funny how the OP starts a thread, then uses their "sock" to post.

Is there an agenda here?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Benefactor]

You know, its funny how the OP starts a thread, then uses their "sock" to post.

Is there an agenda here?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

Greetings Dean,

Socks are a good thing they keep my feet warm.

Benefactor or Easystreet - A sock thing

 

[Benefactor]

Says who?
Documentation?

Doctor Steve I highly recommend Doctor Keathley's book to you. It will answer all the questions you have even if you don't like the answers and positions contain therein. Benefactor / Easystreet = A Sock Thing

 

[nobdysfool]

Who is Dr. Stevens?

 

[heymikey80]

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

For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Romans 9:9-18

It seems quite clear that Paulinism rejects knowledge of human actions or willfulness as God's basis for choosing someone.

The fact that Molinism embraces such knowledge shows a significant difference between Molinism and Paulinism.

 

[Hammster]

I'm on the fence on my impression so far of Keathly's book. On one hand it it much better than norm geisler's joke of a book, Chosen But Free. But on the other hand, he has, in two chapters, already used the Arminian Big Three, even to the point of saying Jesus wept in Matt 23. Plus, he admits that Molinism isn't explicitly provable from Scripture. But, I'll finish it and see where it ends up.

 

[AndOne]

he admits that Molinism isn't explicitly provable from Scripture.

I don't remember this - though I admitedly read through it rather quickly. From what I saw he made an attempt to do so - but it wasn't very convincing and he didn't go into too much detail.

 

[Hammster]

I wish I could c/p from the app. That would be easier.

 

[nobdysfool]

Plus, he (Keathley] admits that Molinism isn't explicitly provable from Scripture.

That's all I need to know, to know that this is a waste of time. any doctrinal system that cannot be proven from Scripture is not worth a plugged nickel. It comes under the heading of "every wind of doctrine, after the traditions of men", and is the refuge of those with ticklish ears. Besides, it was pretty evident that the main attraction of Molinism was it's opposition to Calvinism. Can anyone say "agenda"???

 

[Benefactor]

It is no secret that what we are reading, those opposed to Dr. Keathley's Book, are of course died in the wool Calvinist. This is normal and to be expected. Any sound Biblical proof as Dr. Keathely as presented will find itself in opposition to anyone who already has their mind made up, with perhaps a few exceptions.

The mantra is not to adequately answer the content and clear message of counterfactual data in God's word but to side step it and creates barrage of negative verbiage. Matthew 11 is no different from Luke 7:50 because supporters of Calvinism will never accept their clear teachings which debunk, as other portions of scripture do, Calvinism. Argument must be made by changing the meaning of words and taking passages out of context to support TULIP / So Called Doctrines of Grace.

 

[AndOne]

That's all I need to know, to know that this is a waste of time. any doctrinal system that cannot be proven from Scripture is not worth a plugged nickel. It comes under the heading of "every wind of doctrine, after the traditions of men", and is the refuge of those with ticklish ears. Besides, it was pretty evident that the main attraction of Molinism was it's opposition to Calvinism. Can anyone say "agenda"???
[/size][/font]

Well - when you have to go to the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" to prove the existence of counterfactuals - it should be a clue that there is a problem with molinism.

Keathley did it in his book...

 

[nobdysfool]

It is no secret that what we are reading, those opposed to Dr. Keathley's Book, are of course died in the wool Calvinist. This is normal and to be expected. Any sound Biblical proof as Dr. Keathely as presented will find itself in opposition to anyone who already has their mind made up, with perhaps a few exceptions.

Stereotype much? It couldn't possibly be that Calvinists take exception because the man does not lay out a Scriptural case, but rather primarily a Philosophical case, complete with a reference to a movie, as "proof"? It couldn't possibly be that the man spends most of the book trying to debunk Calvinism rather than prove from Scripture that Molinism is "true". From what I've seen, the "proof" reduces down to "Molinism is true because Calvinism isn't". That's not proof, that's just uninformed opinion.

The mantra is not to adequately answer the content and clear message of counterfactual data in God's word but to side step it and creates barrage of negative verbiage. Matthew 11 is no different from Luke 7:50 because supporters of Calvinism will never accept their clear teachings which debunk, as other portions of scripture do, Calvinism. Argument must be made by changing the meaning of words and taking passages out of context to support TULIP / So Called Doctrines of Grace.

Counterfactuals is not a biblical word, nor a biblical concept. It is a philosophical concept based on trying to find some way to counter Calvinist theology. That's the appeal to the non-Calvinist. They are considered "clear" only in that light. They tickle the ears of those who don't want to accept Calvinistic theology. The old canard that Calvinists change meanings of words, and taking passages out of context has been debunked time and time again on this forum. We have shown repeatedly that the non-Calvinists are much more likely to change the meanings of words (or conflate them and confuse them, making them imprecise and flexible, according to the need of the moment), and to take passages out of context. That is documented FACT on this forum.

 

[Hammster]

I may be in the minority of the died (sic) in the wool Calvinists, but I font have a problem with the idea of counterfactuals, at least not as defined by Keathley. My issue is that there is no Scriptural evidence that God used this knowledge to create a world that yields the most saved people.

 

[heymikey80]

I don't have a serious problem with counterfactuals, either. I don't have a problem with anything people conceive as having a corresponding type of knowledge by God.

The question I'd get to is whether this knowledge appears to God as it would appear to us. I doubt that's the case, as He would know why it didn't happen, and generally we only know the fact that it didn't happen.