Molinism

[nobdysfool]

The only problem I have with counterfactuals is that they have been presented as the idea that refutes Calvinism. That is assuming too much, and investing it with far more power as an idea than it actually has. There are many things about time, possibility, alternate events, and eternity that we just do not understand, and probably won't, this side of Glory. Speculation can run rampant, but to then claim that such speculation disproves a Scripturally-based theology is presumption, pure and simple.

I think Mikey may have the best take on it.

 

[Benefactor]

................................Counterfactuals is not a biblical word, nor a biblical concept..........................

Calvinism is not a Biblical word -
Monergism is not a Biblical word - Philosophical word
Arminianism is not a Biblical word
Synergism is not a Biblical word - Philosophical word
Determinism is not a Biblical word - Philosophical word

Would your statement in red qualify in the context it was found as a "Straw Man" argument in that your appeal concerning your disagreement with Molinism finds some of its basis, if not all, in the words in RED. If this is the case then you, being a Calvinist, would need to, in all honesty, I would think, reject Calvinism because it too uses philosophical terms by its adherents to explain its claims.

 

[AndOne]

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.

Very good point. If it is true then the very thing that Calvinists are accused of can be said of molinists - just in a different way. Namely - why didn't God create a world in which everyone can be saved? It just isn't fair.

 

[Hammster]

Very good point. If it is true then the very thing that Calvinists are accused of can be said of molinists - just in a different way. Namely - why didn't God create a world in which everyone can be saved? It just isn't fair.

I don't want God to be fair.

Or

You'd think with infinite possibilities, God could do better. Man must be awfully powerful.

 

[Benefactor]

Very good point. If it is true then the very thing that Calvinists are accused of can be said of molinists - just in a different way. Namely - why didn't God create a world in which everyone can be saved? It just isn't fair.

What is fairness? God sets the standard of fairness. In that God is our standard then there is fairness. Is it fair that God saves all who repent and believe because this is His will and to not do so violates His standard of fairness? True we don't set the standard of fairness but the standard is there and we are thankful. I am thankful that God, for whatever reason by his standard, was fair and saved me and wants to save all who repent and believe."

Addressing the comments in RED: The fact is this that God did not create a world in which everyone could not freely believe. This does not say that everyone would believe and this is the context Molinism and Arminianism. It is a gross mistake toward Molinism and Arminianism, to posit that such a view represents Molinism and Arminianism. God commanded everyone everywhere to repent. This cannot be denied if kept in context so any effort on Calvinist part to label Molinism or Arminianism as it is framed is not a true representation of the two.

 

[Benefactor]

A Record of God's Fairness - God's Standard

The Areopagus Address

22 Then Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that you are extremely religious in every respect. 23 For as I was passing through and observing the objects of your worship, I even found an altar on which was inscribed:​

TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.​

Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it —He is Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in shrines made by hands. 25 Neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. 26 From one man He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. 27 ⌊He did this⌋ so they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. 28 For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Being God’s offspring then, we shouldn’t think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image fashioned by human art and imagination. 30 “Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because He has set a day when He is going to judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed. He has provided proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead.” 32 When they heard about resurrection of the dead, some began to ridicule him. But others said, “We’d like to hear from you again about this.” 33 Then Paul left their presence. 34 However, some men joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Acts 17:22-34 (HCSB)

 

[heymikey80]

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.

I've got no problem with Matthew 11 or Luke 7:50, only problems with the allegation of Calvinism not accepting them and not accepting the response is citationally obvious.

Salvation by grace through faith accomplishes plenty even when applying the utterly mistaken impression that a healing use of "saved you" is somehow a soteriological use of "God will bring you eternal life".

As for the "what-if" passages in Matthew 11, no biggee at all.

Meanwhile, Jesus continues to sat patently non-universal-offer things.
All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Matt 11:27

So can Molinism recognize its own asserted principles and points have denials stated directly as facts in Scripture?

 

[Benefactor]

As believers we cannot use the Matthew 11 counterfactual in the following way:

God was unfair to create this world in which those Jesus mentions in Tyre and Sidon did not see the miracles of which if they had they would have repented. (We cannot accuse God as being unfair.)


We know that the counter fact (if they had seen the miracles they would have repented) would have been true if Jesus had performed miracles so that eliminates the Calvinist view of special election and supports free will. It is impossible to refute this conclusion without denying the factual data Jesus reveals to us about Tyre and Sidon counter fact “if this then that”. As well it also eliminates any concept of open theism where God did not know what would happen or any view that posits God makes decision based upon looking into the future and seeing ones faith. Scripture is clear against these extremes. Before God created period God has absolute exhaustive knowledge of “EVERYTHING”. What an amazing God. How awesome and worthy He is of our worship. We can only bow and worship this most gracious God who loved us so.

Until I looked further into the Molinist view I actually believe this but did not know how to explain it. I personally believe most who are OSAS Arminian in one way or the other see it as Keathley writes. As well I am convinced that given the opportunity to seriously investigate these matters that even if not embracing Molinism as Keathley presents it will in some way formulate a similar construct that closely resembles the same thing. In the end, however, extreme Calvinism and Theism are foreign to having convincing Scriptural proof, whereas Dr. Keathely’s work answers the tough questions and solves the dilemma between God’s sovereignty and man’s fee will to choose.

Here is a quote from Dr. Keathley’s book “Salvation and Sovereignty A Mollinist Approach” Pages 161 and 162

“Sixth, Molinism places mystery wither it should be located, i.e. in God’s infinite attributes rather than in His character. Critics of Molinism, particularly open theist, contend that Molinism fails to give an adequate explanation of how God infallibly knows what choices free creatures are going to make. This is generally known as “the grounding objection” because it questions whether Molinism provides any grounds or basis for God’s middle knowledge.”

“Molinist generally reply by arguing that God innately knows all things by virtue of His omniscience and that for God to have infallible knowledge of all things is simply in His nature. (My thoughts – God cannot not know everything and must know everything or He ceased to be God) The Molinist advocate affirms but may not be able to explain to everyone’s satisfaction that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of what creatures with libertarian freedom will do.

“If Molinist have to appeal to mystery at this point, they do so at a better and more reasonable point. I’d rather have the Moinist difficulty of not being able to explain how God’s omniscience operates that the Calvinist difficulty of explaining how God is not the author of sin. In other words, Molinism’s difficulties are with God’s infinite attributes rather than His holy and righteous character. Implicit in the grounding objection is he denial that God has the ability to create creatures with libertarian freedom (of the morally significant kind). This places a surprising constraint on the scope of God’s sovereignty. The Molinist embraces a richer conception of God’s sovereignty since God exercises meticulous providence despite the existence of free creatures!”

“One of the things we understand least about God is how His infinite attributes operate – His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Why place the mystery of reprobation in God’s character? Molinist do not claim to know God’s purpose exhaustively, but among the things most clearly revealed about God are His holiness, righteousness, and goodness. Would we not rather place the mystery within the transcendent, infinite, inexhaustible omniscience of God than the reveal character and purposes of God?” The End

In the end everyone must decide for themselves.

 

[heymikey80]

We know that the counter fact (if they had seen the miracles they would have repented) would have been true if Jesus had performed miracles so that eliminates the Calvinist view of special election and supports free will.

It doesn't eliminate the Calvinist view of unconditional election, in fact it supports it. God could've used these means to provoke repentance, equally desiring everyone's salvation -- but He didn't.

It seems clear that some theologies put more stock in the impressiveness of miracles than others -- but the question would be what effect repentance is going to have. For instance, in Nineveh, that repentance kept God from wiping Nineveh off the face of the earth.

So here's a question: since Jesus knew the Sidonites would've repented, and if repentance meant their salvation -- why didn't He send them miracles?

To be honest, not everything is soteriology. I think in this case it's pretty clear, some things are about inappropriate response, and not about salvation.

But I'll take it further, while not granting the inference.

The reality is that if God had organized the world differently and performed miracles differently, He would've been intent on saving different people. No one's really out of His reach.

Won't everyone kneel and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord?

No, libertarian free will ends up being too easy, and insufficient to explain Scriptural statements.

So ... again, why isn't God's desire that everyone be saved, why isn't it working?

It is impossible to refute this conclusion without denying the factual data Jesus reveals to us about Tyre and Sidon counter fact “if this then that”.

I've seen it done.

Until I looked further into the Molinist view I actually believe this but did not know how to explain it. I personally believe most who are OSAS Arminian in one way or the other see it as Keathley writes.

Then they're not properly speaking Arminian.

In the end, however, extreme Calvinism and Theism are foreign to having convincing Scriptural proof, whereas Dr. Keathely’s work answers the tough questions and solves the dilemma between God’s sovereignty and man’s fee will to choose.

Unsubstantiated.

Here is a quote from Dr. Keathley’s book “Salvation and Sovereignty A Mollinist Approach” Pages 161 and 162

... “If Molinist have to appeal to mystery at this point, they do so at a better and more reasonable point. I’d rather have the Moinist difficulty of not being able to explain how God’s omniscience operates that the Calvinist difficulty of explaining how God is not the author of sin.

Which of course isn't resolved. It's quite clear that the Creator God could've avoided the existence of sin by simply not creating.

But sin exists. Therefore God's responsible.

The rest is rhetoric and hassling over whether some method or another seems better to us.. Which is frankly what Keathley is saying -- "I'd rather play with this argument and not have that one." That's essentially preferring one side of a debate not on its merit, but on its rhetoric.

In other words, Molinism’s difficulties are with God’s infinite attributes rather than His holy and righteous character. Implicit in the grounding objection is he denial that God has the ability to create creatures with libertarian freedom (of the morally significant kind). This places a surprising constraint on the scope of God’s sovereignty. The Molinist embraces a richer conception of God’s sovereignty since God exercises meticulous providence despite the existence of free creatures!”

By "richer" Keathley is essentially saying God's sovereignty is less.

“One of the things we understand least about God is how His infinite attributes operate – His omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Why place the mystery of reprobation in God’s character?"

Dunno. Why would anyone place the mystery of reprobation in God's character? Molinism does the same, just attributing it to God's creation of a characteristic of His creation that He could repudiate. It's nice rhetoric. It doesn't hold up to even philosophical scrutiny.

Molinist do not claim to know God’s purpose exhaustively, but among the things most clearly revealed about God are His holiness, righteousness, and goodness. Would we not rather place the mystery within the transcendent, infinite, inexhaustible omniscience of God than the reveal character and purposes of God?”

Or the transcendent, infinite, inexhaustible omnipotence of God?

Once again, the derived character of God's created beings is still entirely in God's hands at creation. He's responsible.

 

[Benefactor]

So here's a question: since Jesus knew the Sidonites would've repented, and if repentance meant their salvation -- why didn't He send them miracles?

This is where Molinism has a sufficient answer and Calvinism does not. Any system less free will to receive or reject Christ is not an option for consideration. Molinism does not reject free will, Calvinism does. I don't see believing faith as a work. The closest comparison between your view and mine is we both agree that God must open the eyes of the heart but we arrive at it from different paths.

I have the Scriptural language on my side according to order and Calvinism reverses the order.

 

[nobdysfool]

This is where Molinism has a sufficient answer and Calvinism does not. Any system less free will to receive or reject Christ is not an option for consideration. Molinism does not reject free will, Calvinism does. I don't see believing faith as a work. The closest comparison between your view and mine is we both agree that God must open the eyes of the heart but we arrive at it from different paths.

I have the Scriptural language on my side according to order and Calvinism reverses the order.

LOL! Didn't even answer the question. Just used it as another opportunity to throw stones at Calvinism.

The fact is Calvinism easily answers the question. And it is wrong to say that Calvinism rejects free will. We just don't imbue it with all of the wonderful things the non-Calvinists do, because we understand what motivates the human will. Desire. And the unregenerate have wrong desires, sinful desires, which they freely follow. Calvinists don't deny that men choose freely. What we deny is that unregenerate men can choose rightly (i.e. morally right, including believing God), apart from and independent of God's Saving Grace. Unregenerate men are bound in sin, slaves to sin, so their will is also bound in sin and a slave to sin. within that paradigm, they are free to choose. What they cannot do is choose outside of that paradigm, because they do not want to, and even if they did, they would find that they cannot, by themselves.

 

[DeaconDean]

LOL! Didn't even answer the question. Just used it as another opportunity to throw stones at Calvinism.

The fact is Calvinism easily answers the question. And it is wrong to say that Calvinism rejects free will. We just don't imbue it with all of the wonderful things the non-Calvinists do, because we understand what motivate the human will. Desire. And the unregenerate have wrong desires, sinful desires, which they freely follow. Calvinists don't deny that men choose freely. What we deny is that unregenerate men can choose rightly (i.e. morally right, including believing God), apart from and independent of God's Saving Grace. Unregenerate men are bound in sin, slaves to sin, so their will is also bound in sin and a slave to sin. within that paradigm, they are free to choose. What they cannot do is choose outside of that paradigm, because they do not want to, and even if they did, they would find that they cannot, by themselves.

Boy do I love this,

The OP, of whom we all know who it is, carries a Baptist icon, or is known to be Arminian Baptist.

And yet, here he is supporting Jesuit, Catholic theology.

I don't care what ya say, thats funny right thar.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[AndOne]

Boy do I love this,

The OP, of whom we all know who it is, carries a Baptist icon, or is known to be Arminian Baptist.

And yet, here he is supporting Jesuit, Catholic theology.

It's not just him - but the guy whose book he's toutin' is a theologian at Wake Forest University for goodness sake!

But what do you expect from a Baptist College whose mascot is a "demon" deacon...

 

[heymikey80]

This is where Molinism has a sufficient answer and Calvinism does not. Any system less free will to receive or reject Christ is not an option for consideration. Molinism does not reject free will, Calvinism does. I don't see believing faith as a work. The closest comparison between your view and mine is we both agree that God must open the eyes of the heart but we arrive at it from different paths.

Free will is irrelevant to the question on this verse.

God could have led them to repentance in sackcloth & ashes. Jesus said He could.
God didn't.
--> God must not want them to repent.

It's too simple a syllogism to avoid.

I have the Scriptural language on my side according to order and Calvinism reverses the order.

Keathley clearly overreached and slipped into his own distortion of what Jesus said.

I'm sure his position is reflective of millions of people's theology. After all, we're in the decline & fall of modernistic theology, and this is one of 'em.

With clarity Jesus teaches the heart of resistance among the knowledgeable, to where the reaction of the unknowledgeable condemns those with knowledge. He does not neglect the fact that the Son reveals God's will according to what God pleases. It's what Jesus said. Calling that omniscience instead of a character trait seems contrary indeed to what Jesus said:

No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you. I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Mt 11:23-27​

And this is in the citations which Molinism considers an advantage over Calvinism. Consider what happens when Molinism tries to tackle Scripture where it is at a disadvantage:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works [predicted or otherwise] but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Rom 9:11-12

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Rom 9:14-16​

God's mercy is His omniscience? No, God's mercy is an outpouring of God's character. By this He chooses those He shall save. And they shall be saved. "Nothing [including the person, including creation, including spiritual powers] nor anything else in all creation can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus." Rom 8:38-39 Love a result of omniscience? Or a result of God's character traits?

Many calvinists, and I hope many hypercalvinists, can actually see the point. Gracious election has to be from out of God's character. Just reprobation, whereby we are all condemned for being sinful creatures, is indeed out of God's divine justice. The rules of each are quite different. To pull either from these moorings causes a seismic shift in soteriology at the very least, and probably an engagement in just some other "new law", whereby we meet some diluted condition God has specified as the "new canon law" condition for salvation.

 

[DeaconDean]

It's not just him - but the guy whose book he's toutin' is a theologian at Wake Forest University for goodness sake!

But what do you expect from a Baptist College whose mascot is a "demon" deacon...

He wouldn't be allowed to teach at SEBTS!

Thank God my diploma is from there.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[nobdysfool]

And of course, non-Calvinists NEVER fight among themselves, do they?

"We know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, the partial shall be done away"...

Paul is referring to Christians. No one has all the answers, except God. Rejoicing in "infighting" is not a fruit of the Spirit, nor the attitude of Christ. It is rather, carnal and worldly. To rejoice in it is to perpetuate it.

"Behold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity"... Unity is in Christ, for it is He that has saved us, and not we ourselves.

 

[Benefactor]

Boy do I love this,

The OP, of whom we all know who it is, carries a Baptist icon, or is known to be Arminian Baptist.

And yet, here he is supporting Jesuit, Catholic theology.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Till all are either Geiserites, Molinites or Aminianites

Yours Truly
The Sock Man

 

[Benefactor]

Empty

 

[Hammster]

Not as long as there are Calvinist to beat up on​

The Sock Man
A ZERO POINT Calvinist
This is the only way I will accept being called a Calvinist. ​

But you still haven't answered the question:

"So here's a question: since Jesus knew the Sidonites would've repented, and if repentance meant their salvation -- why didn't He send them miracles?"

 

[Benefactor]

He wouldn't be allowed to teach at SEBTS!

Thank God my diploma is from there.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Faculty
Elected Faculty | Appointed Faculty | Visting Faculty
Administration
Daniel L. Akin
President
(919) 761-2224
Ken Keathley
Senior Vice President of Academic Administration, Dean of the Faculty
kkeathley@sebts.edu
(919) 761-2435

Source

The Sock Man
Easy Ben

P.S.

Kenneth D. Keathley
Professor of Theology
Senior Vice President for Academic Administration/Dean of the Faculty
B.A., Tennessee Temple University; M.N.S., Southeast Missouri State University; M.Div., Ph.D., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Faculty, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998–2000; New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000–06

Teaching at Southeastern since 2006​

kkeathley@sebts.edu