Molinism

[nobdysfool]

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. ​

Really? I mean, REALLY??? So you think it's perfectly alright to beat up on Calvinists?

 

[heymikey80]

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

Love to see Keathley's explanation of how he subscribes to Southeastern's statement of faith. 'Guess it's, "I get a copy of it every month as a subscription."

"Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ; in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

Saving faith is the belief, on God's authority, of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit and is accompanied by all other saving graces and leads to a life of holiness."

 

[AndOne]

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

Sad stuff to know - that the professor of theology at SEBTS embraces Roman Catholoic Jesuit theology...

 

[Hammster]

Sad stuff to know - that the professor of theology at SEBTS embraces Roman Catholoic Jesuit theology...

And even Rome rejected Molinism.

 

[AndOne]

Really? I mean, REALLY??? So you think it's perfectly alright to beat up on Calvinists?

I may have my posters mixed up but I believe this is the poster who said a year and a half ago or so that Calvinists should be locked up and proescuted under the law...

 

[nobdysfool]

I may have my posters mixed up but I believe this is the poster who said a year and a half ago or so that Calvinists should be locked up and proescuted under the law...

It wouldn't surprise me one bit....

 

[Benefactor]

Really? I mean, REALLY??? So you think it's perfectly alright to beat up on Calvinists?

Empty

 

[nobdysfool]

Not in the sense it seems you imply, NO. Tough Love Is More Appropriate
You did state that Cs are infighters not me and “beat up on” is intended to mean “outfighters” in the same way you intended your “infighter” comment to be

Proof? Show the quotes. I don't recall ever making a comment about infighting, other than in response to your irresponsible endorsement of beating up on Calvinists. I simply pointed out that your remark was highly disingenuous, because it is so clearly one-sided.

You said what you said, and it reads the way it sounds. Seems to me that you are having a little trouble owning up to what you said.

 

[Benefactor]

It wouldn't surprise me one bit....

Getting back on track: Molinism I believe is closer to Scripture that the other models. I believe Dr. Keathley is correct in his book.

 

[Benefactor]

Proof? Show the quotes. I don't recall ever making a comment about infighting, other than in response to your irresponsible endorsement of beating up on Calvinists. I simply pointed out that your remark was highly disingenuous, because it is so clearly one-sided.

You said what you said, and it reads the way it sounds. Seems to me that you are having a little trouble owning up to what you said.

I am sorry you are offended I will be glad to remove what I posted because it was not intended in the way you feel.

 

[nobdysfool]

Getting back on track: Molinism I believe is closer to Scripture that the other models. I believe Dr. Keathley is correct in his book.

You are certainly entitled to believe and have your ears tickled any way you wish. That doesn't make it true, objectively. There's more than enough evidence to show that Keathley is pursuing an agenda, which is one you happen to agree with. Therefore, you accept what he says because it is agreeable to you. Still doesn't make it true.

 

[nobdysfool]

I am sorry you are offended I will be glad to remove what I posted because it was not intended in the way you feel.

I think that would be a good idea. If it was not what you intended, a very poor job of expressing yourself would be the kindest thing that could be said about it.

Additional: I notice that the original comment about infighting among Calvinists remains untouched. When it is removed, along with all the other references to and defense of that disingenuous remark I will remove all of my references to it.

 

[Hammster]

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?"

http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=56508040​

 

[drstevej]

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?"

Not FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Benefactor]

And even Rome rejected Molinism.

The consolation then is perhaps and I say perhaps the following is being rejected:

(1) So called Protestant Theism
(2) Roman Catholicism
(3) Extreme Calvinism

While Molina was a RC this does not make the content of what he believed RC as you noted according to your words RC rejected Molina's views. To compare apples and oranges, so to speak, the larger body of Protestantism rejects Calvinism. Does that make it right or wrong, neither and in the same frame of thinking does the fact that Molina being a RC and the RCC rejecting Molina's views make Molinism right or wrong.

At the end of the day to posit that because Molina's views is some kind of dastardly dogma is meaningless and quite frankly a straw man approach to simply saying what is the appropriate thing to do, which would best be served by saying “I do not agree with his views.” Not all who are in the SBC hold to the same views and among the lesser held views is Calvinism. The majority of SBC members are not Calvinist. More people in the SBC would identify with Molinism if they were exposed to it teaching and compared to Arminianism and Calvinism.

So, the idea or position is what we should be discussing not the affiliation, but I did not introduce RCC into the equation you did, as what might be perceived as an attempt to divert the discussion away from content of what is written to guilt by association.

We are discussing Molinism in relationship to Dr. Keathley's book and I don't recall Keathley intering into a discussion by way of comparison of Molinism to that of Catholicism but yes he does compare and contrast Molinism to that of Calvinism and Arminianism.

You have with this injection, in a sense, pulled the discussion away from the goal and intent of the OP.


The relevance of RCC to this discussion about Molinism as it concerns Dr. Keathley's book is remote at best. I don’t recall from Dr. Keathley’s book any mention of comparison and contrast to that of the RCC.

 

[Benefactor]

Not FAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Injecting my thoughts here: I did not get the "Not Fair" idea form Dr. Keathley's book. Did anyone who has gleamed or actually read all of it find any indication that he posits "unfairness"?

 

[Benefactor]

I think that would be a good idea. If it was not what you intended, a very poor job of expressing yourself would be the kindest thing that could be said about it.

Additional: I notice that the original comment about infighting among Calvinists remains untouched. When it is removed, along with all the other references to and defense of that disingenuous remark I will remove all of my references to it.

I don't have control over the other post but I removed mine. See my post number 258

 

[nobdysfool]

I don't have control over the other post but I removed mine. See my post number 258

You can edit any post of yours. The link I provided is your post, and you can edit it. Check all your posts. any reference to beating up on Calvinists that you posted should be edited out. Once you do that, I will edit my posts, and if there are posts by others, I will ask them to do so, too. Fair enough?

 

[Hammster]

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]

You can edit any post of yours. The link I provided is your post, and you can edit it. Check all your posts. any reference to beating up on Calvinists that you posted should be edited out. Once you do that, I will edit my posts, and if there are posts by others, I will ask them to do so, too. Fair enough?

I have removed all comments with those words. Easy Ben