Molinism

[Benefactor]

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.

As to an agenda well I can't judge His Heart but I do like what He has to say and it does make my ears feel good.

 

[nobdysfool]

As to an agenda well I can't judge His Heart but I do like what He has to say and it does make my ears feel good.

And that STILL does not make it True.....

 

[nobdysfool]

I have removed all comments with those words. Easy Ben

Post 205 remains unedited.

 

[Benefactor]

Post 205 remains unedited.

Done

 

[AndOne]

Why doesn't this question get answered? - since Jesus knew the Sidonites would've repented, and if repentance meant their salvation -- why didn't He send them miracles?"

 

[Benefactor]

Why doesn't this question get answered? - since Jesus knew the Sidonites would've repented, and if repentance meant their salvation -- why didn't He send them miracles?"

Here is a brief quote that in part answers your enquiry,

“Now let’s jump to the third moment: God’s free knowledge. This is His perfect knowledge of the world – this world – that He chose to “actualize” (i.e., create). Molina referred to this third moment as “free” because it is the result of God’s free, sovereign decision to bring this particular world into existence. Of the infinite possibilities available to God. He was under no compulsion to choose this one. Yet He chose a world that contains free moral agents – angels and humans – who make genuinely free moral agents – angels and humans – who make genuinely free decisions. How is He able to infallibly accomplish His will in a world in which other moral agents besides Him exist? This brings up the crucial motion of God’s middle knowledge.” page 18

I think, regardless if one agrees or not, reading his book is beneficial and is a healthy viable scriptural alternative to the systems we are most familiar with. You may want to get his book for your library. There are others that are associated with this same view and I plan to get them too.

 

[heymikey80]

So at some point we're down to, it doesn't matter what God wants, it's simply what God knows that "simulates" election and predestination. Because it's not really election, nor is it really predestination, when God doesn't choose the people, and God doesn't designate people beforehand.

It always seems to end up there -- God's either submitting to our decisions, or we're submitting to His.

 

[Benefactor]

So at some point we're down to, it doesn't matter what God wants, it's simply what God knows that "simulates" election and predestination. Because it's not really election, nor is it really predestination, when God doesn't choose the people, and God doesn't designate people beforehand.

It always seems to end up there -- God's either submitting to our decisions, or we're submitting to His.

Of course you are viewing it from your grid thus your conclusion.

From my grid it is much different and God is still sovereign.
The question as to the how of predestination and election has always been central to these issues. We both know it is not going to change.

Molinism has been a refreshing change in the sometimes boring on going back and forth between C and A.

 

[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]

Hammstar do you have his book? If so read Chapter 1

 

[Benefactor]

Here is a link for all who may be interested in more study in Molinism. Those who read this post that are moderate Calvinist or OSAS Arminian or Arminian or somewhere in this real of understanding in their soteriology (doctrine of salvation)>

LINK CLICK HERE

 

[heymikey80]

Just so y'know, chapter 1 is on books.google.com .

The affinity of Molinism with Arminianism is not unexpected: "Arminius differed from both with respect to his understanding of God's will and foreknowledge. Here he owed much to Molina's scientia media: God foreknows future contingencies without thereby determining them. Molina furnished him with a matrix that included God's foreknowledge, the efficacy of grace, and a freedom of the will that is genuine rather than seeming. In short, Arminius adopted the Jesuit-Thomistic tradition of scientia media that denied divine determination yet preserved the infinitude of the divine intellect and the scope of human freedom." Jacobus Arminius

Calvin's "Eternal Predestination" does touch on this kind of subject as well, writing on the subject of second causes.

 

[AndOne]

Here is a brief quote that in part answers your enquiry,

“Now let’s jump to the third moment: God’s free knowledge. This is His perfect knowledge of the world – this world – that He chose to “actualize” (i.e., create). Molina referred to this third moment as “free” because it is the result of God’s free, sovereign decision to bring this particular world into existence. Of the infinite possibilities available to God. He was under no compulsion to choose this one. Yet He chose a world that contains free moral agents – angels and humans – who make genuinely free moral agents – angels and humans – who make genuinely free decisions. How is He able to infallibly accomplish His will in a world in which other moral agents besides Him exist? This brings up the crucial motion of God’s middle knowledge.” page 18

I think, regardless if one agrees or not, reading his book is beneficial and is a healthy viable scriptural alternative to the systems we are most familiar with. You may want to get his book for your library. There are others that are associated with this same view and I plan to get them too.

That doesn't answer the question. The quote seeks to explain a tenent of molinism - but that isn't what was asked for.

 

[themuzicman]

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.

It isn't a question of "fairness". It's a question of omnibenevolence. How is it that a God who is perfectly good can create a world that condemns most of the human beings to a life of evil and rejection of God and ultimately eternal damnation, when He controls every aspect of creation?

And in both Calvinism and Molinism God consciously, intentionally, and unalteringly does just that.

 

[Benefactor]

It isn't a question of "fairness". It's a question of omnibenevolence. How is it that a God who is perfectly good can create a world that condemns most of the human beings to a life of evil and rejection of God and ultimately eternal damnation, when He controls every aspect of creation?

And in both Calvinism and Molinism God consciously, intentionally, and unalteringly does just that.

I don't get that from Keathley's book. Free will is maintained under Keathley's version of ROSE in light of Molinism. I will find the specific data and post it.

 

[themuzicman]

I don't get that from Keathley's book. Free will are maintained under Keathley's version of ROSE in light of Molinism. I will find the specific data and post it.

Molinism fails to retain free will for men by separating the act of deciding from the decision itself. Molinism ultimately only proves that God has free will, in that His choice actualizes a given set of post-actualization necessary decisions.

 

[AndOne]

I don't get that from Keathley's book. Free will are maintained under Keathley's version of ROSE in light of Molinism. I will find the specific data and post it.

You can't get it from his book because he hardly talks about molinism. It's only discussed in the introduction and chapter one.

 

[Benefactor]

Molinism fails to retain free will for men by separating the act of deciding from the decision itself. Molinism ultimately only proves that God has free will, in that His choice actualizes a given set of post-actualization necessary decisions.

Keathley states, "God antecedently "loved the world in this way: He gave His oe and only Son," that consequently "so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

 

[Hammster]

Keathley states, "God antecedently "loved the world in this way: He gave His oe and only Son," that consequently "so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

What it doesn't address, however, is what about those who have never heard.

 

[themuzicman]

Keathley states, "God antecedently "loved the world in this way: He gave His oe and only Son," that consequently "so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

This is demonstrably false under the assumptions of Molinism, as the majority of mankind will die under God's wrath and apart from His lov as a result of God's choice in actualizing this possible world, which includes decisions that separate men from not only believing, but even having a choice to believe.