Molinism

[Benefactor]

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

I don't know where you get that idea because I see it the other way.

 

[Hammster]

"(One often hears, 'Every man is born Arminian; grace makes him a Calvinist'). This is an odd claim indeed, in light of the fact that most determinists are Calvinists, but Atheists and Muslims."

Another straw-man argument that Keathley makes that he will try to knock down. He gives no source for any Calvinist that has said that in any teaching. He will just assume that he readers will eat it up....as demonstrated on this thread.

 

[Hammster]

I don't know where you get that idea because I see it the other way.

What chapter does he address this? I admit that I may have missed it.

 

[Benefactor]

Assuming that everyone for the sake of discussion accepts that man has free will: A person hears the gospel at which time he is able to freely believe or reject the gospel. In this case the person rejects and lives to go somewhere else and dies before he gets to hear the gospel again, regardless of how he dies. The next person heard the gospel and reject it too but lives to hear the gospel thousands of times and now he is 90 years old and hearing multiple times now his last repents and believes and dies one minute later. Who gets the blame and is this application any different from the person who is suggested never hears the gospel thus doe not ever have a chance to become saved. There is an element of “Is it fair?” in this illustration.

Could it be that God knows if he had hear the gospel he would not repent? But then we have the real God given counterfactual statement in Matthew 11 to deal with that for all practical reasons wipes this part of the illustration out. Here we have a group of people that if they had seen miracles they would have repented. We are not told that they did not have a witness but that they did not see the miracles. We don’t have to guess about what they would have done had they seen the miracles and are left to assume in the absence of any record about what they knew and did not know. It stands to reason that if God desires all to be saved he then to some degree provided a witness that was sufficient enough for all humans to accept or reject. This assumption has stronger support than does Calvinism as it seems Calvinism is the only model that would reject this view. There are a lot of what ifs.

Calvinism does not answer this counterfactual for sure and I am not completely clear as to where Arminianism is in this regard but the Molinist have an answer, that being that whatever world God picks and sets in motion was the one we find ourselves in. That being the case, for me, is reasonable and acceptable. Even in this world under this view we do not know outside assumption why and we do not know to what extent Tyre and Sidon’s revelation was outside creation. Do we assume that from God’s exhaustive knowledge he does give all humans sufficient pre saving grace so that no one will be able to say they did not have a real choice in being saved?

The stinger for Calvinism and perhaps Arminiansins is Matthew 11 and other undisputed revealed counterfactuals, not to dismiss all the "if then" unrevealed counterfactual answered of which the counter fact never came to pass and of which we do not know what it might have been, but in such a case had it been a totally different world would then exist to some degree.

In that Matthew was possible and had it happened then according to the counter fact means a lot of things turn out differently.

I cannot embrace Calvinism simply because it has considerable holes in its argument scripturally. Arminianism is far more palatable and Molininsm seems to have a very good argument in solving the issues, especially of which Calvinism has no scriptural answer at all.

 

[drstevej]

Arminianism is far more palatable

Interesting yardstick for truth.

 

[Hammster]

Interesting yardstick for truth.

But it was chosen freely.

 

[Benefactor]

What chapter does he address this? I admit that I may have missed it.

Page 158 “One might ask at this point why the citizens of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon were not given the same opportunity the inhabitants of the Galilee region were given. Jesus teaches us that God’s good and sovereign plan (His “good pleasure’) necessitated otherwise (vv.25-27). Think again of Eisenhower’s order for the invasion of Normandy, for the analogy applies here also. God desires the salvation of all and is accomplishing the work of redemption in a maximal way, but this does not guarantee nor require that everyone have an optimal opportunity. Besides, Jesus clearly indicates that the responsibility for unbelief rests on the unbeliever, regardless of the level of opportunity, because he could have repented. “

Page 161 “However, in the Molinist paradigm, every person who dies unsaved has he sufficient ability and opportunity to respond to God’s graces. This is why the lost will not be able to accuse God of running a cosmic “sting operation” in which they were entrapped.”

 

[Hammster]

Page 158 “One might ask at this point why the citizens of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon were not given the same opportunity the inhabitants of the Galilee region were given. Jesus teaches us that God’s good and sovereign plan (His “good pleasure’) necessitated otherwise (vv.25-27). Think again of Eisenhower’s order for the invasion of Normandy, for the analogy applies here also. God desires the salvation of all and is accomplishing the work of redemption in a maximal way, but this does not guarantee nor require that everyone have an optimal opportunity. Besides, Jesus clearly indicates that the responsibility for unbelief rests on the unbeliever, regardless of the level of opportunity, because he could have repented. “

Page 161 “However, in the Molinist paradigm, every person who dies unsaved has he sufficient ability and opportunity to respond to God’s graces. This is why the lost will not be able to accuse God of running a cosmic “sting operation” in which they were entrapped.”

And how does that address those who have never heard?

 

[Benefactor]

And how does that address those who have never heard?

You assume that a defined "X" did not hear and that is not an unreasonable concern that all bible students I do believe struggle with. Your view solves the problem in several ways one of which involves double predestination and the other a softer view were God makes no effort to witness to them and just lets them go to hell because He only picked less than 50 percent and at least more than 50 percent will never be picked and in some Calvinist views those that are not picked are predetermined to hell. To me both views are the same only having a different window dressing.

But that does not answer the question. The bible to the best of my knowledge does not directly tell us the answer to this question.

What we do know is that all who do not believe will not be saved. How then can they believe unless they know? What do we do with the passages that claim that a person goes to hell because he does not believe? If not believing sends one to hell then is it unreasonable to believe that all who go to hell, who, when, where etc, did have some kind of opportunity to believe?

8 If I say to the wicked, ‘Wicked one, you will surely die,’ but you do not speak out to warn him about his way, that wicked person will die for his iniquity, yet I will hold you responsible for his blood. Ezek 33:8 (HCSB)

Also we have Acts 17 that indicates that in some way, somehow God provides sufficient witness to all that could result in genuine believing faith resulting in salvation.

As well John 1:9 testifying that all that are born into the world are enlightened and this is not natural revelation.

 

[Benefactor]

I wrote down the following words but I don't remember where they came from. It may have been from someone's post on CF or from somewhere else. Anyway they sum up, I think for all of us, perhaps, what we try to comprehend, yet we fall short in our best effort.

"God Knows Everything Only Once"
"God Did Not Discover or Lean Anything"​

 

[Benefactor]

We have maintained in all of our post dealing with “Order of Salvation” that the Bible order is supreme and any method or effort to circumvent it is not Scriptural. Whatever so called “Logical Order” systems employ we are obligated to obey (believe) the Biblical order regardless. In all cases in the benefits of being born from above (anothen) they all are instant at the same instant a person believes. This is related to us in this order: Repent and Believe = instant salvation (conversion, justification, regeneration - all the words we describe as benefits of “born from above” are all at the same moment received that apply to our state in this world. the rapture and becoming absent from the body and present with the Lord at the point of salvation is promised, one of the benefits of repenting and believing.

Dr. Keathley has a unique ability to related Biblical Truth in a simple way, not all teachers of the Bible have that ability, pro or con. Here is what he says concerning the order of salvation,

Page 120-121 “Salvation and Sovereignty A Mollinist Approach”
“In addition to teaching that the benefits of Christ are conditional, the Bible also spells out that the various aspects of salvation are not received until we place our trust in the Son of God. For example, Scripture declares that a person is justified upon believing in Christ, not the other way around. Paul states, “Through [Jesus] forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you, and everyone who believes in Him is justified” (Acts 13:22, 26; 4:3, 5; 5:1; Gal 2:16). Calvinist concedes that justification is received through faith because the Bible clearly says so. But in order to hold that regeneration precedes faith, they must bifurcate justification for regeneration. This results in the odd position that a person can be born again and not yet enjoy any of the other blessings of salvation – justification, eternal life, sanctification, etc.-until at a later point when that person is converted.”

He further states,

“And the Bible does not teach that only justification is contingent upon faith. It teaches that all aspects of salvation are received through the instrument of faith. It teaches that all aspects of salvation are received through the instrument of faith. We become the sons of God by faith (“for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3:26; cf. John 1:12).


“Sometimes Scripture simply says that salvation itself is obtained by faith. Jesus told the woman who washed His feet with her tears, “your faith has saved you” (Luke 7:50). Paul told the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). He declared, “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” (Rom 10:9; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; Eph. 2:8-9). Exercising faith “results” in salvation, as he states, “With the heart one believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses, resulting in salvation” (Rom 19:19). In these verses Paul does not differentiate between the various components of redemption. He plainly states that the condition to salvation is faith. As Geisler points out, the regeneration before faith view seems to be in the ironic position of denying (or at least abandoning) the doctrine of the Reformation: salvation by faith alone0sola fide.”

 

[drstevej]

As Geisler points out, the regeneration before faith view seems to be in the ironic position of denying (or at least abandoning) the doctrine of the Reformation: salvation by faith alone0sola fide.”

Balderdash. Last time I discussed justification with Dr. Geisler (as I was driving him to his hotel) he continuously confused the Protestant and Catholic doctrine of justification by faith.

Calvinists maintain that faith is the lone instrument of justification. They also maintain that faith is a gift. They reject a temporal sequence in the ordo salutis.

 

[Benefactor]

Balderdash. Last time I discussed justification with Dr. Geisler (as I was driving him to his hotel) he continuously confused the Protestant and Catholic doctrine of justification by faith.

Calvinists maintain that faith is the lone instrument of justification. They also maintain that faith is a gift. They reject a temporal sequence in the ordo salutis.

Do you maintain that all the benefits of new birth are the results of "his faith, her faith, their faith, our faith? Do you deny that faith is first and all else is the result of this one requirement of man? Jesus told the woman that her faith saved her? Do you decline to believe that faith is first everything else is as a result thereof?

Geisler does not deny this regardless of how many time you take him to the hotel.

And your view, your perception that Geisler is confused, is your hermeneutical grid that defines your views and that of itself is your opinion, would you not agree?

 

[Benefactor]

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 10:9-10 (HCSB)

Scripture is clear. Notice that "this results in that". So what is it that "if this then that" happens?

Salvation is the RESULT of Believing and Confessing. What must I do to be saved, believe of course?

When one is "SAVED" the result of faith and confessing that person then at the same moment is justified, saved, promised certain things.

 

[drstevej]

And your view, your perception that Geisler is confused, is your hermeneutical grid that defines your views and that of itself is your opinion, would you not agree?

Nope, I said that Geisler was confused on the Protestant and Catholic view of justification. That is a historical theology issue not hermeneutics.

BTW, do you know the difference?

My faith was a gift. It was all grace. I did not get an "assist."

Chuck Wesley gets it right...

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

 

[nobdysfool]

Benefactor, did you do anything before your birth that caused you to be physically born?

 

[Benefactor]

Nope, I said that Geisler was confused on the Protestant and Catholic view of justification.
.

So what was his confusion specifically?

 

[Benefactor]

Benefactor, did you do anything before your birth that caused you to be physically born?

I know the past you take and it does not apply to spiritual birth, for if it did then God would not require a response of the unborn. We may use terms that are interchangeable but that in no way dedicates that one process is the same as the other. This was Nicks problem he equated spiritual birth to physical birth and Jesus correct his thinking using the story about the snake on a pole, look and live.

 

[drstevej]

So what was his confusion specifically?

He did not know the difference. Do you?

 

[DeaconDean]

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 10:9-10 (HCSB)

Scripture is clear. Notice that "this results in that". So what is it that "if this then that" happens?

Salvation is the RESULT of Believing and Confessing. What must I do to be saved, believe of course?

When one is "SAVED" the result of faith and confessing that person then at the same moment is justified, saved, promised certain things.

Beliving does not "result" in righteousness.

"kardia gar pisteuetai eiV dikaiosunhn, stomati de omologeitai eiV swthrian." -Rom. 10:10 (GNT)

The Greek word here: "pisteuetai" actually means:

pisteuw,v \{pist-yoo'-o}
[SIZE=-1]1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in 1a) of the thing believed 1a1) to credit, have confidence 1b) in a moral or religious reference 1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul 1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith 1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith 2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity 2a) to be intrusted with a thing [/SIZE]

Source

Here again, your inserting your own theology into a word that will not fit.

In Romans 10:10, we have "eiV".

It is a fact that:

Three times in Romans 4, the preposition “eiV” (ice) is used. In verse 5: “his faith is counted “eiV = for” righteousness.” In verse 9: “faith was reckoned to him “eiV = for” righteousness. In verse 22: “it was imputed to him “eiV = for” righteousness.” In each of these verses, the preposition “eiV” never means “in the stead of”, but signifies “towards, in order to, with a view to”, and in rare circumstances, it can mean “because of.” It has a uniform usage as “into” or “unto.” The clearest meaning in this passage of scriptures is found in verse 10: “with the heart man believeth unto “eiV” righteousness”: that the believing heart reaches out towards and lays hold of Christ Himself. This passage (cf. Rom. 10:10) may help us to understand what justification by faith is, for it shows that righteousness there comes to us when we embrace God’s goodness offered to us in the Gospel. We are then, for this reason, made just: because we believe that God’s propitious to us through Christ. (Calvin)

The Doctrine of Justification, Restated and Reviewed, By Me.

Also, the Greek words used in Romans 10:10 for "righteousness" is "dikaiosunhn".

It is the language of the courts. It is a "legal" term.

Our Greek word has its root in the Greek word “dikh”. This word means “right”, “justice”; in the NT, judicial punishment, vengeance; 2 Thes. 1:9; Jude 7; sentence of punishment, judgment, Acts 25:15; personified, the goddess of justice or vengeance, Nemesis, Paena, Acts 28:4.


This word draws directly from the Hebrew word “tsadag” (tsaw-dak). Which is rendered in the OT as “justify”, “righteous”, “just”, “justice”, “cleansed”, “cleanse ourselves”, “righteousness”.


Plato links “dikaiow” with “dikh” saying it denotes obligations to men and to God, and therefore indicates “one who fulfills obligations towards men,” fulfillment of religious duties often attributed to this by such terms as : osioV, eusebhV, qeopilhV, qeosebhV. [1]


Looking at the word in the LXX, it is a “forensic” term. Yet in the LXX, the predominate usage does not carry a negative meaning as some Greek usage: (w QemistokleeV, en toisi agwsi oi proexanistamenoi rapizontai. o de apoluomenoV efh oi de ge egkataleipomenoi ou stefanountai.[2]) but is constantly used in the most positive sense of “to pronounce righteous,” “to justify”, “to vindicate”. The forensic element is even stronger in the Masoretic text in that the Masoretic Isa. 42:25 is rendered as they find righteousness with Yahweh, and in the LXX it is rendered that they are declared righteous by him (apo kuriou dikaiw qhsoutai).

[1] Plato, Gorgias, 507b; Polybius: dikaia with dsia. Histories, XXII, 10, 8

[2] “Themistocles, at the games those who start before the signal are beaten with rods.” Themistocles said in justification. “Those left behind win no crown.” Herodotus, Histories, Book VIII, Chapter 59, A.D. Godfey, Cambridge, Howard University Press, 1920.

Ibid

Righteousness and:

Justification has to do with the “legal” side of salvation. And because it is a legal term, a judicial declaration, the scriptures make it perfectly clear who this is, and who its author is. The Apostle Paul says:


&#8220;It is God that justifieth.&#8221; &#8211;Rom. 8:33 (KJV) <--{emphasis here}


This very same principle was laid down by God in the &#8220;Law&#8221;:


&#8220;If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.&#8221; &#8211;Deut. 25:1 (KJV)


Here we see from the &#8220;Law&#8221; how the word &#8220;justify&#8221; shows its &#8220;legal&#8221; origin, and how it is used in the forensic sense. God has laid down a rule to govern the judges in Israel: they must not justify or pass sentence in favor of the wicked.

Because justification is forensic in nature and a legal term, therefore justification deals with the believers standing in relation to the &#8220;Law&#8221;. So we state that justification refers not to a change in moral character, but solely to a change in legal status. Whereas we once stood condemned by the &#8220;Law&#8221; in our sinful state, the believer has now passed from a state of condemnation to one of acceptance through the obedience and fulfillment of the requirements that are received by faith alone, thus changing us to righteous and justified by imputation by an act of God.

Ibid

We are declared righteous/justified by faith, not for faith, not for what faith is, rather, because of what faith receives.

Believing does not produce, result in, righteousness or justification.

That comes by judical decree of God.

"tiV egkalesei kata eklektwn qeou; qeoV o dikaiwn" -Rom. 8:33 (GNT)

Oh my God! There is that word again: "dikaiwn"

dikaiow,v \{dik-ah-yo'-o}
[SIZE=-1]1) to render righteous or such he ought to be 2) to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered 3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be [/SIZE]

Ibid

James said:

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." -Jas. 2:19 (KJV)

The same Greek word is used in James 2:19 as in Romans 10:10.

If the devils "believe" does that mean they are "righteous" too?

Remember, you said: ""this results in that".

Righteousness and justification are the "results of" a judical decree of God.

Sorry man, you are wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.