Molinism

[AndOne]

"If Molinism were simply the overlaying of a philosophical grid on top of Scripture, then it woujld be a very bad idea and should not be done. Rather, Molinism is a precise philosophical system that arose out of a commitment to certain principles clearly taugh tin the Bible:.............."

Page 19FF "The Biblical Case for Molinism" "Salvation and Sovereignty A Molinist Approach by Kenneth Keathely.

This is basically an admission that molinism is not specifically taught in scripture. I personally am not willing to bank my understanding of scripture on a philosophical approach to to it.

Now before you accuse me of this with Calvinism keep in mind its those who oppose Calvinism who claim it is a philosophical system - but you will never hear of or see a Calvinist make that claim.

But here you have a moliniist making this claim about his own position. Seriously Dr. Keathley should heed his own advice on this one and drop it.

 

[Hammster]

If Molinism were simply the overlaying of a philosophical grid on top of Scripture, then it woujld be a very bad idea and should not be done.

And since this is what we are left with, let's take this advice. Like I said, Keathley uses lots of Scripture, no doubt about it. However, he uses it mainly to prove that counterfactuals exist in Scripture. Where he goes from there is purely a philosophical grid. And the OP has done NOTHING to counter that claim except to continue to post quotes from the book, and has now been reduced to quoting from another book.

It's like watching the Falcons. They must have known at some point that all hope was lost. But they kept trying anyway, just for pride's sake.

 

[Benefactor]

“On the Dominican view, there is one logical moment prior to the divine creative decree at which God knows the range of possible worlds that he might create; then he chooses one of these to be actual. On the Molinist view, there are two logical moments prior to the divine decree: first, the moment at which he has natural knowledge of the range of possible worlds, and second, the moment at which he has knowledge of the proper subset of possible worlds that, given the counterfactuals true at the moment, are feasible for him to create. The counterfactuals which are true at that moment thus serve to delimit the range of possible worlds to worlds feasible for God.”
Kindle location of quote, 51% 1507-10 or 3003 –
Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

 

[Benefactor]

And since this is what we are left with, let's take this advice. Like I said, Keathley uses lots of Scripture, no doubt about it. However, he uses it mainly to prove that counterfactuals exist in Scripture. Where he goes from there is purely a philosophical grid. And the OP has done NOTHING to counter that claim except to continue to post quotes from the book, and has now been reduced to quoting from another book.

It's like watching the Falcons. They must have known at some point that all hope was lost. But they kept trying anyway, just for pride's sake.

Apparently in your reading of His book you miss what he teaches. Remember he is a ROSES man that sees Molinism as a key component in his view of God's program. He uses Scripture to support a lot of issues. I take it you skimmed over the book and did not actually responsibly read it.

 

[nobdysfool]

“On the Dominican view, there is one logical moment prior to the divine creative decree at which God knows the range of possible worlds that he might create; then he chooses one of these to be actual. On the Molinist view, there are two logical moments prior to the divine decree: first, the moment at which he has natural knowledge of the range of possible worlds, and second, the moment at which he has knowledge of the proper subset of possible worlds that, given the counterfactuals true at the moment, are feasible for him to create. The counterfactuals which are true at that moment thus serve to delimit the range of possible worlds to worlds feasible for God.”
Kindle location of quote, 51% 1507-10 or 3003 –
Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

More mere words, and in this, some hints of some truly wrong ideas. The implication that He (God) gains knowledge that He didn't know before, and the idea that there could be worlds that are not feasible for God.

Neither idea is possible for an Ominpotent, Omniscient God.

Molinism is revealed to be unscriptural.

 

[Benefactor]

This is basically an admission that molinism is not specifically taught in scripture. I personally am not willing to bank my understanding of scripture on a philosophical approach to to it.

Now before you accuse me of this with Calvinism keep in mind its those who oppose Calvinism who claim it is a philosophical system - but you will never hear of or see a Calvinist make that claim.

But here you have a moliniist making this claim about his own position. Seriously Dr. Keathley should heed his own advice on this one and drop it.

Your opinion is noted, Calvinism is filled with improvable claims but Molinism is a plausible Biblical answer that makes good sense of a difficult doctrine.

 

[Benefactor]

Sovereignyt must bow to Holiness, not the other way around

 

[AndOne]

Your opinion is noted, Calvinism is filled with improvable claims but Molinism is a plausible Biblical answer that makes good sense of a difficult doctrine.

I'm sticking with Calvinism. Molinism isn't biblical.

 

[AndOne]

Sovereignyt must bow to Holiness, not the other way around

Are you willing to make this statement when you are standing face-to-face with the Lord?

 

[nobdysfool]

Sovereignyt must bow to Holiness, not the other way around

And you know this, how? Where does it say this in Scripture? Who can assess the relative merits of God's Character and Nature? Certainly not man!

 

[DeaconDean]

Sovereignyt must bow to Holiness, not the other way around

Oh oh...I see somebody here has the mind of God.

I see somebody here thoughts are God's thoughts.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

Apparently in your reading of His book you miss what he teaches. Remember he is a ROSES man that sees Molinism as a key component in his view of God's program. He uses Scripture to support a lot of issues. I take it you skimmed over the book and did not actually responsibly read it.

By the fact that you've not been able to produce any scriptural support for any of the ideas you have posted (you know, for those who haven't read the.book) just reenforces my point.

Plus, I never said there was no scriptural support for anything. There just isn't any for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world to achieve the most saved people.

 

[Benefactor]

And you know this, how? Where does it say this in Scripture? Who can assess the relative merits of God's Character and Nature? Certainly not man!

Which to you want (1) an all powerful being and no holiness or (2) a Holy God with all power?

Sovereignty is used 4 times in the HCSB

Sovereign is used only 1 time in the HCSB

Holy is used 198 times in the HCSB

Holiness is used 8 times in the HCSB

In Scripture reference to what man is to emulate that uses the word HOLY are done because this Is God's standard. We are asking to emulate Holiness not Sovereignty.

Our emphasis is not displaced to consider sovereignty but when it is emphasized at the expense of His Holiness the relationship is skewed. Sovereignty in the absence of Holiness is not good. Holiness regulates Sovereignty, not the other way around.

 

[nobdysfool]

Which to you want (1) an all powerful being and no holiness or (2) a Holy God with all power?

Sovereignty is used 4 times in the HCSB

Sovereign is used only 1 time in the HCSB

Holy is used 198 times in the HCSB

Holiness is used 8 times in the HCSB

In Scripture reference to what man is to emulate that uses the word HOLY are done because this Is God's standard. We are asking to emulate Holiness not Sovereignty.

Our emphasis is not displaced to consider sovereignty but when it is emphasized at the expense of His Holiness the relationship is skewed. Sovereignty in the absence of Holiness is not good. Holiness regulates Sovereignty, not the other way around.

All based on the ruminations of a fallible man with an agenda. You have no insight into the character and Nature of God to be drawing those kind of conclusions. Word counts are just statistics. They don't prove anything beyond how many times a certain word is used. And none of these "conclusions" does any damage to Calvinism, which is the attempted end-game here.

 

[Benefactor]

“We also find counterfactual knowledge exhibited by Christ. For example, he tells Peter, “Go to the sea and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin; take that and give it to them for you and me” (Mt 17:27” This passage is most naturally understood as an expression of Jesus’ knowledge that if Peter were to carry out Jesus’ instructions, he would find things as the Lord predicted. Again, Jesus commands the disciples, after a futile night of fishing, “Cast the net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some [fish] (Jn 21:6). The miraculous catch that ensued shows that Jesus knew exactly what would happen if the disciples obeyed his command. Sometimes Jesus makes counterfactual statements himself: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin…If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not have sin” (Jn 15:22,24). “If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews” (Jn 18:26). “Woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that one to not have been born” (Mt 26:24). These are only a few of many examples. 52% 1528-43 or 3003 Kindle for PC Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views


Earlier in this thread there were complaints about Scripture this and Scripture that. It just goes to show everyone that the "Wolf Cry" is sometimes just that "Wolf" "Wolf" Wolf and after the protector responds to the empty cry that is made when the real cry comes no one pays attention to the cry.

An example: Dr. Kenneth Keathley's book list more or less 250 reference in his book "Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach". The book is clear as to its intent. A Molinist Approach All of the passages are one way or the other used to support and contrast his thesis concern ROSES and this position related to Molinism. But what do we have by those that claim to read the book is a rabbit trail of prove this and that over and over and over and over. Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf

 

[heymikey80]

Molinism is a system of theology that fails to accomplish what it was designed to accomplish. Instead of reconciling the sovereignty of God, and the freedom of man, it redefines both, essentially destroying real freedom. God’s creation of the particular world in which His perfect will is upheld completely amounts to nothing less than fatalistic determinism. True, biblical foreknowledge protects man’s choice. He does know how we will choose ultimately. However, as one author has demonstrated, “God’s foreknowledge extends to all of our free actions as well, which erases neither human liberty nor moral responsibility; rather, they are confirmed.” Mark Tuso, Crosspointe Baptist Church

 

[Benefactor]

By the fact that you've not been able to produce any scriptural support for any of the ideas you have posted (you know, for those who haven't read the.book) just reenforces my point.

Plus, I never said there was no scriptural support for anything. There just isn't any for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world to achieve the most saved people.

Middle Knowledge is a Theological-Philosophical debate. Counterfactual knowledge is Scriptural.

No one can accuse you or me or anyone of not being biblical by saying that middle knowledge is not mentioned in Scripture.

So you capitulate that counterfactuals are Biblical, is that correct?

What Keathley does is make a case for "Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach" and I assume that this title communicates what I have asserted all along. It seems that no one reads the title. It is an approach just like Calvinism is and Arminian is and the other entire ism are. Why is that not clear?

 

[heymikey80]

Anyone notice that counterfactuals aren't a significant issue if creation is deterministic? In other words it doesn't matter unless determinism is capitulated.

Philosophically it doesn't matter. Y'hafta swallow the assumption that it's important to thrust it forward as important.

Oh, that there would actually be some consideration the arguments from compatibilists, today.

Exactly how does a person have free choice when God is constantly countermanding the effects of his choice, minimizing it so it follows in the direction God wants events to go? The choices may be free, but they end up walling-in the person's life in a maze that he can't get out of. Freedom of will is swapped for creational imprisonment.

 

[Hammster]

Earlier in this thread there were complaints about Scripture this and Scripture that. It just goes to show everyone that the "Wolf Cry" is sometimes just that "Wolf" "Wolf" Wolf and after the protector responds to the empty cry that is made when the real cry comes no one pays attention to the cry.

So, from the man who used to cry "The Bible. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else". And now, when we want you to supply some support for your view, you try to make us look unreasonable for wanting support. Doesn't seem very consistent.

An example: Dr. Kenneth Keathley's book list more or less 250 reference in his book "Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach". The book is clear as to its intent. A Molinist Approach All of the passages are one way or the other used to support and contrast his thesis concern ROSES and this position related to Molinism. But what do we have by those that claim to read the book is a rabbit trail of prove this and that over and over and over and over. Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf Wolf

But here is the problem. If the position were so clear, in the book or otherwise, you would be jumping up and down to show the scriptural support. Just think...you could actually shut me up and make me look bad. There are only a few who have read the book. What about the others? Are they just supposed to trust that the passages you use have some sort of scriptural support in the book?

Plus, with over 250 references, you should have ready access to your needed proof. So instead of bemoaning how mean we are, just show us the proof.

 

[Hammster]

Middle Knowledge is a Theological-Philosophical debate. Counterfactual knowledge is Scriptural.

No one can accuse you or me or anyone of not being biblical by saying that middle knowledge is not mentioned in Scripture.

So you capitulate that counterfactuals are Biblical, is that correct?

What Keathley does is make a case for "Salvation and Sovereignty a Molinist Approach" and I assume that this title communicates what I have asserted all along. It seems that no one reads the title. It is an approach just like Calvinism is and Arminian is and the other entire ism are. Why is that not clear?

I never said there was no scriptural support for anything. There just isn't any for the view that God used middle-knowledge to create this world to achieve the most saved people.