Molinism

[Easystreet]

As White didn't say what you're saying, and I don't say what you're saying, I can but disagree with your representation of White's statement. A decree is about what would happen. To demand that mean God makes it happen as the immediate responsible party is not concluded. The responsible party in a crime is the one who wills the crime in an evil interest.

I hold to double asymmetric predestination; White does, too. In point of fact, predestination is not a belief in deterministic decrees, and confusing them indicates a singular, continuing lack of understanding of Calvinism.

I might also point out, the decree may be as simple as, That evil be shown to be what it truly is. Is God unable to decree the results of true evil be made clear to people? Hm.

How does this relate to Molinism?

white's statement was not positive negative as you claim it to be no it was positive positive

white for whatever reason put a mark on his back with the video, his words it seems reflect his heart, it is good to know that you are asymmetric, whites comments were not.

Someone ask for the video and we do need to redirect back to ROSE/Molinism which does allow some lead way of related topics in Calvinism and Arminiansim as mentioned by Keathley.

 

[Son of Israel]

We choose between the two pre-destined paths that God established long ago.

What God has pre-destined, we can choose to participate within. Whether it be to Life in Christ, or death.

Life and death are both established pre-destined paths.
Our choice isn't.
Any of us can choose either.

(Deu 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

My advice is to avoid man's carnal attempts to rationalize otherwise.

 

[Easystreet]

Calvinists (and Molinists) only deny double predestination by creating a thin veil, a philosophical nit, claiming that God only picks the elect, even though by doing so, He is ultimately picking the reprobate by conscious neglect rather than declaration.

It's kinda like me picking 4 students out of a class to get automatic As, knowing that the material I'm giving the class will fail all of them, and then claiming that I didn't pick who would fail. It's really only valid to those who want to ignore the obvious.

I understood Keathley's view differently. Well go back and re-ready his view and report back

 

[nobdysfool]

"SERVETUS!"

Mike, you're inbox is full!

 

[student ad x]

white's statement was not positive negative as you claim it to be no it was positive positive

....DR. White's comments were not separated from Scripture.............. AND God expresses Himself quite plainly

...... the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations.For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants Isaiah 10:5-13 NASB

 

[student ad x]

A sovereign God with genuine FREE WILL does as HE wishes...... whether in heaven or on this ROCK called EARTH ...... errrrmmm maybe

........

At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,

for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”

Daniel 4:34-35 ESV

 

[Easystreet]

To answer a previous question as to whether Molinis holds to free will here is the answer as related by Dr. Keathley

"................Molinism holds to a strong notion of God's control and an equally firm affirmation of human freedom....................."

".................and He infallibly knows what free creatures would do in any given situation.........."

The use of "unconditional election" in the Molinist model had to do with the world that was create, the one we live in.

"................ (10) Humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ................"

Introduction pages 4-8

 

[nobdysfool]

To answer a previous question as to whether Molinis holds to free will here is the answer as related by Dr. Keathley

"................Molinism holds to a strong notion of God's control and an equally firm affirmation of human freedom....................."

".................and He infallibly knows what free creatures would do in any given situation.........."

The use of "unconditional election" in the Molinist model had to do with the world that was create, the one we live in.

"................ (10) Humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ................"

Introduction pages 4-8

Who is Molinis???

 

[themuzicman]

The only thing you and I agree on, and I mean the ONLY thing, is that Molinism is wrong. I don't believe you truly understand Calvinism, as evidenced by some of your statements, but it's not up to me to convince you, it's up to God.

If I'm wrong, it's God's fault.
If you're wrong, it's your fault

 

[themuzicman]

To answer a previous question as to whether Molinis holds to free will here is the answer as related by Dr. Keathley

"................Molinism holds to a strong notion of God's control and an equally firm affirmation of human freedom....................."

".................and He infallibly knows what free creatures would do in any given situation.........."

The use of "unconditional election" in the Molinist model had to do with the world that was create, the one we live in.

"................ (10) Humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ................"

Introduction pages 4-8

It is quite amazing that Molinism can embrace so many contradictions at once. They don't even attempt to demonstrate free will. They just assume it.

 

[nobdysfool]

If I'm wrong, it's God's fault.
If you're wrong, it's your fault

Now, now, that's a bit snarky, don't you think? We hold our own beliefs, and defend them, because we believe, each of us, we are right. It is possible that one of us is right, and it is also possible that neither of us is right, but it is not possible that both of us are right. But assigning fault or blame is non-productive.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

This thread has become rather unpleasant!
Please cut the personal comments and address the subject of the OP.
Remember:
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments, and innuendo. ​

​

Mod Hat Off​

​

 

[Easystreet]

Continuing: To further answer the question as to "free will" pertaining to Molinism. It seems to me that under the view of God's Consequent Will that he does. Keathley states that there are three components to God's consequent will. Within the first he states "When the hearer encounters the gospel, he is graciously enabled by the Spirit to respond freely. The hearer's decision to accept or reject the gospel is genuinely, terrifyingly, his."

Looking at the Molinist view where the world we live in was the best of all worlds seems reasonable and in this world we find ourselves there is real freedom but not libertarian freedom. Actually the free will is as I see is OSAS Arminian. I hope that Molinism can have the hearing it deserves. I think many Calvinist will gravitate to this view but I am not convinced that many OSAS Arminians or Arminians will.

 

[drstevej]

And how long does this prevenient grace last? If he rejects does he get preveniet grace when he hears the gospel again (re-prevenient grace)

Is this prevenient grace like the blue light special light at Wal Mart... enabling us to freely choose only when the light is flashing.

Sounds more like the Twilight Zone.

 

[Easystreet]

And how long does this prevenient grace last? If he rejects does he get preveniet grace when he hears the gospel again (re-prevenient grace)

Good question. When a person hears the gospel they have the message in their memory from then on. He does not answer that question either way.

For me personally I view it like Geisler believes it. But I do not know if he explains it as I do. I believe a person can respond because John 1:9 indicates that everyone born into the world is enlightened and this verse is not natural revelation. The Holy Spirit is convicting the world of sin, righteousness and judgment and God has commanded everyone everywhere to repent. The initial overcoming grace or pre saving grace seems to be for everyone universally. I am not dogmatic about this but it seems to me that this is the testimony of Scripture

 

[Easystreet]

So Consequent Will is:

1. Consistent with the qualities with which He has endowed His creatures. Pre saving grace enables choice.
2. Conditoinal
3. Just

 

[Hammster]

Looking at the Molinist view where the world we live in was the best of all worlds

Since this seems to be a central tennant of Molinism, some scriptural support would be nice.

 

[Easystreet]

Since this seems to be a central tennant of Molinism, some scriptural support would be nice.

You read the book. What did you understand Keathley to say concerning your question?

 

[nobdysfool]

You read the book. What did you understand Keathley to say concerning your question?

Could it be that Keathley does not address those concerns at all, in his book? I think that more than likely, given that one who has read the book is now asking those questions. I have read some of it, and I am singularly unimpressed, because he does not support his views with much in the way of Scripture, and doctrine must be supported from Scripture, or it's worthless. Add to that the historic rejection of Molinism, and there really isn't much left to talk about. Molinism is not scriptural.

 

[Easystreet]

Could it be that Keathley does not address those concerns at all, in his book? I think that more than likely, given that one who has read the book is now asking those questions. I have read some of it, and I am singularly unimpressed, because he does not support his views with much in the way of Scripture, and doctrine must be supported from Scripture, or it's worthless. Add to that the historic rejection of Molinism, and there really isn't much left to talk about. Molinism is not scriptural.

He does answer the question and I have answer it several times.