Molinism

[Hammster]

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

He doesn't. All he does, as you have done, is point to counterfactuals in the bible. I didn't see where he, or you, ever showed from Scripture that God used His knowledge of counterfactuals to create this world. Now, since you have the book, and most others don't, it should be fairly easy to provide the scripture he uses. So we will wait.

 

[Easystreet]

He doesn't. All he does, as you have done, is point to counterfactuals in the bible. I didn't see where he, or you, ever showed from Scripture that God used His knowledge of counterfactuals to create this world. Now, since you have the book, and most others don't, it should be fairly easy to provide the scripture he uses. So we will wait.

More games. I have given the answer over and over and you insist on cat and mouse discussion.

 

[nobdysfool]

More games. I have given the answer over and over and you insist on cat and mouse discussion.

Please provide the quotes, and the post numbers where YOU answered the questions. Not quotes of Keathley, or references to Keathley. We have repeatedly asked for you to produce Scriptural proof, and you have avoided doing so. We can only conclude that you cannot, and therefore will not. if you cannot even adequately and convincingly defend Molinism, why in the world would you expect us to even consider it?

No games being played here. We would just like straightforward answers to legitimate questions.

 

[Hammster]

More games. I have given the answer over and over and you insist on cat and mouse discussion.

I would think you'd relish the idea of the nail in the coffin. Either provide the Scripture or the posts. It is entirely possible that I missed where you posted them. All I recall is you saying that they're in the book.

 

[student ad x]

Before my pc quits, I'd also input that Keathley in a Theology for a Church does not qualify himself with Scripture....... only logical conseqence.... and of course y'all must look for yourselves

 

[nobdysfool]

Before my pc quits, I'd also input that Keathley in a Theology for a Church does not qualify himself with Scripture....... only logical conseqence.... and of course y'all must look for yourselves

Do you have the book? The link goes to Amazon, where one can buy it. It looks to be a rather large tome, not that there's anything wrong with that. Are there any excerpts of Keathley's contribution available anywhere?

In any event, I find it somewhat curious and mildly disturbing that Keathley does not feel the need to thoroughly ground his view in Scripture. It certainly does not entice me to give it serious consideration, and the discussion that has taken place here gives me even less enticement to do so.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Molinism should stay in roman catholicism. It shouldn't be allowed in biblical churches.

 

[Hammster]

This myth is busted. And I don't think it will be brought up again for awhile, if you get my drift.

 

[DeaconDean]

Do you have the book? The link goes to Amazon, where one can buy it. It looks to be a rather large tome, not that there's anything wrong with that. Are there any excerpts of Keathley's contribution available anywhere?

In any event, I find it somewhat curious and mildly disturbing that Keathley does not feel the need to thoroughly ground his view in Scripture. It certainly does not entice me to give it serious consideration, and the discussion that has taken place here gives me even less enticement to do so.

One quick comment here brother.

The OP stated that Dr. Keathely was/is a professor at SEBTS.

As such, one of the principles he is bound to go by is:

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience.

Abstract of Principles of 1858, J. P. Boyce.

This is also stated in the "What we believe" for SEBTS.

The Bible, the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, "are the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience."

And yet how many times have you and I asked for the OP to produce scriptures to back this position?

How many times have you and I asked for scriptures from Dr. Keathely's book?

The "What we believe" that all teachers at SEBTS are required to abide by, and teach by, also states:

God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs, and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not in any wise to be the author or approver of sin nor to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.

Yet this man (Dr. Keathely) is teaching contrary to the Abstract of Principles, and the "What we believe".

Why does the OP not supply scriptures to support Dr. Keathely's position?

Why does Dr. Keatyhely not do that himself?

Why does the OP choose to ignore all the requests to supply scripture to back his position but instead, quotes other sources or other authors?

And most importantly, why is Dr. Keathely being allowed to teach against what the "Abstract of Principles" and the "What we believe"?

Why aren't more people standing up and raising sand about this?

People can fault us, say we're picking on the OP. And yes, we do quote John Calvin, or quote parts of his works. But we also supply scriptures to back our position.

And yet, I have not seen or can say the same about Dr. Keathely's work.

Molinism is Roman Catholic Jesuit theology, that is a proven fact.

And for Dr. Keathely to introduce this at a Baptist seminary is unheard of, and should be an outrage.

And I personally will stand against this sort of thing.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[AndOne]

In all fairness to the OP - he has provided some scripture at the beginning of this thread around post #17 to try to make his argument with. As has been pointed out however it doesn't adequately support this idea of middle-knowledge/molinism used in creation in order to get to the most amount of people saved. That is a pretty specific idea that if true needs to be explicit in scripture. It isn't.

Also - according to James White, Rome abandoned molinism quite some time ago.

 

[DeaconDean]

In all fairness to the OP - he has provided some scripture at the beginning of this thread around post #17 to try to make his argument with. As has been pointed out however it doesn't adequately support this idea of middle-knowledge/molinism used in creation in order to get to the most amount of people saved. That is a pretty specific idea that if true needs to be explicit in scripture. It isn't.

Also - according to James White, Rome abandoned molinism quite some time ago.

My sincerest apologies then.

But then again, I haven't been a part of this from the get-go.

But I also know over the last 20-30 pages that I have been a part of, it hasn't been the case.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

In all fairness to the OP - he has provided some scripture at the beginning of this thread around post #17 to try to make his argument with. As has been pointed out however it doesn't adequately support this idea of middle-knowledge/molinism used in creation in order to get to the most amount of people saved. That is a pretty specific idea that if true needs to be explicit in scripture. It isn't.

Also - according to James White, Rome abandoned molinism quite some time ago.

I've tried to be fair in admitting that there is support for counterfactuals, at least as Keathley defined them. But all I got when asking for the Scriptural support that said that God used middle knowledge to create this world was stonewalled.

 

[AndOne]

I've tried to be fair in admitting that there is support for counterfactuals, at least as Keathley defined them. But all I got when asking for the Scriptural support that said that God used middle knowledge to create this world was stonewalled.

I definately get your point - and agree with you. The scripure provided is not specific enough to make a claim that God created a world where the most amount of people would be saved.

 

[nobdysfool]

I'm wondering why that would even be a legitimate consideration. Why would the maximum number of people getting saved be dependent on the kind of world He creates? That sounds like at least part of Salvation is beyond His control, which would imply a free will view, where God can't do what man won't allow.

Just a thought....

 

[Hammster]

I'm wondering why that would even be a legitimate consideration. Why would the maximum number of people getting saved be dependent on the kind of world He creates? That sounds like at least part of Salvation is beyond His control, which would imply a free will view, where God can't do what man won't allow.

Just a thought....

Exactly. And what made it impersonal was when Keathley admitted that someone who won't be saved in this world might have been saved in a different world. Again, a nbets game.

 

[drstevej]

Dare I call Molinism...... speculative at best?


I think so.

 

[nobdysfool]

Dare I call Molinism...... speculative at best?


I think so.

In my opinion, that would be the best that could be said about it. As such, it does not rise to the level of Truth as revealed in Scripture. More like trying to determine the whichness of the why....

 

[AndOne]

Exactly. And what made it impersonal was when Keathley admitted that someone who won't be saved in this world might have been saved in a different world.

And they think Calvinism isn't fair? This is by far so much worse. At least in Calvinism the lost are that way to God's glory - in molinism they are that way because God could only do so much...

 

[drstevej]

And they think Calvinism isn't fair? This is by far so much worse. At least in Calvinism the lost are that way to God's glory - in molinism they are that way because God could only do so much...

Kind of reminds me of the God-character in Bruce Almighty....

Bruce: How do you make so many people love you without affecting Free Will?

God: [snorts] Heh, welcome to my world, son. If you come up with an answer to that one, let me know.

 

[AndOne]

Kind of reminds me of the God-character in Bruce Almighty....

Bruce: How do you make so many people love you without affecting Free Will?

God: [snorts] Heh, welcome to my world, son. If you come up with an answer to that one, let me know.

Maybe William Lane Craig and Keathley wrote the script!