Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I enjoy glimpses of the view you describe, where it actually seems to make sense, that every evil has some beautiful meaning to be taken from it and added to our ultimate contentment, but then I remember the innocent child brutally raped and tortured, and I'm back again asking, "What is the purpose of THIS?" No one learns here. No good can be taken from it. This is just evil that needs to be eliminated. Good is good. Evil is evil. There is no "soul-building" here.

Oh, I'm right there with you. I actually hold to a sort of Haerwasian interpretation of specific evils by saying that we simply can't say anything about them, but what I'm emphasizing with our discussion is that it's better for our characters (and not every specific evil by far) to undergo a loss of innocence and regaining of salvation through the fall. I think if anyone were to apply the "soul building" idea to say that all evils ultimately are goods in waiting, that's not far from the warning in Isaiah that says "woe to those who call good evil and evil good" (sort of).

Therefore God is fully responsible, yes?

Sort of, in a complicated way. Evil is by definition free, but I think our state of innocence is only a matter of time before evil is chosen, so in that sense God created us with this knowledge. But yeah, I think it'd be fair to say this.

Would you agree there are situations where NO GOOD can be taken from it? Also, is the ability to value good truly contingent on suffering? I believe good is of value simply because it is good, not because of comparisons.

Definite yes to the first question. As for suffering and the good, I'm saying that the ability to value anything is based in the contrast effect of not having it. The good becomes most fully valued as the good by experiencing its opposite. I mean, think of why we say rich kids are generally spoiled; it's because they're born into a world that takes for granted the high quantity and quality of goods they have, and so they don't value the good nearly as much as someone who came from nothing would.

Isn't this in contradiction to your earlier post that the full appreciation of good relies on suffering and sin?

I don't think so, because God isn't a finite being like us, and I'd argue it's the finitude (particularly with regard to experience and knowledge) that limits our appreciation of the good in a default state.

By the way, just to be clear, I don't believe foreknowledge is contingent on TOTAL foreknowledge. Nor is He Sovereign over every choice we make. But I do believe He is omnipotent. However, in creating truly free agents, He has chosen not to exercise that total-power, but given over a very real responsibility to others.

Yeah, we sort of deviated from the foreknowledge bit. Anything else we can discuss that we can't impasse on?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The problem is it puts God in 100% responsibility for evil and for every horrendous thing that has ever taken place on the earth.................
God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth.
................. it is the conclusion that one can refuse at face value if presented with a better systematic theology i.e. Open Theism.
Open theism is not IMO a better systematic theology than the traditional Reformed view of God as omniscient and omnipotent.

If the Word of God did not present God unequivocally as having been involved in every event on earth in the most intimate ways imaginable then one could possibly seriously consider open theism as a viable theory.

But God is not only transcendent. He is immanent as well. The Bible is very clear on that.

All things consist in his Word. In Him we live and move and have our being.

He is not a mere observer of the events which take place in His creation. He is an active participant.

In fact the eternal Word of God is accomplishing and will continue to accomplish all that He was sent forth to accomplish. Without His participation - as mysterious as that participation may be at times - nothing will happen in creation.

Does that leave us with some nagging questions to be asked in the future concerning his ultimate goodness? Of course it does.

But I prefer to simply postpone asking those questions until I can see through the glass a little more clearly rather than invent a theology which takes God off His throne or limits His eternal attributes in various ways.
 
Upvote 0

ArmorBearer

Member
Jan 6, 2007
22
11
✟11,237.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
God IS 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth.
Try taking your statement for a quick test drive (along with whatever your definitions or beliefs are about free will, predestination, and election - along with your view of God's omniscience, omnipotence, goodness, sovereignty, transcendence, etc) while considering God's promise to Abraham in Gen15 and the subsequent events surrounding it:

Gen15:13-16 gives a definitive statement of God's predestined, sovereign will for the future nation of Israel ie, "God said to Abraham, Your descendants will be strangers dwelling as temporary residents in a land that is not theirs and they will be slaves there and will be afflicted and oppressed for 400 years. But I will bring judgment on that nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. And in the 4th generation your descendants shall come back to Canaan again.."
And when the time came, God sent Moses to that 4th generation (Ex6:4-6) "And God said to Moses, ..I have established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians have enslaved; and I have earnestly remembered My covenant with Abraham. Accordingly, go and say to the Israelites, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will free you from their bondage, and I will rescue you with an outstretched arm and by mighty acts of judgment. And I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a God, and I will bring you into the land concerning which I lifted up My hand and swore that I would give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage."

God also sent Moses to Pharaoh in Ex4: 22 saying "Thus says the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, Let My son go so that he may serve Me"

And although the Israelite's response to Moses in Ex14:12 was "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert", despite those misgivings God sovereignly delivered them from bondage and took them to the Promised Land according to His promise in Gen15, but when He commanded them to enter the Land they refused, and 40 years later the 5th generation entered instead.

To summarize: God gave a sworn promise to Abraham that He'd bring the 4th generation of Israelites into the Promised Land and when the time came He sent Moses to that generation (who He called 'His son'), expressed His concern for their bondage, repeated the sworn promise to them and then did exactly what He promised to Abraham- sovereignly saved them from bondage, brought them to the Land, but when He commanded them to enter and possess it, they refused and were instead destroyed. Rather than the 4th generation entering as originally sworn to Abraham, it was the 5th.

Here's a couple of questions to get started: (1) if God sovereignly predestines all things irrespective of man's will as you claim, then how did the 5th generation enter the Land instead of the 4th according to His original sworn promise to Abraham? (2) When God sent Moses to the 4th generation expressing His concern about their bondage and promising them a new life in the Promised Land, was He secretly intending to destroy them in the desert, just as they feared?

In short, is God really "100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth" including the Israelites refusal to obey His command to enter the Land which resulted in their destruction?.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

YouAreAwesome

☝✌
Oct 17, 2016
2,181
968
Lismore, Australia
✟94,543.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
it's better for our characters (and not every specific evil by far) to undergo a loss of innocence and regaining of salvation through the fall.

But if it's better for our characters, has God sinned Himself and then come back to Goodness? God has the perfect character and has not experienced what you describe. I would say we have the perfect character UNTIL we sin, then we are lesser, until we return to it again. I can not see how sin can ever cause an improvement to that which would have occurred without it.

I think if anyone were to apply the "soul building" idea to say that all evils ultimately are goods in waiting, that's not far from the warning in Isaiah that says "woe to those who call good evil and evil good" (sort of).
But how is this different to what you are saying? Aren't you arguing that a better good comes from experiencing sin?

I think our state of innocence is only a matter of time before evil is chosen
I disagree here. I believe we can experience total freedom and never sin. We can have the potential for evil and never exert it's potential even throughout an infinite time. I'm talking about the mathematical loophole that exists within probability i.e. Even if something has a probability of 1, there is no assurance it will definitely happen, it just means it will almost surely happen. Such is the case where we flip a coin infinitely and record our results. The probability of this exact sequence of heads and tails is 0. That is, P(e)=1/inf.

I mean, think of why we say rich kids are generally spoiled; it's because they're born into a world that takes for granted the high quantity and quality of goods they have, and so they don't value the good nearly as much as someone who came from nothing would.
This could be to do with upbringing rather than the natural effect of having "more stuff". What I mean is, value can be taught, it doesn't have to be experienced.

I don't think so, because God isn't a finite being like us, and I'd argue it's the finitude (particularly with regard to experience and knowledge) that limits our appreciation of the good in a default state.
How does finitude/infinitude impact value?

God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth.
No He's not.

In Him we live and move and have our being.
In Him WE live and move and have our being (by the way this is a quote from a Greek philosopher).

He is an active participant.
Is He active in making people sin?

Does that leave us with some nagging questions to be asked in the future concerning his ultimate goodness? Of course it does.

But I prefer to simply postpone asking those questions until I can see through the glass a little more clearly rather than invent a theology which takes God off His throne or limits His eternal attributes in various ways.
What makes you think I've taken God off the throne?

Am I limiting God's attributes if the attributes assigned to Him were false?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Here's a couple of questions to get started: (1) if God sovereignly predestines all things irrespective of man's will as you claim, then how did the 5th generation enter the Land instead of the 4th according to His original sworn promise to Abraham?
God has not predestined all things "irrespective of man's will" nor have I said any such thing. Nor - might I add as an example of Reformed thought - did the Westminster Confession of Faith (which is generally considered to be in line with Calvinism and Reformed thought in general).

(2) When God sent Moses to the 4th generation expressing His concern about their bondage and promising them a new life in the Promised Land, was He secretly intending to destroy them in the desert, just as they feared?
He was intending to deal with them just as He has said that He would do with any nation or individual which He deals with (i.e. according to their so called free will thoughts and actions).

They need not have feared that God would treat them unfairly.

In short, is God really "100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth" including the Israelites refusal to obey His command to enter the Land which resulted in their destruction?.
Yes.

God did not coerce their actions.

He is, however, ready, willing and able to justify His responsible choice to allow them to be found in the state of sin at that time with any choices made in that condition.

God is "responsible" for all of His choices. He is responsible only to Himself. But He is responsible.

That includes the choice to allow free agency for His creatures in the beginning knowing full well all of the consequences to His creatures in the future which that choice made by Himself would result in.

I hope you aren't attempting to equate the concept of "sovereign responsibility" with the concept of "puppetry" or "robotics". That has been attempted here by a great many before you and has been shown unwarranted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmorBearer

Member
Jan 6, 2007
22
11
✟11,237.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
In short, is God really "100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth" including the Israelites refusal to obey His command to enter the Land which resulted in their destruction?.
Yes.
God did not coerce their actions.
He is, however, ready, willing and able to justify His responsible choice to allow them to be found in the state of sin at that time with any choices made in that condition.
God is "responsible" for all of His choices. He is responsible only to Himself. But He is responsible.
That includes the choice to allow free agency for His creatures in the beginning knowing full well all of the consequences to His creatures in the future which that choice made by Himself would result in.

So when God made the sworn promise to Abraham that He'd deliver the 4th generation from bondage and bring them into the Promised Land, He was intending to "allow their free agency knowing full well all the consequences which that choice made by Himself would result in"

For clarity: are you saying God knew when He made the promise to Abraham that He intended to "leave them in their state of sin", they'd therefore refuse His command to enter when they got there, this would result in their destruction, and He'd then take the 5th generation into the Land instead, which was His actual plan from the start - and that's why He's "100% responsible" for their rebellion and destruction?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So when God made the sworn promise to Abraham that He'd deliver the 4th generation from bondage and bring them into the Promised Land, He was intending to "allow their free agency knowing full well all the consequences which that choice made by Himself would result in"
Yes.

God is omniscient.
For clarity: are you saying God knew when He made the promise to Abraham that He intended to "leave them in their state of sin", they'd therefore refuse His command to enter when they got there, this would result in their destruction, and He'd then take the 5th generation into the Land instead, which was His actual plan from the start -
God has made it abundantly clear how He will deal with nations and men alike.

"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’ Jeremiah 18:7-11

- and that's why He's "100% responsible" for their rebellion and destruction?
God is responsible for everything that He does or allows whether good or evil.

God intends everything that He does or allows for good. But He quite often accomplishes that good through the evil.

God works through means and those means often include evil which He has allowed.

God's predestination of everything that occurs in His creation in no way illiminates or coerces the choices which are made by His creation.

God's sovereign predestination of every choice made by men does not illminate that choice but rather establishes it.
 
Upvote 0

ArmorBearer

Member
Jan 6, 2007
22
11
✟11,237.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Yes. God is omniscient.
This involves much more than ominsicence. You proposed that the Israelite's disobedience and destruction wasn't merely foreknown by God but also that He purposely did nothing to turn them away from that path - that He intentionally "left them in their state of sin" and "allowed their free agency knowing full well all the consequences which that choice made by Himself would result in" - that it was actually His sovereign will for them to be disobedient otherwise He would have given them changed hearts enabling them to obey. He had already predestined them for destruction, not deliverance and this is your basis for saying He's "100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth", right?
God has made it abundantly clear how He will deal with nations and men alike.
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. So now then, speak to the men of Judah and against the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I am fashioning calamity against you and devising a plan against you. Oh turn back, each of you from his evil way, and reform your ways and your deeds.”’ Jeremiah 18:7-11
This speaks of the choices of men to obey or not but the underlying issue involved is the same as the Israelite's decision to rebel and not enter the Land - haven't you been proposing that these choices are based on what God has already predestined for them - if anyone is pre-selected for life then God gives them a heart to obey and if not, He simply 'leaves them in their state of sin" which results in their destruction?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
This involves much more than ominsicence. You proposed that the Israelite's disobedience and destruction wasn't merely foreknown by God but also that He purposely did nothing to turn them away from that path - that He intentionally "left them in their state of sin" and "allowed their free agency knowing full well all the consequences which that choice made by Himself would result in"
Of course.

The alternative to His "purposely" doing nothing is that it was not His purpose to do nothing. Which is, IMO, utter nonsense in light of the fact that He works all things according to His good and perfect will.

Of course He "intentionaly" "left them in their state of sin" and "allowed their free agency knowing full well all of the consequences which that choice made by Himself would result in".

The alternative is that His leaving them in that state was "unintentional" - which is again. IMO, utter nonsense.
- that it was actually His sovereign will for them to be disobedient otherwise He would have given them changed hearts enabling them to obey.
Of course.

Obviously it was His sovereign will that they act as free agents in the matter of choice and not as mere puppets and robots and that they should be judged according to the choices they chose.
He had already predestined them for destruction not deliverance
Yes of course.

He knew full well what they would do in any given circumstance and He allowed the particular circumstance to occur which would end in the fact that that generation should not enter the holy land.

Where do you get the idea that that generation did not enter the holy land and was therefore, as you put it, destroyed?

It simply isn't true - any more than you or I are "destroyed" when we fail due to lack of faith to enter into all that God has for us.

A remnant of two entered the promised land - just as in the last days - God will have a remnant to call His own and is therefore to be shown to be one who keeps His promises.
and this is your basis for saying He's "100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth", right?
Wrong.

My basis for saying that He is responsible for everything is that He is the sovereign Lord of the universe in whom we live and move and have our being. My basis does not rest on any particular verse or example but on the very nature of God and on His omnipresent, providentially controlling relationship with His creation.

- haven't you been proposing that these choices are based on what God has already predestined for them -
Of course.

Those choices, as are all things that take place is the creation, are predestined to happen by God.

God decrees that the free choices given to men be the vehicle to carry out what He has predestined to happen related to those circumstances.

All of God's decrees are good and will be shown to be so when we can see more clearly. But those good decrees are often brought to past by evil which God allows to take place through our choices.

The so called - Calvinist or Reformed - position on these things has always been that predestination and free will are completely compatible. That is the way it is spelled out in the Westminster Confession of Faith for instance.

That happens to be my poisition as well.
- if anyone is pre-selected for life then God gives them a heart to obey and if not, He simply 'leaves them in their state of sin" which results in their destruction?
That is my position.

But the example you put forth says nothing about salvation but only about the entering into the promise land by a certain number of people in a certain situation in history. Those people may or may not have been saved. Time will tell - I suppose.

You seem to be makeing several quantum leaps in your posts to me.

You seem to be implying that God's responsibility for all that He allows is the same as active cohersion. I. E. that He is the author of sin rather than One who is merely permitting it to take place throught the free choices of creatures created in His image.

You seem also to have vertured into the realm of misrepresenting Calvinism and Reformed theology. That position has always been that God's responsibily in no way illiminates our reponsiility.

The subject of the thread is whether or not Molinism can be a vehicle for the reconciliation of the concepts of divine sovereignty and free will.

I maintain that it can be - although the way it is expressed by any particular theologian may be in error in some places.

The idea of free will and divine sovereignty are in no way incompatible and can be shown not to be in a number of ways - whether one calls one of those ways Molinism or not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmorBearer

Member
Jan 6, 2007
22
11
✟11,237.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
The alternative to His "purposely" doing nothing is that it was not His purpose to do nothing. Which is, IMO, utter nonsense in light of the fact that He works all things according to His good and perfect will.
Rather, the alternative to His "purposely doing nothing" would be to instead act in accordance with His declared will in Gen15 and fulfill His sworn promise to Abraham to deliver the 4th generation from bondage and bring them into the Promised Land - it's the glaring contradiction that you've thus far not addressed realistically, and the reason I cited this biblical event. All you've done is magnify the discrepancy concerning Calvinist theology by continuously asserting that He actually had an unstated, predetermined plan to "leave them in their state of sin" (ie, to do nothing), to purposely withhold from them a change of heart they needed, and that He had "already predestined them for destruction not deliverance" - which is an accusation that God never intended to fulfill His sworn promise to Abraham. Do you acknowledge the inconsistency and that merely reciting Calvinist theology is circular and has completely failed to resolve it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: YouAreAwesome
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.


Molina was a proud Catholic. He was not trying to reform the Church he was proposing new ways to understand a difficult issue. His view is consistent with Catholic teaching. There is a spectrum of acceptable thought on the grace/free will debate for Catholics.

A Catholic cannot say that a man can save himself without God's grace, nor can he say that any man is predestined to Hell. Within those bounds we are free to debate and ruminate without fear of stating a heretical opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Do you acknowledge the inconsistency and that merely reciting Calvinist theology is circular and has completely failed to resolve it?
NO.

Rather, the alternative to His "purposely doing nothing" would be .......
Would be to do nothing without a purpose for doing nothing - which is ridiculous. God purposed to do nothing. Every reaction by God to the actions of men has a purpose.

.............act in accordance with His declared will in Gen15 and fulfill His sworn promise to Abraham to deliver the 4th generation from bondage and bring them into the Promised Land
He did act in accordance to His declared will to bring the 4th generation into the promised land. Joshua and Caleb were that generation.

- it's the glaring contradiction that you've thus far not addressed realistically, and the reason I cited this biblical event.
There is no glaring contradiction. God brought the 4th generation into the promised land as promised in the form of Joshua and Caleb the remnant of the 4th.

The fact that He chose to also bring in the 5th generation does not change the intent to fulfill His promise concerning the 4th nor the fact that He did fulfill that promise.

All you've done is magnify the discrepancy concerning Calvinist theology by continuously asserting that He actually had an unstated, predetermined plan to "leave them in their state of sin" (ie, to do nothing), to purposely withhold from them a change of heart they needed, and that He had "already predestined them for destruction not deliverance"
There is no discrepancy concerning Calvinist theology in stating that the true 4th generation was represented by Joshua and Caleb who actually entered in by faith according to the promise.

If He determined to leave some in the state of sin and let them not enter in with the remnant - it does not change the fact that He determined to allow the remnant of that generation to enter in.

- which is an accusation that God never intended to fulfill His sworn promise to Abraham.
God did fulfill His promise to Abraham. Nor have I said that He did not.

Those are your accusations. Where do you see that He did not fulfill His promise to Abraham?

Do you acknowledge the inconsistency and that merely reciting Calvinist theology is circular and has completely failed to resolve it?
Again - NO.

By the way - I will ask you again - where do you get that the majority of that generation are not saved just because they were not allowed to cross the Jordan? Is that what you are insinuating with your "destruction" rhetoric - that Moses and Aaron, for instance, were not saved?

Are you equating the Reformed concept that God predestined that only a remnant would cross over into Jordan with election unto salvation - because they don't?

Are you accusing me of saying that Moses and Aaron are not among the elect?

If you disagree that God has always known what would occur in every circumstance and that He then brought to past those circumstances which would end in what He predestined to occur - just say so. Don't try to reinvent the anti-Calvinist wheel with an obscure argument.

And don't accuse Calvinists of not allowing for the choices of the creation in bringing those circumstances to past. No Calvinist would say that. Predestination and free choice are completely compatible one with the other.

The so called Calvinist position has always been that God knew from before creation everything that would happen in the history of the creation which He was about to speak into existence. Since He "knew" those things beyond doubt - there was absolutely no chance that they would not occur. Since He knew history from before there was history - that history was bound to occur and nothing could stop it. It was "pre" destined to happen.

Since God was the only one present when He knew what would happen in every circumstance and since God is the one who spoke into existence those circumstances of His own free will - it is God who predestined all things through His free will action.

And that - without delving into the other inescapable reasoning concerning what must be the truth due to to what He has revealed about Himself and His providentially controlling and omnipresent relationship with the creation.

This is really basic logic and theology. If you disagree with it - just say why and leave the irrelevant illustrations out of it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmorBearer

Member
Jan 6, 2007
22
11
✟11,237.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
He did act in accordance to His declared will to bring the 4th generation into the promised land. Joshua and Caleb were that generation.
No, they were only 2 individuals from that generation who had chosen to trust God and were willing to enter the Promised Land - all the rest refused to obey God's command. So you're proposing when God swore to Abraham He'd bring the 4th generation into the Land, what He actually meant was that He intended to regenerate the hearts of only 2 of them, "leave the rest in their state of sin" and destroy them, and then take the 5th generation in?

And when He sent Moses to Pharaoh in Ex4: 22 saying "Thus says the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, Let My son go so that he may serve Me" He was only planning to have them "serve Him" by forcibly removing them from Egypt against their will, would refuse to regenerate them ("leaving them in their sin"), gave them a command to enter that He never wanted or intended them to obey, and then destroying them for rebelling - all of which He did nothing to prevent?

And when He sent Moses to the 4th generation in Ex6:4-6 saying: "And God said to Moses, ..I have established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians have enslaved; and I have earnestly remembered My covenant with Abraham. Accordingly, go and say to the Israelites, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will free you from their bondage, and I will rescue you with an outstretched arm and by mighty acts of judgment. And I will take you to Me for a people, and I will be to you a God, and I will bring you into the land concerning which I lifted up My hand and swore that I would give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you for a heritage." But you claim He never actually intended to take them to Himself as a people or bring them into the Land - didn't intend to rescue them at all but to destroy them (all except for 2), right?

And when they responded to Moses by saying "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert" they were absolutely correct - they were indeed better off in Egypt and were about to die in the desert because that was God's predetermined intentions for them, right?
 
Upvote 0

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No, they were only 2 individuals from that generation who had chosen to trust God and were willing to enter the Promised Land - all the rest refused to obey God's command. So you're proposing when God swore to Abraham He'd bring the 4th generation into the Land, what He actually meant was that He intended to regenerate the hearts of only 2 of them, "leave the rest in their state of sin" and destroy them, and then take the 5th generation in?
Right - two individuals exercised faith and many more did not. Who has said otherwise?

Where do you get that regeneration has anything to do with the conversation? We are talking about two people crossing a river and many more not being allowed to cross because of their lack of faith - including Moses and Aaron for instance.

I have no idea where you get this stuff. God's bringing to past what He predestines often includes the free choices of men and angels and His reactions to them for making those choices.

How did you manage to work this stuff into a comment which I made regarding the validity of some portions of Molinistic thought in reconciling sovereignty and free will?

And why did you do it?

Because I rightly said that God was perfectly willing and able to defend His responsibility for all that He allows to take place in history - you apparently felt that it was a good time to jump on a Calvinist (which I am not by the way).

And when they responded to Moses by saying "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert" they were absolutely correct - they were indeed better off in Egypt and were about to die in the desert because that was God's predetermined intentions for them, right?
Where do you get from anything that I said that I believed that Israel serving Egypt forever was better than becoming a nation?

Where did I say that lessons which would have been learned by just making bricks in Egypt would in any way compare to the lessons of the Passover, the Exodus and the wilderness experience?

I really don't know what you are talking about frankly.

You seem to be on an ill conceived anti-Calvinist pilgrimage and I have no idea why.

Is your entire beef that you do not believe that God can use free choices to bring to past things which He has predestined to occur?

Do you not believe that God knew beforehand what would happen in every possible circumstance and then allowed certain circumstances to occur and not allow others to occur? (see Matt. 11:20-24; Matt. 12:41-42; and Luke 10:13)

Don't you believe that God is the one who decides which paradigms will be allowed to occur thereby guaranteeing what He knew beforehand would occur in those paradigms?

Where are you coming from? It certainly has nothing to do with Molinism - I know that.

By the way - I don't remember discussing my beliefs with you before this. Have I?

Do you have some questions about what I believe?

Cut to the chase please.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmorBearer

Member
Jan 6, 2007
22
11
✟11,237.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Do you have some questions about what I believe? I really don't know what you are talking about frankly.

Your responses have indeed been somewhat confused and erratic. It's really very simple: This exchange began because of your comment that "God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth." I cited the Israelite's destruction after being released from Egypt as a very clear example that He's NOT since Gen15 unequivocally declares God's predestined will for them in a sworn promise to Abraham to release the 4th generation from bondage and bring them into the Promised Land (not just 2 individuals!). He also sent Moses to that generation (again, not just 2 people!) confirming His plans for them but unfortunately when the time came, they rebelled, refused to enter, were destroyed, and the 5th generation entered instead. It's one example of many throughout the bible where people chose to disobey God and thereby forfeited the blessings He had originally promised and intended for them. Your attempt to instead make God responsible for their rebellion is not only indefensible but maligns His character - making Him complicit in their actions by proposing that He purposely "left them in a state of sin." You've also accused Him of other deficiencies such as: 1) subterfuge in the original sworn promise to Abraham by maintaining that He only intended to save two people from it, not the entire 4th generation as was clearly stated. 2) then of misleading that generation itself by sending Moses to them, falsely sympathizing with their plight, and promising to rescue them and provide them a better life in the Promised Land - all the while actually intending to destroy them in the desert, exactly as they feared would happen.

Hopefully this short recap makes the purpose of questions such as the following more clear to you:

So when they responded to Moses by saying "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert" they were absolutely correct - according to your theology they were indeed about to die in the desert because that was God's predetermined intention for them, right?

Such questions merely serve to verify that you're aware of the implications and/or contradictions that stem from your belief system (whatever it is).

To also help clear up any of your confusion about the issues involved you might read Paul's summary and conclusions about these events in places such as 1Cor10 and Heb ch3&4 in which he puts the entire blame on the Israelites for their lack of faith and also uses their destruction as a warning to New Testament believers that if they choose to follow the same sinful path, they'll also forfeit the blessings God has predestined for them. Further, just as the Old Testament account never mentions it, neither does Paul say anything about God being even remotely involved in predestining the Israelite's rebellion and destruction - instead he repeatedly states exactly the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
This exchange began because of your comment that "God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth."
In closing our dialog with this post - I repeat what I said.

"God is 100% responsible for everything that has been allowed to happen on the earth."

Note that I said "allowed" to happen. Everything that has happened anywhere outside of Himself is either because He has allowed it to happen, did it Himself directly or is a combination of His interaction with the creation (the Calvinist position concerning most of what we could talk about).

Regardless of the means He has chosen to bring any particular thing which He has predestined to come to past - it is none the less true that He is the One who makes the choice as to whether that thing will come to past or not.

Since He has always known what would transpire in every possible circumstance and since He has chosen which circumstances will actually be allowed to transpire - and since the Bible presents Him as being involved in everything in creation on the most minute and intricate scale imaginable ------ one has no choice but to believe in His absolute sovereignty and responsibility in all that eventually happens in His creation.

You can invent another God if you wish. He can be a God who is only transcendent and not also immanent - as you wish.

But that would be a different God than the one we have been presented with in the wittness of His Holy Spirit.

By the way and in closing - God is perfectly capable, and indeed has, predestined that many things come to past through the actions of his creation and His interaction with that creation.

Any example which you could use (and not just this one you have been using) would likely fall under that catagory of happening.

And I provided for you scripture which shows how He interacts and (apparently) changes His mind concerning His dealings with nations.

That interaction itself is well planned and predestined to take place as well and you have not shown otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What are your thoughts on Molinism?

Molinism is a soteriolgical system that attempts to reconcile free will with God's sovereignty.

One of its most notable features is the concept of Middle Knowledge. According to this concept, God knows what any individual would freely choose under certain circumstances, and therefore, He can foresee all outcomes, even in situations that don't exist since He chose not to create those realities.

It is named after the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to reform the Catholic Church, and agreed with the Church on some things and with the Reformers on other things.

Many of its modern day proponents are Protestants such as William Lane Craig.
It does not therefore depend on mans desire or effort, but on Gods mercy
Rom9:16
 
Upvote 0

EmSw

White Horse Rider
Apr 26, 2014
6,434
718
✟66,544.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And I provided for you scripture which shows how He interacts and (apparently) changes His mind concerning His dealings with nations.

Most Reformed do not see the irony of this statement. One has to ask, why does God have to (apparently) change His mind if He predestines it? Did God find out His predestination was faulty? Did He not really know what was going to occur, and change His mind on the fly?

One can see God's predestination is not permanent. All men have been predestined to be lost sinners without hope. Then God changes His mind on some select people and predestines them to be His elect.

Predestination at best, seems to be a God who is wishy washy about His decisions. Even is one believes they are saved, God could later change His mind and predestine them to hell. The Reformed will not acknowledge this contradiction, for it makes their doctrine look wishy washy and silly.

That interaction itself is well planned and predestined to take place as well and you have not shown otherwise.

The above statement cannot be found in the Bible. One will not find anything about men's actions being planned and predestined. This is the plan of the Reformed who somehow try to predestine it themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But if it's better for our characters, has God sinned Himself and then come back to Goodness? God has the perfect character and has not experienced what you describe. I would say we have the perfect character UNTIL we sin, then we are lesser, until we return to it again. I can not see how sin can ever cause an improvement to that which would have occurred without it.

No, I don't think God sins or is better off. You make a good point, but I still think the situation is more complicated. Yes, we had a state of perfection, but perhaps we didn't realize and therefore value this state of perfection. The fall resulted in the loss of what we didn't value, and value is often born of contrast, so regaining what we previously didn't fully value or understand means we now fully value it or understand it. So we're perfect before and perfect after (in a full state of salvation).

But how is this different to what you are saying? Aren't you arguing that a better good comes from experiencing sin?

I guess I'm distinguishing the "fall from grace" and its singular impact on our characters from the potentially infinite number of evils or sins. "Soul building" works up to the point that it helps us regain our lost characters and (as I was saying above) value what was lost but previously wasn't valued. So I'm not into justifying every sin or instance of badness as potential good, even if all things do work together for good.

I disagree here. I believe we can experience total freedom and never sin. We can have the potential for evil and never exert it's potential even throughout an infinite time. I'm talking about the mathematical loophole that exists within probability i.e. Even if something has a probability of 1, there is no assurance it will definitely happen, it just means it will almost surely happen. Such is the case where we flip a coin infinitely and record our results. The probability of this exact sequence of heads and tails is 0. That is, P(e)=1/inf.

Right, and you've articulated this idea nicely on the other thread. This is simply an impasse for us. However, part of me believes that "original sin" is something that affects us just by being born, but that our being born confers a state of innocence which is lost through self-awareness -- i.e., the "Fall" story is a metaphor for maturity and the fall from grace into sin each and every person experiences simply by being born and growing into a child.

This could be to do with upbringing rather than the natural effect of having "more stuff". What I mean is, value can be taught, it doesn't have to be experienced.

I don't think value can be taught to the full effect (by far) as experiencing loss. This, again, is why I think spoiled kids are spoiled: they've had stuff given to them since birth, and with these kids you can't simply teach (i.e. pass down cognitions) value. You could, however, prevent their being spoiled perhaps entirely by disciplining them by not giving them all their stuff, making it conditional on good character or grades, punishing them by taking it away, etc. But still, generally speaking I don't think you're going to create a person who values something any better than by his not having it and so having to "work for it" later in life.

How does finitude/infinitude impact value?

God being epistemically infinite means he knows all things, so there's no need to take anything away to help him ascertain the value of things. Us being finite, on the other hand, means we don't have an immediate full appreciation of what we're given, either with stuff or a state of innocence/perfection.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Marvin Knox

Senior Veteran
May 9, 2014
4,291
1,453
✟84,588.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Most Reformed do not see the irony of this statement. One has to ask, why does God have to (apparently) change His mind if He predestines it?
This will be my one post to you here.

"Apparently" was the key word there as you noted yourself.

Why does He require prayer if He intends to heal anyway? Why does He allow all this suffering if he has predestined a perfect world forever in the end?

The end of what comes to past is what is predestined as well as those things in the process.

God not only predestined that Christ should reign forever and forever. God predestined that He should acheive that eternal state through suffering.

Adding 1 plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 = three. 1 is not three. Think about it for a while.
Did God find out His predestination was faulty? Did He not really know what was going to occur, and change His mind on the fly?
No - I do not believe in open theism as does my previous interlocutor here on this thread.

God predestines not only the end but the means.

God did not find, (for instance), that His predestination of Christ's suffering was "faulty" even though He heard Christ's prayers and was not only moved but rewarded them eternally with something totally unlike what He had predestined to take place in the process.

Capisce?
One can see God's predestination is not permanent.
You are not tracking straight.

God's predestination of Christ's suffering was a fact as was what transpired after that suffering.

The suffering was not permanent. You are right in that.

But His predestination of that suffering from before creation was permanent.
All men have been predestined to be lost sinners without hope.
Yes - for a time.
Then God changes His mind on some select people and predestines them to be His elect.
No they were elect from before the foundation of the world.

God predestines not only the end but the means. We've been through this before.
The above statement cannot be found in the Bible. One will not find anything about men's actions being planned and predestined.
That's just a silly thing to say.

I hope this post has been hopeful. I doubt in though. We've beeb through all this before.

You still keep saying silly and illogical things even after all this time.
 
Upvote 0