Molinism

[TaylorSexton]

Which means that you cannot be a Calvinist in any sense of the matter since the clearest definition of God is that God is love and Calvinism describes Him as a monster without feelings.

Since this is not the place to debate Reformed theology (or to attack others, by the way—I will report immediately if this happens again), I would kindly invite you to open a thread to debate your view of Reformed theology in the "Debate a Calvinist" subforum in the "Semper Reformanda" section of this website.

Thanks.

 

[Light of the East]

Since this is not the place to debate Reformed theology (or to attack others, by the way—I will report immediately if this happens again), I would kindly invite you to open a thread to debate your view of Reformed theology in the "Debate a Calvinist" subforum in the "Semper Reformanda" section of this website.

Thanks.

So in other words, you can post your sola scriptura Calvinism, but no one can respond to you.

Nice.

 

[Light of the East]

Since this is not the place to debate Reformed theology (or to attack others, by the way—I will report immediately if this happens again), I would kindly invite you to open a thread to debate your view of Reformed theology in the "Debate a Calvinist" subforum in the "Semper Reformanda" section of this website.

Thanks.

And I'm telling you that you have a blind spot. God has revealed Himself to us quite clearly. He has said that He is love. Now based on that (and ignoring the issue of Calvinism) how does love act towards others?

 

[Light of the East]

And this is the same problem that Catholic scholasticism has. They would rather know about, describe, ponder, and pontificate about God rather than to know Him.

It is the difference between Barlaam and Palamas.

 

[TaylorSexton]

So in other words, you can post your sola scriptura Calvinism, but no one can respond to you.

Nice.

Did I say that? No. I said this was not the place to debate this, because it is off-topic. If you would like to debate this, please open a thread on the appropriate forum.

And I'm telling you that you have a blind spot. God has revealed Himself to us quite clearly. He has said that He is love. Now based on that (and ignoring the issue of Calvinism) how does love act towards others?

And this is the same problem that Catholic scholasticism has. They would rather know about, describe, ponder, and pontificate about God rather than to know Him.

It is the difference between Barlaam and Palamas.

Again, if you would like to debate this, please open a thread on the appropriate forum. If you feel to threatened by that, then don't do it. But, if you feel confident in your convictions and wish to have it vetted by the opposing side, then, by all means, please do.

 

[TheSeabass]

What are your thoughts on Molinism?

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

I would not call it "Molinism" but I would call it "Biblical truth".

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.

I would not consider God's foreknowledge a "concept" but a fact. His foreknowledge would allow Him to know what a person would choose when put under certain circumstances:

1) God sent Moses to Pharaoh with the demand to "let My people go" putting Pharaoh in a circumstance where he would have to choose to obey or disobey that demand of God. God's foreknowledge already knew what Pharaoh would choose or God would have not have foreknowledge.

2) God sent Christ with His gospel message among those Jews and Romans some 2000 years ago putting them in the circumstance to either accept or reject Christ and His message and God foreknew they would choose to reject and crucify Christ.

3) God chose Judas to be a disciple/apostle of Christ foreknowing that Judas being put in this circumstance would choose of his own will to betray the Christ.

Any theology would be wrong that claims God preordained/forced/caused any of these men, against their will, to do what they did for they all did what they did of their own free will. God therefore is not accountable, responsible for their choices/actions. If God did preordain/cause/force them to do what they did, then God becomes a sinner Himself, it would have been by God's "wicked hands" (Acts 2:23) that Christ was crucified.



God has the sovereign right to put men into various circumstances, so the real issue therefore is how do men choose to react to God when put in these circumstances.

 

[Jan001]

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.

I think that because God is omniscient (knows all things), He simply predestined to heaven all the people who He foreknew were still faithful to Him at the time of their death.

Revelation 2:10
Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. rsv​

God knows everything about everything. He knew before the foundation of the world that Adam would sin and thereby cause the fall of all mankind from fellowship with God. Because of God's foreknowledge of this future event, He then also destined the Son, the Word, to become Incarnate as both God and Man in order to repair this severed relationship between God and Man.

1 Peter 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
Grace to you and peace be multiplied. nkjv

1 Peter 1:18-20
You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake. rsv
​

Before the foundation of the world, why did God choose to send Jesus Christ at that particular time (2000 years ago) in our history? God sent Him at that particular time because crucifixion, a most painful and barbaric manner of punishment, was the type of death that He knew would be in use at that time.

We do not know exactly how God's sovereign will works except that His sovereign will does not ever compromise the free will of mankind.

It is true that God can and sometimes does end the life of a person before he can usurp His sovereign will, but God never, ever forces a person to disobey Him and He never, ever prevents a person from obeying Him.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Knowing my future doesn't make me unable to have chosen it.

Are you saying this with reference to God? Where in the Bible does it say God is outside of time? (I've heard it said thousands of time, and I've never agreed with it because it is ridiculous - if He interacts with this world IN TIME then He could interact with it again and again and again in the same point of time).

God therefore is not accountable, responsible for their choices/actions.

Actually He is. In molonism He doesn't make the choices for the free agents, but knows what choices they will make. Therefore at the moment He creates a free agent, He is responsible for every action they take, even though He doesn't cause those actions. He is still responsible.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Are you saying this with reference to God? Where in the Bible does it say God is outside of time? (I've heard it said thousands of time, and I've never agreed with it because it is ridiculous - if He interacts with this world IN TIME then He could interact with it again and again and again in the same point of time).

Such things are difficult to conceptualize for us. But if you imagine a God constrained by time ... when was His beginning?

Actually He is. In molonism He doesn't make the choices for the free agents, but knows what choices they will make. Therefore at the moment He creates a free agent, He is responsible for every action they take, even though He doesn't cause those actions. He is still responsible.

One could just as easily, or more easily, argue that God is responsible merely because He created, whether He knew what the outcome would be or not.

In a sense, that must be true. If God created nothing, none of the actions that happen in creation could happen.

But what do we mean by "responsible"? If we are free agents, ought we not bear the responsibility for our actions? Even if someone tempts us to break a law, can we reply with "so-and-so made me do it!" and be absolved? I say that rightfully, if we are free, we bear responsibility for our choices.

And if we are not free agents (which I don't believe) then the purpose of history is futility from our point of view.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

But if you imagine a God constrained by time ... when was His beginning?

He just "IS". As in, in the present. Always. No beginning. Here is where we either begin with athiesms view of a singularity, or theisms view of God. God just is. I believe He is in a different dimension. I also agree time works differently in His dimension. But to be outside of time in every sense of "time" is somewhat ridiculous. I don't think anyone really believes it actually. Heaven for example, is a place where we still interact with God and each other. This relies on time. Time might work differently, but it doesn't just "not exist". If time doesn't exist, space doesn't exist. And if there's no space, then what is there? Spirits? Consciousness? And can we interact with others? Because this relies on time also. I just think it's a cop out to say "we can't understand, just trust God" because we could say this for anything whenever we come up against a difficult question.

One could just as easily, or more easily, argue that God is responsible merely because He created, whether He knew what the outcome would be or not.

He is responsible if He sees the outcome of His creation and still creates it. But if He doesn't know the outcome, then He is not responsible. Here lies the difference between Open Theism and Molonism from my (very shallow) understanding (which I'm very open to being refuted by the way, even if I do come across quite strong in my opinion).

But what do we mean by "responsible"?

Just the Google dictionary definition:
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

If we are free agents, ought we not bear the responsibility for our actions?

Yes. But if I am put in a situation where it is known what I will freely choose, IF the agent who put me there could have put me in a different situation, then that agent is responsible.

For example in door 1 a man will kill my family if I don't kill him first. In door 2 is just my family.
If the agent intentionally places me in door 1, who is responsible for my actions? Only me?

 

[Received]

The thread solicited the opinion of Molinism, and I responded with the opinion that we should only concerned with believing what God says about himself in his Word, not adhering to a philosophical system, evaluating them on their own merits apart from what God says about himself and his works in his Word.

Again, speaking of "adhering to a philosophical system" implies that theology and philosophy are (or should be) separate, rather than the fact that philosophy is inextricably intertwined with theology.

It's not like Molinism is an attempted solution based on anything other than the scriptures themselves. It tries to make sense of what's actually a difficult idea for us humans to understand -- how foreknowledge relates to our actions now -- and so enlivens scriptural interpretation in addition to being inherently part of it (e.g., philosophical underpinnings involved with exegesis or interpretation at large, etc.).

I don't see why this is such a hard point for you to agree with. Unless you think philosophy is, again, something "manmade" and therefore not inspired by taking the scriptures seriously (when theology itself is also "manmade" in the same way). Think of all the great Christian theologians you would exclude by appealing to this criterion: Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, most of the church fathers, Luther, even Calvin himself. After all, I seem to remember you quoting a very philosophical text by Calvin regarding compatibilism and how to reconcile human culpability with God's judgment. I see absolutely no way you can justify quoting that passage and not justify Molinism, which is acting in the exact same process as Calvin by grounding its ideas in scripture but trying to unknot apparent problems that come from scripture taken at face value.

 

[Received]

Here's my problem though.

God does not know His own future:
1. God knows the total-future
2. Therefore, God knows His own future
3. God is free to do as He pleases
4. Therefore, God is not constrained by His own future
5. Therefore, God does not know His own future

How does 5 follow from 4? God's future is just like any future: it's dependent on actions that constitute this future. And his knowing his future doesn't constrain his free choices that constitute the future.

So if God does not have total foreknowledge (because He doesn't know His own future actions) then He doesn't have foreknowledge in this universe either because He interacts with us.

God does not have foreknowledge regarding this universe:
1. God does not know His own future actions
2. God interacts with us
3. Therefore God does not have foreknowledge in the earth

I think this simply debunks both Calvinism and Molinism and leaves Open Theism as the only rational option.

Well, Molinism holds that God knows every conceivable possible world that a person (including himself) would make and responds depending on which possible world is actualized per individual person. The real question here is if it's possible that such a type of knowledge could exist, not that foreknowledge in this context is intrinsically problematic in relation to freedom.

Some extra bits that relate:
A. God can still prophesy future actions by ensuring they happen, but without controlling the whole universe like a puppet master, or knowing exactly what each human will choose.
B. Predestination is the predestining of groups; individuals can choose which group they enter.

I'd think that ensuring things happen is precisely the definition of a puppet master. Totally agree on the second point, which is what theologians call "corporate election", which has among other strengths the appeal of consistency between the Old Testament (where God clearly utilized election in a corporate sense) and the New Testament (where it would make little sense to say that God arbitrarily changed the way in which he elects).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Which means that you cannot be a Calvinist in any sense of the matter since the clearest definition of God is that God is love and Calvinism describes Him as a monster without feelings.

And BTW - Calvinism is a philosophy and a system of interpreting the Bible.

If you are going to oppose an idea, you might want to understand it first. Your comment glaringly reveals your ignorance of Calvinism.

 

[Received]

If you are going to oppose an idea, you might want to understand it first. Your comment glaringly reveals your ignorance of Calvinism.

Well, I wouldn't quite use the term "monster", not because I don't think it wouldn't be an adequate description of God if Calvinism were true, but because it shuts off debate by the interlocutor with whom you're talking.

Because there is something monstrous about a god who creates people who can't help but be born into sinfulness and then saves only a portion of individuals through a faith he can only give (and the person, given irresistible grace, has no capacity to accept or reject) while blaming the rest for not accepting the God they're incapable (again because of irresistible grace and total depravity) of accepting. Even worse that Jesus and the apostles were preaching in public places demanding people to repent, which is really a sort of lie to much of those who heard it given that they (according to Calvinism) are incapable of repenting, an act that only God can instill through irresistible grace.

That said, Calvinists don't worship a monster. They worship a loving God whom they misconceptualize as a monster.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Well, I wouldn't quite use the term "monster", not because I don't think it wouldn't be an adequate description of God if Calvinism were true, but because it shuts off debate by the interlocutor with whom you're talking.

Because there is something monstrous about a god who creates people who can't help but be born into sinfulness and then saves only a portion of individuals through a faith he can only give (and the person, given irresistible grace, has no capacity to accept or reject) while blaming the rest for not accepting the God they're incapable (again because of irresistible grace and total depravity) of accepting. Even worse that Jesus and the apostles were preaching in public places demanding people to repent, which is really a sort of lie to much of those who heard it given that they (according to Calvinism) are incapable of repenting, an act that only God can instill through irresistible grace.

That said, Calvinists don't worship a monster. They worship a loving God whom they misconceptualize as a monster.

It's apparent that you should heed my advice as well.

 

[Received]

It's apparent that you should heed my advice as well.

I think I have. I understand Calvinism pretty dang well, as a matter of fact. But I'm assuming you wouldn't feel great if someone gave the same response you did, which sort of begs the question by assuming the other person doesn't know your position, rather than, you know, taking them up and debating with them. Each point I've made can be appealed to as invalid, unsound, and/or untrue. Your turn.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I think I have. I understand Calvinism pretty dang well, as a matter of fact. But I'm assuming you wouldn't feel great if someone gave the same response you did, which sort of begs the question by assuming the other person doesn't know your position, rather than, you know, taking them up and debating with them. Each point I've made can be appealed to as invalid, unsound, and/or untrue. Your turn.

Having seen you posts in other threads, I decline a debate with you, as our ultimate authorities are different, we couldn't debate productively.

BTW, your last post got Christianity, sin, and God's judgement wrong, not just Calvinism.

 

[Received]

Having seen you posts in other threads, I decline a debate with you, as our ultimate authorities are different, we couldn't debate productively.

BTW, your last post got Christianity, sin, and God's judgement wrong, not just Calvinism.

Oh, our ultimate authorities are different. I worship Satan and you worship God. Got it. Still waiting for justification on this point.

So you decline to debate, and then you make a point in the next paragraph opening up debate. Which is it?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Oh, our ultimate authorities are different. I worship Satan and you worship God. Got it. Still waiting for justification on this point.

So you decline to debate, and then you make a point in the next paragraph opening up debate. Which is it?

You are a going a bit OTT there, my friend.

There can be no productive debate between people with different points of authority. For instance, I can't debate a Roman Catholic on very much because at the foundation of my argument, I will say, the Bible says, and the Catholic will say, "the pope says", or, "the church say". There would be no way to resolve such a debate.

 

[Received]

You are a going a bit OTT there, my friend.

Arguably not based on your vague comment (regarding authorities, which usually connotes authority to God vs other things). That's part of online communication, perhaps. Thanks for clarifying.

There can be no productive debate between people with different points of authority. For instance, I can't debate a Roman Catholic on very much because at the foundation of my argument, I will say, the Bible says, and the Catholic will say, "the pope says", or, "the church say". There would be no way to resolve such a debate.

No, I think authority can be argued as well. This, actually, I think is a great example of the indispensable nature of philosophy when it comes to theological matters, as only philosophy will help a person come to evaluate his authority. I think there are hundreds if not thousands of books just on the issue of Catholicism and their claimed sources of authority, for example.

What authorities do you think we differ on?