Molinism

[TaylorSexton]

That's an illogical non sequitur.

Exactly, so why do you keep arguing that point?

No, it's not clear to you yet...

Seems so. The quote you bolded was a Scripture quotation.

And contrary to your allegation that they engage in violence, that's completely untrue and they take great care not to admit anyone into their fellowship who does advocate violence against others.

You lack any kind of knowledge of Christian ethics if you think the only kind of violence is physical or external.

I actually have more respect for them than most Calvinists because of their open and unapologetic commitment to what they believe to be the truth.

Here you go again arguing that Reformed theology logically leads to violent behavior—something which you have yet to demonstrate yet keep asserting that you are not doing. But, I have already addressed this issue, and I am content with leaving the record of this here publicly.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Obviously any belief system we may consider is NOT expressed and explained the same by everyone we may put in that category.

Molina would express things differently than Craig and I would express them differently than both even though I would not object to being identified with Molinism in general.

The Lord shows us that He knows and always has known possibilities as well as what has and will actually come to past in time.

He shows us that individuals have real existence and will and that He is the one who determines what circumstances we will find ourselves in and what decisions of the will will transpire because of those circumstances.

Those "circumstances" includes the things related to our being as well as those circumstances around us.

God has shown us that He brings to past everything according to His perfect will and that He uses "means" or circumstances to bring those things to past.

The predestination of all things which take place in God's creation and the functioning of the things in that creation to bring what He has decreed to past (including the wills and choices of those created in God's image) are completly compatible.

The absolute sovereignty of God and the "free will" of the creature are completely compatible if we keep in mind the simple fact that we are the creature and He is God. Only within those parameters do we have our being.

Molinism attempts to reconcile this relationship and depending on how it is expressed and how far it is taken it is a viable vehicle for meaningful theological discussion IMO.

The problem is it puts God in 100% responsibility for evil and for every horrendous thing that has ever taken place on the earth. Rather than Him "not knowing" He "knows" the complete future. He had a choice to create or not create, or create differently. Platinga argues this is the best of all possible worlds in an attempt to answer this problem. I disagree, there are better possible worlds. And while his philosophy stands up against criticism, it is the conclusion that one can refuse at face value if presented with a better systematic theology i.e. Open Theism.

 

[ArmorBearer]

Exactly, so why do you keep arguing that point?

A falsehood - I've never argued that believing in TULIP leads to any particular behavior, including the Westboro's, you've consistently set up that particular straw man in an obvious and futile attempt to deflect attention away from your glaring inconsistencies which have been exposed. And instead of issuing apologies to those you've offended, you continue racing away on the same road of denial while covering your retreat with these false accusations.

Seems so. The quote you bolded was a Scripture quotation.

Yet another futile attempt to deflect attention away from the actual issue. You challenged me to: "cite just one place (just one, singular instance) anywhere in the Reformed confessions where God is said to hate the non-elect. The moment you can find an instance where that is said, I will concede to you." But after the citation was provided, instead of conceding anything as you promised, you only pretended the conversation concerns an issue I have with scripture when it was actually about your condemnation of people who believe exactly as you do about the scriptures! Just another one of your numerous straw men.

You lack any kind of knowledge of Christian ethics if you think the only kind of violence is physical or external.

I'm definitely aware of the violence from those who practice deception by bearing false witness against others - are you aware that those who do so will not enter the kingdom of heaven? That's definitely on Paul's list of sins while presenting what one believes to be the truth in a blunt manner as the Westboros do, isn't.

Here you go again arguing that Reformed theology logically leads to violent behavior—something which you have yet to demonstrate yet keep asserting that you are not doing. But, I have already addressed this issue, and I am content with leaving the record of this here publicly.

And there you go again making the same false accusation about something I never said or implied as though repeating it will somehow make it true. You haven't fooled anyone here except yourself and since you're obviously committed to evade the issue about your condemnation of those with the exact same theology as you and you're pleased with the underhanded methods you've used in doing so, I definitely agree with letting it just remain as a continual witness to such - but if I was you I wouldn't wait till the Final Judgment to unharden your heart and then make the necessary apologies to all those you've injured. Until you do, you'll remain trapped in the same tragic spiritual condition that this conversation has revealed.

 

[ArmorBearer]

The problem is it puts God in 100% responsibility for evil and for every horrendous thing that has ever taken place on the earth. Rather than Him "not knowing" He "knows" the complete future. He had a choice to create or not create, or create differently. Platinga argues this is the best of all possible worlds in an attempt to answer this problem. I disagree, there are better possible worlds. And while his philosophy stands up against criticism, it is the conclusion that one can refuse at face value if presented with a better systematic theology i.e. Open Theism.

Whenever there's a discussion about doctrines such as Free Will, Sovereignty, Predestination, Foreknowledge, etc I usually try to urge the participants to avoid nebulous theoretical concepts and focus instead on applying whatever they might believe to concrete biblical events where those beliefs can be tested practically. A good place for that are the events surrounding God's original promises to Abraham about his posterity eg, Gen15:13-16 which gives a definitive statement about God's predestined, sovereign will for the future nation of Israel - "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.."
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 was - "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert (Ex14:12}", 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 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.
Determinists, Calvinists, and anyone else who subscribes to unbiblical definitions of doctrines such as Sovereignty, Free Will, Eternal Security, Election, Predestination, Foreknowledge, etc can't reconcile their doctrines with these verses - for instance, (1) if God sovereignly predestines all things irrespective of man's will as Determinists claim, then how did the 5th generation enter the Land instead of the 4th as God originally swore to Abraham? and (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?
Such practical events are a good place for anyone to test drive their theories to see if they can actually be reconciled with reality instead of spending endless and usually fruitless hours arguing about them in abstracts.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Whenever there's a discussion about doctrines such as Free Will, Sovereignty, Predestination, Foreknowledge, etc I usually try to urge the participants to avoid nebulous theoretical concepts and focus instead on applying whatever they might believe to concrete biblical events where those beliefs can be tested practically. A good place for that are the events surrounding God's original promises to Abraham about his posterity eg, Gen15:13-16 which gives a definitive statement about God's predestined, sovereign will for the future nation of Israel - "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.."
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 was - "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert (Ex14:12}", 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 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.
Determinists, Calvinists, and anyone else who subscribes to unbiblical definitions of doctrines such as Sovereignty, Free Will, Eternal Security, Election, Predestination, Foreknowledge, etc can't reconcile their doctrines with these verses - for instance, (1) if God sovereignly predestines all things irrespective of man's will as Determinists claim, then how did the 5th generation enter the Land instead of the 4th as God originally swore to Abraham? and (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?
Such practical events are a good place for anyone to test drive their theories to see if they can actually be reconciled with reality instead of spending endless and usually fruitless hours arguing about them in abstracts.

Very good. I think nearly all views including Molinism would struggle here. Open Theism answers these questions beautifully when it is defined in this way: "God is open to the possibilities of the future since His understanding of the future is partially, although not absolutely, contingent upon future human choices with the result that He does not know all future events with certainty since they have not happened yet". Thus He was confident the Israelites would be in the captivity of the Egyptians for ~400 years but He didn't think the Israelites would refuse to enter Canaan.

 

[Received]

It's definitely tough to say simply. First, we should establish that we are talking from a place of time (even if He is outside of time as many say, He still interacts with us in time). And so we can discuss God with regard to time because God interacts with the world. He is also free to do as He pleases. He is not constrained by anything except perhaps His own constraints (e.g. He will not act against His own Word, He will only act in love etc). But these are Self-constraints.

However foreknowledge is different. He sees what He will do, and will not do anything else. Foreknowledge means He has no choices, ever, and He never changes His mind about anything (this is not biblical, God does change His mind). He just sees everything that will ever be for all time and never gets to choose any of it, because it's already there and He's already in it.

Foreknowledge means all his choices, including his future decision to change his mind, determine his foreknowledge and not the other way around. If Bill decides to mow his lawn on Saturday, the Monday before God knowing this fact doesn't determine Bill to mow the lawn on Saturday; Bill's decision to mow the lawn on Saturday determines the foreknowledge of God who is viewing things from a Monday. The same follows if we imagine God mowing his own lawn on the same days: his knowledge of his future actions (including any decision to change his mind about mowing his lawn) determines his foreknowledge and not the other way around where the foreknowledge determines his actions.

This is what the philosopher of religion Louis Pojman meant when he said that the epistemic doesn't dictate the ontological, i.e., what is known (even if it's foreknown) is always made up of being arranged in whatever way it is in order that it can be known.

So if I tell my wife I will put the kettle on in the morning, then I do it, I'm a puppet master?

That's not ensuring things will happen; that's doing them.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

determine his foreknowledge

But there is no determine His foreknowledge or you have God traveling along on the river of time in a forward direction the same as we are (i.e. from the past towards the future). If there is this idea of God determining, then you are simply saying He is traveling faster through the decision trees than we are (in His own mind). Rather, in your view, it is all just "there". There is no past, present or future to determine. It just is. And He is not free to do anything about it because it has always existed timelessly. I think this idea is incongruent with our reality. Nothing is changeable in this picture. It all just exists.

You say God's future-knowledge of my decision doesn't affect my decision. But this is not my contention. My contention is with God knowing His own future. Future knowledge of His own decisions with regard to our world should allow Him to infinitely refine His decisions so as to orchestrate the best possible world in the present. But this is not the best possible world (as Platinga optimistically argues). It also causes a strange confusion about His interaction with our world, "Can God involve Himself in the one slice of time as often as He likes?"

That's not ensuring things will happen; that's doing them.

Exactly. There are cases where God can ensure something will happen by doing it Himself. E.g. As above, telling Abraham that his descendants will be rescued from captivity in 400 years. So He made it happen by doing it Himself.

 

[Received]

But there is no determine His foreknowledge or you have God traveling along on the river of time in a forward direction the same as we are (i.e. from the past towards the future). If there is this idea of God determining, then you are simply saying He is traveling faster through the decision trees than we are (in His own mind). Rather, in your view, it is all just "there". There is no past, present or future to determine. It just is. And He is not free to do anything about it because it has always existed timelessly. I think this idea is incongruent with our reality. Nothing is changeable in this picture. It all just exists.

At the risk of arguing parallel with you, I don't think it has always existed timelessly. God exists timelessly (and I should make this clear because my language in my past posts gives the sense that he experiences time like we do), but any event from 0 (the moment before creation of the universe) to potential infinity is what it is in possible worlds he chooses from. He is free to choose the potentially infinite number of possible worlds, made up of a potentially infinite number of combinations of events that exist and which events exist. Yet in his choosing one world among others doesn't determine our actions because in each of these possible worlds where our actions take place, we are the ones who provide the content that God foreknows.

You say God's future-knowledge of my decision doesn't affect my decision. But this is not my contention. My contention is with God knowing His own future. Future knowledge of His own decisions with regard to our world should allow Him to infinitely refine His decisions so as to orchestrate the best possible world in the present. But this is not the best possible world (as Platinga optimistically argues). It also causes a strange confusion about His interaction with our world, "Can God involve Himself in the one slice of time as often as He likes?"

I don't understand your question. As for the best of all possible worlds, the idea is that this is the best of all possible worlds given that God has chosen it, with "best" here having a teleological (ends justifying the means) sort of meaning from which we can't judge the quality of this actualized world seeing how it isn't yet complete. Plantinga seems to argue from a non-Molinist perspective in arguing that free will negates God's ability to actualize any world he pleases, but it's been a while since I've read his God, Freedom, and Evil, so please feel free to fill me in on the details.

 

[TaylorSexton]

A falsehood - I've never argued that believing in TULIP leads to any particular behavior...

But you have, though—multiple times. It is utterly clear. Merely denying it doesn't mean you haven't.

Yet another futile attempt to deflect attention away from the actual issue. You challenged me to: "cite just one place (just one, singular instance) anywhere in the Reformed confessions where God is said to hate the non-elect. The moment you can find an instance where that is said, I will concede to you." But after the citation was provided, instead of conceding anything as you promised, you only pretended the conversation concerns an issue I have with scripture when it was actually about your condemnation of people who believe exactly as you do about the scriptures! Just another one of your numerous straw men.

But the citation you provided what a quotation of Scripture, which reveals the problem, here—a problem that I gather we will not overcome in this conversation.

I'm definitely aware of the violence from those who practice deception by bearing false witness against others - are you aware that those who do so will not enter the kingdom of heaven? That's definitely on Paul's list of sins while presenting what one believes to be the truth in a blunt manner as the Westboros do, isn't.

I just think it's amazing that you are willing to support Westboro's actions as Christian all for the sake of this argument. That's laughable.

And there you go again making the same false accusation about something I never said or implied as though repeating it will somehow make it true.

But, that's what you are arguing. You have said repeatedly that Westboro is only proclaiming fully and without reservation what they believe, which you have said is Reformed theology.

Whenever there's a discussion about doctrines such as Free Will, Sovereignty, Predestination, Foreknowledge, etc I usually try to urge the participants to avoid nebulous theoretical concepts and focus instead on applying whatever they might believe to concrete biblical events where those beliefs can be tested practically. A good place for that are the events surrounding God's original promises to Abraham about his posterity eg, Gen15:13-16 which gives a definitive statement about God's predestined, sovereign will for the future nation of Israel - "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.."
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 was - "Let us alone; let us serve the Egyptians. It's better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert (Ex14:12}", 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 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.
Determinists, Calvinists, and anyone else who subscribes to unbiblical definitions of doctrines such as Sovereignty, Free Will, Eternal Security, Election, Predestination, Foreknowledge, etc can't reconcile their doctrines with these verses - for instance, (1) if God sovereignly predestines all things irrespective of man's will as Determinists claim, then how did the 5th generation enter the Land instead of the 4th as God originally swore to Abraham? and (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?
Such practical events are a good place for anyone to test drive their theories to see if they can actually be reconciled with reality instead of spending endless and usually fruitless hours arguing about them in abstracts.

Have you read Reformed literature? It is apparent you haven't, otherwise you would be asking different questions. But, since you haven't, I will just respond with Scripture:

"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35).

"I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Is. 46:9-10).

God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11).

Now, if how you have interpreted and used those passages you quoted above is true, then Scripture contradicts itself.

But, if you would like to voice your grievances and have them vetted thoroughly by multiple informed people, I would invite you, as I did our brother above, to open a thread on "Ask a Calvinist" or "Debate with a Calvinist" in the Reformed subforum.

 

[DingDing]

...

Have you read Reformed literature? It is apparent you haven't, otherwise you would be asking different questions. But, since you haven't, I will just respond with Scripture:

...

"I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Is. 46:9-10).

God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11).

Now, if how you have interpreted and used those passages you quoted above is true, then Scripture contradicts itself.

...

Hello,

I know that my input here may not be welcomed, but I would like to ask a few questions - perhaps these could be the different questions you allude to - but likely not. (And these questions are to all, but particularly to those of a reformed persuasion like TaylorSexton.)

I copied just two of the scripture references you gave. First, I just want to point out that any scripture reference has a local context, and surely that local context will likely provide some bounds and guidance on the possible meaning of the scripture being quoted. Having said that, I want to ask some questions about these two quotes.

Concerning Isaiah 46:9-10, I have these questions/observations.

First, and this is more of an observation, when God says He "declare the end from the beginning", is He stating that He has revealed every event and action, no matter how small, that will ever occur in the universe? I think the answer is, "No". But what God is saying is that when He does speak of the future - He speaks 100% accurately.


Second, when God says that, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure", what is He talking about? Do you know exactly what His "pleasure" is and how He "works" it? Or have you just made assumptions, perhaps without realizing it? When God says, "I will do all my pleasure", do you assume this to mean that God does not or cannot include human involvement and human choice into His "counsel" and "pleasure"? What I sense is an assumption that God's "counsel" and "pleasure" cannot in any way incorporate human choice/activity into the equation. Where does this verse say that? And would not local context rather indicate the inclusion of human action/choice into the "counsel" and "pleasure" of God?


Concerning Ephesians 1:11, I have similar questions/observations.


What is the "counsel of His own will", and how is He "working" it? (And by what does He mean "all things"? I'll skip this for now, but there are things to think about here.) So, when God says He is working the "counsel of His own will", does this mean there is nothing in humans of which God can or does take into account? Specifically, what if the "counsel of His own will" involved human cooperation? Does this verse specifically say that the "counsel of His own will" does not include human participation? I kind of think the context of Ephesians - and the New Testament as a whole - suggests otherwise.


So there you have it; I believe the quotation of these verses (especially in isolation) begs some very important questions. And I believe there are many who quote such verses as these without giving them the careful thought they are due. Just my two cents worth.

 

[ArmorBearer]

But you have, though—multiple times. It is utterly clear. Merely denying it doesn't mean you haven't.

Once again: simply stating the fact that the Westboros openly proclaim God's hatred of the non-elect (a doctrine you don't deny agreeing with) is not a claim that their belief in TULIP somehow causes them to do so any more than believing in TULIP causes you not to proclaim that doctrine openly - it's simply a choice each person or group makes regarding what they believe to be true. The issue on the table is your condemnation of them as being unsaved, non-Christian, Satanic, violent, etc, based solely on the fact that they choose to bluntly and openly tell others about your common doctrinal beliefs while you feel they are completely wrong for "not limiting themselves in any way regarding the proclamation of their true Calvinistic beliefs." That's the issue confronting you, and trying to shift attention from that by continually accusing me of claiming TULIP causes the Westboro's to do something, is not only untrue but off subject. Further, if I actually thought that, the question would instead be why you aren't doing the same - but there's nothing within TULIP's doctrines that give any directives about how the doctrines of election should or shouldn't be shared with others - but neither is there any condemnation of anyone who might choose to openly declare them, which is the subject here ie, your making their blunt and public presentation of those doctrines into a salvational issue.

But the citation you provided was a quotation of Scripture, which reveals the problem, here—a problem that I gather we will not overcome in this conversation.

It's a scripture within the Canons of Dort used to support the Westboro's and your own theology about God's hatred of the non-elect - cited because you demanded proof from the confessions to that effect. Any problem I may have with the doctrine itself or the use of that scripture to support it isn't relevant to this discussion - the issue is that both you and the Westboros believe exactly the same thing about the verse (which you don't deny) yet you condemn them solely because they openly proclaim it to others - that's the issue being addressed here, and trying to shift the discussion to the merits of using that verse to support the doctrine is merely a diversion.

I just think it's amazing that you are willing to support Westboro's actions as Christian all for the sake of this argument. That's laughable.

There's certainly nothing laughable about your condemnation in this thread of not just the Westboros but many other Calvinists who don't quite measure up to your particular brand of Reformed theology - it's simply more glaring in the case of the Westboros since they hold the exact same doctrine as you about God hating the non-elect (which you acknowledge) but have simply chosen to express it openly and honestly instead of hiding it from others as you advocate doing.

Have you read Reformed literature? It is apparent you haven't, otherwise you would be asking different questions. But, since you haven't, I will just respond with Scripture:
"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35).
"I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Is. 46:9-10).
God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11).
Now, if how you have interpreted and used those passages you quoted above is true, then Scripture contradicts itself.

First, I obviously have indeed read Reformed literature since I've needed to instruct you of what the Canons of Dort teach on the subject of election, which you were completely ignorant about. Second, there's no contradiction with the scriptures you listed with any that I cited concerning God's promises to Abraham and the subsequent events related to the Israelites. God did exactly what He promised and delivered the Israelites from bondage, took them to the Promised Land, but then honored their choice not to enter and instead took the 5th generation into the Land. He "did all His pleasure", "none could stay His hand" and He "worked all things after the counsel of His own will" despite the fact that the 4th generation chose not to participate in His predestined will for them. The problem you have with any of this stems from your Calvinistic world view that promotes an unbiblical definition of God's sovereignty involving divine force while completely excluding man's free will - that's what's causing you to see contradictions that don't actually exist. You simply need to remove those dark Reformed spectacles that blind you to the Truth.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Fair enough. I can't change your perception of me, no matter how much it may hurt me or baffle me. This just isn't worth the strife it is causing. I seems very much like you hate me, and pray that isn't true, and that if it is, it will change; I have never experienced the type and level of rhetoric that you have shown me, and it's hurtful at times the things you think about me simply because of my creed (however unfounded your conclusions may be). Frankly, I just don't have the time or the patience for this, and now it may be affecting my health (see below). So many things have been said about me that are not true. I do not judge a person's faith based on their adherence to my creed; I have read the Reformed confessional material from top to bottom on numerous occasions; I have read much Reformed theological literature (I am Reformed, after all); I have spent the last six months studying Reformed theology (mainly through Calvin himself) at one of the top evangelical seminaries in the world with one of the best Calvin/Reformed theology scholars in the evangelical world right now; and, unless we are going to simply deny the truth, my creed does not lead to the things you say that must. The fact that you have asserted that numerous times (whether you will admit it or not) is beyond offensive—it is extremely hurtful. Again, I have never received this kind of rhetoric from anyone brother or sister in Christ (which I consider you, although I wonder, given your severe judgments of my own creed, whether you would say the same about me). I always knew I had trouble restraining my own rhetoric, but I think I may have met my match.

Needless to say, I am cutting this conversation off, for my own sake. You win; I concede. It needs to stop. I know you will probably reply as if this message never was posted, but that is your choice. Please see this quote:

Hi, all.

This Sunday morning I spent several hours in the hospital after a bout of fast heart rate (~140 BPM) and numbness in my hands and forearms. We called an ambulance, fearing it was something very serious. But, praise be to God, all the tests—EKG, blood work, and chest x-ray—came back perfect. Turns out that it was simply a bonafide panic attack. While it was nothing serious, it was a wake-up call that I need to take better care of my mind. Most likely I am simply stressed for finals, but no doubt the constant theological debate that I willingly put myself through here on the internet is a big source of stress.

I have decided to cut ties completely with any kind of internet social sites for the time being, starting immediately. In that regard, this little episode has been a blessing. I would appreciate your prayers.

I would still invite you, as I did our brother many posts ago, to create a thread in the forums I mentioned earlier. You have a lot of painful and hateful conceptions of Reformed people and their theology, it seems to me. I know you don't think that you do, but it is clearly a blind spot—we all have them, and we are liars if we say we don't (because that very thought, too, would be a blind spot). But, it is becoming clear (because I see this tendency all too well in myself) that your many, many words and your relentless posting is a sign of anger and bitterness. Again, I can see this because I, too, have the same problem. I don't know where this comes from. I don't know why you feel the things you do about me and my creed. Again, it is very hurtful, and I would suggest—as your brother in Christ—prayer and meditation upon God's Word regarding this. I will do the same for myself, as I already do near daily. Again, I would encourage you to do the fair thing and open up a thread. Perhaps there will be mutual edification that would help the Church instead of what is happening now. There is nothing better than going into the other camp (as I have done many times, this post being evidence of just once) to actually hear what the other side has to say to your objections, and to loving respond and try to come to some understanding of one another. If you choose not to, that is a decision you must live with, not me. As for me, it is just not beneficial for me to continue with this. This thread has already been completely derailed, and the personal attacks are becoming ridiculous.

With that, I wish God's blessings upon all of you. I pray we will be reconciled one day—if not here, then in the age to come.

Farewell.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

At the risk of arguing parallel with you, I don't think it has always existed timelessly. God exists timelessly (and I should make this clear because my language in my past posts gives the sense that he experiences time like we do), but any event from 0 (the moment before creation of the universe) to potential infinity is what it is in possible worlds he chooses from. He is free to choose the potentially infinite number of possible worlds, made up of a potentially infinite number of combinations of events that exist and which events exist. Yet in his choosing one world among others doesn't determine our actions because in each of these possible worlds where our actions take place, we are the ones who provide the content that God foreknows.



I don't understand your question. As for the best of all possible worlds, the idea is that this is the best of all possible worlds given that God has chosen it, with "best" here having a teleological (ends justifying the means) sort of meaning from which we can't judge the quality of this actualized world seeing how it isn't yet complete. Plantinga seems to argue from a non-Molinist perspective in arguing that free will negates God's ability to actualize any world he pleases, but it's been a while since I've read his God, Freedom, and Evil, so please feel free to fill me in on the details.

But there is a core difference here that Open Theism deals with much better than Molinism.

Within Molinism God could have created the world in such a way that we have free choice and there is no evil. He would just choose the world that has no evil. Now if there is no world, then he simply creates the world differently in the first place in such a way that we still have free choice and there is no evil. Molinism places full responsibility for evil on God, even though it is the free agents who cause the evil.

Open Theism deals with this by simply postulating how God doesn't know what we will do. Period. Pure free will where all of us are in the present including God. Predictions/prophecies can be made that are pretty accurate, but our choices affect the future so God doesn't know the total future. He can foresee certain parts of it and can also make certain things happen, but He doesn't know what will happen 100% of the time.

 

[Received]

FWIW, I'm not (I don't think) a Molinist, just use the Molinist terminology to imagine God's perspective from a temporal one rather than an eternal one.

But there is a core difference here that Open Theism deals with much better than Molinism.

Within Molinism God could have created the world in such a way that we have free choice and there is no evil. He would just choose the world that has no evil. Now if there is no world, then he simply creates the world differently in the first place in such a way that we still have free choice and there is no evil. Molinism places full responsibility for evil on God, even though it is the free agents who cause the evil.

I think it's precisely Plantinga whom you appealed to who would say that anything approaching a the best of all possible worlds without evil would be impossible. Actually, I would say that in every possible world where human beings have free will, you by definition have evil, not simply because people choose evil, but because evil is part of the process of becoming a mature human being. The Adam and Eve story, far from having its value understood literally, gives us this idea by understanding (arguably as it should be and has been pre-fundamentalism) things figuratively: we all have a time of innocence, followed by a freely chosen but inevitable state of evil/sinfulness, which confers the capacity to view things as good and evil and the "working all things together for good" teleological benefit of moving past sin through being saved. So IMV, there is no possible world that doesn't contain evil insofar as you have human beings being free.

Open Theism deals with this by simply postulating how God doesn't know what we will do. Period. Pure free will where all of us are in the present including God. Predictions/prophecies can be made that are pretty accurate, but our choices affect the future so God doesn't know the total future. He can foresee certain parts of it and can also make certain things happen, but He doesn't know what will happen 100% of the time.

It's a very respectable position and definitely resolves problems, but it seems like it resolves them somewhat in the style of sawing off the very branch you're sitting on because it's the only way to prune a problematic tree. I.e., the sawing is limiting yourself epistemically. But I don't think there's a problem with foreknowledge and freedom, so perhaps we've reached an impasse for this point (not the one above necessarily).

 

[ArmorBearer]

Duplicate

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I think it's precisely Plantinga whom you appealed to who would say that anything approaching a the best of all possible worlds without evil would be impossible.

I disagree with him.

Actually, I would say that in every possible world where human beings have free will, you by definition have evil, not simply because people choose evil, but because evil is part of the process of becoming a mature human being.

Disagree. Levels of average to good are enough, there is no need for below average. i.e. Evil<--------|------>Good, but better is |-------->Good. No need for evil, maturity can occur in better ways. I would not try and "mature" my daughter by giving her cancer.

we all have a time of innocence, followed by a freely chosen but inevitable state of evil/sinfulness, which confers the capacity to view things as good and evil and the "working all things together for good" teleological benefit of moving past sin through being saved. So IMV, there is no possible world that doesn't contain evil insofar as you have human beings being free.

You are arguing sin is not only inevitable but necessary? I would argue that sin is not inevitable because there exists the perfect possibility where every free agent chooses God and never chooses evil. I would argue it's not necessary because we can have levels or degrees of goodness with zero evil.

the sawing is limiting yourself epistemically

Can you be specific?

 

[Received]

I disagree with him.


Disagree. Levels of average to good are enough, there is no need for below average. i.e. Evil<--------|------>Good, but better is |-------->Good. No need for evil, maturity can occur in better ways. I would not try and "mature" my daughter by giving her cancer.

I wouldn't try and "mature" anyone by giving them cancer either, for one because I'm not supporting individual acts of evil as being good, and also because your daughter (assuming she's at an age of accountability) already has taken part in the sinfulness I'm talking about that could lead to salvation and therefore a more mature and better appreciation of the good. It's like comparing the happiness of Hobbits to good human beings; the former have a more superficial, childish innocence-type happiness, whereas the latter have gone through original sin but because they've made it through to salvation (which I see as basically what the Adam and Eve story is all about) they have a better maturity and depth and appreciation of the good. Value is born out of the contrast between whatever that's valued as given and having it taken away.

So I think all acts of evil are such that they should never be, but because falling into sin is inevitable (more on this below), we end up becoming fuller selves because of it -- which isn't to say that we need to experience evil/sin, just as we don't need to not be Hobbit-like in our existence. But I would say that being a good man is better than being a Hobbit in terms of appreciating the good and being a fuller person.

So maybe there is a difference between the evils which are themselves to be opposed and the effect evil has on us which is worked together for good by a relationship with God (Romans 8:28).

You are arguing sin is not only inevitable but necessary? I would argue that sin is not inevitable because there exists the perfect possibility where every free agent chooses God and never chooses evil. I would argue it's not necessary because we can have levels or degrees of goodness with zero evil.

Yes, inevitable and necessary because it's intrinsic to our finitude for every individual to succumb to evil (sin) and have the possibility of salvation. I don't think a world like you posit is possible except as a theoretical possibility, and going with the last section I just wrote I would say that our characters are better off for experiencing evil, which again isn't to to justify any particular evil. I have to insist that these are separate arguments: 1) evil is necessary because it's a matter of time before we lose our innocence by consuming from the tree in the garden (this will have to be a point of impasse that deeply distinguishes open theism from Molinism or traditional eternal conceptions of God apropos divine epistemology), and 2) this evil has the potential to be reworked for a better good than what would otherwise be a state of innocence without experiencing evil/sin -- which I think is a more superficial existence.

Can you be specific?

I just think open theism attempts to resolve a problem by limiting God's epistemic capabilities, which is like sawing off the limb you're sitting on (i.e., causes more problem than it solves, even though it does resolve other problems).

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I'm not supporting individual acts of evil as being good

the former have a more superficial, childish innocence-type happiness, whereas the latter have gone through original sin

Are you not arguing that evil and suffering produces mature agents who can appreciate good in a superior way to an agent who has never experienced evil and suffering? In other words, a world with evil and suffering is BETTER than a world without it because of what is produced in the agents within the world. I disagree. If we argue sin produces some kind of superior result, then it is good for an agent to become as sinful as it possibly can, and then turn to good. Evil and suffering become necessary ingredients for the perfect existence therefore it is good when evil happens, it is good when an agent suffers, and it is good to cause evil in general.

So maybe there is a difference between the evils which are themselves to be opposed and the effect evil has on us which is worked together for good by a relationship with God (Romans 8:28).

I agree evil can we worked together for good, but that good isn't necessarily superior to the good that is without the experience of evil.

1) evil is necessary because it's a matter of time before we lose our innocence by consuming from the tree in the garden (this will have to be a point of impasse that deeply distinguishes open theism from Molinism or traditional eternal conceptions of God apropos divine epistemology)

Yes, very good I agree.

2) this evil has the potential to be reworked for a better good than what would otherwise be a state of innocence without experiencing evil/sin -- which I think is a more superficial existence.

What is the justification for it being a better good? I do not agree with the Hobbit example because I'm not quite sure why child-like love is a negative attribute. I also don't understand why an appreciation of good relies on depravity. The obvious flaw, can God not appreciate good having never been through original sin?

limiting God's epistemic capabilities

Sovereignty (i.e. God is in total control)? - Not in the bible.

Total foreknowledge? Well this is not biblical either. He has foreknowledge, not total foreknowledge. Sometimes there is only one way in which all the potential futures will eventuate. Also, He can make certain events happen through His sheer Power. Other times He can work with willing agents to ensure certain events happen. But there are Biblical examples revealing how He does not know the total future.

 

[Received]

It's refreshing to debate someone who doesn't just regurgitate the usual fundamentalist or conservative theological conceptions.

Are you not arguing that evil and suffering produces mature agents who can appreciate good in a superior way to an agent who has never experienced evil and suffering? In other words, a world with evil and suffering is BETTER than a world without it because of what is produced in the agents within the world. I disagree. If we argue sin produces some kind of superior result, then it is good for an agent to become as sinful as it possibly can, and then turn to good. Evil and suffering become necessary ingredients for the perfect existence therefore it is good when evil happens, it is good when an agent suffers, and it is good to cause evil in general.

Yes, I'm saying that a world where evil exists and a person loses his innocence to the evil and sin resulting in salvation is better. Not per se for the world, but for the person who goes through this process; the philosopher of religion John Hick calls it "soul building". Note that I think this teleological consideration is secondary to my belief that with time people will sin, therefore there's no such thing as a world where people exist for any realistic amount of time without sinning (i.e., sin is necessarily going to come about with enough time for any literal or figurative Adam and Eve narrative).

I agree evil can we worked together for good, but that good isn't necessarily superior to the good that is without the experience of evil.

I respectfully disagree. I know this from my experiences with suffering: in suffering I experience something bad, and as a result learn to value the good (apropos what I'm suffering from) that much more, and also have the potential to grow from this process (also the potential to devolve depending on my attitude during the suffering).

What is the justification for it being a better good? I do not agree with the Hobbit example because I'm not quite sure why child-like love is a negative attribute. I also don't understand why an appreciation of good relies on depravity. The obvious flaw, can God not appreciate good having never been through original sin?

The justification is human freedom and the deeper, more mature person with a better value of the good. An appreciation of the good doesn't rely on depravity per se; its value, or fullest value, of the good relies on depravity, because depravity implies divorce from the good. God can appreciate good having never been through original sin, but I don't think this sin on our part will last for anything more than a short amount of time assuming we start from a state of innocence, seeing how it's only a matter of time before we choose evil.

Sovereignty (i.e. God is in total control)? - Not in the bible.

Total foreknowledge? Well this is not biblical either. He has foreknowledge, not total foreknowledge. Sometimes there is only one way in which all the potential futures will eventuate. Also, He can make certain events happen through His sheer Power. Other times He can work with willing agents to ensure certain events happen. But there are Biblical examples revealing how He does not know the total future.

The Biblical presentation of foreknowledge might not be as extensive as the philosophical presentation that generalizes from it, but arguably given the verses that refer to foreknowledge, it's reasonable to make these philosophical generalizations. Ultimately, though, what we're talking about is the philosophical problems with foreknowledge, not the scriptural or exegetical justifications (or lack thereof) for such a concept. So let's get back to that, and I'll admit that the Bible might not support foreknowledge or omnipotence as philosophers claim.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yes, I'm saying that a world where evil exists and a person loses his innocence to the evil and sin resulting in salvation is better.

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.

with time people will sin

Therefore God is fully responsible, yes?

I know this from my experiences with suffering: in suffering I experience something bad, and as a result learn to value the good

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.

God can appreciate good having never been through original sin

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

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.