Molinism

[Received]

I think that correct thinking about God comes from believing only what is said about him directly by him—i.e., in Scripture.

And what evidence do you have that Molinism isn't doing this?

See, that's the main problem with just claiming what you're claiming (the stuff I'm quoting) without supporting your claim at all by arguing for how Molinism is or isn't fitting this criterion. To any person looking from the outside it would appear that you're implicitly claiming that Molinism doesn't fit this criterion (given that there would be no reasonable basis for making such a claim if you thought otherwise) -- but you're not explaining why. And that also could be perceived as being a little arrogant, i.e., making a claim and not backing it up but by the context of the claim seeming to imply that the idea (here Molinism) you're targeting doesn't fulfill the claim you're making. (And no, I don't think you're being arrogant.)

 

[TaylorSexton]

And what evidence do you have that Molinism isn't doing this? See, that's the main problem with just claiming what you're claiming (the stuff I'm quoting) without supporting your claim at all by arguing for how Molinism is or isn't fitting this criterion. To any person looking from the outside it would appear that you're implicitly claiming that Molinism doesn't fit this criterion (given that there would be no reasonable basis for making such a claim if you thought otherwise) -- but you're not explaining why. And that also could be perceived as being a little arrogant, i.e., making a claim and not backing it up but by the context of the claim seeming to imply that the idea (here Molinism) you're targeting doesn't fulfill the claim you're making. (And no, I don't think you're being arrogant.)

I'm sorry, where again did I say that Molinism isn't doing it? This is why I made a comment about claims I never made...

 

[Received]

I'm sorry, where again did I say that Molinism isn't doing it? This is why I made a comment about claims I never made...

By the very placement of your initial claim in this thread. You don't go around and say we should follow what's biblical for no reason at all. Any reasonable person (and you're a reasonable person) would make such a statement in response to the perception that Molinism (in this case) isn't rooted in scripture. I'm open for discussion on this point, T, but all I keep getting is you regurgitating your original claim.

 

[TaylorSexton]

You don't go around and say we should follow what's biblical for no reason at all.

Of course I did it for a reason: because my opinion was solicited on this public forum, so I responded. I would have made the same statement for any "-ism" because we are not bound to uphold any truth that is not found in Scripture.

Any reasonable person (and you're a reasonable person) would make such a statement in response to the perception that Molinism (in this case) isn't rooted in scripture.

Where did I say that?

I'm open for discussion on this point, T, but all I keep getting is you regurgitating your original claim.

Because, despite your persistence, that is the only claim I have made and will make henceforth.

 

[Received]

Of course I did it for a reason: because my opinion was solicited on this public forum, so I responded. I would have made the same statement for any "-ism" because we are not bound to uphold any truth that is not found in Scripture.

So in order for this statement to really hold, I expect you to respond the same way (we should appeal to the Bible only) when any idea at all is made in any thread whatsoever. I strongly doubt you've been this consistent. Come on now.

Seriously.

Where did I say that?

I'm not saying you said it, I'm saying you implied it by definition of being a reasonable person. Because you're not unreasonable, it makes no sense to claim that we should follow what's in the Bible, period in response to the OP. Unless, as I've said above, you have and will respond the same way to any idea or belief system put forth in this forum, which I'm pretty confident you haven't done.

I mean, I can only imagine (and I mean this seriously, not making any hidden jabs) how you'd respond to the OP if Calvinism were in the place of Molinism and the same question were asked -- namely, you wouldn't make the response that we should appeal only to the Bible, because to you Calvinism is supported by a direct reading of the Bible. So what would that mean?

 

[TaylorSexton]

So in order for this statement to really hold, I expect you to respond the same way (we should appeal to the Bible only) when any idea at all is made in any thread whatsoever. I strongly doubt you've been this consistent. Come on now.

Seriously.

I'm not saying you said it, I'm saying you implied it by definition of being a reasonable person. Because you're not unreasonable, it makes no sense to claim that we should follow what's in the Bible, period in response to the OP. Unless, as I've said above, you have and will respond the same way to any idea or belief system put forth in this forum, which I'm pretty confident you haven't done.

I mean, I can only imagine (and I mean this seriously, not making any hidden jabs) how you'd respond to the OP if Calvinism were in the place of Molinism and the same question were asked -- namely, you wouldn't make the response that we should appeal only to the Bible, because to you Calvinism is supported by a direct reading of the Bible. So what would that mean?

I know I haven't been consistent. I am fallen human, am I not? That doesn't take away the truth of the fact that we should be concerned only with what God says about himself in his Word.

 

[Received]

I know I haven't been consistent. I am fallen human, am I not? That doesn't take away the truth of the fact that we should be concerned only with what God says about himself in his Word.

Well, I definitely can't get that deeply into your mind here (I don't think appealing to being fallen is a legitimate response, because I don't think you've ever intended to be consistent in this way, but that's totally my opinion, obviously -- and made in a totally nonjudgmental way), so I'll just let your statement stand and hopefully get on the way to wrapping this discussion up. But before I do: would you seriously consider it, for lack of a better word, something to do to go around and answer each and every idea in each and every forum you go to and drop the statement "we should follow the Bible, period"?

 

[TaylorSexton]

I don't think you've ever intended to be consistent in this way, but that's totally my opinion, obviously -- and made in a totally nonjudgmental way)...

The statement, "I say this in a non-judgmental way," after saying something entirely judgmental is either a lie or self-deception. You have an arrogance problem, it seems, thinking you can read the intents of a person's heart. I admitted I have not been consistent on this matter, yet you throw that back in my face, and then add salt to the wound. How Christlike.

...drop the statement "we should follow the Bible, period"...

Why would I drop such an elementary conviction?

 

[Received]

The statement, "I say this in a non-judgmental way," after saying something entirely judgmental is either a lie or self-deception. You have an arrogance problem, it seems, thinking you can read the intents of a person's heart. I admitted I have not been consistent on this matter, yet you throw that back in my face, and then add salt to the wound. How Christlike.

Nope, there's a misunderstanding of what judgment means here, which refers to condemnation, or (in the words of the late philosopher-theologian Dallas Willard) to consider someone "beyond the pale" in the sense of excluding them from your (and/or the group's) presence. I'm not condemning you, though in the non-Biblical sense I'm definitely constantly judging your statements, given that to judge (in the non-Biblical sense) means to evaluate something's worth -- which is exactly what you're doing with my statements. What I am doing is challenging you. If you want to consider that to be judgmental, that's fine.

Why would I drop such an elementary conviction?

I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm talking about a way of acting, namely to go around and answer each and every idea in each and every forum you go to and drop the statement "we should follow the Bible, period".

 

[TaylorSexton]

Nope, there's a misunderstanding of what judgment means here, which refers to condemnation, or (in the words of the late philosopher-theologian Dallas Willard) to consider someone "beyond the pale" in the sense of excluding them from your (and/or the group's) presence. I'm not condemning you, though in the non-Biblical sense I'm definitely constantly judging your statements, given that to judge (in the non-Biblical sense) means to evaluate something's worth -- which is exactly what you're doing with my statements. What I am doing is challenging you. If you want to consider that to be judgmental, that's fine.

So, so many words to cover up a misstep.

I'm not talking about a conviction, I'm talking about a way of acting, namely to go around and answer each and every idea in each and every forum you go to and drop the statement "we should follow the Bible, period".

I would only do that where it seems necessary.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Been nice chatting again. I have finals coming up, so I need my rest, and need to stop wasting time here. See final post in the other thread for more details.

Cheers!

 

[TheSeabass]

np

 

[YouAreAwesome]

We have a past and a future. God is outside of time; He does not.

How about Gods actions in this universe according to our perspective. Are they already set in stone? Or can He act freely? Does He know His future actions here?

1. God knows His own future actions in our world
2. God is free

These are in contradiction. Which do you not agree with?

 

[Received]

So, so many words to cover up a misstep.



I would only do that where it seems necessary.

Whoa, I missed this response.

Actually, looking closer, I didn't really miss anything.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Whoa, I missed this response.

Actually, looking closer, I didn't really miss anything.

Look, brother. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I know you hate what I believe, and there is nothing I can do to change that, apparently. I believe what I believe based upon what I read in the Scriptures—whether you or anyone else likes it; fortunately, I am not accountable to you or anyone else, but to God and his Word.

The only thing I can say at this point, since you refuse to approach the other side for a at least an attempt at a deeper understanding of their perspective, is that you please go read various Reformed systematic theologies (Hodge, Shedd, Bavinck, Berkhof) to at least attempt to get a better understanding of the doctrines with which you find contempt. I know you will say that there is no need, but again, if that is the case, I simply can do nothing more.

I have to quit, however, because I cannot sit here all day waiting for the next straw man or rhetorically-heated misrepresentation to pop up on my alerts page. I have finals coming up next week and, frankly, my level of frustration and anger caused by this and other conversations has reached an un-Christian level, for which I have had to devote some prayer, and I would ask for your prayers in that regard, as well. I concede this and other conversations to you. The invitation to take advantage of the "Ask a Calvinist" subforum (which was genuine) is still wide open. I pray you will.

I wish you well, and pray that we would realize our common union with Christ one day. But, until then...

 

[Received]

Look, brother. We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I know you hate what I believe, and there is nothing I can do to change that, apparently. I believe what I believe based upon what I read in the Scriptures—whether you or anyone else likes it; fortunately, I am not accountable to you or anyone else, but to God and his Word.

The only thing I can say at this point, since you refuse to approach the other side for a at least an attempt at a deeper understanding of their perspective, is that you please go read various Reformed systematic theologies (Hodge, Shedd, Bavinck, Berkhof) to at least attempt to get a better understanding of the doctrines with which you find contempt. I know you will say that there is no need, but again, if that is the case, I simply can do nothing more.

I have to quit, however, because I cannot sit here all day waiting for the next straw man or rhetorically-heated misrepresentation to pop up on my alerts page. I have finals coming up next week and, frankly, my level of frustration and anger caused by this and other conversations has reached an un-Christian level, for which I have had to devote some prayer, and I would ask for your prayers in that regard, as well. I concede this and other conversations to you. The invitation to take advantage of the "Ask a Calvinist" subforum (which was genuine) is still wide open. I pray you will.

I wish you well, and pray that we would realize our common union with Christ one day. But, until then...

Thanks for your good spirit. But let me be clear: I take responsibility for bits and pieces of rhetoric, but I honestly don't believe the rhetoric was started by me apropos our discussions. I think you interpret my insistence as possibly aggressive or even bullying and so think a rhetorical response (like your last post) is justified.

I promise you: I never respond with rhetoric unless I see doing so as making some greater point about the one who makes rhetoric. This isn't to say you've made a lot of rhetoric, because you haven't, but you've made enough to indicate to me that you're frustrated with our discussion, to say the least. I can handle the frustration. I don't even like the term "attacking" with regard to another person's ideas, so it's infinitely far from me to attack another person by "attacking" his ideas.

I think if you look at other posts you can see I have immense respect for Calvinists (the mysteriously deleted thread by jimmyjimmy involving a serious discussion of -- you might not like it but it necessarily went here -- the philosophical differences between Calvinists and nonCalvinists proves this point). I for one don't think Calvin is reducible to the doctrine that attempted to systematize his thinking, as I don't think any person and his or her thinking are reducible in this way.

So at the very least, please don't see my insistence at following a discussion as evidence of aggression, contempt, or especially hatred for you or your ideas.

That said, I hope you won't just ignore my future posts when they respond to your statements.

Best,

K

 

[Received]

I also think it's very easy in this thread to think most of my responses were in the spirit of ad hominems because I was focusing ostensibly on you and your beliefs, when in reality I was trying to unveil what I saw as an implicit philosophical standing with your initial post in this thread -- and a standing I thought was very worth pursuing.

This belief that I was ad homenizing is probably enough justification by itself to respond with rhetoric given how easily it is to come to that conclusion.

 

[ArmorBearer]

I would suggest two things for opponents to Reformed theology:

1) While it is entirely fine to disagree with Reformed theological claims, at least read Reformed confessional material before saying "Calvinists believe X..." Other people's statements on the internet are not the standard for Reformed orthodoxy; the Reformed confessions are (e.g., the Westminster Confession, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession).

2) If you have a grievance with Reformed theology, do the honest and fair thing by having your views vetted and addressed in the midst of very informed Reformed believers in the "Debate with a Calvinist" or "Ask a Calvinist" sections of the "Semper Reformanda" subforum.

And what I'd suggest to you Taylor, which I've likewise challenged your pal Jimmy to do, is to make a clear declaration (vetting if you prefer) about your own particular Calvinistic beliefs rather than assuming others haven't read the statements of faith you cited, the Institutes, or any other Calvinistic writings before they then offered opinions/criticisms of them. The fact is that Calvinism isn't anywhere close to being as monolithic as Arminian beliefs are. There's a very wide range of doctrinal beliefs within Reformed theology itself that Calvinists themselves don't even agree on - for instance, a Westboro or Hyper-Calvinist regards Moderate Calvinists as total heretics who deny the Faith and bible truth while others, such as the Primitive Baptists, hold to the doctrines of Reformed theology but at the same time absolutely deny that they're even Calvinists at all. Just like the wide range of beliefs within Islam, neither are all Calvinists the same - each faction reads Calvin's Institutes, the various confessions, and the same bible verses but come to entirely different and many times, completely antithetical theological conclusions. It would serve you and everyone else you engage on these forums to not accuse those who oppose Reformed doctrines as doing so out of ignorance but instead to clarify your own interpretations of Calvinistic doctrines. You can start by answering a few simple queries about where you are on the spectrum: 1)Are you a Moderate, Hyper, or Strict Calvinist? 2) a TULIP Calvinist? (5-pointer, Amyraldian, or some other number?) 3) Do you believe God decreed Adam's fall, permitted his fall, or that God decreed man would be allowed to fall into sin thru his own self-determination? 4) Are you associated with Particularism or Pajonism? 5) Are you affiliated with a denomination? (Presbyterian, Primitive Baptist, Sovereign Grace Baptist, Hard Shell Baptists, Separate Baptists, Predestinarian Baptists, etc). And like I told Jimmy, if you're unsure about which category you belong in, don't be afraid to say you don't know (most Calvinists don't really know exactly where they fit in either) - I can then ask you some questions and let you know what kind you are.

 

[TaylorSexton]

And what I'd suggest to you Taylor, which I've likewise challenged your pal Jimmy to do, is to make a clear declaration (vetting if you prefer) about your own particular Calvinistic beliefs rather than assuming others haven't read the statements of faith you cited, the Institutes, or any other Calvinistic writings before they then offered opinions/criticisms of them. The fact is that Calvinism isn't anywhere close to being as monolithic as Arminian beliefs are. There's a very wide range of doctrinal beliefs within Reformed theology itself that Calvinists themselves don't even agree on - for instance, a Westboro or Hyper-Calvinist regards Moderate Calvinists as total heretics who deny the Faith and bible truth while others, such as the Primitive Baptists, hold to the doctrines of Reformed theology but at the same time absolutely deny that they're even Calvinists at all. Just like the wide range of beliefs within Islam, neither are all Calvinists the same - each faction reads Calvin's Institutes, the various confessions, and the same bible verses but come to entirely different and many times, completely antithetical theological conclusions. It would serve you and everyone else you engage on these forums to not accuse those who oppose Reformed doctrines as doing so out of ignorance but instead to clarify your own interpretations of Calvinistic doctrines. You can start by answering a few simple queries about where you are on the spectrum: 1)Are you a Moderate, Hyper, or Strict Calvinist? 2) a TULIP Calvinist? (5-pointer, Amyraldian, or some other number?) 3) Do you believe God decreed Adam's fall, permitted his fall, or that God decreed man would be allowed to fall into sin thru his own self-determination? 4) Are you associated with Particularism or Pajonism? 5) Are you affiliated with a denomination? (Presbyterian, Primitive Baptist, Sovereign Grace Baptist, Hard Shell Baptists, Separate Baptists, Predestinarian Baptists, etc). And like I told Jimmy, if you're unsure about which category you belong in, don't be afraid to say you don't know (most Calvinists don't really know exactly where they fit in either) - I can then ask you some questions and let you know what kind you are.

Thanks for the post. Here are a few thoughts:

1) I find the assertion that Arminianism is even remotely monolithic to be extremely difficult to believe. I would ask for some scholarly resources to back this claim up.

2) While Reformed theology, like all stripes of Christianity, is variegated in finer points, the Reformed confessions are quite unanimous in the major assertions of Reformed orthodoxy. All affirm the so-called TULIP. All hold to infant baptism (the LCBF is Reformed only in soteriology). They might differ in, say, the Lord's Supper, but in regards to soteriology they are remarkably consistent.

3) There is only one Reformed theology (aside from minor variations). Westboro Baptist Cult is not even Christian, much less Reformed. Baptists are not Reformed by definition. Amyraldian is by definition not Reformed. People are not Reformed just because they claim the label. Reformed theology is clearly defined in the Reformed confessions, and any deviation from those is not a different type of Reformed; rather, it is not Reformed by definition.

I suspect you are not using consistent standard when you compare Arminianism and Reformed theology, saying one is monolithic and the other is wildly varied. This is evidenced by the fact that, for example, you include Westboro Baptist as a Reformed congregation, or that you include Amyralidians in that groups. These are substantially different groups, friend. Reformed theology is defined by the Reformed confessional standards. Whatever does not conform is not Reformed by definition. If we are going to go by the standards you have against Reformed theology, I could list a long list of theological persuasions which claim the name "Arminian" to try to prove that it is wildly varied. However, that would not be fair.

I stand by my original admonishment.

 

[ArmorBearer]

I find the assertion that Arminianism is even remotely monolithic to be extremely difficult to believe. I would ask for some scholarly resources to back this claim up.

First, you must understand that the term 'Arminian' is many times one of convenience - Jacobus Arminius was simply the first to set forth a biblical response challenging Calvin's doctrines as unbiblical. Anyone who rejects and opposes Calvinism using the same biblical worldview are classified as 'Arminian' just for convenience sake, even though they may have never read anything he actually wrote. 2nd, about the only point of TULIP which all Arminians don't universally reject is Perseverance (otherwise known as Once Saved/Always Saved). The Cumberland Presbyterians for instance, split from Presbyterian USA in the early 1800's over TULIP but to this day not all of them subscribe to the classic Arminian view that believers can lose their salvation.

People are not Reformed just because they claim the label.

You're making my point for me - there are many Calvinist factions that claim to be the only truly Reformed while dismissing all the other's claims as such because they don't meet their particular group's doctrinal standards. For instance, you summarily reject Amyraldians (otherwise known as 4-point or Moderate Calvinists) as not being Reformed although many of them, such as Bullinger and even some who signed the Canons of Dort held those beliefs while completely rejecting Arminianism.

Baptists are not Reformed by definition.

Again proving my point. Reformed Baptists go back to the 1600's and include John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon. More currently, there's James White and also John Piper who was pastor of a Baptist church for over 30 years. You may reject them as not being sufficiently Reformed because they're Baptists but they certainly wouldn't classify themselves or qualify as Arminians!

I stand by my original admonishment.

Me too - you owe it to yourself and those you engage on these forums to clearly define what form of Calvinism you're associated with. First, I take it that you ascribe to all 5 points of TULIP. Second, are there any particular authors/teachers that you regard as best reflecting your own beliefs (John Gill, A.W. Pink, Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, etc)?