Featured Molinism Differentiated from Calvinism

That is one of the best answers to the question. It could also be the answer to the following two points:
1. The insanity of 24/7 Calvinism-free will threads
2. Why there are so many denominations

 

Somehow I missed this thread until now.

Molinism (or "middle knowledge" as it is often called) does not compliment the DoG. Some believe that it does because it paints God has having knowledge of future events, something the the DoG teaches. What Molinism does not do is to ascribe to God His role as the first cause of future events. Foreknowing and causation are defined differently by some theologians. There are those who hold to the foreknowledge view of salvation (God looking down the corridor of time and electing those who chose Him). Molinism has more in common with that view than the DoG when it comes to election. That Molinism was the brainchild of a Jesuit priest (Luis de Molina), who was active in the counter-Reformation, makes it easier to distance it from the DoG.

 

1) Yes, I deny that God has “determined” His desired outcome onto all man through arranging circumstances, to believe such would void the volition of His creatures! As a matter of fact in reply to your strawman scheme, or maybe I should say your continual display of misunderstanding and misrepresenting your opponents view to support your false premises and come to your false conclusions (all these expressions sound better than calling it your “lies” so I’ll continue on that note) Maybe we should slow down here. I broke down and pointed to your “misrepresentations”. Here is an example:

Maybe I should have taken one thing (“issue” concerning your claims) at a time. A good place to have started is at the beginning of your first claim. Above I have underlined (#1) for you.

I must have gone too fast so let me spell it out for you what my intensions were. The first thing I addressed was your “strawman” - meaning your imposing a misrepresentation of Molinist’ thought on the fall of man. To be precise, you did this by using the rather crude, which could also be considered ambiguous semantically designed “words”, which have further meanings, which often tend to try to escape the full meaning of what you are directly trying to designate onto Molinism. These “words” were that Molinism argues that we are “not pre-programmed to run from God” as in to imply Molinism does not hold to a belief that all men are fallen.

Taking the first issue, at the very beginning of your argument, “Molinism argues we are not pre-programed to run from God,” is NOT a “true” statement. Thereby your argument begins with a “misrepresentation” of your opponents view and this should not be built upon. So that is the first point I addressed.

Since you obviously must have missed this important point, relating to the first issue of your claim, being you didn’t respond to it, (avoided it) let me translate for you what you missed because of my incoherent methods…I said to “hold up” on this first issue (I said you are beginning your premise with a “strawman/misrepresentation”). Yes, in just the first few words of your premise you had begun on what some might refer to as a “disingenuous misrepresentation” of your opponents thought to support your “argument” and I addressed that, but I’ll simply call it a “strawman” which means it is misrepresenting your opponents’ view and then that misrepresentation is in turn used to be attacked instead of what the opponents’ view actual is.

“It” (“misrepresentation” on issues leading to claims) are often avoided by one not wanting to draw out the truth in a debate and are commonly used form a smokescreen by raising multiple issues, avoiding addressing them and waiting to see what they can be pinned down on any of them before they will quit saying it - This is often referred to as “rabbit holing” and it turns the debate into a game of “catch me if you can” type of argument which is not geared at drawing out the truth in a debate but on whether they can be caught while they go about avoiding these many issues on whether or not they are true.

Now, if this (any of these tactics) is done purposely, …weeell, that gets into ethical issues concerning how one goes about to win a type of “argument” that is not based on logic. Since the issue I’m trying to get to is about your claim about Molinism we won’t go there; again, my objective in this debate was not centered on my opponents’ poor personal ethics to win the argument. I really don’t need to attack your personal ethics to draw out the truth in this debate. And anyway, if I were to focus just on the ethics of my opponents it just turns everything into a personal fight and SILLY ME! I come here to this board trying debate theology ethically and logically and would prefer to avoid these personal insults. Funny, that I would think that possible here, as if this were an actual debate board with some rules and ethics concerning logical debate with real goals at getting to the truths, eh?

In reality I’d be willing to start by just focusing on the first issue of your claim. Sometimes that is hard to do because people just want to make their statements, insult, argue and fight on a board like this instead of dealing with the issues within claims upon which they build their premises and form their conclusions, which is what is involved if one really wishes to argue logically for the truths. I’m sure none of long sentence made since to you, so nevermind.

So, anyway, I’ll just point to this must be a “misunderstanding” on your part and a lack of being able to write coherently on my part if you still believe Molinist thought on this single issue is that “all men are not fallen”.

Is this translation coming through to you yet? Let me take it real slow and make an attempt to explain once more thoroughly; I broke down the first part of argument, the first issue in your claim leading to your premise and showed it to be false. That is what one does in debate if he trying to draw out the truth in his opponents’ argument which typically consists of claims and issues in his premises to come to a conclusion.

You see the objective in debate “should be” to get to the truth in the matter and you can’t do that if you’re starting your argument off with falsities.

Some people don’t care about getting to the truth, as in, what “should be” the objectives in a logical argument, they just want to ignore their issues they’ve raised by which they make claims, they just want keep repeating what they have said, while continuing making their claims leading to their premises in a disingenuous way and often these tactics are used throughout the debate so that they can think of themselves as holding to their conclusion…and thereby they think they have won the argument!

So Van, I see you did not even deal with any of the arguments I made against the issues you raised to make claims and are now merely repeating the same things while saying my entire argument was “incoherent” jumble. I have obviously wasted my time here on this board once again trying to break down this argument and dealing with the issues raised, so please forgive my rushing through all that and expecting to be answered as if any of it could be understood. I am sure it, the whole argument I made about the way you came to your conclusion was “incoherent” in the way I put it and it is all my fault that absolutely no progress has been made toward drawing out the truth in this debate. I’ll have to give it to you then because I obviously haven’t proved anything you said is false…YOU WIN! – on the bottom line claim that I failed to debate in a coherent way! The arguments of Molinism rests on exhautive determinism and not on LFW as you have proved with your "argument".

After all, there could be no other conclusion than yours relating to exhaustive determinism if one believes God's Divine foreknowledge is Omniscient. HOW ABOUT THAT?!?

 

Friend, you don't know me. Why did you accuse me of lying? I use the term "doctrines of grace" to separate my beliefs from the parts of Calvinism that I do not agree with (namely, baptism and ecclesiology). You may disagree with my premise and conclusion, but does that automatically make me a liar?

 

Hos,
The use of the word...determinism...betrays a misunderstanding of the teaching of grace.Instead it would place a non biblical fatalism in the place of God's decreed purpose.
Those who lack understanding of the biblical teaching use this term in a misguided effort to undermine it.
That they misunderstand elements of the teaching does not constitute lying on the part of reformed brethren.

 

Friend, it wasn't personal, and I meant no direct offense, but frankly, I have no patience for any pretense that only a Calvinistic Soteriology is a Soteriology of Grace. Whoever initially began using that dis-honest trick did the whole world an ill-turn...I don't think those accostomed to using the term are dis-honest though, and that would mean you. I mean that the terminology was a lie when coined, and anyone who uses it, is inadvertently parrotting a bald-faced lie. What if Arminians had laid claim to the term "GRACE"? Whether it is meant to be dis-ingenuous or not, it was a disgusting ill-turn when Calvinists began coining their doctrine the "Doctrines of Grace"....it automatically implies that anyone who disagrees with them on particulars doesn't.....By definition, that also would mean that they are not saved. I don't mean to suggest that you personally are dis-honest or anything else...I only meant it generally. But, I have no qualms stating that it is a LIE to state that the unique claims of Calvinism are THE "Doctrines of Grace"...Lots of people believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith....Most snake-handlers believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith Alone....Not just Determinists....

 

"Determinism" is not a term used to disparrage Calvinism...nor does it betray a mis-understanding. It doesn't neccessarily imply "fatalism" either... You once posted a diatribe by Boettner wherein he be-laboured the idea that "Determinism" was not, in fact, "Fatalism". If that be so, than "Determinism" does not imply "Fatalism". Strictly speaking, "Determinism" is a term often embraced by Calvinists, whereas obviously, "Fatalism" isn't.
Neither notion, though, has anything whatsoever to do with "Grace".

 

You're representing two different groups here. The first could include the classic semi-Pelagianist who cooperates with God in salvation. This sort of free will corrupts grace. If I were to go the inflammatory route I could call this a lie. The second group would be the Calvinists or DoG'ers. If there are DoG'ers that are snake-handlers, well, I'm happy to hear they have a biblical soteriology, but I can't say I endorse such reckless behavior.

Well, this is a bit better. It's nice to know I'm not personally being called a liar. Your visceral reaction to the term is hard to understand. I know the words you're using; they make sense. It's the reason you wrote them that escapes me. Both sides can use the same argument. I can call the terms you use to describe your point of view "lies" and those who hold to them as "liars." Of course, you'll disagree, just as I disagree about your opinion on the DoG. The only thing it really accomplishes is more inflammatory rhetoric and a "bunker down" mentality.

I've had a hard time on the Baptist Board. There have been times when I've allowed my normally cherub-like demeanor to be usurped by a sharp-tongued zealot who has succeeded only in offending people. I'm very sorry for that and recognize it as a sinful practice that I need to repent of daily. That doesn't mean I can't participate in a hard-hitting debate, but I need to check my motivation. I can't take threads personally. That's why I had to swallow hard before responding to your recent post; especially to your comments on the DoG.

The DoG is not a back-handed pejorative against those who believe differently. In other words, just because we the term doctrines of grace does not mean we think others don't believe in grace. It's a description of what we believe. It is a positive term, unlike "determinist" which I believe is a negative term. It is a teaching on grace (doctrine = teaching). The inference of "grace alone" is strong. The free will position (as commonly defined) does not teach grace alone. The way free will is defined nullifies grace alone. Yes, I know you disagree with that, but that's one of the systemic differences between both camps.

For the sake of peaceful participation I choose to overlook being called a determinist. I overlook the claims of those on your side who believe they hold to grace by faith alone. I'll just deal with the substance of the argument and try to avoid ratcheting up the tone. It's not easy, especially with my personality.

 

Hi Ben, thanks for conceding that Molinism simply says God arranges the circumstances of our lives such that we freely choose the outcomes He desires. I believe we are fallen, but we may disagree with the affect of being fallen has on our ability to understand the milk of the gospel. I say, with Paul, men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel, but not the spiritual things discerned only with the help of an indwelt Holy Spirit.

Turning to the problem of evil, if God exhaustively determines whatsoever comes to pass, God becomes the author of sin. But Molinism offers a ruse to obscure this difficulty. If we freely choose to sin, then God is not the author of sin. So, using middle knowledge, if God arranges circumstances by which we freely choose to sin, then, the argument goes, God is not the author of sin. Thus, Molinism simply offers a "moving the goal post" argument to obscure the fact that God is the author of sin. The other effort to obscure this inconvenient truth of the Exhaustive Determinism view, is Compatibilism, where the fall pre-programmed us to always in any circumstance run from God.

 

Of course you know my conceding was rhetorical being directed at that there is no way to draw out the truth in a “logical argument/debate” with someone who just wishes to repeat himself, not deal with issues ethically and is just here to “argue”? IOWs, since that is your only desire, winning an argument at the cost of avoiding getting to the truth, I’ll let you claim victory in that type of “argument” because I’m not interested in pursuing the type of "argument where people hide behind a keyboard while using such tactics on a board like this; so thanks for the acknowledgment and confirmation that you’re grateful to receive this type of win while you once again display how you ignore the issue at hand in doing so. Enjoy, the “victory”! You're welcome!

But no, God desires that all men be saved (as I have already stated along with giving an explanation of how that can and must work according to scripture relating to the Truth in His justice in judgment based on our responsibility to respond - another issue to which you have completely ignored with the use of your "bottom line claim" - man! You showed me!), so obviously He does not determine his desires to be ours (unless you want to give up on the Omnipotence of God, as in He fails to accomplish His desires along with your rejection of His attaining Omniscience?) and thus Molinism argues for LFW along side Divine foreknowledge. Again, Molinism is a system that argues to maintain both the truth of LFW AND God's Omniscience and "simply says" no such thing that we choose according to the outcome of His desires! You just "simply" want to hold to that (strawman) explanation and to keep repeating your fallicious conclusion while thinking you have won by doing so!

P.S. I hope you'll understand if I don't jump on the rabbit trail of addressing the P.O.E with you. If you don't understand me not being interested in waisting my time on this you might refer back to post #44 for an explanation concerning smokescreening on raising multiple issues while ignoring those being addressed already.

 

On second thought about beginning the tactic of now "turning to the P.O.E", maybe I can put that fallacy to rest:

The Problem of Evil demonstrates logically that a belief in Determinism attributes evil onto God and thereby leads to theological fatalism. All Molinists argue for LFW so to point at the P.O.E. to use against Molinism fallaciously “Begs the Question” meaning the opponent is merely assuming that Molinists argue for Determinism for their own purposes -> (to try to win an illogical argument).

On that note: Now, I’m not saying I can’t understand “how” that one might assume such (Beg the Question) if it is “his” belief that LFW cannot exist along with God having Divine foreknowledge (even though a belief that God is not Omniscient is clearly unbiblical and attempting to strip God of that attribute leads straight into heresies) and since Molinism argues to maintain Divine foreknowledge he would therefore, according to “his” belief, come to the false conclusion that Molinism must rest on Determinism. But, I’m sure no one on this board would be that boneheaded and/or disingenuous enough to start trying to pin the consequences of the P.O.E., which are grounded on a belief of Determinism, onto Molinism since their arguments are clearly grounded in a belief which is strictly about maintaining LFW as a truth. I mean to attempt to raise such an issue would clearly have to begin on basing one’s claims…how shall I put it… on “misrepresenting” the beliefs and arguments of Molinism!

As has been pointed out in the thread, Calvinist/Determinist and Open Theist both believe that LFW cannot exist along with Divine foreknowledge and it is those two views which have much more in common with each other on this issue:

Calvinism holds to Determinism and not LFW and Open Theism sacrifices the Divine attribute of Foreknowledge and holds to LFW…Molinism holds to LFW and Divine Foreknowledge. It is obviously clear who has more in common because of Calvinist/Open Theist adherence to the Classical/Closed Theism belief that it must be true that: “God foreknew all things, therefore He determined all things.” Therefore God could not do both: provide LFW for His creatures and maintain Divine foreknowledge from the beginning of creation.

This issue has been ignored.

 

Ben, LOL.

Molinism is simply a ploy, a ruse, to avoid concluding that if we do not make autonomous choices where alternate outcomes are possible, then God is the author of sin. You have ignored, evaded and simply run away from the issue.

You were right, I took you at your word, being unable to tell when you were trying to say something your believed was true, and trying to say something that you did not believe was true. I pay no attention to your efforts to paint me as evil and dishonest and so forth, they are evidence of willingness to use logical fallacies to "win" an argument.
A waste of time.

Lets take this statement of yours:

Is this something you believe? I am guessing you do not.

Is this something you believe that I believe? I am guessing that you do.

However I believe God could arrange every circumstance of every life so that we would freely choose whatever God desired. I do not believe God did or does that, because God's word says things happen by chance.

Questions for you to answer, and I am pretty sure you will side step them:

1) If God arranged a circumstance where I would freely choose to sin, based on God's foreknowledge, does that make God the author of sin. I say yes.

2) Do fallen men of flesh have the spiritual ability to understand the milk of the gospel such that God would credit their faith in Christ as righteousness. I say yes.

 

Are you saying that Molinism believes in LFW and that this is necessary to avoid theories that conclude that God determined all things including the evil which exists in the world, i.e. and logically reach theological fatalism? Okay, duh…but you certainly haven’t shown Molinism being a ploy and I haven’t run from anything I’ve been right here not only dealing with all your rabbit trails but calling them out while I’ve gone about it.

So this is a “ploy” how??? Does not Open Theism argue the same thing (LFW = T) – only OT hinges their belief on how LFW can only be logically sustained by God in fact not foreknowing all things??? BTW, if you happen to disagree with this assessment I would be glad to quote some Open Theist acknowledging that they do not believe in Divine foreknowledge? I think it’s time for you to fess up.

What on Earth do you think I have been driving at?!? It is Open Theism has a serious problem in that they reject God’s Omniscient attributes! They do this BECAUSE they believe Divine Foreknowledge and LFW are mutually exclusive! Just like the Calvinist! On the same grounds – that if God Foreknew all things in creation then He had to determine all outcomes. Only difference is the Calvinist concludes that God did in fact determine all things and the Open Theist concludes that God didn’t foreknow all things, they take opposite sides on which one is true.

It is only Molinism that holds to that both are true: God is Omniscient and Divinely designed His creatures to have LFW.

No it has been your ploy throughout this thread to avoid this issue of why Molinism is a more respectable view than OT; this is because of OT shortcomings of foregoing God’s Omniscience, and you have also failed to acknowledge the comparison of how your view comes to the same conclusion that Calvinist do which is LFW and Divine Foreknowledge are mutually exclusive. Throughout this thread you have merely attempted to misrepresent Molinism’s argument for both LFW and Divine Foreknowledge on no other grounds than YOUR Open Theist’ belief that these two conditions cannot co-exist, …your belief concluding that “man has LFW so God is not Omniscient”.

You have not begun to address these issues or demonstrate how Molinism is incorrect other than to rely on repeating claims based on your Open Theist beliefs which I have thoroughly covered and pointed to, by submitting misrepresentations, oh, and a sorry attempt to pin the consequences of P.O.E. on Molinism based on the very same premises as above.

As has been pointed out in the thread in regards to the Op, Calvinist/Determinist and Open Theist both believe that LFW cannot exist along with Divine foreknowledge and it is those two views which have much more in common with each other on this issue. How could you have missed that issue relating to the Op?!?:

And here you give me the Open Theist belief agreeing with the Determinist once again:

As soon as you hinge those circumstances being contingent strictly on God’s desires and not through the choices/responses of men you have fallen back on determinism. AGAIN, I already addressed this issue of God’s desires, relating it coming circumstances according to God’s judgments etc. and to which you are once again “repeating” your messed up belief after having ignored what I said! AND you dare to come back on me on ignoring and talk about wasting time? Really?!

I have also addressed how this “by chance” or a belief of God truly leaving “open” the ability of man to freely respond to God’s influences as well as how it differs between OT and Molinist Arminians:

You think just like a Determinist as I have been demonstrating, the only difference is that attributing sin to God bothers you. You saying “yes” to your statement once again demonstrates that your OT belief is that LFW and God’s foreknowledge are mutually exclusive and your belief it can only equal determinism/attribute sin to God/lead to fatalism if otherwise. Molinism deals with how LFW and God’s foreknowledge can work together without it equaling determinism. You have said nothing new here that has not been thoroughly addressed and this further exposes how you come to your conclusion, and continues to show how you repeat things while ignoring what has already been said!

God made a world that was “very good” and He arranged for His creatures to have free will – this does not conclude that He “caused” them to sin by arranging the circumstances in the world that they would have LFW and could do so – responsibility for sinning is on all of us alone! I explained the circumstances of which we were designed and how “I” saw us bearing responsibility in our falling. You have ignored that I addressed that issue also.

All men have the ability to respond to the influences of God, they have the LFW to do so, AND AGAIN I have THOROUGHLY covered this issue while citing 2Pet 3:9, Rom 1:20, Deut 32:4 in the SAME post where I addressed the fall on man! You are going in circles repeating these things and haven’t begun to address my replies. So what if you say “yes”!? You act as if only your OT view can support the creature’s volitional attributes to respond to the influences that God gives all men and to which AGAIN I already covered! Maybe you would like tell how it is that only OT maintains this creaturely attribute and how this differs from Molinism’s view? Please do tell me what you base this on that is different than I already spelled out and addressed, several times!?

Anyway, I think I’m done here with you unless you have anything new because I’m coming to the conclusion that it isn’t that you see goalposts are moving it is that they are too high and far away for you to reach and expect you will just keep dropping the ball rather than try to kick the distance.

 

This is the greater current baptistic position, although since the extremes you mention are present and negatively affecting people non-Calvies and non-Arminies need to enter the ring and point out the unbiblical errors of them.

<Warning...Calvie attack>
Personally, I think the Calvinists should all go and lock themselves in at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and get little Calvie caps and Calvie paper plates and napkins and happily read and talk about Calvie till Jesus returns.
</Warning...Calvie attack>

 

I addressed that God can and does arrange circumstances to bring out what He desires to bring about. But I also addressed that if God brought about a specific circumstance where He knew we would freely choose to sin, then God is the author of that sin.

Folks, note that Ben did not answer the question with a yes or no, but with a claim it had been answered in the unreferenced past. LOL

So yet another evasion and claim that question has been answered. But no yes or no.

Ben seems to be a closed theist, obscuring the reality by offering a moving the goal posts argument. At the end of the day, we have several flavors of exhaustive determinism, such as Compatibilism, Secondary Causes and Molinism. So many shades of lipstick.

 

You're a funny guy. Since I can't take what you say seriously at least I can view you as comic relief.

 

I agree with Herald, Funny guy...

BTW, it should be noted that SBTS currently has 3 "Schools", and 2 of the deans are not 5-point calvinists...the third and newest (Zane Pratt) I think probably is, due more to having heard him speak, and seen his professional associations (Gospel Coalition), than knowing his specific views on the issue.

Also interesting to note, the ONE (probalby) calvinist is the dean of which school? The Evangelism School! He's also the one who moved his family to the middle east for many years to be a missionary. (just returned in 2011).

 

Ben, one of the most interesting things about Van's theology is that he has repeatedly said that there ARE certain sins that God DID know about and therefore predestine (peter's denial of Jesus, for example), but Van says that those unique specific sins are not punished by God, since he made them happen.

 

Great Post

Anytime I see someone saying what my position is without a quote, I cringe, since nearly 100% of the time my view is misrepresented. So you made my day and accurately presented my view.