Featured A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration

No. He's acknowledging the biblical mystery that while God is sovereign, man is still responsible, and as I've stated many, many times, the greatest pastor of the 19th century, Charles Spurgeon, preached consistently on God's sovereignty yet called on men to pray for their salvation. One has to see a level of requirement for man to act in order for that to be valid teaching. Spurgeon wasn't a heretic, was he?

 

No, as many regard him as one of the greatest baptists to ever have lived!

So he would see that God has absolute knowledge of all future events, and that scriptures can record what was already fixed by Him to happen?

 

I agree with Spurgeon. I also believe that the Doctrine of Election yet the full accountability of man for sin is a Divine mystery. I believe it is a mystery that man must accept just as he must accept the mystery of the Virgin Birth and the Triune Nature of God.When people are unable to accept these mysteries then they often drift into heresies such as Unitarianism, Universalism, Open Theism and some of the cults.

God tells us that we will not be able to comprehend Him. If we could He would not be God. I can not even understand myself!

 

So far as that goes, yes, absolutely. What I believe the article says -- what Spurgeon believed -- is best explained by the article itself:

Molina's doctrine has profound implications for divine providence. It enables God to exercise providential control of free creatures without abridging the free exercise of their wills. I find the article fascinating, because it describes the beliefs that I have long held, that God does not abrogate free will by choosing some "vessels" for destruction, as many Calvinists read -- I believe, erroneously -- Romans 9:22 that God has determined some will be saved and some will not. That doesn't fit God's character. But having these "moments" of knowledge, for lack of a better word, leaves room for His absolute sovereignty while making man responsible to answer to the gospel one way or the other.

 

If ONLY God Himself though has absolute free will, than mankind does not possess that, would that change this viewpoint any?

 

I have read thru your link, but still seems as if he is denying absolute sovereignty of God in order to retain man having real and full free will, as he does not see God fixing/predeterming future events by prophecy, but more like fluid and accomadating our free will responses!

 

Am I wrong though about this, as it does seem a might effort being made to maintain the myth of man having true and full 'free will?"

 

If Spurgeon is right, it's not a myth. Within the framework of the world God created, and given His unwillingness to force Himself on anyone, and accepting that He did not create some for salvation and others for destruction -- as I believe He did not -- then free will exists beyond just the day to day ability to plan out our life activities. It exists within His framework to accept or deny His truth.

 

true free Will was lost by the fall of Adam though, as all are now born corrupted and effected by Sin, and sinners as we now are are limited and constrained as to what we can now 'freely choose" to do!

can freely choose, but not able to choose everything to do now!

 

It never ceases to amaze me that someone will claim a high degree of intellectual understanding, then would have the audacity to criticize philosophical logic as if his theological system is void of it, while virtually simultaneously arguing for a philosophical definition of Divine sovereignty to which he refers to it as “absolute sovereignty” under the presupposition that this “absoluteness” must logically consists of "Deterministic Sovereignty". IOWs going about to supposedly rationally (less any philosophically structured reasoning ) claim a premise that “absolute sovereignty” = “deterministic sovereignty” to begin his argument against the article after declaring his intelligence and discounting any rational thinking principles of philosophy. What is astounding is the ability to “read through the link” but still ignore all reasoning which addresses claims and issues (premises) and draws upon “logically true conclusions” (“philosophy”!) and simply go about repeating dogma (“bring down the level of conversation to the mundane and boorish.”) and use phrases like “absolute sovereignty”!!!

Yet, the whole article discusses, defines and explains Divine sovereignty as Providential Sovereignty in order to maintain the human freedom necessary to avoid the theological fatalism, which is due to the unwavering adherence of a view of hard/strict determinism, by which any rational thinker who wishes to logically maintain all the attributes of God should seriously consider. As per MK being heretical the view of Hard Determinism logically disregards the Divine attribute of God’s being as Only Good and is just as heretic if not more heretical than the view of Open Theism’s logical disregard for divine foreknowledge, both systems forego the Divine Nature of God, that is why they have more in common with each other than a view of middle knowledge which argues to maintain all of God’s attributes. Craig even discusses “Historical Precedents” …but of course this is ignored...

The article does a good job of explaining the complexities of divine foreknowledge to non-fatalistically maintain the attributes of both God and man while also maintain divine sovereignty. You’d think the Calvinist/TULIPer/Deterministic Sovereigntrist/DoG/whatever they want to call themselves might begin to consider their definition of “absolute sovereignty” to be compatible with “Divine Providential Sovereignty” and appreciate the view that Middle Knowledge maintains divine sovereignty and human freedoms as well the traditional doctrine of the plenary, verbal, confluent inspiration of Scripture as a coherent doctrine while avoiding theological fatalism…BUT NO!
Instead we get, “you’re denying absolute sovereignty of God in order to retain man having real and full free will” in total disregard of the fatalism of NOT maintaining human free will and hear simplistic dogmatic terms like “absolute sovereignty” and “full free will”… same old mundane diatribe without any recognition or even trying to define divine attributes apart from strict deterministic systematic presuppositions.

Thanks for sharing the article QF, Craig’s explanation of God providentially preserving His Word lines up very well as it works to maintain all the truths of God’s Nature and His Loving purposes in creating man.

 

Why not just state the biblical truth, that God ALONE has real and full Free Will to do as he propses, as he has no limitations based upon a corrupt and fallen nature as we all now do?

 

So it is not fair or right that God has the final say in history, and as to whom will be saved by His grace amd mercy?

 

Disagree completely, as does Craig, as does Quantum, as did Spurgeon. Read the article. I can tell you haven't, because you're not asking the right questions or making the right comments. No offense.

 

man cannot choose to do things beyong his own inate capibility, as he is now a sinful creature, whose very nature precludes him the means to choose things, such as making a chose to stop sinning, or to get saved, as his abse nature is at ementy against God, and prefers to "have its own way!"

you seem to minimize the extent of the fall...

 

How is it you fail to understand that there is no contradiction in our view that we must make a decision based on God's sovereign enabling of us to do so?

You seem to refuse to understand the Craig article, or the alternative interpretations of Calvin that disagree with yours.