Featured Molinism Differentiated from Calvinism

Took the words right out of my mouth…

HT, I'll refer you back to post #10, especially:

Rather than waste my time chasing this rabbit again.

 

The in-consistencies you find between my explanation of Molinism and Ben's are only because Ben sometimes thinks way faster than he types, and sometimes his thoughts get a little lost in translation. He knows this, he says as much, and he and I do not give different definitions of Molinistic teaching. Sometimes there is a "turn of phrase" so to speak, with which Benjamin might be caught with his verbiage....

If you actually listen to Ben........(he isn't even particularly committed to Molinism either)...but, he has some respect for it, and he bothers to study it's contentions from time to time. Ben isn't ALWAYS perfect in his articulation........He says so, but you don't listen.
If you are unable to understand where he is coming from when that happens, and you can't draw out the ultimate meaning of his posts....but merely can harp upon any place wherein he "articulated himself" somewhat insufficiently, then go you..........You win the argument. You win all arguments from here on out

I can....I can understand the thrust of Ben's meaning when he does make some minor errors in articulation...You either can't, or simply won't, in which event, you are being dis-ingenuous to copy/paste individual statements wherein there might be some mis-communication.
Two Thumbs DOWN.

 

No, he jumped out the ring and left town on this issue I covered in detail - shortly after also avoiding being shown to be incorrect on the matter of whether OT surrenders on holding on to Divine foreknowledge - only to return later on it with beginning yet another circular argument on the same subject.

​

Clearly Molinism does not ascribe to that God pre-determined the actual worlds in which man would exist. My quotes of Keathley and WLC in the post I referred to both confirm this. I never said they articulate it exactly like me but if they do not think it is pre-determined that only leaves one option concerning when.

 

I have not been "keeping up" with the dialogue here, but the statement you reference regarding Benjamin, sounds much akin to the collapsing wave function notion in quantum physics. Don't know if that advances anything or not, just thought I would interject that additional "random chaos".

In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer. It is one of two processes by which quantum systems evolve in time, according to the laws of quantum mechanics as presented by John von Neumann.[1] The reality of wave function collapse has always been debated, i.e., whether it is a fundamental physical phenomenon in its own right[2] or just an epiphenomenon of another process, such as quantum decoherence.[3] In recent decades the quantum decoherence view has gained popularity and is commonly taught at the graduate level (e.g. Cohen-Tannoudji's standard textbook[4]). Collapse may be understood as an update in a probabilistic model, given the observed result. The quantum filtering approach[5] [6] [7] and the introduction of quantum causality non-demolition principle[8] allowed for a derivation of quantum collapse from the stochastic Schrödinger equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

 

You gonna just keep repeating this without refuting what I have presented?!?

​

 

“Humble-Thinker”:

When I said “one might think of it as”, the “it” is defined as a form of Middle Knowledge and the way that view (and my view) lines up is with the same conclusions as the published Molinists you asked about but seem to want identical words from. Ridiculous! I am simply offering an explanation which is in line with the Molinist view; you seem to have a problem with that. Molinists do not see God’s foreknowledge as a predestined before time event but more as a type of infinitely ongoing knowledge. It isn’t about just my view; I haven’t yet, but could expand with even more detail on the “how” citing MY belief of a Trinitarian factor being involved (a middle knowledge factor) which allows for God’s interaction with His creatures within time; but the point is IF the worlds are not actualized before creation, (which BTW leads into an infinite number of possible worlds as vast as the depth of God's knowledge), that these worlds have not yet come (actualized) then they come within time, this goes hand in hand with LFW. So what’s your argument? That I don’t put it exactly the same way as published Molinist to get to the same conclusion, so what?!? Give me another conclusion other than it being pre-destined that doesn’t involve present time???

I have made it clear, and Hos has reminded you that I don’t call myself a Molinist, maybe I should but there is no set in stone systematic theology that I approve of which spells out the details and lays out a general guideline for Molinism, but I am very close to having the same conclusions and I agree with many of the premises which argue for a Middle Knowledge.

I believe, #1, that it is necessary for God’s creatures to have volition for God’s true judgment of them, for these judgments to be according to ‘their’ actions, in order to be “True” righteous judgment (Deut 32:4) – So, #1, God IS Truth, therefore His judgment is in truth – this necessitates the creatures ability to choose (creaturely volition).

Molinism expresses a belief in LFW and does not believe in determinist’ views of pre-destination. (I am in agreement with Molinism on these issues.)

What I don’t understand is why you think you need to hear the exact same claim explained in the exact same way as from the mouth of a published theologian to be able to agree with my premise which leads to the same conclusion? You present a very weak argument (for OT ) by basing it on such things. I demonstrated the conclusion can be no other by their own words in that they do not believe in predestination of these worlds which are to be actualized. Now, do you think WLC and Keathley make all the same claims to explain God possessing a MK exactly the same way? Get real. Again, the point is, which I have demonstrated and you have ignored, is that both these men DO NOT believe in pre-destination. So your premise that they believe differently than I and to insist that they believe that these worlds in which we are to live were actualized (pre-determined) before creation is clearly a false representation of “Molinism”! You have resorted to this tactic before (and I’ve addressed before but you bugged out) and IMO it boils down to you making a weak attempt to support OT as the only “valid” way, which is without Divine foreknowledge, while turning a blind eye to the claims and conclusions that Molinism actually argue for. It’s like you can’t understand how Molinism can work so you resort to saying they don’t argue to maintain Divine foreknowledge or try to liken to them to Calvinist/Determinist views.

I really think you need to consider these things and then jump the fence and come on over to a respectable view.

That said, back to the direct topic:

Honestly, what is your motive for comparing Molinism to Calvinism anyway as it relates to foreknolwedge or pre-destination? These views clearly have black and white differences. Do you think Molinists agree that God’s knowledge should be defined in a way that classical/closed theism defines it which is “God foreknew all things, therefore He determined all things.”? If you do I got news for you!

Obviously this (Determinism) is the root of Calvinism by which all 5 points of the TULIP must stand, but this differs greatly from the belief of Molinist’ Arminians who hold to creaturely volition as a truth.

Arminians believe God left open the choices of man so that they can be able to freely respond to His influences …but Arminians do not use the word “Open” as in God isn’t Omniscient in the way OVT does and Molinism argues toward a MK to avoid such implications. BTW, herein lies another reason for disassociation, we are using the word “open” in a totally different light and would not want to be thought of as rejecting Divine foreknowledge.

 

Correct.........Detailed.......and well-spoken. :thumbs: :jesus: Unfortunately, it will not (probablistically speaking) help to resolve the mis-understandings that either Calvinists or Open Theists have regarding "Middle-Knowledge". What truly bothers ME is that the objections that "Open Theists" have with a Molinistic explanation are generally the same objections that true-blue Calvinists have.....You guys have so much in common with Calvinists.....that you should be writing articles about how "Open-Theism" should be considered a sub-set of Calvinism...........not Arminianism.

Open Theists have so much Calvinism running through their veins that they fail to see the forest because of their expertise on the trees.....
"Open Theists" can battle against Calvinism all they want, but their objections to Molinism are PRECISELY the same objections that Calvinists have to it, and this includes you HT, and also includes other Open Theists like Van...
There is no Open Theist in the world who has an objection to Molinism which is unique to an Open Theist Model which differentiates in any way to any objection levelled by Calvinists....At least Calvinists usually admit to being Calvinists...........
Ben could not have been much more accurate or succint with his post....but it will go no-where.

This forum will only expose one possible truth, if we pay attention, and that is, that "Classical Arminians", "Molinists" and "Calvinists" all at least are willing to admit when their respective Theological Systems agree with one another, and can usually differentiate their differences......... and "Open Theists" Can't.......The "OT objections to Molinism are precisely the same (generally) as those of Calvinists....You have WAY more in common with Cals on that issue than you do with Arminians....

Thus, yet one more area wherein Open Theists and Arminians are in dis-agreement, and cannot therefore reconcile themselves to each other.

BTW...........not every "Open Theist" is desperate to join the ranks of "Arminianism" either......Ask Van's opinion about Arms!!!!

 

And took far to long to straighten out to get that way.

Thanks, glad you appreciate it; it passes the time. Off to finish preparing the ranch for 28 guests tomorrow. Happy Thankgiving!

 

And a Happy Thanks-giving to YOU!!!!

I am still gonna get in touch with you about a dogo.....but, I have to clear it up with "land-Lord" first......Ughhhh.:tear:

 

Compatibilism argues that our programing, i.e. the consequence of the fall, dictates our apparent choices such at we always choose not to seek God or trust fully in Christ. Molinism argues we are not pre-programed to run from God, rather we are able to make choices according to the circumstances we encounter. God arranges these circumstances, such at we freely make the choice He sovereignly desires.

What is the same is that God, either through pre-programing, or by arranging the circumstances we encounter where we exercise free will, determines the outcome of our choices. Both views are simply Trojan horses for exhaustive determinism, i.e. the pig of exhaustive determinism with two shades of lipstick.

They are "moving the goal post" arguments that are used to push exhaustive determinism, but scripture denies the underlying premise. Things sometimes happen by chance, rather than by God's purpose driven arrangement of circumstance to cause His desired specific outcome, thus Molinism is unbiblical. Unregenerate fallen men seek God and fully trust in Christ all through the Bible so "total spiritual inability" smeared with compatibilism's shade of lipstick is also unbiblical.

 

Okay, fine with me.

Ah, hold up, I see where you’re trying to take this as you begin this comaprison and I’m not going to begin running through this smokescreen trying to pull you out of every rabbit hole you can jump into concerning Calvinist’ original sin doctrines leading into Total Depravity, Unconditional election and Irresistible Grace you are about to try to assign these to Molinism in a roundabout way by making a comparison to Calvinist Compatibilism conclusions – I’ll give you that these Calvinist doctrines unavoidably lead to and hinge on exhaustive determinism, but none of these line up with Molinist’ Arminian thought; ...see below (B). (Herein you have presented an example of beginning your argument on the aforementioned strawman, - misrepresenting that Molinist would conclude that all men are not designed in a way that they will all fall short by nature - apart from from the "real" ability (LFW) to respond to the influences of God)

(A) Maybe you can show me an in-context Molinist’ argument that begins with what you say is their premise (LFW) and ends with your conclusion (according to God’s sovereign exhaustive determinist desires)? I’d actually like to see how that is done.

For the sake of argument, so that you are not putting words into “my” mouth, I’ll just clue you in how I begin to deal with the fall of man in “brief” (hard to keep brief) simple terms – All men will fall short of God’s righteousness, this comes from the beginning of creation when man, all Adam/all mankind being made in His likeness and image if you will (having been Divinely designed with creaturely volition) choose to disobey God and gain knowledge because of their desire to be like little gods (Gen 3:22) and to know/judge between good and evil and will inevitably shall fall short of God, ...okay, there is but Only One God, One that is Good, One King by and of which judgment is perfectly righteous and He shall judge all things on Earth and in Heaven which are His …again, therefore all men shall fall short in their judgment between good and evil and thereby fall short of being in God’s Perfect Kingdom for eternity. But, Glory be to our Loving Creator that He had a plan/a foundational loving promise for His creatures and made a Great sacrifice in Grace for those volitional creatures He Divinely designed which involves dying to our will (desires to be little gods in our knowledge of which we will fall short) and living according to His Will. He provided a Way for all His creatures, which is through the Spirit of Christ, He provided from the beginning of creation the influences in the world (tree of life, the Way) along with the ability of reason (tree of knowledge) so that we could respond and He will justly judge us in the matter according to our responses in our love of the truths of His Grace which He provide for all to see the Light of, and thereby we (all of us) may be with Him as sons and daughter for eternity in His Kingdom. He knows our hearts, and I am confident that in His Loving Grace He will provide all the circumstances whereby He will judge our responses to His influences justly in the prefect (Deut 32:4) and very good world He created. (Gen 1:31).

Again, this is “my” explanation, if you can understand where I’m going with it :tonofbricks:, and it is only offered to generalize and support how “I” hold to LFW and deal will our Divinely designed nature to fall, our abilities and God’s foundational promises and Just judgment to and on all. This is to say I am in line with the Molinist views of LFW and Creaturely volition, that’s all, it is NOT offered as a sidetracking smokescreen and again to draw back to the actual issue, I challenge you to show a Molinist argument to the contrary of (A).

…Circumstances which are unlimited according to the judgments of God as we go through life as volitional creatures.

And God sovereignly desires that all men should repent of their "own will" (to be little gods and judge between good and evil, if you will) and is longsuffering in giving us the circumstances to know and chose Him (2Pet 3:9) and His Judgment in this matter is thoroughly based on that He has provided the opportunity for all to have the circumstances they needed (Rom 1:20-22) to repent of their of their will rather than to chose to NOT glorify Him as God and be thankful for their creation …and His Justice in the matter of giving them the ability and opportunity (circumstances) to repent will be accordingly, as (Deut 32:4) proclaims that “all His way are judgment in Truth”. (again, you are back to your premise of falsely comparing LFW to Exhaustive Determinism while ignoring that Molinism argues for “Middle Knowledge” which refutes that God has pre-determined sovereign desires interfering with LFW, you like HT ride on the presumption and attempt to falsely liken this to Calvinist and/or OT thought concerning Divine Foreknowledge) (B):

This is where your misunderstanding I mentioned begins as your premise is misleading and ignores the principles Molinism argues for, in effect you are resorting to building a strawman (misstating the Molinist’ view and then attacking that (your) view of them) therefore your conclusion is false after being built on this strawman (false premise(s)).Get it yet?

Same false conclusion built on the same false premises while going back on making your argument of the merits of Compatibilism, based on “their” views of original sin and inability (which I somewhat would agree the goalpost analogy on, for compatibilism; read my signature) but Molinism argues for LFW! So again, you are trying to assign (build another strawman) onto Molinism in trying to rest “your” false comparison of Molinism to what I would agree is the logical conclusions of Compatibilism which differs on these on the all-important issue of true LFW.

BTW, it is an unethical meaningless rhetoric debate tactic that you would resort to calling Molinism “unbiblical” especially with you holding to OT and I’m not going down that contentious rabbit trail of tit for tat. Just sayin.


Your argument for OT by misrepresenting Molinism doesn't even begin to get off the ground.

 

There is no real free will option though left for the creation of god, including humanity, after the fall though!

So ANY system that persumes that we still freely decide with open ended choices is NOT a system that would be true to scripture!

 

Your argument:

Basically an expressed belief in a system rooted in total inability (void of free will) relating it to the fall, (“so”) therefore you declare that any one that disagrees with your system is not true to scripture.

That friend is not actually even an argument, logically speaking, it is a statement and to boot is self-contradicting in that it neglects that it reflects that your belief begins through a systematic theology! And it is simply an textbook example of begging the question (fallacy)! Your “argument” uses the type reasoning and debate skills, the type of response I would more expect to see from the mentality of an ornery child, such as: “This is the way I see it so ANY system that NOT in agreement with my system is NOT true to scripture!”

 

lets see!

is the lord sovereign or not?

IF he is the true God, by necessity ONLY his Will is the Supreme One, correct?

And wouldn't mankind and creation being in nw a fallen, cursed condition NOT be functioning as it once did?

it doesn't make ANY biblical or even logical sense to have real full free will, for cannot a Supreme being have the choice to have hios Will getting done regardless of ours?

"All kness will bow, all tongues confess jesus as lord" and dount most woulod do that of their own "free violation!"

 

How does any of that address the topic at hand or my reply about the fallacious and childish argument you interjected with? Now, go be a good little Determinist and seek some attention and try to derail a thread somewhere else, would you?

 

Here is the jumble of incoherent thought offered by Ben to deny God arranges the circumstances we encounter so that His desired outcome occurs.

1) If God arranges circumstances that result in us freely choosing God's desired outcome of salvation, then all men would be saved.

2) I did not compare LFW to exhaustive determinism, I compared Molinism with Exhaustive Determinism and found no actual difference in results, but only in method.

3) It is a strawman to say God interferes with LFW, since God knows what we will choose given a circumstance and then arranges the circumstance such that we freely, with no compulsion, choose as God knew we would choose.

Bottom line, no amount of incoherent verbiage will alter the fact that Molinism is simply a Trojan horse for Exhaustive Determinism.