-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Molinism Differentiated from Calvinism
- Thread starter humblethinker
- Start date
Folks, note that Ben did not answer the question with a yes or no,...
So yet another evasion and claim that question has been answered. But no yes or no.
Van, have you stopped hitting your wife yet? Yes or no?
:laugh:
As I said, it isn’t that you see the 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 (wont follow the argument) rather than try to kick the distance.
:wavey:
If God predetermines our choices, then that makes God the author of sinful predetermined choices. If God does not hold those predetermined sinful acts against us, then God is not the author of sin, because justified sinful acts are not sin. For example even though we sin, we are perfect, i.e. sinless, in Christ.
As I have explained before, do not think of "sin" as our thought or action, but rather the resulting debt that God's justice requires. So if God justifies us, then it is just as if we did not sin. The thought or act still happened but the consequence is forgiven and remembered no more forever. Another word used is redeemed. If we own a debt, and someone redeems us, He pays our debt. And at the bottom of the record of the transaction they then write, in Koine Greek, It is Finished. Another word is reconciliation, we receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's finished work on the cross when God credits our faith as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ.
Bottom line for God to punish people for the sinful thoughts or acts He predetermined we would do would be unjust. God is just. Therefore He is not the author of sin. The only solution is that God allows us to choose to miss the mark without directly or through some intermediate mechanism having predetermined our choice. Compatibilism, Molinism and Secondary Causes all fail to resolve this inconvenient truth.
That is an utterly insane notion. Maybe Molinism is inadequate, and maybe it doesn't cover all ground sufficiently for some or provide as holistic an explanation as some strange individuals might insist on....but that notion is absolutely insane.
I don't say that as an insult. I state it as a matter of course, that is the most in-conceivable notion I have ever heard....Ideas like this are birthed in the minds of college Sophomores, who are the proof that "a Little Knowledge" is indeed a dangerous thing. If that is a truly held idea........than there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to even bother engaging such a person in reasoned debate...anyone who could believe such a notion is beyond debate and immune to logic or reason. If I knew un-equivocally, that anyone thought like this, well, I would at least leave them alone for the rest of their lives as someone not even worthy of responding to. That is true insanity in the strictest sense. Tell me that N
NE actually thinks like this........That is an utterly insane notion. Maybe Molinism is inadequate, and maybe it doesn't cover all ground sufficiently for some or provide as holistic an explanation as some strange individuals might insist on....but that notion is absolutely insane.
I don't say that as an insult. I state it as a matter of course, that is the most in-conceivable notion I have ever heard....Ideas like this are birthed in the minds of college Sophomores, who are the proof that "a Little Knowledge" is indeed a dangerous thing. If that is a truly held idea........than there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to even bother engaging such a person in reasoned debate...anyone who could believe such a notion is beyond debate and immune to logic or reason. If I knew un-equivocally, that anyone thought like this, well, I would at least leave them alone for the rest of their lives as someone not even worthy of responding to. That is true insanity in the strictest sense. Tell me that N
See post #60 of this thread....
.............That.......I saw....I was merely hoping above hope that you had nonetheless actually mis-represented that viewpoint, and it was missed by any respondents. I cling to the hope that you have mis-represented such a viewpoint....don't prove me wrong, PUULLLEEEEZZZEE!!
raying:raying:Misrepresentation
I think post #63 presents the "insane notion" with clarity.
If a Dad says to his child, go to your room or I will carry you to your room, and either the child goes or is carried, would it follow that the Dad then punish the child for going to his room when he was compelled to go to his room. If that Daddy did, he would be insane.
I think post #63 presents the "insane notion" with clarity.
If a Dad says to his child, go to your room or I will carry you to your room, and either the child goes or is carried, would it follow that the Dad then punish the child for going to his room when he was compelled to go to his room. If that Daddy did, he would be insane.
It does indeed........and it is built upon this interesting premise:
That is absolutely NO DIFFERENT, in any way, than saying:
"Sin, is not Sin"
or
3 is not equal to 3
It is self-contradiction at the most BASIC and definitive level.......
Your analogy is an adequate representation of the flaws inherent in Calvinism.........
But it completely misses the point of either Classical Arminianism or Molinism, or any similar explanations, as N
THER viewpoint believes anything like what your analogy expresses....I think you fail to differentiate between what you think to be the logical consequences of a view, and what are the stated beliefs of such a view...Calvinism fits the mold of what your analogy suggests perfectly, other views simply DON'T........One must be able to successfully cogitate the difference between those two things before they use words like "mis-representation" or more technical terms like "straw-man"......Hi HOS, you really should read 1 John again and come to grips that in Christ, sinful acts are not sin. We are made perfect, faultless. OTOH if we say we do not sin, we are lacking being convicted of our sin by our indwelt Holy Spirit. Yet, at the same time, as born again children of God, we do not sin. So in Chapter three, we learn no one who abides in Christ sins, yet in Chapter one, we learn if we say we do not sin, we do not abide in Christ. This is not rocket science. Sometimes "sin" refers to the infraction, and not the thought or act.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Hi HOS, you really should read 1 John again and come to grips that in Christ, sinful acts are not sin. We are made perfect, faultless. OTOH if we say we do not sin, we are lacking being convicted of our sin by our indwelt Holy Spirit. Yet, at the same time, as born again children of God, we do not sin. So in Chapter three, we learn no one who abides in Christ sins, yet in Chapter one, we learn if we say we do not sin, we do not abide in Christ. This is not rocket science. Sometimes "sin" refers to the infraction, and not the thought or act.
I think you lost me in the first sentence.
Ever read where it says "should we sin so grace may abound, may it never be? Just because in Christ our sinful acts are justified such that it is just as if we did not sin, that does not mean we should not strive to be like Christ, and avoid sinful thoughts and acts. Compare 1 John 3:6 with 1 John 1:8. This is a very main stream orthodox view found in many commentaries.
Could you perhaps point us to ONE other living person who agrees with all of the following?
A. If God knows we will sin, then by definition God must have Determined and caused that sin...therefore God does not know whether we will sin or not.
B. BUT...God does know about, and therefore has pre-determined SOME sins (such as Peter's denial), but because he knew about and therefore determined that the person commit those sins, then they are not in fact sins...and therefore not deserving of punishment.
And also, while your at it, please answer the following question: (Yes or no will suffice)
"Would you then say that God IS the author of SOME sins?"
Well, Van, I guess you musta missed my “subtle hint” that sometimes “loaded questions” need to be broke down to be properly answered, but that’s …aight. And I'm afraid that could be my fault.:tear: I recently finished a Neurology class and I’m now more interested to see how well you’re going to follow this short argument we’ve had if I give you a second chance. I want to see how you’re coping so that I don’t feel bad if I demonstrate being a little impatient with you while actually being out of line with how I should be responding to you. This is like a test now so answer carefully because I want to see if you’re maybe willing to reconsider your thoughts on the subject matter …or not.
Remember the argument? Here it is just like it went down:
Now here’s comes the question which I would like you to answer for me, pretty please, according to the Biblical principles you have told me we should answer by, now don’t forget your reply to me about this. I’ll remind you one more time because I want to make sure if you are getting my point, or not:
All you have to do is hold to your former answer to me about on how the scripture teach us Biblical principles according to how we should a question, Van. If you do so genuinely I promise will take it much slower with you from now on having seen this misunderstanding was my fault. So come on! I’m daring you to stick to these principles you’ve brought up in reply my “subtle” hint! Answer my coming question, “Yes or NO”. That’s all I want from you. (Unless, of course you want to be humble and tell me that you’ve reconsidered your thoughts on the matter of how you replied to me.) Give it to me straight now, I can take it, don’t hold back, stick to your guns and answer with either a “yes” or a “no’! This is a simple request and shouldn’t be difficult for you.
I hope this isn’t too much to ask! Okay, here is the one simple question I want you to answer for me:
Van, have you stopped hitting your wife yet? Yes or no?
Okay, the ball has been passed to you. Are you going to drop it (the ball) or get into the game? I’m ANXIUOSLY waiting to see whether you are going follow to the aforementioned argument without reconsidering what you have said and/or if you are going stick to your principles of how a question should be answered which you say should be “yes’ or no’?
Remember the argument? Here it is just like it went down:
Now here’s comes the question which I would like you to answer for me, pretty please, according to the Biblical principles you have told me we should answer by, now don’t forget your reply to me about this. I’ll remind you one more time because I want to make sure if you are getting my point, or not:
All you have to do is hold to your former answer to me about on how the scripture teach us Biblical principles according to how we should a question, Van. If you do so genuinely I promise will take it much slower with you from now on having seen this misunderstanding was my fault. So come on! I’m daring you to stick to these principles you’ve brought up in reply my “subtle” hint! Answer my coming question, “Yes or NO”. That’s all I want from you. (Unless, of course you want to be humble and tell me that you’ve reconsidered your thoughts on the matter of how you replied to me.) Give it to me straight now, I can take it, don’t hold back, stick to your guns and answer with either a “yes” or a “no’! This is a simple request and shouldn’t be difficult for you.
I hope this isn’t too much to ask! Okay, here is the one simple question I want you to answer for me:
Van, have you stopped hitting your wife yet? Yes or no?
Okay, the ball has been passed to you. Are you going to drop it (the ball) or get into the game? I’m ANXIUOSLY waiting to see whether you are going follow to the aforementioned argument without reconsidering what you have said and/or if you are going stick to your principles of how a question should be answered which you say should be “yes’ or no’?
Last edited by a moderator:
Still asking but never agreeing?
A) Rather than pointing to one person who agrees with every position I hold, my claim is that lots of published sources agree with all my various positions.
A1) If God knows with certainly that we will commit a specific sin in the future, then that sin is predestined. Boettner agrees with this view.
A2) Does God know we will sin in a general sense because we are able to choose to sin and because of the corruption of the fall, predisposed to sin? Yes Paul wrote by the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners.
A3) If God has chosen not to know beforehand whether we will choose life or death with certainty, then we are able to make an autonomous choice that has not been predestined.
Boyd agrees with this view.
B1) God knows with certainty what He predestines, thus when God says something will occur in the future, i.e. a prophecy, then that act is predestined, and God will cause that event to occur. Boettner agrees with this.
B2) If God has predestined that a person sin, then those thoughts and acts are still sinful thoughts and acts, but God does not "throw the flag" i.e. declare an infraction against God. The view, that God can "justify" the unjust is held by Paul. An example can be found in Acts where those culpable for sending Christ to His death. Recall that Jesus said forgive them, they know not what they do. Thus if God put a veil over the minds of those sending Christ to the cross, what they did was in ignorance brought about by God. If they would have known that Christ was indeed the Messiah, they would not have crucified Him.
B3) This is an example, 12 Strings, where you seem to deliberately misrepresent my view. All sinful acts are worthy of punishment. However, if a person is compelled to do a sinful act, then only the person compelling is responsible for the act. In the case where God predestined for His purpose, sinful acts, then the acts remain sinful but God does not declare an infraction.
Finally, I declare with 100% clarity that God is not the author of any sin, with sin being the infraction and not the thought or act. God does not punish the son for the sins of the father. He punishes the person responsible, so only when we volitionally transgress the Law or our conscience is the flag thrown.
A) Rather than pointing to one person who agrees with every position I hold, my claim is that lots of published sources agree with all my various positions.
A1) If God knows with certainly that we will commit a specific sin in the future, then that sin is predestined. Boettner agrees with this view.
A2) Does God know we will sin in a general sense because we are able to choose to sin and because of the corruption of the fall, predisposed to sin? Yes Paul wrote by the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners.
A3) If God has chosen not to know beforehand whether we will choose life or death with certainty, then we are able to make an autonomous choice that has not been predestined.
Boyd agrees with this view.
B1) God knows with certainty what He predestines, thus when God says something will occur in the future, i.e. a prophecy, then that act is predestined, and God will cause that event to occur. Boettner agrees with this.
B2) If God has predestined that a person sin, then those thoughts and acts are still sinful thoughts and acts, but God does not "throw the flag" i.e. declare an infraction against God. The view, that God can "justify" the unjust is held by Paul. An example can be found in Acts where those culpable for sending Christ to His death. Recall that Jesus said forgive them, they know not what they do. Thus if God put a veil over the minds of those sending Christ to the cross, what they did was in ignorance brought about by God. If they would have known that Christ was indeed the Messiah, they would not have crucified Him.
B3) This is an example, 12 Strings, where you seem to deliberately misrepresent my view. All sinful acts are worthy of punishment. However, if a person is compelled to do a sinful act, then only the person compelling is responsible for the act. In the case where God predestined for His purpose, sinful acts, then the acts remain sinful but God does not declare an infraction.
Finally, I declare with 100% clarity that God is not the author of any sin, with sin being the infraction and not the thought or act. God does not punish the son for the sins of the father. He punishes the person responsible, so only when we volitionally transgress the Law or our conscience is the flag thrown.
Hi Ben, sad to see you use a question that if answered yes means you were beating your wife in the past, and if you answer no, it means you are continuing to beat your wife. Thus you have put forward a question that nullified Christ's direction to speak with clarity, with yes meaning yes and no meaning no. Thus you attempt to justify your failure to answer my questions. Goodbye
These were the easy ones, I know lots of people agree with those positions...B2 below is the one that I have NEVER heard anyone state before...and I would still like to see a bible commentator who expounds this view:
No deliberate misrepresentation, just still trying to figure out this statement:
...which you seem to have just gone back on by saying "the acts remain sinful."
Also, For those who crucified Jesus, and Peter's Denial, would you say that the forgiveness/non-imputation of those predestined sins is based on their Faith in Christ's sacrificial death on the cross, or that the forgiveness is automatic, regardless of the person's faith, since the sins are predestined?
Hi 12 Strings, let me try it this way. Sin is comprised of two parts, the act, and the penalty. If I do the act, and God applies the penalty, then it is sin. If I do the act, but God justifies me, and therefore no infraction is declared, then the act is still sinful, but is not sin because the penalty was not applied. So sinful acts are worthy of being penalized, whether or not God applies the penalty. Therefore we can be convicted of sin, even though we are justified. We are not to sin all the more so grace can abound. But on the other hand, since we are in Christ, and have been justified, made perfect, when we do sinful acts, the penalty is not applied, so we do not sin. This view is consistent with both 1 John 1:8 and 3:6. I do not know how I can make this more clear.
Now for our sinful acts, where we did them autonomously, and were not compelled by God predestining them, we can only be justified by the blood of Jesus, i.e. God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ.
But for sinful acts compelled by God, no penalty attaches because God only holds the responsible person accountable for the sin. This breaks the back of exhaustive determinism including the various efforts to white wash the issue by Calvinists of all flavors. And this is probably why you cannot seem to grasp the concept that God's justice is perfect and he does not punish the son for the sins of the father.
Now for our sinful acts, where we did them autonomously, and were not compelled by God predestining them, we can only be justified by the blood of Jesus, i.e. God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness and places us spiritually in Christ.
But for sinful acts compelled by God, no penalty attaches because God only holds the responsible person accountable for the sin. This breaks the back of exhaustive determinism including the various efforts to white wash the issue by Calvinists of all flavors. And this is probably why you cannot seem to grasp the concept that God's justice is perfect and he does not punish the son for the sins of the father.