There is an interesting passage in Chemnitz which does explicitly mention "prevenient grace" and his exploration therein complicates our perspective. Chemnitz, Loci, Volume 1, page 249 The second point is that change or renewal is not the kind of change which is completed or accomplished at one moment, immediately and in all its aspects. Rather it has its beginning, and its various steps by which in great weakness it is brought to completion. Therefore we must not think that I shall wait with a secure and idle will until-by the operation of the Holy Spirit in definite stages and with no activity on my part-the renewal or change will have taken place. For the fact is that it is impossible to show at some mathematical point where the freed will begins to function. But when *prevenient grace* that is, the first beginnings of faith and conversion are given to a man, immediately the battle between the flesh and the Spirit begins and it is manifest that this struggle does not take place without any action of our will. For the Holy Spirit who dwelt in Moses fought in a different way while he was still alive contending against his flesh, than Michael fought with the devil for the dead body of Moses, Jude 9. Likewise, in the beginning the desire is very weak, the assent is not strong, the obedience is tenuous, and these gifts must increase. And they do increase in us, not in the way that a log is moved forward with violent force, nor in the way that lilies grow which neither labor nor care; but by trying, struggling, seeking, praying, striving; and this is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God. Cf. Luke 19:13, where the nobleman turned over to his servants the talents and said to them, “Trade with this until I come.” In Matt. 25:26 he does not say, “Hide it away in the ground.” And Paul uses a most illustrative word in 2 Tim. 1:6, where he says, “I exhort that you stir up the gift of God which is in you.” The things which have been said about prevenient, preparatory, and operating grace have this meaning, that the initial stages in conversion are not ours, but God-through the Word and divine inspiration-goes before us, moves and impels our Will. After this movement of the will has been accomplished by divine power, then the human will is not purely passive, but, moved and aided by the Holy Spirit, it ceases to resist and assents and is co-operative (synergos) with God, etc. There is a similar statement in Augustine’s De Dogm. Eccles., ch. 32 [MPL 58.893], “God works in us so that we will and do what He wills; nor does He permit that the gifts which He has given us lie idle in us, but rather they must be used, and not neglected. Thus we are both co-operators with the grace of God, and if we see anything in ourselves and of our own power which is becoming weak because of our letting down, we will dutifully take refuge in Him who heals all our weaknesses and has commanded us to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ ”
Molinism as a concept,not Molina’s Roman Catholic formulation, likely could be compatible with some form Lutheranism. This is speculation based on what I know of Lutheranism. For it to be compatible It would need to include the use of a pre creative decree that included the use of middle knowledge. There is use of MK or at least counterfactual knowledge in scripture. There is no scriptural verification that it was used as part of creation, this is likely where the Lutheran would not be willing to speculate. However, the requirements of classical theism is part of Lutheran thought and if you consider counterfactual “would be if” type knowledge necessary knowledge as part of God’s omniscience one might be able to incorporate it as long as Monergism was held. As “Molinism” takes the would be’s into consideration then a form of intuitu fidei would also likely need to appear. It would probably look something like: -Wills to Create -Permit the fall -Set Christ as the foundation of election -Save, in Christ, the class of those with faith -Provide the means of grace that create faith monergistically. -Have middle knowledge if he created this way of who would be saved and who would reject his grace based in his work. -Sovereignly Electing to actually to create this way, thereby electing the individuals he foreknew based on his actions of creation and providence in time. God could create any way he wants, and doing anything slightly differently pre-creation or in time would result in a different set of people both foreknown and saved. Him creating predestines those particular people to be saved. Why he chooses one set of people and not another (which he could have done)would be based on a reason we would still ultimately have to call “unconditional” as it is not outside of himself. This is because logically there could be countless groups all with faith that could result from how God works either pre or post creation. He chooses the actual world with an actual set of people with faith based on his good pleasure. Molinism does offer a lot of explanatory power, gets around hard determinism, but does not ultimately remove God’s choice as the ultimate cause.
@@Λουθηρανισμός Molinism which typically just means counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the creative decree isn’t dependent on free will in conversion. It seems that as Lutheranism allows freedom in the things below but not in conversion it would still be possible to reconcile. All a Molinistic framework would be saying is that God took into account what people freely would do in any given situation in which they were free to act as part the creative decree. Of course having middle knowledge also means He would know which people would not reject his grace and be saved monergistcally, and those who ultimately not persevere or would actively reject grace. However, this doesn’t mean this knowledge is the condition to create this potential world. It’s just information God has logically prior to creation, he is still free to create or not, or create otherwise. He isn’t bound to this “hypothetical” knowledge. Molinism isn’t necessarily a soteriological system. People that believe Molinism is true fall into many groups Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. It’s generally known as belief that God Middle Knowledge, that is knowledge that exists logically between natural and free knowledge logically prior to the creative decree. It doesn’t necessarily change anthropology or soteriology.
@colinjames7765 You're 100% right. Molinism is NOT a soteriological system. It is merely a philosophy that asserts that God has counterfactual knowledge that he utilizes logically prior to the divine decree i.e. Middle Knowledge. The people who apply Molinism to soteriology in absence of traditional Protestant soteriology, like William Lane Craig, are what I like to call Pop-Molinists. God bless you brother for not misrepresenting such an understudied and misunderstood doctrine!!!
“For by pervenient grace you have been saved prior to faith. And this is not your own doing; faith is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
I don't think Mike knows much about Lutheranism. I would love to see them explain their positions to each other. Mike is an awesome teacher from what I've seen.
@@newcreationcoachingllc6491 Agreed! I think it would be awesome for their listeners to see healthy dialogue between brothers from different traditions. Praying for this.
Hi Dr Cooper. I appreciate your podcast. Can I ask you I make your points more clearly. You do a great job of engaging the content, but it comes across at times as though you’re audience is up to speed on all your terms, names, etc.
There is an interesting passage in Chemnitz which does explicitly mention "prevenient grace" and his exploration therein complicates our perspective.
Chemnitz, Loci, Volume 1, page 249
The second point is that change or renewal is not the kind of change which is completed or accomplished at one moment, immediately and in all its aspects. Rather it has its beginning, and its various steps by which in great weakness it is brought to completion. Therefore we must not think that I shall wait with a secure and idle will until-by the operation of the Holy Spirit in definite stages and with no activity on my part-the renewal or change will have taken place. For the fact is that it is impossible to show at some mathematical point where the freed will begins to function. But when *prevenient grace* that is, the first beginnings of faith and conversion are given to a man, immediately the battle between the flesh and the Spirit begins and it is manifest that this struggle does not take place without any action of our will. For the Holy Spirit who dwelt in Moses fought in a different way while he was still alive contending against his flesh, than Michael fought with the devil for the dead body of Moses, Jude 9. Likewise, in the beginning the desire is very weak, the assent is not strong, the obedience is tenuous, and these gifts must increase. And they do increase in us, not in the way that a log is moved forward with violent force, nor in the way that lilies grow which neither labor nor care; but by trying, struggling, seeking, praying, striving; and this is not of ourselves, but it is the gift of God. Cf. Luke 19:13, where the nobleman turned over to his servants the talents and said to them, “Trade with this until I come.” In Matt. 25:26 he does not say, “Hide it away in the ground.” And Paul uses a most illustrative word in 2 Tim. 1:6, where he says, “I exhort that you stir up the gift of God which is in you.”
The things which have been said about prevenient, preparatory, and operating grace have this meaning, that the initial stages in conversion are not ours, but God-through the Word and divine inspiration-goes before us, moves and impels our Will. After this movement of the will has been accomplished by divine power, then the human will is not purely passive, but, moved and aided by the Holy Spirit, it ceases to resist and assents and is co-operative (synergos) with God, etc. There is a similar statement in Augustine’s De Dogm. Eccles., ch. 32 [MPL 58.893], “God works in us so that we will and do what He wills; nor does He permit that the gifts which He has given us lie idle in us, but rather they must be used, and not neglected. Thus we are both co-operators with the grace of God, and if we see anything in ourselves and of our own power which is becoming weak because of our letting down, we will dutifully take refuge in Him who heals all our weaknesses and has commanded us to pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ ”
Arndt also talks about prevenient grace
Hardcore Lutheran here. Thanks for your work!
Now I have to look for "The Way of Salvation in The Lutheran Church." It sounds intriguing.
I am curious about Lutheran postures towards Molinism.
I second that. Would love to see a response video to Molinism.
Molinism as a concept,not Molina’s Roman Catholic formulation, likely could be compatible with some form Lutheranism. This is speculation based on what I know of Lutheranism. For it to be compatible It would need to include the use of a pre creative decree that included the use of middle knowledge. There is use of MK or at least counterfactual knowledge in scripture. There is no scriptural verification that it was used as part of creation, this is likely where the Lutheran would not be willing to speculate. However, the requirements of classical theism is part of Lutheran thought and if you consider counterfactual “would be if” type knowledge necessary knowledge as part of God’s omniscience one might be able to incorporate it as long as Monergism was held. As “Molinism” takes the would be’s into consideration then a form of intuitu fidei would also likely need to appear.
It would probably look something like:
-Wills to Create
-Permit the fall
-Set Christ as the foundation of election
-Save, in Christ, the class of those with faith
-Provide the means of grace that create faith monergistically.
-Have middle knowledge if he created this way of who would be saved and who would reject his grace based in his work.
-Sovereignly Electing to actually to create this way, thereby electing the individuals he foreknew based on his actions of creation and providence in time.
God could create any way he wants, and doing anything slightly differently pre-creation or in time would result in a different set of people both foreknown and saved. Him creating predestines those particular people to be saved. Why he chooses one set of people and not another (which he could have done)would be based on a reason we would still ultimately have to call “unconditional” as it is not outside of himself. This is because logically there could be countless groups all with faith that could result from how God works either pre or post creation.
He chooses the actual world with an actual set of people with faith based on his good pleasure.
Molinism does offer a lot of explanatory power, gets around hard determinism, but does not ultimately remove God’s choice as the ultimate cause.
Molinism and Lutheranism are totally different. Molinism accepts as a fact human's ''free will''. Lutherans don't.
@@Λουθηρανισμός Molinism which typically just means counterfactual knowledge logically prior to the creative decree isn’t dependent on free will in conversion.
It seems that as Lutheranism allows freedom in the things below but not in conversion it would still be possible to reconcile.
All a Molinistic framework would be saying is that God took into account what people freely would do in any given situation in which they were free to act as part the creative decree.
Of course having middle knowledge also means He would know which people would not reject his grace and be saved monergistcally, and those who ultimately not persevere or would actively reject grace. However, this doesn’t mean this knowledge is the condition to create this potential world. It’s just information God has logically prior to creation, he is still free to create or not, or create otherwise. He isn’t bound to this “hypothetical” knowledge.
Molinism isn’t necessarily a soteriological system. People that believe Molinism is true fall into many groups Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians, etc. It’s generally known as belief that God Middle Knowledge, that is knowledge that exists logically between natural and free knowledge logically prior to the creative decree. It doesn’t necessarily change anthropology or soteriology.
@colinjames7765 You're 100% right. Molinism is NOT a soteriological system. It is merely a philosophy that asserts that God has counterfactual knowledge that he utilizes logically prior to the divine decree i.e. Middle Knowledge. The people who apply Molinism to soteriology in absence of traditional Protestant soteriology, like William Lane Craig, are what I like to call Pop-Molinists. God bless you brother for not misrepresenting such an understudied and misunderstood doctrine!!!
“For by pervenient grace you have been saved prior to faith. And this is not your own doing; faith is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Prevenient grace was not introduced by Arminius. It was discussed earlier in the 6th session of the Council of Trent.
Would love to see a video with you and Mike Winger on the Lutherism and Baptist traditions. Enjoy both of your channels
I don't think Mike knows much about Lutheranism. I would love to see them explain their positions to each other. Mike is an awesome teacher from what I've seen.
Sounds fun.
@@newcreationcoachingllc6491 Agreed! I think it would be awesome for their listeners to see healthy dialogue between brothers from different traditions. Praying for this.
What is the Lutheran branch that mostly resembles Arminianism?
Hi Dr Cooper. I appreciate your podcast. Can I ask you I make your points more clearly. You do a great job of engaging the content, but it comes across at times as though you’re audience is up to speed on all your terms, names, etc.
...when many of us are not up to speed.
Very helpful. Thank you
Thanks for the info
This is completely random, but would you consider conversing with Jay Dyer?
He's been asked this many times, and he's pretty clear that he isn't interested due to Dyers style.