Molinism and Arminianism: What’s the Difference?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- For more information visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
got distracted watching the parallel parking XD
I agree - random guy parallel parks and the world watches his performance 😂
XD
My favorite thing about these new series of videos is when I get to see people parallel park behind Craig and how they always hit the curb.
Growing up in a very Calvanistic Baptist home these videos are very interesting. I'm still undecided on my views molinism and arminianism, but its great to hear clear explanations on the issues
stay a reformed baptist!!
@@kylecityy That would not be a wise thing to do.
@@bobbyadkins6983 very wise, whats your denomination?
@@kylecityy❤
I am now a molinist because of you, dr. Craig
Oof
Oof
@@TheBrunarr Better than a Thomist.
W
@@leonardu6094 not better than a cavlinist, sadly.
A really useful distinction that helped me make sense of the different views according to scriptures is that predestination for a task, work, or purpose, be it for an individual or group of people, does not equate predestination for salvation.
Strawman. I don't know what form of Arminianism this is, but I've never heard it taught before. Arminianists affirm that God decrees whatever He wants to and it happens without conditions.
As far as His relationship to time, God is not bound by time, rather He exists _outside_ of time. So He doesn't look into the future, then come back to the present to make a decision. He eternally exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously.
He sees us here now at the same time He sees Noah constructing the ark and David being crowned king and Jesus hanging on the cross and everything else.
He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.
It's "Liberal Arminianism", not very common or taught in churches. It's taught by theologians as Charles Pinnock very similar to "Open theism".
A good explanation, thanks.
As Kirk MacGregor points out in Luis de Molina:
"MISCONCEPTION 2: MOLINISM THE SAME AS ARMINIANISM The second misconception that often prevents a full appreciation of Molina’s thought is that Molina is a slightly more philosophically sophisticated version of Arminius.17 Thus, for Reformed Christians, their rejection of Arminianism causes them to reject Molinism out of hand on the faulty assumption that the two are basically the same thing.18 The truth of the situation is quite different. Molina differed from Arminius in profound ways, ways that are just as profound as those in which Molina differed from Calvin.19 Moreover, Molina agreed with Calvin in profound ways, ways that are just as profound as those in which Molina agreed with Arminius. To sum up, Molina was an original thinker whose theological system is not identical to Calvin’s system or Arminius’s system, such that Molinism agrees or disagrees with Calvinism at various points and agrees or disagrees with Arminianism at various points.
Unfortunately, the misconception that Arminianism equals Protestant Molinism has a long history, stretching back to Arminius himself and the Reformed Synod of Dort (1618 - 19), which responded to Arminius’s propositions. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this misconception forestalled Protestant interaction with Molinism for over 350 years, from 1619 to the 1970s. This is because Protestants who rejected Arminianism dismissed Molinism out of hand, and Protestants who embraced Arminianism did not investigate Molinism, supposing that their system was the same as Molinism. Due to this widespread ignorance of Molinism through either rejection of or alleged redundancy with Arminianism, it behooves us to tell briefly the story of how this misconception surfaced.
Profoundly troubled by Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination (God’s predestination of some to eternal life and others to eternal destruction), the Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius (1560 - 1609) formulated an alternative theological system of creation and providence that he implicitly claimed was consistent with Molina’s doctrine of middle knowledge.20 Arminius’s claim is highly ambivalent, for it depends on the narrowness or breadth of theological substance one ascribes to middle knowledge. On the one hand, if by middle knowledge one simply means God’s knowledge of everything that would happen in any possible set of circumstances logically prior to his creation of the world, then Arminius’s system is consistent with middle knowledge.21 On the other hand, if by middle knowledge one also means, as Molina did, that God possessed this knowledge logically prior to making any decisions about the world, including whether he would create our world, then Arminius’s system is inconsistent with middle knowledge.22 In short, Arminius held to a different version of middle knowledge than Molina..."(MacGregor,19).
What year for Molina write about Middle Knowledge? And how did the catholic church take his theology?
@@obcane3072 As Kirk MacGregor writes in Luis de Molina:
"Chapter 3 historically traces the steps in Molina’s groundbreaking formulation of God’s middle knowledge and shows how Molina expounded his scheme of natural, middle, and free knowledge in 1588. Chapters 4 and 5 explain how Molina employed this scheme in developing his doctrines of providence and predestination, respectively. Similar to the furor in Germany over Luther’s 95 Theses, Molina’s doctrine of middle knowledge won him a groundswell of popular support and the enmity of leading Catholic authorities in Spain, due to its departure from the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Chapter 6 explains what happened when the authorities unleashed the Spanish Inquisition on Molina in 1591..... When the controversy elicited by middle knowledge refused to die down, in 1598 Pope Clement VIII convoked a special investigative commission dubbed the Congregatio de auxiliis gratiae (Congregation on the Help of Divine Grace). Chapter 9 recounts the dramatic swing from initial disapprobation (with Molina living out the rest of his days under constant fear that he would be burned at the stake as a heretic) to Pope Paul V’s ultimate vindication of Molina’s system as orthodox after Molina’s death." (MacGregor, 29).
For the full details of how his work was received I'd advise you to buy and read "Luis de Molina" by Kirk MacGregor, it's absolutely essential reading.
@@PresbyterianPaladin thanks a lot! That was helpful. I'll look it up.
I believe that there is something important here that no one is considering. Giving yourself willing to believe and obey God for salvation is very scriptural. And yet predestination is also clearly taught by our apostles; thus logic should dictate that predestination is something beyond salvation. Perhaps it has to do with which resurrection a person will be in and who will serves as kings, priest, and judges, or who gets what gifts from the Holy Spirit. If it was just about salvation then the two premises would cancel each other out. Which then would lead to an endless debate about which scriptures to believe and which scriptures not to believe.
On one view His knowledge “necessitates”. With Molinism, His knowledge does not necessitate.
What is interesting is that Arminius, many of the Remonstrants, and then the English Arminians of the 1600s accepted scientia media. Then something happened in the 1700s where many self professed Arminians rejected it. But I’m glad to see more of my fellow Arminians going back to accepting it.
Do you by any chance have a list of any works by these 17th century English Arminians who affirmed Scientia Media? I'd love to check them out sometime. Cheers.
@@beowulf.reborn Some of them only address it briefly in their works. But there’s enough there to say they believed it. Off the top of my head they’d be: John Goodwin, Thomas Jackson, John Plaifere, and Richard Stooks.
@@daltonb1993 Cheers.
I love Molinism!
@ChokeItDown I already do. But I love Jesus even more _because_ of Molinism.
@@Mark-cd2wf Let's go!!!
@@jon7168I cannot fathom someone taking the time to type this out
Thanks for this video!
my issue with molinism is that it seems to turn God kind of into Dr. Strange. Like the scene in Avengers: Infinity War when Dr. Strange sees all possibilities in the future and sees only 1 outcome where they win and chooses that won.
Can it really be called a victory if most of humanity is lost though?
I think your example is more like Arminianism. Remember, in Arminianism God "looks into the future" to see what people will do and then decrees based on that. In Molinism, God does not "look into the future" but rather has middle knowledge of the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (which is not dependent on there ever being a future).
For those who are confused by all of this ‘middle knowledge’ stuff (proponents of Molinism tend to muddy the water only to make it seem deep), I want to offer this simple explanation:
Molinism (or ‘middle knowledge’) places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes (the fact God is absolutely sovereign and omniscient is something Molinists conveniently ignore):
1) God knows who will be saved (because He chose them before He laid the foundations of the world - Rom 8,9, Eph 1…); and
2) God knows not who will be saved (because that depends entirely on them ‘freely choosing’)
So, Molinism (‘middle knowledge’) is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner ‘freely’ chooses to be saved… Ie God’s knowledge of the saved is contingent upon the capricious whim of the sinner, driven by the sinner’s ’free choice’ and circumstance!
So, God will come to know His own, not because He sovereignly ORDAINED the salvation of anyone, but because the sinner FREELY WILLED it to happen at the ‘right time’
Molinism is really a theosophical attempt to somehow preserve the ‘sovereignty of man’ (properly known as ‘Autonomianism’) while paying lip service to the Lordship of God… Molinism is an utterly unBiblical and philosophical bankrupt idea!
There are several points at which your comment demonstrates misconceptions about Molinism and middle knowledge.
1. Middle knowledge is a component of Molinism, not a synonym for it. It is not called "middle knowledge" because it "places the knowledge of God somewhere between these two extremes." Rather, it received its name from being logically situated between God's natural knowledge (knowledge of necessary truths) and God's free knowledge (knowledge of contingent truths resulting from the creative decree).
2. Molinists affirm both divine sovereignty and divine omniscience. However, they do not equate sovereignty with unilateral divine causal determinism. Nor to they diminish God's knowledge by eliminating middle knowledge, which includes God's pre-decree knowledge of all counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
3. You set up a false dichotomy by assuming that if people freely accept Christ, then God cannot know who will be saved and cannot have chosen before the foundations of the world. However, if God has middle knowledge, then this is false. Since God is omniscient, then he has middle knowledge. Therefore, it is false that there being people who freely accept Christ entails that God does not know who will be saved and did not choose them before the foundations of the world.
4. It is incorrect to say that "Molinism... is the idea that God will know who will be saved, only IF and WHEN the sinner 'freely' chooses to be saved." Again, if God has middle knowledge, then his creative decree entails his knowing who will be saved prior their actually freely accepting Christ.
It's clear that you have an emotional aversion to Molinism. We hope that you'll set aside the emotions at some point to dispassionately learn about this fruitful concept. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos An intellectually honest assessment will admit to the fact that, at its core, Molinism is really nothing more an attempt to somehow reconcile two utterly irreconcilable ideas - the sovereignty of God and the ‘sovereignty of man’!
I grant that there appears (Prv 14:12) to be compelling reasons why you will want to insist upon the latter, but here’s the thing (PLEASE try and set aside your Autonomian commitments for just a moment)… unless God is God, not only over SOME things, but over ALL things (Eph 4:6), then God is not God!
Whenever we concern ourselves with the things of God, we ALWAYS need to try an understand the things of God in light of the fact that ALL THINGS (not just some things) are FROM Him, THROUGH Him, FOR HIS GLORY (Rom 11:36)! In other words… God is ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN over ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! So then, please answer me this - why would God, who is sovereign over all, permit ANYTHING that could possibly rob Him of His glory, including (in fact, ESPECIALLY) His image bearer to disavow His Lordship!
And BTW - in case you think this bit of banter between us is nothing more than something trivial, consider this - whenever God gave Israel over into apostasy, it was not because of their idolatry, but because they denied the sovereignty of God! And because Molinists (and others in different ways, albeit always to the same effect) insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, I dare to say that God has (yet again), handed His own over to the Fool (Biblically speaking) into apostasy…
“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” - 1 Tim 4:1
How can we as Christians otherwise account for the fact that the Fool now has the intellectual and moral ascendency in the world? It is not because we do not have the Truth, but because, while some “claim to know God, they have come to deny Him as God” - Tit 1:16…
A person watching a story on a video can pause the video and fast forward to see how it ends, however the author of the story need not.
For starters, natural, middle and free knowledge have to be defined and examined individually against what the Bible tells us.
This is where any theological discussion has to begin.
In the end, what matters most, is that we believe in Jesus Christ (John 14: 6; 15: 5).
There is no need for believers to fight one another over this.
God bless you.
Pastor John
Not a very accurate representation of Arminianism by mr Craig. I can't blame him, since he is not professing Arminian theology himself, but simply looking at it from the side. In any case, being a person studying and believing Arminianism for years, I can definitely confirm that we believe, and always have believed that God can CAUSE and DECREE things to happen in the future apart from his foreknowledge. It is not typical behavior for Him to do so, but he has the power to do it, and does it on occasion - particularly, to execute his important, historical purposes. However, he still doesn't exercise it apart from fully respecting the free will he gave us. For example, when the Israel broke apart from Judah, the Bible tells us people of Judah desired to go after the separatists and wage war against the rest of the Israel for abandoning the crown. But this is not what God intended for the Israel - he wanted Judah to become set apart from the rest of Israel, that he knew would be effectively destroyed and scattered permanently. So what did God do to maintain his version of history that he wanted? How did he prevent the clear desire and free decisions people of Judah made? Did he just forced them all to go to his homes against their will? Did he suddenly change their hearts to feel differently? No. He sent a prophet who told people of Judah - God wants you to stop and let the rest of Israel go! This is his decree!
This is character of God. God does have a plan, and he doesn't just know it will happen because he knows the future. He steps in himself from time to time to correct the course, because our free will otherwise would ruin his plans many times over. But he doesn't do it by just forcing all events to happen according to his will all the time. He steps it through his Holy Spirit, who anoints the prophets, judges and other servants of God to do his will, and ensure God's plan remains intact. This is what it means for God to decree things. Neither masterminding the whole reality and puppeteering us, nor leaving us to our own fate and simply choosing a universe in which everything would happen as he wants long ago. He is here, personally, active, watching over history of salvation, knowing all of our future choices and stepping in when he knows we make choices that ruin his larger plan. This view allows for consistent reading of the whole Scriptures without failure. This is why I affirm Arminianism. No other view, including Molinism, is this consistent.
"I can definitely confirm that we believe, and always have believed that God can CAUSE and DECREE things to happen in the future apart from his foreknowledge."
So you think God can decree something to happen that he doesn't know will happen?? Wut?
Wwutt firmly disagrees with Molinism. Permissive Will is allowed on the late great planet Earth.
Do you have a link to their objections? - RF Admin
What this shows, is that God is not All Knowing. Prior to God choosing what World He will create He did not know what World would exist. He had to choose between Possible Worlds. He did not know what World would exist until He chose one.
From that the Ontological Argument is destroyed because God is not All Knowing.
If God knows what choices we will make, I think it's safe to say that he knows what choices he will make. I don't see any reason to think why he wouldn't know what he will choose.
I think it's misleading to imagine God thinking the way we do. When we make a choice, it takes time, and we have limited knowledge of our circumstances and of ourselves. Meanwhile, God is outside of space and time, and is all-knowing of everything, including himself.
@@minicello231 If God knew that this World would exist, then the need for Possible Worlds collapses or is unnecessary. Namely, because God didn’t need to decide between Possible Worlds on what World He would create as He always knew that this World would exist.
If Craig is going to stick to his Possible Worlds belief, then it follows that God is not All Knowing.
The reason why God is able to know what we would do in any possible situation is because He knows our heart perfectly. He always knows how strong or weak our desires are. He always knows exactly what we know and what we're capable of understanding. He always knows what temptations we'll give into or resist because He knows our heart perfectly, past, present and future. Every single second of our lives, God knows perfectly the condition of our heart. That's why God not only knows what we will do but what we would do in every actual or possible situation. I don't believe we need to give some man like Molina the credit for understanding this. I believe many Christians are able to learn this without having to learn it from someone like Molina. And without even hearing about molinism.
Acts 13:22
[22]And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
Jeremiah 1:5
[5]Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Strictly Molinism is a philosophical stance, and you're mingling it with Wesleyan soteriology which is basically arminianism. Molinism is beyond the scope of Bible and it's not biblical stance, but Philosophical one.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Having explained Molinism to many Arminians and a handful of Calvinists (I'm an Arminian Molinist myself), the most frequent objection Molinism receives is that it's "too confusing", followed closely by "it's too philosophical". Many Christians dislike the concept of Molinism because they see it as extrabiblical or philosophical rather than strictly scriptural or theological. I do think that's a fair criticism. On the surface, it seems to rely on human reasoning than on biblical exegesis. However, when Molinist philosophy is "mingled" (as you put it) with Arminian soteriology, it becomes more grounded in Scripture.
@@AidenRKrone since when arminian theology became grounded in Scripture? That's my biggest critique. I'm a Lutheran.
@@cherinetdemeke2743 I seriously doubt Lutherans have the corner market on. Your Crux Theologorum is a paradox regardless if you want to call it tension to try to make yourself feel better. You can say that all the other views use magistrate reasoning over ministerial reasoning but that is also an excuse for intellectual laziness
Based WLC ❤ ✝️
According to Molinists, all men are able to choose God without regeneration. Considering a man who ultimately doesn’t choose God, does that mean in all versions of God’s middle knowledge, this person has no positive outcome for his salvation? If so, what makes this person destiny so hopeless compared to others who are able to make positive decision? Alternatively, if there is a possible “world” in God’s middle knowledge that such man chooses God, however God has decided not to create that world, wouldn’t that ultimately still violate/limit the freewill of the man?
//According to Molinists, all men are able to choose God without regeneration.//
It doesn't actually assume this. There are some Calvinists who believe in middle knowledge and are therefore Calvinist Molinists who affirm regeneration prior to belief and salvation. Dr. Craig isn't a Calvinist, however. He affirms that regeneration comes as a result of belief, but that no one can or will believe unless the Father draws them.
The question of whether there are some who will never accept Christ in the actual world but would in a different possible world is debated among Molinists and no particular view is essential to it. Minimally, Molinists affirm that God has middle knowledge and that God has incorporated this pre-decree knowledge into his providential planning of history, which includes the creation of creatures possessing libertarian freedom. - RF Admin
My problem is this. Is when john was taken up by the angels he God make him see what will happen and wrote down the book of Revelation
Hello, I'm Brazilian and I loved your explanation. But there's a part that I don't understand, could someone explain to me the meaning of "a sort of fifth wheel"?
@desenhoexpress2104 it's an expression, like on a car, you only need 4 wheels, so a 5th wheel would be unnecessary
I’m a Calmolominian
“Molinism was Catholic response to Arminianism” but somehow Jacobus Arminius was a Molinism 🤦♂️
Dr. Craig was one of, if not THE reason I submitted myself to belief in God and to the deity of Christ, and I don't presume for a second that I'm more knowledgeable about him about anything philosophy related.
However, I never understood how it is logically possible to know something someone will choose to do in the future under libertarian free will.
I think I remember learning in Philosophy 101 that the answer to this question determines whether you believe in libertarian free will or not: Is there a true or false answer to the following question:
John will eat a tuna sandwich for lunch tomorrow.
If the answer is either true or false to this statement, then no libertarian free will, because John is predetermined to either eat the tuna sandwich or not. But if the answer is "there is no answer right now, but there will be tomorrow once John chooses what to eat for lunch" then there is libertarian free will. In other words the free will is dependent on whether there is a true or false answer to the question above prior to when John made his choice.
I have to be misunderstanding this, because I've seen Dr. Craig argue against scientific determinism a lot, but it sounds like he is in fact saying that there is today a true or false answer to whether John will eat a tuna sandwich tomorrow, and God ordered the world so that he would or would not have that tuna sandwich tomorrow and he knows that John will freely choose to eat it (or not eat it).
This sounds like John is predetermined to eat (or not eat) the Tuna sandwich tomorrow, but because he wants to eat it (or not to eat it), he still has free will because he's doing what he wants to do (or not do). But this sounds like compatiblism.
But this can't be true because I saw Dr. Craig argue against compatiblism though in both a clip of a lecture and a very obscure debate between him and a non-theistic but Platonistic philosophy professor (I need to find that one again, that guy was BY FAR the most worthy adversary of Dr. Craig, he actually knew philosophy lol).
Also by this explanation, it sounds like God knew that Adam and Eve would fall before he even created the world, even if God didn't decree it? (Sounds like one of the most challenging parts of Calvinism still remains if so).
Before Dr. Craig, I always assumed that if God existed, the answer was simple, God doesn't know what truly free creatures will choose to do in the future because it's logically impossible to know that, just like it's logically impossible for God to create a married bachelor. I used to assume this was one of the ideas, that God likes surprises and didn't want a boring movie that he knew what would happen in the middle part of the movie (even though of course he knows the beginning and the end). I'm worried that this is somehow a heresy because there has to be a reason theologians come up with such complicated theories to explain God's Omniscience rather than this extremely simple one I used to assume.
If someone could help I'd really appreciate it. I started reading Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World View but unfortunately I don't know where it went, one of these days maybe I just have to buy it again, but until then any help is appreciated.
Let me try to answer.
Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination. Suppose I set a dead mouse and a cake info front of you, I know you will choose to eat the cake. But you choose to eat it with your free will. My knowledge that you will eat the cake doesn't violate your free will.
In a second circumstance, I set burger and cake in front of you. Let's say I know you personally and know that you don't like burgers. My knowledge that you will choose the cake (which you will if you hate burgers) doesn't violate your free will of choosing the cake.
Now let's say I set ice cream and cake in front of you and you could choose anything. In this case, I wouldn't be able to know what you will choose because of lack of my knowledge of you. But God is omniscient, He will even know what you will choose if two different flavors of cakes are set in front of you.
It all goes to show that God has extreme knowledge of all creatures, He can read the very thoughts of people at every instance of time down to a nanosecond.. what you will choose out of your 2 fav foods. But we still make choices with our free will. His knowing has no bearing on our free will.
In your example of "will John eat tuna sandwich tomorrow?" You're disregarding that God is aware of all conditions at all times. Just like we can throw a ball and predict where it will hit the wall based on it's trajectory, God can predict if John will eat tuna sandwich based on His knowledge of John (is He craving tuna sandwich? Is he thinking of making tuna sandwich tomorrow? Is John's wife thinking of making tuna for John tomorrow? and millions of possibilities).
God knows Infinite possibilities that could occur with John tomorrow. The difference between the ball and John eating tuna is that the ball is likely to hit one particular spot on the wall based on physical laws of motion. However John has "N number of choices" (he can hit any spot on the wall)....just that God knows all the possibilities and knows exactly where he will hit 🎯 without having to violate John's freewill of motion.
Another example, let's say I told you to pick a number from 1 to 10. Now I won't know what you will pick. Let's say you will pick 7. I can at most predict the right answer with a probability of 1/10.
But God can foresee the future, read your mind and know exactly what you'll pick. If you were to pick 7, God would know you'll pick 7 with a 100% probability. Also if you were to pick 8, He would know you'd pick 8 with a 100% probability. If you were to not pick anything and quit the game, God would know you wouldn't pick anything and quit the game with a 100% probability. See you can pick anything and do anything and God would know what you're gonna do but it's still not a violation of your free will.
In the same way, God created different worlds where he placed Adam and Eve. And in all possible worlds (circumstances) they ended up sinning. Perhaps there was no world where they wouldn't/didn't sin according to their free will. However, this world along with it's circumstances could have been the best possible world God chose to place us in. This is called middle knowledge of God which helps him determine a world for us without violating our free will.
To explain this:
Let's say, the game of picking numbers had consequences. If you picked 7, you'd save humanity. If you'd pick 8, humanity would be so corrupt that it'd be unredeemable. If you chose nothing, world would annihilate and nothing would exist. If you'd pick 1 it's still good but not as good as 7.
So God having known which circumstances are best for you that you're likely to pick 7, places you under those circumstances (let's say helps you watch movie 7)....but the action of picking 7 is still YOUR choice. It's just a more favourable condition. It doesn't negate the fact that had you been in a situation you watched a movie called 8, you'll more likely pick 8 as a result.
So God can only influence us to a degree, He can place us in certain circumstances to make choices based on free will but He DOESN'T make the choices itself for us. We are a creature of free will and it's best to submit and align our will to God for the best results. In that case, we always choose what God wills for us to choose and those choices are always the best choices because God knows the outcome of each and every choice.
@Abeliever000 thanks but is there a biblical reason why open theism is very uncommon?
I get that most of my decisions are probably predetermined by my personal preferences, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that my entire future, not just 99.9% of it, is set in stone, which sure sounds a lot like "fate" to me.
Also, I'm not against Calvinism if it's true also BTW, it's just really hard to accept unless there's a very compelling biblical reason to do so.
@@JustAskingQuestions8571 I think Isaiah 46: 9-12 clearly refutes open theism.
I think I was clear from my answers that Calvinism is not true. Calvinism is the idea that God predetermines everything such that free will doesn't exist. We are bound to do what God wants us to do. I don't hold this view at all.
I said that God determines conditions that can influence our actions to a degree. We exercise our free will fully.
Free will in Molinism is basically the name tag "free will" hanging on predestination.
If I really have free will I should be able to surprise God. But I never will. So what is the point of this?
Why think that free will requires the ability to surprise an omniscient being? Haven't you ever known someone so well that you knew how they would freely choose given certain options? Why couldn't God have that kind of knowledge to an infinite degree? - RF Admin
That sounds more like the demiurge from Plato's Timeaus who created the world by arranging pre-existing matter according to a world of perfect knowledge over and above him rather than the God who created the world ex nihilo. It borders on gnosticism imo.
My view has been that God determines the consequences of every possible action we could take and so nothing escapes his knowledge. Since he is outside of time, and exists in a state of pure actuality, he sees all events and potential events in a single eternal instant where past present and future exists simultaneously. It is only in our finitude that we see the distinction between actual and potential, and the limitations of time as one successive instant after another.
The thing is, I find that being one of the "babes", the babies who believe, is fine with me. I find that I need to trust Him, far more than I need to understand what it means for Him to decree. If the meaning of decree is at the vanishing point of my understanding, why should I be surprised? Rather than God "peering down the corridors of time", a needlessly crude image, but what we usually get, we remember that Jesus said "before Abraham was, I Am", so He's already in past, present and future, and He already knows, no "peering" necessary. And in light of that, do I know what foreknowledge really is, or what it means for God to decree? Elect according to the foreknowledge of God But what I have, in the place of speculation, are the promises of God. And since Jesus said that His word shall not pass away, even the statements the Calvinists try to dismiss as "descriptive, not prescriptive", robbing them of their gospel power to save, still have their prescriptive power, since Jesus's statements can be taken to the bank. John 3:14-17 are as prescriptive as the answer to the Phillipian jailer's question: what must I do to be saved? With God's direct promises and declarations of truth, I can come to Him. Knowing that He's drawn me to Himself, and since He cannot lie, His gospel and the Holy Spirit's drawing and conviction are enough. I don't need a personal, engraved invitation to believe and be saved. The babies can trust, even when we do not know all the answers.
Chapter and Verse please where it tells us in Gods Word that this is what he did before creation.
I’ll wait…
God is not forced to create the thing that He finds within His knowledge of the future?
What about Provisionism (Dr. Leighton Flowers, Soteriology 101)?
This is wrong the first version of foreknowledge you said, I've never even heard that proposed by an Armenian, they declare the second one, so now I've learned nothing
God knows because it is true....he sees the end in the beginning, and chooses the truth based on his will,including using evil for good
The ultimate check mate
The ultimate check mate against whom? This narrative has week explanatory value, but at least it poses tons of new problems.
@@szilveszterforgo8776 against the devil...if he's seen the end ad ordained it, it was checkmate ever since the start...that's quite obvious
@@stevetherush1193 Quite obvious you say? It's literally an unfalsifiable position. Good luck with convincing anyone with that who's not already believing it.
@@szilveszterforgo8776 its not my job to convince anyone, no one comes to The Father unless he draw them close...If you reject Him, I cant exactly get you to believe what He was unsuccessful with.
where you spend eternity is your responsibility, not mine
@@stevetherush1193 Wow, mind the rhetorics! Trying to frighten someone because he doesn't hold the same arrogant theology as you is pathetic. Imagine suggesting to another that he will get to hell because he has a different idea about compatibilism. How shameful!
I'm confused, and will ask the question likely asked a million times. What really is the difference between God knowing what you will do and putting you in circumstances where you act the way he wants, and simply forcing you to do what he wants.
Not that every Molinist is required to adopt Craig's specific view (I don't) of how God actualizes a world with free creatures, but technically speaking- there is world of difference between the two scenarios you posed. One removes your free will and ability to do otherwise (and consequently your moral responsibility). The other instance simply has God knowing what you will *freely* do in the situation he puts you but he doesn't make you do it and you could've done otherwise (hence you're morally responsible for your actions.) Again, I should point out that I'm a Molinist and do not hold to the view that God "puts" you in certain situations. You are not a chess piece that he moves about. Hope that helped?
@@leonardu6094 Logically speaking, there can be no free will of any type on Molinism because once God creates the World of His choice you have to do what He knew you would do.
@@TheMirabillis You're comitting a very common modal fallacy here. Hopefully this short clip from Dr craig clears up your confusion. God bless.
@@leonardu6094 I am absolutely NOT committing a modal fallacy.
If God knows and knows for an absolutely certainty that you will do X, then if you do Y once the World has been created, then He would be wrong in His knowledge ( and God being wrong is impossible ).
You have to do X once the World has been created, otherwise, God would be wrong in His knowledge. There is absolutely No modal fallacy.
@@leonardu6094 God knows prior to the Creation of the World that you will do X.
God creates the World where you will do X.
If you don’t do X but do Y, then God would be wrong in His knowledge.
If it is impossible for God to be wrong in His knowledge, then it is impossible to Y.
Thus: William Lane Craig is WRONG.
Here's a perfect example of what some call molinism. I prefer to call it God's foreknowledge and omniscience.
Luke 22:67-68
[67]Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
[68]And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
Why does God need to decree all that will happen? Can someone link some info on the doctrine of Divine Decree please?
If you dig through Craig's Defenders series, he has many videos on these doctrines discussing the various positions. They are well worth the hunt to find them. (Dr. Craig's channel of videos should have a group of Defenders or at least links to the videos.)
Because all that was, is or ever will be is entirely based upon His divine decree.
I don’t believe that God knows the future In the way that we expect Him to, because I don’t think the future exists in any tangible or real sense. I believe God knows and acts upon what He wills or desires for the future to be, but that the future is only as certain as He decides for it to be. The past once was, the present is here, and the future is yet to come. God rest in a place between what once was and what will be, and yet, in the context that He always was, and He always will be, He has seen the end from the beginning. He determines what every moment will be based on the last moments change. We make a choice, God analyzes the choice, and then makes a decision about what His correction will be to redirect the progression of the universe back to the path that leads to His ultimate desire. This process is timeless though, and happens simultaneously with the flow of change, thus, in every moment He knows all that there is to know. I don’t believe God had multiple realities to choose from, and I don’t believe He has chosen this reality based on a complete for-knowledge of its future; rather I believe God has created what He has created, and literally wills each moment into existence as the last moment fades away. Basically there is no certain future because God hasn’t decided it yet, aside for the things that He has proclaimed will happen; they will happen because as He plays the elaborate game of chess with humanity, He is always able to regain control of the board and His will prevails. I believe this seems to fit Gods character as well; in that, He still is righteous, just, merciful, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and perfect.
For example, when God tells Jeremiah, “I knew you before I formed you in your mothers womb”, I don’t think He was implying that He knew every detail about Jeremiah’s future life, but rather that He knew who He was going to lead Jeremiah to become, so that His will could be achieved in the world of that time.
This could explain Gods moments of “remorse” or what seems to be moments that He changed His mind; not as a result of a mistake on His part, but as the result of being moved by the choice of one of His people. There’s a lot of debate on topics like these, but maybe this view could help someone find deeper understanding or peace in their doctrine. I don’t believe that we should live complacently in our doctrines, but I think that it’s ok to not know the answers and to just find peace in your walk with Him; trust more than you ask, believe more than you understand.
In this God saves by always knowing each of our hearts content, He pulls on our souls, and works to help us expose our walls; but ultimately, we choose to either spend eternity with God or without Him, based on wether we would acknowledge His voice within us. Then through faith, He will begin His work in us. I would say His elect are simply “those who believe”, and “those who believe” are predestined to be redeemed and sanctified by Him. No for- knowledge of who goes to hell, and who goes to heaven, no issues with wether His way is just; only knowledge that some will be saved, and some will perish, but left in the hands of those who He has allowed to choose. However, I do believe God has the power and authority to both directly harden, or soften a person’s heart, and He chooses to do so based on their intentional malice or disobedience towards Him or His people at any given moment. Also, that God can strengthen the hearts and faith of His faithful. This is who I feel the God of the Bible is, a God so powerful that He eternally maintains the universes order, while simultaneously tending to a self destructive humanity, and forming interpersonal relationships with each of them that will be humbled in their hearts, so that He can give them His gifts and eternal life with Him. I suppose this would be more of an Arminian view, but I couldn’t tell you, nothing but love to all of my brothers and sisters in Jesus.
I was not predestined to be a Calvinist, to the ultimate glory of God.
You don't need any fancy words of men giving credit to them. Just call it what it is: the omniscience and foreknowledge of God as the Bible states.
Molinism’s basic position, probably much like John Wesley’s, has no more to commend itself than classic Calvinism does, and maybe less so, because the mystery that remains with Molinism, related to the origin of evil, is in a sense greater than the mystery that remains in Calvinism and at the heart of Christianity itself. It seems that the two greatest mysteries for Calvinism and Molinism (and Arminianism, for that matter) are that for the former God chooses only some rather than all and that for the latter only some rather than all choose God. The greater mystery is why the some who choose God do so, because ultimately it seems there’s no answer to the question. They just choose God, and the others don’t.
On the other hand, to the question of why God chooses some and passes over others, one answer is that he could have sufficient reasons for doing so even if we are not in a position to know them, the same answer often given to the problem of evil and why God allows suffering. Just as in Molinism it may not be feasible for God to create a world in which all freely choose him, thereby resulting in universalism, so in Calvinism there may be good reasons for God not to choose all, even if we never know them (the secret things belong to the Lord). Besides, in light of Jesus’s clear assertion that we did not choose him, but he chose us, it could be that there’s really only that one viable option.
In trying to find a via media between Calvinism and Arminianism, in his Molinism, W.L. Craig appears to sacrifice (some of) God’s omnipotence (sovereignty) on the altar of God’s absolute omnibenevolence by assuming that both can’t be absolute just as C.S. Lewis did in his book Miracles when he said God “surrenders a portion of his omnipotence” for the sake of human free will. Craig thinks that God’s prevenient grace has to be given to all, or else it would call God’s love into question, which is the reason Craig gives in the end for not being a Calvinist: If choosing for salvation is up to God and he could have chosen everyone, then he should have. That’s why Craig takes the position that it has to be up to us, each individually, whether we choose salvation. To be sure, Craig is not talking about choosing the accomplishment of salvation, which everyone agrees only Christ could do, but he means choosing the application of redemption to ourselves. It just seems safer and surer, and more biblical, for the basis of the choice to be in God rather than in us.
Why did God allow those who would reject Him to exist? For the same reason God raised Pharoah up even after he hardened his heart - to bring Glory to God. They are simply details in the grand story of God stepping into His creation to rescue His children. They are pieces of the puzzle that, when put together in their correct positions, reveal the fullness of God to those willing to seek Him.
Why do some choose God and others don't? Because some choose God and others don't. There is nothing more to it than that. Some don't want to be rescued from their sin. Some don't want to be healed. As we see with Jacob and Esau, some want the birthright, while others are willing to trade their birthright for some hot soup. And God, in is His divine wisdom and foreknowledge, already knew who would choose Him and who would reject Him. Because long before God's chosen people chose Him... He chose His people. And long before the process ever started in the garden, God already knew the outcome. And for the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, despising the shame. All of the details are just the process that God chose to reveal Himself to His children and to establish His relationship with them. How can we know good without evil? How can we know grace without depravity? How can we know forgiveness without guilt? How can we know healing without hurt? The process is just a revelation. And the end justifies the means.
But why did God choose some and not others? Because God wanted to. Because God is sovereign. And because love is demonstrated through selfless acts of sacrifice. So God made a sacrifice for those whom He loved.
Also, in the verse where Jesus says "it is not as though you chose me, but I chose you." he is specifically speaking to His 12 disciples about why they were picked to be the 12 disciples. Context matters and that verse isn't about you. The Apostles were chosen to deliver the gospel of reconciliation so that people could choose to reject or receive the message (Romans 10:14-17). Someone first had to be chosen to be sent out to deliver the message for anyone to be able to respond to it. The Apostles were those who were chosen to do this. Apostle literally means "one who is sent".
@@turkeybobjr The whole 15th chapter of John, not to mention many other parts of the book, is about us. We are his disciples. He is the vine, and we are the branches. As John later wrote, we love him because he first loved us. We choose him because he first chose us.
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 *And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.*
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
God choosing to emphasize His Omnibenevolence.
They "receive...the love of the truth, that they might be saved".
Those who "do truth...come to the light, that it may be clearly seen that their deeds are wrought in God".
Clue: that isn't about the self-righteous; Jesus would never commend self-righteousness. Think of the publican and the Pharisee. Which one comes to the light, which does not, and which one is desperate for God to clearly see that He is responding to the Holy Spirit's conviction?
Could you please support your alegation with a verse from the bible?
Limited free will. Quark appetites make you stay in your lane.
Knowledge comes before decree lol what are you talking about?
If God knows that people who are hungry and lack other resources are more aggressive, why didn't He create a world with more abundance?
This world has no lack of abundance. People lack because of evil in the world. Evil in the form of other peoples' greed, and evil in the form of laziness.
the first lie is that if we had enough, we would reach a point of contentment. We could literally have infinite resources and we would still devise ways to allocate those resources unfairly.
Arminianism and Molinism really have much in common: both deny the absolute and inexorable Lordship of God!
False. Do your homework.
@@nw7us Rather than appealing to the stone, attempt to proffer an intelligible refutation instead…
I'm pretty sure I'm a molinist.
It's your decision 😉
What nonesense from an otherwise sensible man
Spend time with God and get to know him, to appreciate how ignorant and childish theology is.
If the future has not happened yet, then there is nothing to know. So God not knowing the future is not limiting to him. He still knows all possible futures. So both of these are wrong. Open Theism makes much more sense .
Would you care to elaborate?
//If the future has not happened yet, then there is nothing to know.//
Begs the question and is a non-sequitur.
@@leonardu6094 How?
@@haasklaw764 You haven't defended your premise at all. The conclusion doesn't follow from the first assertion.
@@leonardu6094 You said i was begging the question and it is a non-sequitur. Please tell how i am begging the question.
He makes a mess of it. Willingly