Comments on Arminian Chronicles: Does Molinism teach that God's sovereignty is trum...

Thanks for the link Wes and the courage to call in...

2009-11-15T07:59:01.993-05:00

Thanks for the link Wes and the courage to call into the Dividing Line. You may want to add Molinia as translated by Freddoso.

God be with you,
Dan

Hi Andrew, I agree. God wanted and decided to gi...

2009-11-15T07:55:47.772-05:00

Hi Andrew,

I agree. God wanted and decided to give man freedom. So long as it's his decission, I don't see the issue at all.

God be with you,
Dan

In response to all the apparent interest in Molini...

2009-11-14T14:51:20.023-05:00

In response to all the apparent interest in Molinism (whether it be honest inquiry or a reactive lashing out) I've collected the best sources I can find on Middle Knowledge/Molinism. Enjoy!

Frankly, I'm not quite sure why limitations on...

2009-11-14T14:04:24.153-05:00

Frankly, I'm not quite sure why limitations on God's sovereignty poses the philosophical threat that it does.

God established a covenant with Israel. That's inherently a restriction on God's sovereignty because God won't break his own word.

God doesn't have to establish a covenant with anyone, but freely chooses to do so. God's sovereign word (or his Holy name) thus limits His own sovereignty.

If this argument is true, that God wills that the maximum number of people be saved, his very act of creation limits his sovereignty, but again - that's a function of God not man.

Perhaps we should stop shying away from the idea limitations on God's sovereignty are to be feared.

I personally am kind of pleased, God chose to limit his own sovereignty after the flood.

Hi Robert, Right, but that leads the questions to...

2009-11-10T20:24:17.511-05:00

Hi Robert,

Right, but that leads the questions to a deeper level; a level WCL operates on all the time and JW does not.

God be with you,
Dan

Hi John, I agree. Which in turn leads them to re...

2009-11-10T20:14:22.231-05:00

Hi John,

I agree. Which in turn leads them to redefine God's goodness and love to include ultimate responsibilty for all things including sin and reprobation.

God be with you,
Dan

Hello Dan, You wrote: “Yes, at some point you ju...

2009-11-10T18:55:17.945-05:00

Hello Dan,

You wrote:

“Yes, at some point you just have to ask why two smart people who are serious about the bible don't come up with the same answers. Or you can just pound your fist.”

I am guessing that most people don’t want me to “pound my fist” (black belt level, 6 ft. 4 about 230 lbs but not fat, having trained with weights for years and played sports for years, if I “pound my fist” on some people they may not survive). :-)

So I will give the short answer to your question here: smart people arrive at different conclusions on things because they operate from different presuppositions or assumptions. Those who hold to some sort of theological system, such as calvin-ism, have their thinking and conclusions driven by the presuppositions of their system.

Robert

Calvinists accept that God is responsible for sin,...

2009-11-10T16:29:56.048-05:00

Calvinists accept that God is responsible for sin, but they argue that God's decree that sin occur does not make him evil nor morally culpable for it.

Among other things, they argue that sin was necessary in order for God to display His attributes such as holiness, glory, justice and mercy and anger/wrath.

regards,
#John

And it's still no way I can possibly understan...

2009-11-09T21:50:51.870-05:00

And it's still no way I can possibly understand how can one who holds to causal determinism view like our dear Tirretinfan, can escape the logical consiquence of it - God is the one to blame for sin in this world. If we dont have the free will to choose...

Odeliya

Yes, at some point you just have to ask why two sm...

2009-11-09T19:56:17.042-05:00

Yes, at some point you just have to ask why two smart people who are serious about the bible don't come up with the same answers. Or you can just pound your fist.

God be with you,
Dan

Hello Dan, So this “Turretinfan” wrote: “That...

2009-11-09T18:31:50.936-05:00

Hello Dan,

So this “Turretinfan” wrote:

“That's a mischaracterization of the situation. Molinism is merely philosophical. Causal determinism oozes from Scripture. It is provable from Scripture - making it a Biblical, and not merely a philosophical, position. Of course, causal determinism is a metaphysical claim.” ?????

He reminds me of the atheists who want to argue that evolution is scientific while creation is religious (when in fact whatever your position on origins is, is a faith position that cannot be scientifically proven: similarly, if Molinism is “merely philosophical” then so is “Causal determinism”).

And this assertion that “Causal determinism oozes from Scripture. It is provable from Scripture- making it a Biblical and not merely a philosophical, position” is completely out to lunch.

Causal determinism is an a priori held by the necessatarian because they hold to the Calvinistic system which they then READ INTO the bible. “Turretinfan” works at a law firm he ought to know some things about matters of proof including the legal maxim that he who asserts must prove. No necessatarian has ever come close to “proving” causal determinism from scripture which is one reason why it is roundly rejected by the vast majority of Christians throughout church history. And previous to Augustine (who brought causal determinism ideas into church tradition), for hundreds of years previous to Augustine nobody was espousing causal determinism in the early church. This idea of causal determinism is completely absent from the early CENTURIES of church history. If it were “oozing” from scripture then why didn’t anybody notice it until Augustine came along? And again if it is just “oozing” from scripture why do the VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS across all Christian theological traditions reject causal determinism and calvinism?

Robert