PDA

View Full Version : FYI: What about the unevangelized?-molinism spans the range.


geebob
April 29th 2003, 05:52 PM
I thought I'd bring this up since there are so many here interested in molinism.

With regard to the question of what happens to the unevangelized, whether they are all damned, or some can be saved, a molinist can take any position.

For restrictivism, the notion that those who have never heard are all damned, we have a view of middleknowledge that says that God has arranged the world such that those who never heard are exclusively people who wouldn't have responded positively to the Gospel anyway. This view is argued by William Lane Craig.

For inclusivism, the notion that it is possible for people outside the the boundaries of the Gospel can still be saved has been supported by the notion that God will save those whom he knows would accept the Gospel if they had the chance.

And the universalist molinist holds that God will save everyone claiming that for every man, there is a circumstance in which they would have accepted the Gospel, and this somehow provides a basis for everyone to be saved.

Jaltus
April 29th 2003, 06:23 PM
Interesting thoughts, geebob.

Blake Reas
April 29th 2003, 11:57 PM
Yesterday @ 09:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=82320#post82320)
geebob:

I thought I'd bring this up since there are so many here interested in molinism.

With regard to the question of what happens to the unevangelized, whether they are all damned, or some can be saved, a molinist can take any position.

For restrictivism, the notion that those who have never heard are all damned, we have a view of middleknowledge that says that God has arranged the world such that those who never heard are exclusively people who wouldn't have responded positively to the Gospel anyway. This view is argued by William Lane Craig.

For inclusivism, the notion that it is possible for people outside the the boundaries of the Gospel can still be saved has been supported by the notion that God will save those whom he knows would accept the Gospel if they had the chance.

And the universalist molinist holds that God will save everyone claiming that for every man, there is a circumstance in which they would have accepted the Gospel, and this somehow provides a basis for everyone to be saved.

Very interesting, I have read Craig's case for exclusivism on www.williamlanecraig.com for those of you who have not been to this site it is loaded with many of his arguments on everything.

Blake

geebob
April 30th 2003, 11:38 AM
that link didn't go anywhere. His "virtual office" though is here.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/

dizzle
April 30th 2003, 10:19 PM
If I ended being molinist, I would be restrictivist. I am not adamantly opposed to inclusivism as described above, but absolutely oppose universalism.

geebob
May 1st 2003, 01:50 PM
Sometime in the future, I may be posting a thread on how william lane craig might have problems with william lane craig on that issue. :brow:

But a little reading is in order first. maybe he fixes this problem that I see.

themuzicman
May 1st 2003, 02:35 PM
Gimme a break. Paul deals with the unevangelized in Romans 2. Their conscience defends and condemns them.


Michael

Chief of Staff Lizard
May 1st 2003, 02:42 PM
Yesterday @ 09:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83621#post83621)
Dee Dee Warren:

If I ended being molinist, I would be restrictivist. I am not adamantly opposed to inclusivism as described above, but absolutely oppose universalism.

Once again, we have a similar position.

If I ended being molinist, I would lean toward inclusivism, but not rule out restrictivism. I absolutely oppose universalism.

kente777
May 2nd 2003, 12:54 PM
I believe in the salvation of all mankind.

Ken