For Molinists and Calvinists only - Luke 10:13

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am pretty darned close to simply coming out of the closet as a baby Molinist. Matt and Jaltus spent a long time discussing it with me last night, and a lot of it as I was cogitating it over the night simply "clicked" but I have a whole lot more to learn. While it has been described to me as a variation of Arminianism, I saw quite a few Calvinist elements in it as well, and believe it really is that much sought after "middle [pun intended - egad I am making more Molinist jokes] of the road."

Jaltus made one point to me last night that he probably didn't intend to have such an impact but it did. I was expressing discomfort with some of the Calvinistic elements of Molinism, and he expressed how I was in my discomfort almost lapsing into deism, and that really helped me to see the inconsistency in my thoughts in that regard (he didn't apply it so personally to me as he handled it very tactfully, but I got the point by personalizing it).

Now, I think my attraction to Molinism began with a long-standing fascination with this passage:

Luke 10:13 - Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

I see this a conundrum for Calvinists and a ringer for Molinistic subjunctiveness. How would the presence of mighty works or not make a difference if Calvinism were true if human synergy were not an issue? God could simply work irresistible grace (that is the portion of Calvinism I utterly reject). Why would there be a greater judgment in store for Chorazin and Bethsaida on this basis, that they didn't respond as other people would have responded in similar circumstances?

[Solly]

As per Romans 1-3 scripture is quite clear that, though sinners in rebellion against God; though in bondage to sin, yet we are still responsible, we still know, even though we don't and won't turn to God, and can't unless he override that determinate will of ours. It is not a past event that affects us in some way, but an ongoing situation Rom 1.32. Our attitutude to God must be addressed, even in simple natural knowledge. men should repent of their sins, for God is the judge. This is what Paul told the Athenians:
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.


Just as Israel failed to keep the law, and in doing so showed that we are all sinners Rom 3; so the works done in Chorazin - and rejected - will only be further proof of the "can't believe? Won't believe!!" mentality. Call it Greco Roman Rhetoric to get a point across. The repentance of the Tyrites and Sidonians which the Lord refers to would not necessarily have been repentance unto salvation, but just the natural repentance as seen in Ninevah under Jonah's preaching in the same way as Paul calls upon the Athenians; Jesus specifically mentions sackcloth and ashes.

Israel had God as their King, technically, and his Son had come. Response to Christ on that basis was the test. Jesus is pointing out that refusal to receive him was the issue.

Luk 10:16 He that heareth you [the disciples being sent out] heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Hope that helps

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh, I will get back to this more, but that still really did not answer my question, unless the answer is this:

Jesus was speaking hyperbolically (still needs to be proven) and it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. If it does, it just does not make sense in a Calvinistic framework. Since he was condeming them for lack of reaction it does not make sense that He would be berating them and comparing them to a people's who would have had repentance NOT unto salvation. That makes no sense to me.

Second it is an assumption that the Ninevites experienced repentance NOT until salvatoin, and I think highly anticontextual.

[TedO]

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166766#post166766)
Solly:Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.


Great verse. Why does God need to show proof, assurance (word pistis = faith) if salvation is based on U and I?

Is this the drawing of John 12:32? :poke:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Why would God command us to do something we cannot do unless He makes us?

[Solly]

Ted0

We are not robots; we are conscious beings. We do not do something out of thin air - unlike LFW theory :whack:

God uses means and minds; that is why we preach.

And no, it is not the drawing of 12.32. It might be the drawing of 6.37-45, which is the spiritual work required, since they had not turned to him 6.36 though seeing him.
The works will testify against them, that even T&S would have had some response if they had seen them - and what do you know, a syrophoenician woman did come to Christ!!
The works will testify against them, as Moses will testify against the family of the man in the parable of the rich man and lazarus.
Where you of the impression that all preaching of the Gospel must terminate in the salvation of sinners?
Have you not read:
2Co 2:14 Now thanks [be] unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co 2:16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?

And how about:
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[GrayPilgrim]

I would say that it is following the oft repeated idea of Hebrews that if the people of old were punished for failure to heed the message of the Lord from one of his prophets, how much more severe will the punishment be for failure to heed the Message of the Son of God.

I was reading in Frame's The Doctrine of God last night just the appropriate passage that deals with human responsibility and divine sovereignty. He pointed out how the Roman Soldiers were not free to break the legs of Christ on the Cross, and he pointed out other such contingencies which shows that we are not always free, however, the Bible does hold us up as ultimately culpable for our actions. Thus I have to say that this antimony is a quandary for the human mind, for the Bible asserts divine sovereignty and also does not waver from the teaching that we human agents are 100% culpable for all of our actions.

Now back to DDW's verse. Besides in the Greek the sentence is a First Class Conditional ei + indicative mood, which is used in a place where something is assumed to be true for the sake of argument.

[TedO]

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166817#post166817)
Solly:We are not robots; we are conscious beings. We do not do something out of thin air - unlike LFW theory :whack:

I never said we were robots...and you know, I don't believe we make decisions in a vacuum apart from context. I do believe that a person must RECEIVE God's salvation by repentance and faith for regeneration to take place.


God uses means and minds; that is why we preach.
Sounds...synergistic :whack: :poke:


And no, it is not the drawing of 12.32. It might be the drawing of 6.37-45, which is the spiritual work required, since they had not turned to him 6.36 though seeing him.

But wait...John 12:32 says
And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."
and Acts 17:31 says
because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.
In both cases the context is that of judgment:

John 12:31 says "now is the judgment of this world."

Acts 17:30 says that men are "COMMANDED to repent". Why? Acts 17:31. This is the basis of judgment. You've been given evidence enough to decide - you cannot claim ignorance. God will not overlook your disobedience to His call to repent based on Jesus DBR. This should give you assurance, i.e. faith!


The works will testify against them, that even T&S would have had some response if they had seen them - and what do you know, a syrophoenician woman did come to Christ!!
The works will testify against them, as Moses will testify against the family of the man in the parable of the rich man and lazarus.
Where you of the impression that all preaching of the Gospel must terminate in the salvation of sinners?

hmmm...I smell a straw man, or maybe a red herring...I'm not sure which, but where do you get the impression I have that impression? In fact, what I am saying is the exact opposite. Preaching of the Gospel enables a person to choose to RECEIVE salvation or NOT.


Have you not read:
2Co 2:14 Now thanks [be] unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
2Co 2:15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
2Co 2:16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?

And how about:
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

YES. As many as received him...exactly. Born of God because the received God's salvation as offered to them by believing, repenting and receiving. Not because of their flesh. Not their lineage, not their works, but by faith in the work of God. This IN NO WAY infringes on God's sovereignty in the matter.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 07:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166932#post166932)
TedO:
Acts 17:30 says that men are "COMMANDED to repent". Why? Acts 17:31. This is the basis of judgment. You've been given evidence enough to decide - you cannot claim ignorance. God will not overlook your disobedience to His call to repent based on Jesus DBR. This should give you assurance, i.e. faith!

Act 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.


You may notice from this passage that all Paul gets time to talk about is their "superstition" and failure to recognise the One True God. God, however, has overlooked this ignorance, but not anymore, and a day of judgment is coming. They should repent of it and turn to him. There is no Gospel of salvation here, he didn't get that far. There is a stirring up of natural understanding - and rejection - but the Gospel will be ministered later:

Act 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].
Act 17:33 So Paul departed from among them.
Act 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which [was] Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

There is nothing wrong with judgment being made known, see Rom 1.32 again; but that is not all the Gospel obviously.

John 12.32 has already been mentioned elsewhere, and I have asserted :teeth: that it is not the same as John 6, even though it is the same word, because John 6 is the Father drawing to the Son, and this is the Son drawing to himself. The Father draws to the Son such as should be saved; the Son draws to himself to keep from judgment, because he takes the judgment.

[TedO]

Today @ 07:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167303#post167303)
Solly:You may notice from this passage (Acts 17:22-31)that all Paul gets time to talk about is their "superstition" and failure to recognise the One True God. God, however, has overlooked this ignorance, but not anymore, and a day of judgment is coming. They should repent of it and turn to him. There is no Gospel of salvation here, he didn't get that far. There is a stirring up of natural understanding - and rejection - but the Gospel will be ministered later:

Act 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].
Act 17:33 So Paul departed from among them.
Act 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which [was] Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

There is nothing wrong with judgment being made known, see Rom 1.32 again; but that is not all the Gospel obviously.

True, awareness of the need for repentance comes first. Just like in Acts 2:15-36 Peter spoke of Christ's resurrection and impending judgment. In that case the people responded favorably in Acts 2:37 allowing Peter to tell the rest of the story of salvation to which many responded. And in Acts 17, some did respond to the preaching of Paul, others didn't.

It all has to do with response to the truth - again, verse 31 makes it so clear that the resurrection is all the proof we need to have faith. All men are commanded to repent on this basis and those who don't will be held accountable.


John 12.32 has already been mentioned elsewhere, and I have asserted :teeth: that it is not the same as John 6, even though it is the same word, because John 6 is the Father drawing to the Son, and this is the Son drawing to himself. The Father draws to the Son such as should be saved; the Son draws to himself to keep from judgment, because he takes the judgment.

As for the Father/Son drawing assertion :wink:, I will have to give that some more thought and come back to that another time.

But to put it into a deterministic framework I hear you saying that God the Father selects and regenerates a person at some point in time, and then when they hear the gospel of salvation through the Son they can then respond to it (and be saved from judgment). Their eyes are pre-opened to the goodness of God so that they don't have to taste and see, they know it will taste good. What role do you see the Holy Spirit play pre-salvation?

[Solly]

Today @ 01:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167410#post167410)
TedO:
True, awareness of the need for repentance comes first. Just like in Acts 2:15-36 Peter spoke of Christ's resurrection and impending judgment. In that case the people responded favorably in Acts 2:37 allowing Peter to tell the rest of the story of salvation to which many responded. And in Acts 17, some did respond to the preaching of Paul, others didn't.

It all has to do with response to the truth - again, verse 31 makes it so clear that the resurrection is all the proof we need to have faith. All men are commanded to repent on this basis and those who don't will be held accountable.

As for the Father/Son drawing assertion :wink:, I will have to give that some more thought and come back to that another time.

s'cool; I can't always maintain a daily input on these things anyway, so donn't feel rushed about it, we know where we can pick up again.


But to put it into a deterministic framework I hear you saying that God the Father selects and regenerates a person at some point in time, and then when they hear the gospel of salvation through the Son they can then respond to it (and be saved from judgment). Their eyes are pre-opened to the goodness of God so that they don't have to taste and see, they know it will taste good. What role do you see the Holy Spirit play pre-salvation?

In the act of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the first thing that happens is awakening and alarm. We become aware of issues, sin, and the necessity for dealing with it; we become aware that God does exist after all, and we are accountable to him. This can happen independantly, or at the time the Gospel is being preached. Read Bunyan's Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners for a classic example. Regeneration is not a cognitive state initially, but is part of the work of God John 16.8ff upon a sinner. As the sinner becomes aware of their condition, and the need to do something about it - I am compressing somewhat here - so the Gospel is brought to their attention, generally in preaching or reading or conversation, and there is a recognition of what God has done, and a desire for it, a drawing to it as one sees who Christ is, and what he has done for sinners. As the Purtians termed it, there is a closing with Christ for salvation, and a receiving from him of forgiveness through his blood, and righteousness imputed. This involves the further work of the Spirit in conversion, repentance and faith.

So I would assert :tongue: that you are partly right in your analysis; but the latter part, about eyes being preopened to the goodness of God, is not. We are preopened to see the wrath of God revealed from heaven upon all unrighteousness, etc., as laid down in Rom 1-3, and are led to justify God in his judgments upon sin and sinners, even upon us. Remember, this is the ending of a rebellion, not a cosy putting the arm around the shoulder for a nice chat. The aim is to get to Rom 4.5-8, and Rom 10.8-11.

That is the classic Reformed experiential view anyway.

[TedO]

Man, there is just an eyelash of difference between what you assert :bonk: and what I carefully exegete from the scriptures :read:.

I see John 16:8 as essential to the process also - and I find it telling kosmos is the word used. It is hard to limit this word to mean anything but universal, everywhere. So I see the Holy Spirit bringing conviction which along with preaching the truth opens a person's eyes to the need for repentance - prior to belief and faith, enabling a sinner to either believe and have faith or - and here is the gulf between us - to reject and not believe.

Another thought to consider, what do you make of the prodigal son "coming to his senses"?

[Solly]

/ot looks over shoulder to see if DD doesn't mind us hogging her thread.

I didn't expect there to be too much between us, certainly not a chasm, and I think even Mickiel understands a lot, even though he leans to universalism.

Re: World. Everyone? Whoever lived? Everywhere? Even without the Gospel and cognitive acceptance of its terms? Nuf sed on world.

Re: the prodival son; of course this PARABLE is more about the Father than the son, and should be exegeted in line with the Shepherd looking for one sheep out of 100; the woman looking for one coin out of ten, and then the Father looking for one son out of two. This isn't a conversion story, since it is only a natural situation, and an imaginary one too. It is designed to illustrate the eagerness with which God, our Father in heaven, will receive sinners. Notice the first two verses of ch 15.

Luk 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
Luk 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.


While this particular parable, unlike the sheep and coin one's, contains elements relevant to spiritual conversion and repentance, it is only in similarity, not as teaching what it is, and how it works. There is a recognition that he has done wrong, that he deserves nothing from his father - but not the recognition of wrath I mentioned just now. It is about the fact that they way is open despite feeling that way. Christ came to sek and to save that which was lost; rejoice and have confidence that he does the Father's will - oops, back to John 6.37-48!!

[TedO]

Today @ 02:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167433#post167433)
TedO:So I see the Holy Spirit bringing conviction which along with preaching the truth opens a person's eyes to the need for repentance - prior to belief and faith...

Just wanted to point this out so that I am not branded a universalist. Although all who hear can be saved...if they believe and repent.

[Jaltus]

*cough*

The prodigal son is about the son who stayed home.

Luke 15:25-32
25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on.
27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'
28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him.
29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'
31 "'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.
32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'"

Note the beginning of the section:

Luke 15:1 Now the tax collectors and "sinners" were all gathering around to hear him.
2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
3 Then Jesus told them this parable:

The parable is aimed at the Pharisees, who are the son who stayed home.

[Bill the Cat]

Jaltus, do you think we as the Church are the older brother now and Israel has become the younger, but hasn't come home yet?

[Solly]

No no wait, its about the pig herder, see...

Thanks for that J.
Although of course, the Father was still pretty nice to him too, and the resolution it decidedly lacking...

[TedO]

But if the older son continues not in unbelief, then all Israel will be saved...

What thread is this again? :shrug:

[Jaltus]

Today @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167502#post167502)
Bill the Cat:

Jaltus, do you think we as the Church are the older brother now and Israel has become the younger, but hasn't come home yet?

That is not, in context, what it is referring to.

Ok, somebody get back on topic!

[Solly]

Hmm, there's the rub. DD started this then hopped it. Still, just like men to put the world to rights while the women are away...

[TedO]

Men, men, men, men. Men, men, men, men...

Oh I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK...I work all night and I sleep all day...

(Everybody sing) :egad:

[Bill the Cat]

ANyone have the Shaun Moore song "the Man song??"

[TedO]

Time to recite the man's prayer:

I'm a man,

but I can change,

if I have to,

I guess....

[Solly]

Come on guys, group hug; let's have a bonding session

[Bill the Cat]

Ok, is Solly trying to post pics of the Episcopal church here or what??

[TedO]

:doh:

[Solly]

I did have a caption in mind for the picture; can you guess what it is.

clue: the centre bloke is saying something

[Bill the Cat]

My name's Jack, everyone say Hi Jack!!

[Bill the Cat]

Well, if you play your cards right, I'll give the thread back!!
:teeth:

*****edited because I am typing with my elbows and can't spell!!

[Solly]

No-o-o-o.

let he who sees read...
/hide Hey everybody, Bob just gave his life to the Lord!
/hide Bob: Larry, hush; I'm a Democrat...

[Bill the Cat]

:huh: Brits :no:

[Bill the Cat]

Would this be a molinist??

[Solly]

Bill:

clue

[Bill the Cat]

Wow, do I feel dumb!!! :metro: :metro: :metro:

[Solly]

s'alright youngster; little bit of humbling is good for the soul.

Another helping...?

[Bill the Cat]

[:btc: doing best Homer Simpson] mmmmmmmmm Humble pie!!

[TedO]

I'm confused... :help:

[Bill the Cat]

We hijacked Dee Dee's thread.

[GrayPilgrim]

And the hijacking got a post of the Day!!

[Bill the Cat]

Yeah, well, I started it!!! :shrug:

[TedO]

But what is the caption for Solly's picture?

[Bill the Cat]

You have to highlight solly's post #30. Highlight all of the box and see the hidden text. You can do it with the / hide appended to the front of the hidden text with no space between the / and the h

Like this:

/hide See??

[TedO]

Ohhhhhh...

Very interesting, but not very funny.

[Jaltus]

I hasve so many captions I want to put for that, but none of them feel......manly enough...

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sigh. This was a pathetic display. I would love to hear Jaltus' opinion on GP's assertion that he believes undermines the Molinist flavor of the verse I brought forth.

[geebob]

DD

While it has been described to me as a variation of Arminianism, I saw quite a few Calvinist elements in it as well,

In the free will paradigm, it is recognized that molinism does give God the most control.


I see this a conundrum for Calvinists and a ringer for Molinistic subjunctiveness. How would the presence of mighty works or not make a difference if Calvinism were true if human synergy were not an issue? God could simply work irresistible grace (that is the portion of Calvinism I utterly reject). Why would there be a greater judgment in store for Chorazin and Bethsaida on this basis, that they didn't respond as other people would have responded in similar circumstances?

This may pose a problem for irresistable grace, but a calvinist need not have a problem as far as their version of soverignty is concerned. IN molinism it is we who determine the counterfactuals of freedom. In calvinism, God determines It (though you wouldn't call them counterfactuals of freedom). The result could be the same with regard to Jesus'. Don't know if that significantly effects your puzzle.

come to think of it, it doesn't. This really does go against the notion of irresistable grace. Jesus using miracles as his means of dispensing grace (in these situations)(grace defined as what would bring people to salvation) would not have the same effect amongst two different peoples.

Gray

Now back to DDW's verse. Besides in the Greek the sentence is a First Class Conditional ei + indicative mood, which is used in a place where something is assumed to be true for the sake of argument.

right, but what is assumed for arguement? Isn't it that they would see miracles? ie jesus was saying "assuming they saw these works, they would have repented."

solly

We do not do something out of thin air - unlike LFW theory

maybe your version of lfw. :shifty:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes geebob, you totally got where I was going with that.

[Jaltus]

Yesterday @ 11:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=166849#post166849)
GrayPilgrim:
I would say that it is following the oft repeated idea of Hebrews that if the people of old were punished for failure to heed the message of the Lord from one of his prophets, how much more severe will the punishment be for failure to heed the Message of the Son of God.

Yes, that is the point of it, but there is more going on than just that.


I was reading in Frame's The Doctrine of God last night just the appropriate passage that deals with human responsibility and divine sovereignty. He pointed out how the Roman Soldiers were not free to break the legs of Christ on the Cross, and he pointed out other such contingencies which shows that we are not always free, however, the Bible does hold us up as ultimately culpable for our actions. Thus I have to say that this antimony is a quandary for the human mind, for the Bible asserts divine sovereignty and also does not waver from the teaching that we human agents are 100% culpable for all of our actions.

That is the difference between theism and deism. Theism assumes a God who is active in the world, whereas Deism assumes a god who is not active. Since we are theists, we must realize that God is going to interact and determine at least some things.


Now back to DDW's verse. Besides in the Greek the sentence is a First Class Conditional ei + indicative mood, which is used in a place where something is assumed to be true for the sake of argument.

Of course this is true, but quite irrelevent. In fact, one could even say it argues for our position quite well. Since it is asserted for the sake of argument, and it is follwed by the subjunctive mood, we know that there is a future possibility based on a past possibility which was not instantiated. Therefore, Jesus is setting up a counterfactual based on creaturely freedom.

In other words, this is a Molinistic statement, and GP has only added to the case instead of detracted from it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yeah! What he said.

[GrayPilgrim]

Yesterday @ 07:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=168347#post168347)
Jaltus:

Of course this is true, but quite irrelevent. In fact, one could even say it argues for our position quite well. Since it is asserted for the sake of argument, and it is follwed by the subjunctive mood, we know that there is a future possibility based on a past possibility which was not instantiated. Therefore, Jesus is setting up a counterfactual based on creaturely freedom.

In other words, this is a Molinistic statement, and GP has only added to the case instead of detracted from it.

Problem is Jaltus


a. DD only said verse 13, and there is not ONE subjunctive in verse 13!
b. Subjunctives don't prove squat! Sheesh, how could you sit through two semesters of Blokland (okay one was condensed into three weeks) and not see that language systems use conventions to convey things and that the discourse intent of this passage is to call people to repentance. I mean you wont find a Calvinst (now you will find Hyper-Calvinists, but we wont discuss that) would say that there does not have to be the Gospel call (i.e. the Good News proclaimed that one must flee the coming wrath due to sin), before they can be regenerated, justified...
3. Your presuppositionalism needs to be rethought through as you are just a neo-foundationalist, Grenz and Frankeist :dufus:

[Solly]

Someone say Hyper Calvinist ggaahh

What don't we say; I am afraid the grammar check wasn't working again.

[Bill the Cat]

Molinists???

[geebob]

yes bill, that is what molinists generally look like. :poke:

[TedO]

Question for anyone...

Is there any substantial difference between compatibalism and Molinism?

I don't really like the word compatibalism because it makes me think of canibalism :grin: .

[geebob]

yes, in compatibilism, God determines the counterfactuals. In molinism, we determine the counterfactuals of freedom.

That's not the typical strategy in compatibilism though. God determines our motives and we always have a strongest set of motives for one choice and we always do what the motive tells us to do. However the strategies combine very naturally.

Compatibilism is full blown theological determinism everything is precisely the way it is because God determined it that way.

Molinism is not a full blown theological determinism, but I still suspect that it is a form of determinism though Molinists would deny this.

[TedO]

Thanks for the response - I was beginning to think no one cared. :shifty:

So, by that definintion, is compatiblism the same as TULIP calvinisim?

[geebob]

You could be a compatibilist and a universalist. So no.

Those who believe that free will and determinism are compatible are compatibilists, so most who'd affirm the TULIP will be compatibilists. Even non-christians can be compatibilists. (they just don't believe God determined things but everything is determined).

I myself am slightly a compatibilist, that is I believe that some free will is compatible with previous determination. But I believe that is just one mode of freedom. I insist that we have libertarian freedom though. I think our experience is too varied to be explained by just one mode of freedom.

[TedO]

So if I understand your definition, compatibilist free will really isn't "free" but is determined. It only appears to be free to us because we are making real choice, but the things which cause us to make those choices are in fact determined.

I do agree that even Molinism has a degree of determinism. God did define the boundaries...we didn't choose our parents, country, era...Acts 17:26

[geebob]

So if I understand your definition, compatibilist free will really isn't "free" but is determined.

compatibilist freedom isn't free in the libertarian sense because it is determined. but it is free in the compatibilist sense.


It only appears to be free to us because we are making real choice,

I'd say yes, and I don't see why I'd argue with that appearance. I don't see the conflict of determination. If I am confronted by a choice of chocolate chip cookie dough Ice Cream and banana cream pie, under normal circumstances, I will definitely pick the chocolate chip cookie dough. Is it in my genes or in my history? I don't know, but I'm not willing to say that this wasn't a free choice.

But again, I don't think this is the only type of freedom we have. I believe libertarian free will is necessary for moral responsibility and I am confronted with all sorts of morally neutral choices of which I believe I truly could go either way.


I do agree that even Molinism has a degree of determinism. God did define the boundaries...we didn't choose our parents, country, era...Acts 17:26

those aren't enough to establish the counterfactuals of freedom though. Actually if they did, the molinist could no longer claim to believe in libertarian freedom. (I don't believe in counterfactuals of freedom BTW)

[TedO]

So what is your position then?

[Jaltus]

To some extent, every single theistic system believes in a form of compatibolism, with the exception of process theology (since God is essentially powerless).

My explanation is that we are theists, and not deists. What I mean is that true biblical Christians not only believe in a God who works in daily life (a subtle form of compatibolism), but pray for God to work. Deists want a God who creates the world and then just lets it rot. If you believe in Jesus as God incarnate, you then believe in theism instead of deism.

[geebob]

So what is your position then?

I believe some decisions of ours are determined in light of something about the past that we did not personally control, as in compatibilism, some decisions are determined by us exclusively in the present, as in libertarian freedom, and some decisions are determined in part by elements not in our control and elements that we were in control of, by which I mean libertarian decisions we made in the past. I call these decisions "self determined" decisions and they have elements of libertarian freedom as well as compatibilism. many(but not all) decisions one makes when he is addicted are examples of this third category.

[geebob]

also, I'm not a molinist.