James white on William Lane Craig & Molinism

[timspong]

Just a heads up about 2 programs that James White did on "radio free geneva" commenting on come Lectures by William Lane Craig.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3304

Although I have never found James White to be particularly irenic, I thought he did a pretty good job at giving the reformed perspective on the issues raised.

I liked his point that Craig is defending molinism which was actually formed by the jesuits as a counter-reformation doctrine. I also agree that Arminianism in general is a step back towards Rome and synergism.

Anyhow, I would be interested in what others think, as I know molinism is now pretty popular here on Tweb.

I actually subscribed to Craigs podcast a few months ago but find his exegesis and theology rather ad-hoc and have had great difficulty following his lines of reasoning at times.

[Philosophickle]

Catholics also believe in God. Do we have to give that up too?

[RBerman]

Catholics also believe in God. Do we have to give that up too?

Nobody is always wrong.

As far as Molinism, it's unnecessary unless one has already rejected Calvinism. If Calvin was right (as I believe he was in this case), then Molinism is moot.

[timspong]

Catholics also believe in God. Do we have to give that up too?

No because that was not a reformation issue.

Molinism was specifically formulated as part of a counter reformation tactic by the RCC. In other words it is was formed as a tool to be used against the reformation. IMO it was formed extraneously from the word of God by those who have synergistic presuppositions. i.e. an attempt to reconcile synergism with the biblical text.

The whole RCC counter-reformation was pretty effective and stemmed the tide of reformation but ended up reducing europe to bloodletting war for almost 100 years. Pretty serious stuff.

[themuzicman]

I liked his point that Craig is defending molinism which was actually formed by the jesuits as a counter-reformation doctrine. I also agree that Arminianism in general is a step back towards Rome and synergism.

Reactionary movements almost always move too far in the other direction, and Calvinism/Lutheranism is no exception.

Michael

[timspong]

Reactionary movements almost always move too far in the other direction, and Calvinism/Lutheranism is no exception.

Michael

I agree. Although I don't believe there is any possible middle ground in this case with soteriology. Either God does everything necessary for our salvation or He doesn't. Christ's work on the cross was either a completely finished work or it wasn't. Either Christ saves us completely or he merely makes salvation possible.

To take that step back to Rome is effectively nullifying the reformation as far as soteriology is concerned. As White implies; Molinism was like a rescue line from Rome for those still wading around in the Tiber who had yet to fully reach the other side. After all the Jesuits were the very capable RCC storm-troopers of the counter reformation and were right at the cutting edge of the effort to stop the reformation at any cost.

If you look at the statements from Trent regarding justification, they are in essence indistinguishable from modern Arminianism.

[themuzicman]

I agree. Although I don't believe there is any possible middle ground in this case with soteriology. Either God does everything necessary for our salvation or He doesn't. Christ's work on the cross was either a completely finished work or it wasn't. Either Christ saves us completely or he merely makes salvation possible.

I think you've made too big a lump of non-Calvinists. There is more to soterilogy than that. The RCC has taken a very semi-pelagian view, where man can simply do what he knows to do, (generally, confession, penance, and mass) and God gives grace. The further extremes would be hyper-calvinism and pelagianism.

But there is a middle ground between the two, where God both makes salvation possible, but also prescribes how one is saved (by faith), and actively works to draw people into right relationship with Him. That's roughly Arminianism.

To take that step back to Rome is effectively nullifying the reformation as far as soteriology is concerned. As White implies; Molinism was like a rescue line from Rome for those still wading around in the Tiber who had yet to fully reach the other side. After all the Jesuits were the very capable RCC storm-troopers of the counter reformation and were right at the cutting edge of the effort to stop the reformation at any cost.

True enough. All the more reason to be more reactionary.

If you look at the statements from Trent regarding justification, they are in essence indistinguishable from modern Arminianism.

That may be. I'm not a true Arminian. But I do think that Arminianism at least approaches that middle ground between the extremems.

Michael

[Philosophickle]

No because that was not a reformation issue.

Molinism was specifically formulated as part of a counter reformation tactic by the RCC. In other words it is was formed as a tool to be used against the reformation.

That's accurate but not exhaustive. Presumably they also thought it was true, regardless of the way it was used by the Jesuits.

IMO it was formed extraneously from the word of God by those who have synergistic presuppositions. i.e. an attempt to reconcile synergism with the biblical text.

IMO monergism is formed extraneously from the word of God by those who have monergistic presuppositions. i.e. an attempt to reconcile monergism with the biblical text.

The whole RCC counter-reformation was pretty effective and stemmed the tide of reformation but ended up reducing europe to bloodletting war for almost 100 years. Pretty serious stuff.

There were two sides in those wars. How did the reformers treat the anabaptists?

[timspong]

That's accurate but not exhaustive. Presumably they also thought it was true, regardless of the way it was used by the Jesuits.

Agreed but a view of truth that is colored by an RCC flavored indoctrination

IMO monergism is formed extraneously from the word of God by those who have monergistic presuppositions. i.e. an attempt to reconcile monergism with the biblical text.

I don't agree. Man's natural inclination towards religion is synergistic in nature and our natural presuppositions would be more sympathetic towards a synergistic veiw. Monergism comes about by the effect of scripture upon our natural propensity towards synergism. i.e. our natural presuppositions are replaced with biblical information.

There were two sides in those wars. How did the reformers treat the anabaptists?

I have no doubt that both protestants and catholics were both at fault to allow it to get so out of hand and both sides equally hated the anabaptists. BTW the term anabaptist was used to describe a variety of different radical stances some based in truth but many tainted by gross heresy. Take the events of Munster for example. Where the leader Matthys burns all books and declares himself as Gideon, his wing man John Lyden, runs naked through the streets declaring himself to be the new messiah/king and marries 16 women. the whole place descends into hell on earth with cannibalism etc. In this case both the protestant and RCC armies worked together to surround the city and bring it to an end.

BTW despite popular belief, the American baptists are actually derived from English puritans and not anabaptists.

In a modern context, I would say many anabaptists were more akin to the TBN type of Christianized occultist spiritualism than solid biblical Christianity. Others were rationalist and humanistic in their theology while a relative minority were actually pursuing a purified orthodoxy/praxy.

I think you will find that the execution of anabaptists was based more on our modern sentiments of treason rather than religious stance. i.e. state and church were inseparable so it was seen as treason to deny infant baptism which was seen more as a type of allegiance and right of passage into society rather than a purely religious event.

[hedrick]

I think we can use elements of Molinism in Calvinism. Yes, God decides everything. But he doesn't make people do random or arbitrary actions. He plans the world in such a way that people act in accordance to their character and motivations. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to hold them responsible for anything. Thus when God is creating his plans, he maintains the integrity of the people who are part of it. This involves something like middle knowledge: an appreciation of what a certain person will do in certain circumstances.

I've often thought that discussions on this subject tend to use the wrong kinds of metaphors. We tend to speak of the way God operates in ways that make it sound mechanistic. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off thinking of God as an artist. Like a novelist, God chooses the way he wants things to go. Yet novelists often tell us that their characters take on a certain reality, and end up doing things that the author didn't originally expect. An artist manages to maintain control of the story, making it do what he intended, while also maintaining the integrity of the characters. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off to think of God as being a master artist who manages to maintain a similar balance.

[Obsidian]

I agree. Although I don't believe there is any possible middle ground in this case with soteriology. Either God does everything necessary for our salvation or He doesn't. Christ's work on the cross was either a completely finished work or it wasn't. Either Christ saves us completely or he merely makes salvation possible.

To equate believing in monergistic predestination with believing in salvation by faith alone is pure foolishness. I personally believe that monergism actually undermines sola fide.

[timspong]

To equate believing in monergistic predestination with believing in salvation by faith alone is pure foolishness. I personally believe that monergism actually undermines sola fide.

Actually it is salvation by GRACE through faith that is not of your own doing but is the gift of God. (eph 2:8)

Faith is the human faculty by which Gods grace is manifested. i.e. the ability to respond to the Gospel which those who are dead in theirs sins cannot do. i.e. HE made us alive

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—" (Ephesians 2:4-5)

Monergism is perfectly aligned with sola fide and your assertion indicates your level of understanding regarding monergism.

[timspong]

I think we can use elements of Molinism in Calvinism. Yes, God decides everything. But he doesn't make people do random or arbitrary actions. He plans the world in such a way that people act in accordance to their character and motivations. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to hold them responsible for anything. Thus when God is creating his plans, he maintains the integrity of the people who are part of it. This involves something like middle knowledge: an appreciation of what a certain person will do in certain circumstances.

I've often thought that discussions on this subject tend to use the wrong kinds of metaphors. We tend to speak of the way God operates in ways that make it sound mechanistic. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off thinking of God as an artist. Like a novelist, God chooses the way he wants things to go. Yet novelists often tell us that their characters take on a certain reality, and end up doing things that the author didn't originally expect. An artist manages to maintain control of the story, making it do what he intended, while also maintaining the integrity of the characters. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off to think of God as being a master artist who manages to maintain a similar balance.

Have a look at "compatiblism" it does a far better biblical job than molinism in this regard. Of course from a human perspective we are free to chose what every we will. i.e. total free will. However, when you look at the motivating factors and psychological machinery behind the concept of the human will and the choice making mechanisms; you will find that it really comes down to a menagerie of desire fulfillment mechanisms. i.e. your "free will" choices are really nothing more than action taken to satisfy the predominant product of your desire matrix at any given juncture.

The bible doesn't say too much about human will but it does say an awful lot regarding human desire.

furthermore if you look at the factors that shape our desires; e.g. genetics, parents, school, environment, external circumstances etc. You will find the vast majority is completely out of our control.

The fact that the decrees of God are compatible with our desires and circumstances are really not that hard to reconcile.

It then becomes clearer to understand that upon regeneration and the action of the indwelt HS we have another impetus to shape our desire that is completely external to our physical being that draws us towards the prescriptive will of God. i.e. sanctification.

[hedrick]

I believe in compatibilism. I don't think it's different from what I said.

[timspong]

I believe in compatibilism. I don't think it's different from what I said.

so what purpose could monilism serve that a good understanding of compatiblism doesn't already? I can see how monilism tries to explain a type of compatiblism, however, it does so in a very convoluted manner as to try to circumvent the very obvious incompatibility between libertarian free will and the sovereignty of God.

Once you understand the desire driven mechanism behind the concept of free will and "choice making", the apparent incompatibility disappears. i.e. we are desirous creatures who without grace are limited to choices based solely on desire fulfillment. Ie we are in complete bondage to the flesh.