Simply Comparing Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2020
- In this video, Tim simply breaks down the differences between calvinism, arminianism, and molinism and gives a brief explanation of God's middle knowledge.
Related Reading:
freethinkingministries.com/av...
Check us out online!
freethinkingministries.com
/ freethinkingministries
parler.com/profile/TimStratto...
#FreethinkingMinistries #FreeWill #God'sSovereignty
How come 90% of Christian RUclips channels have comment section disabled? It's sad when you can't interact with others on the topics, or express appreciation to the content producers.
I cannot speak for the 90%, but I am happy to consider questions and objections. I am even more happy to receive your "expressed appreciation." Thank you!
I think a good understanding of the depraved nature of man would answer that question.
Most of those are Calvinists, they don't want you to think freely, they want to determine what you think, by having you only listen, but not speak
I don’t think it’s 90 percent by any means, but comments are always good. And I think a majority of good channels have them available. Ruslan, the beat, cross examined, Paul and Morgan, living water, reformed wiki 2.0, Bible thinker, mellisa Dougherty, alisa Childers, you name it
I've wondered about. Atheist channels seldom if ever R. Sceptics would say it's because Apologists, even when addressing sceptics, R really just addressing the flock . Their trying to convince themselfs as much as anything
When the Bible seems to contradict itself, it's imperative that we turn to philosophy to reconcile both points made. That's precisely what Molinism does.
“It is imperative that we turn to philosophy to reconcile both points made.” Why?
While I am a Calvinist, I do have respect for how you articulate your position brother.
Thank you, brother! It is folks like you who I seek to be sharpened by.
This is my first time hearing of Molinism, but ironically enough I've been kicking around the idea of using Dr. Strange to understand the omnipotence and omniscience of God. I'm glad I'm not the only one to have this thought! Subbed!
Awesome! Nice to meet you, Kyle. I have another vid coming out next week about the Dr. Strange analogy. In the meantime, you will like this:
ruclips.net/video/GYwrk9zahcY/видео.html
I’ve used the same Dr Strange Infinity War analogy for Molinism. I think it works pretty well.
@@TheChaseRadfordSo a Marvel comic concept over being Biblical, got it.
@@thereisnopandemic *Marvel comic as an analogy to help people understand a Biblical concept. Metaphor and analogy are helpful at times. For example, Jesus used agricultural metaphors.
For reals 🤣
Great interview with great information. My opinion is these three categories is our finite minds attempting to understand or box in our infinite God, which is impossible. We will spend all eternity trying to figure out our infinite God. In the end we can come up with different hypothesis but we should not divide, but give grace to each other. Thank you for the informative video.
So glad I’m not the only one that thought about that Dr Strange analogy
Here's more about the Doctor Strange analogy: ruclips.net/video/GYwrk9zahcY/видео.html
There were books called "Choose your own adventure" when I was a kid. If you wanted to read about X option you would skip to page 12, if wanted Y option you would skip to page 17, if you wanted Z option you would skip to page 24, etc. Then after that section you would be presented with more options to continue the story and so on. So God wrote the whole book with all the different options, but it is still up to us which option to read. - Am I on the right track?
That’s an interesting illustration. I like it! And I used to love those books when I was in elementary school!
They have these things called video games now you chose your own adventure too and whatever you choose determines your future, same concept.
I can follow this, but where is it in the Bible? Do you have scripture?
@@scarlettm8702 Explicitly: anywhere that God or Jesus knows (or is described as knowing) what would have happened in different circumstances.
Implicitly: wherever you see predestination and yet also people making meaningful choices that actually effect outcomes.
Your comparison of Molinism to a choose your own adventure book is analogous only if the story ends the same way regardless of which path you take.
Molinism only offers the illusion of free will because God is choosing the eventual outcome by actualizing the world he wants regardless of how it plays out. No matter how you try to parse it or dress it up, God knew before creation who would be saved and who would burn in hell. If you end up in hell, just know that God is okay with that and chose the possible world that included your eternal damnation.
Excellent stuff guys.
Well originally there was Thomism which came from Thomas Aquinas and then came Molinism as a response to that view. It was a whole debate(and still is) within the Catholic tradition. During the reformation almost all the reformers were Thomists, this was later expanded upon by Beza and his students and is now called "Calvinism" but one of his students ended up disagreeing with this form of Calvinism, he was called Jacobus Arminius. Most of the time people miss that this debate didn't start during the reformation, Luis de Molina was a faithful Catholic and his view is still common in the Catholic Church along with Thomism. Arminians also do not believe in simple foreknowledge, generally they are Molinists as well. Arminius himself was a molinist and so was John Wesley.
My Question would be: With Total depravity, does God choose us to be saved or does God set up circumstances so we can choose him to be saved? I have a hard time grasping this
Please see the following:
freethinkingministries.com/the-t-r-u-m-p-card/
Where is the rest of this discussion?
I'm confused about the major difference between Arminianism and Molinism. Does Arminianism reject the idea of middle knowledge?
So with Arminianism the view held by most Arminian scholars, from 1700s up until the late 1960s was known as simple foreknowledge. There is evidence that Arminius adopted molinist views but this historically had not been true of the position that bears his name.
Simple foreknowledge say God’s knowledge is limited to free knowledge or god can’t know the cute of how individuals will act until he creates this world.
Molinism teaches God doesn’t have any such limitation on his foreknowledge. Therefore God can arrange hypothetical worlds and see if the free creatures in concert with God’s interventions accomplish his will. If yes it is a feasible world, else he discards that world. He then creates the best possible world that accomplishes his will.
Arminian - God is surprised by future when he creates this world and gets to work making this world conform to his will with free agents.
Molinism - God chooses this world from a near infinite number of possible worlds, and therefore can be said to predetermine or predestine the outcome even though men have free will.
Molinism explains the Biblical predestination passages while making sense of apparent free will passages.
Some, but not all, Arminians are Molinists. I would hold this position. They are not incompatible.
@@ubergenie6041it seems that Arminianism doesn’t have to say God is “surprised” He just knows everything. And he decided to create free creatures that will either accept him or deny him.
Would you please debate leighton flowers? I just want to see whose systematic theology holds up better cause you're both convincing
Leighton and I are friends, brothers, and colleagues at the same seminary. Our beliefs are very similar. I don't know what we would debate.
The tv series Supernatural also touches a bit on Molinism.
What episode?
Just found out about this channel from your comment in another. I think it was Mike's "Risen Jesus"
if I remember right. This is the first video I've pulled up and I see a lot of others that look like they may be interesting. Love this topic.
Thus far I am a Christian with no labels. Definitely am NOT a Calvinist though I hold to many of their teachings. Definitely NOT an Arminian though I hold to some of there's. I've watched a few shows on Moliniism on other channels and find it comes up short too. One reason is because of what your guest, Tim, says regarding God's Sovereignty. I've seen him before on other podcasts at least 2-3x. The mistake he makes is in confusing and conflating Sovereignty with Control and in what "control" means.
Quick example: The USA is a "Sovereign Nation" and as such it "controls" its borders. How well does that work even with the best "controls" put in place? What Tim and other Molinists fail to see or acknowledge is that God doesn't have to "control" ever single aspect of ever single thing to still bring about the results He wants. God is so far above our ways and understanding, in some respects, that we simply can't fathom how he can take all our mistakes, sins, and everything else and yet still work them to accomplish what He wants while remaining perfect and holy and the Righteous Judge who holds man accountable for what he does.
Wrt to "predestined", that again is another false perception and misunderstanding. We are "predestined" unto Salvation "in Christ". It is Christ who is the Elect and we become the elected ones as being in Christ.
Lastly, the biggest problem Molinism has is the same that Calvinism and Arminianism has. None of them deal with the passages where God says He did not know something and where some things never even crossed His mind.
Hey Royce, although I was being interviewed, this is actually my (Tim Stratton's) RUclips channel.
I do not think I'm guilty of your accusation, Indeed, I do not view control as you have described. Moreover, it is simply false that Molinists do not deal with the passages regarding God "changing his mind." See Kirk MacGregor's work.
I'm glad you aren't a Calvinist (that's the most important thing). I encourage you to read my book based upon my doctoral dissertation: Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism.
Let me know what you think.
@@FreethinkingMinistries - Hi Tim,. Thanks for clearing up the confusion about the channel and for your comments. The last thing I want to be is an abomination to God for making a false accusation and bearing false witness.. I'm not sure how I could have worded that to prevent it from being an "accusation" so I guess I'm forced to try and defend the claim.
I am referring specifically to what you aid at the 4:50min mark to the 5:16min mark. You even stressed the word "control" there and you combined it with "Sovereignty" and "Power". You then immediately follow that with the claim that God "predestines all things to happen" and that he is "Providential" and that simple foreknowledge doesn't address either of them. You confirm that by following up with the Bible being clear that God predestines the Elect to Heaven and referenced Eph. 1:15 which I think you meant 1:5. And, as I said in my initial reply, I don't believe that is want Scripture says. I believe "it is clear" that Jesus is the Elect one who was predestined just as it says, and the we become the Elect Ones by being in Him.
So, having gone back and listened to it again, 3x now, I don't see how what you're saying is any different than EDD. And there is no reconciling the two.
To your last I will rephrase and say, "None of them that I have seen deal with the passages where God says He did not know something and where some things never even crossed His mind in an sound exegetical manner using a proper hermeneutic but rather typically dismissed it as an anthropomorphism. Which doesn't fit with the passage given a literal/grammatical/historical hermeneutic and sound exegesis."
So who is that interviewing you and what is his channel?
this is helpful
How do you reconcile the fact that the way you are explaining molinism is almost identical to Arminianism? Arminius held to and propagated middle knowledge from Molina.
Your second sentence answers your first. I discuss this historical fact in my Mere Molinism: Study Guide.
www.amazon.com/Human-Freedom-Divine-Knowledge-Molinism/dp/166671786X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CGIPJP0DYU14&keywords=Mere+Molinism+study+guide&qid=1700971907&s=books&sprefix=mere+molinism+study+guide%2Cstripbooks%2C120&sr=1-1
Molinism makes it possible to say Amen and agree with every single scripture that Calvinists or Aminians present. It also has the highest view of God's omniscience.
Arminians are generally molinists. Arminius himself was a molinist. Calvinism and arminianism are soteriological systems, molinism is a view of election and predestination that tries to reconcile free will with divine causality. Most arminians believe in molinism in regards to how God elects individuals based on his foreknowledge of their response but arminianism also entails a whole soteriological system distinct from Calvinism and not necessarily entailed by simple molinism.
I've yet to see a Scripture that Arminianism doesn't make sense of. But I think Molinism definitely helps us build a stronger philosophical theology.
It depends upon what one means by “Arminianism.” You’ll see this explained in my dissertation, but if an Arminian denies MK (which some do), then they will have problems.
Tom McCall, is a leading Arminian who has stated that Arminian was a Molinist. If he’s right, then you are right. 😉
@@FreethinkingMinistries I fully confess to being a Molinist. I think classical Arminian theology logically leads to a Molinism. I think the two work extremely well together.
Some Arminianism do deny MK (mostly open theists). But I think it's fair to say they are the minority.
I recall brief interview, @@FreethinkingMinistries , during which Dr. William Lane Craig told Dr. David Wood that Arminius had adopted the views of Luis de Molina in his system.
As you stated, there are different flavors of Arminianism just as there are different flavors of Calvinism. However, it seems that a 'high Arminian' would thus hold to a molinist 'middle knowledge' view.
Simple foreknowledge view is predicated on free knowledge which doesn’t happen until God creates this world.
So in a sense, for almost 400 years of the view has been God is surprised by his new knowledge of what men freely choose right after
The moment of creation.
This fact makes it hard to explain the predestination or predetermination passages.
Ephesians 1:4 “Chose us in him before the foundation of this world,” is not possible on the simple foreknowledge view!
1 Pet. 1:20, Rev. 13:8, John 17:24,
All refer to plans that occurred “before the foundation of the earth.”
True Arminius seems to have held some views similar to Molina but they didn’t appear in Arminian circles until the 1960s and 1970s.
So the term “Arminian” can be used in this way as someone holding to “simple foreknowledge” and the term “molinist,” someone who holds to middle knowledge.
Given that distinction it sounds like you are a molinist not an Arminian. And since the two views are mutually exclusive unable to blend the two in the context of this video.
@Prasanth Thomas Yep, and who were the primary ones to argue against this Jesuit nonsense? The Reformed!
Only they, the Reformed, gave a God-centered, God-exalting, creature-excluding answer to Middle Knowledge (as promoted by the Jesuits, Molina, Fonseca, and Lessius).
Middle Knowledge (as Francis Turretin argued in the 17th century) makes God's knowledge "dependent upon the creation/creature," rather than all knowledge, either false or true, being dependent upon God ALONE.
Middle Knowledge is borderline blasphemy, and an affront to God's ASEITY (what God is in-and-of Himself).
I didn’t get the difference between Arminianism and molinism
God apparently has this "middle" knowledge that's after natural knowledge and before (some other) knowledge - i forget, but it's all very confusing.
I was thinking the same re Avengers Endgame……
I think that monergism is more biblical. How to be an molinist monergist?
If you search the Internet for "How to be a married bachelor," or "How to be a round square," you should find your answer regarding Molinism and monergism (also known as manachaeism in Augustines day). Hope this helps.
"I think moenergism is more biblical" - the nonsense propagandized by Calvinism is NOT attested in Scripture at all - on the contrary, Scripture systematically contradicts monoenergism, vulgo Calnism, like when it speaks of sinm being against God's wilol, and men being responsable for their actions, and guilty of disobey God - do you think it is not massive enough??
I think within the Molonism framework, grace is viewed as resistable as opposed to irresistible in Calvinism. The Molonist would say that salvation and sanctification are completely dependent on, and credited to, God working in us through the Holy Spirit. However, we can resist God's grace and thereby sin. In that view God receives all the glory for salvation and sanctification because it is all Him but our sin is our responsibility because we resist God. Our salvation is all God, therefore monergistic, our sin is all us.
@@ubergenie6041 Monergism =/= manachaeism. Prove your assertion or stop spreading lies.
If faith is not a work, then the choosing to believe in god and have faith is still Monergistic. Molinism is still monergism since it does not require any works on our part. Mike Winger has a great video called “Why Calvinism is not biblical” where he demonstrates this.
God created knowing what would happen in both Calvinism and Molinism, so what problem is Molinism solving here?
Great question. The manner in which predestination occurs (via God's power alone or via God's omniscience plus omnipotence) turns out to be very important. Either God makes (necessitates) all people -- including Christians -- to sin, think evil thoughts, think false thoughts, and reach false theological beliefs (which leads to a low view of both God and man in His image) . . . or God creates a world in which He knows that humans (including Christians) would/will not be as careful as we **could** have been (thus, these errors are not **necessitated** by God).
The former is extremely problematic. The latter is free from those problems.
Here's my most recent video discussing some of these relevant issues:
ruclips.net/video/g7LMXdDMGy0/видео.html
I think Leighton Flowers and others have demonstrated that there is always a better way to interpret Calvinist prooftexts that accounts for freewill and is more hermneutically sound than what the Calvinist has on offer, and I don't think it takes Molinism to do it.
Well . . . Leighton does affirm Mere Molinism.
@Freethinking Ministries you roasted him pretty good. You should make him some coffee.
Love is truth. God gives us tribulations to strengthen our faith! God knows the end from the beginning! Me finding Jesus was not my own doing! He found me! I wasn’t raised in a church!
Amen! The Molinist affirms that God knows the end from the beginning -- including all of one's non-causally determined thoughts, actions, beliefs, sins, and so on.
The asian churches do not delve into such deep theological understanding of GOD. At least I had not heard sermons based on theology. Most believers are just happy that GOD loves them. I thought maybe because we lack this teaching we are weak in faith. However, after finding out that quite a number of pastors and priests and those born in christian families had chose to leave the church (US and the West), just thinking, perhaps Christians need, not only, the full understanding of what GOD does to redeem sinners, but also, the building of relationship with GOD. The stress here is Christians need to build an intimate relationship with GOD. This is with the hope that we may remain a believer in spite of our up and down, difficulty and problem we face in this life.
I think we all need to take another read of Job. I listen to and read all these different thoughts and perspectives and debates among great thinkers and theologians. I often ask God what are your thoughts Lord about all these musings. Might want to reread Ecclesiastes as well….nothing new under the sun.
What is Alex’s channel?
That just cut off like that! Was that intended??
But all views salvation as by Grace Alone not by works right? Some will say about choosing is a work but normally when we heard a news and act on it that doesn't mean we do some work just by choosing it or affect that news by choosing it.
First Tim said "determines one way or another" then he said "causes"... what happened to "or another"?
Traditionally, Calvinists have held to a "causal determinism and have maintained that God can causally determine things to occur "one way or another" (e.g., via primary or secondary causation). Notable Calvinist, Matthew J. Hart not only identifies himself with this exact position but admits that there is a greater body of scholars who agree with him. Hart writes: “Calvinists, I shall assume, are theological *determinists*. They hold that God *causes* every contingent event, either directly or indirectly.” In other words, all of a person’s thoughts and beliefs are “caused” and *determined* by God.
Determinism is often defined by appealing to "antecedent conditions" and "necessary effects." This, it seems to me, even if the word' "cause" or "causation" are not mentioned, implies "causal determinism."
Some Calvinists today seem to see the problems associated with exhaustive divine causal determinism. Praise God -- we are making progress. However, disagreeing with Hart (and a host of other Calvinists) they dig in their heels and say they are just committed to determinism but not "causation." In fact, Guillaume Bignon is one such Calvinist. He has been heard on recent RUclips interviews referencing an old quote by Peter van Inwagen regarding causation:
"Causation is a morass in which I for one refuse to set foot. Or not unless I am pushed."
Interestingly, a few weeks ago on social media I "pushed" Bignon on this issue and he wanted nothing to do with it, said he would not be "pushed," and after several comments bowed out of the conversation (right when we were starting to get somewhere). I contend that humanity has a fairly good understanding of cause and effect relationships. In fact, the entire enterprise of science (which has been enormously successful) is based upon the idea of causation. If medical doctors did not understand causation we would be in a worlds of trouble, and detectives solve crimes by appealing to cause and effect relationships. Indeed, one of the best arguments for the existence of God hinges upon the following premise: "Whatever begins to exist, has a CAUSE."
I don't hear Bignon and his few Calvinist friends who are retreating from "causation" countering a dermatologist warning him of "too much exposure to the sun causes skin cancer" with, "Whatever, causation is a morass . . ." And they better not appeal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence ever again!
Now, as I noted above, the definition of "determined" is the following: "antecedent conditions are sufficient to necessitate an effect." In fact, I've even heard Bignon appeal to this definition (or something quite similar) in recent videos. Why appeal to "antecedent conditions" if said conditions are not the CAUSE of the effect in question? Moreover, libertarian freedom has been defined as "the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine or necessitate one’s choice.”
Now, if the Calvinist retreating from causation wants to affirm that antecedent conditions are insufficient to necessitate an effect that God knows will certainly take place, then what's the relevant difference between his Calvinist view and my Molinist view of predestination?
Bottom line: this recent retreat from causation by a few Calvinists is quite telling. Not only is it a cop out, it's another attempt at muddying waters. It's better to bite that bullet and embrace the idea that God causes all effects by primary or secondary means (as Calvinists have typically claimed). However, if they don't, I have no problem dropping any word related to "causation" and simply using the word "determined." Since it is all about "antecedent conditions leading to necessary effects," no teeth have been removed from the bite of my arguments against Calvinism.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Thank you for the excellent response Tim. I have four points and I'll try to be concise with each.
1) Getting into the weeds of semantics is a morass, and I agree that most Biblical Theologians (I'm done referring to Biblical doctrine as "Calvinism")... I agree that most Biblical Theologians muddy the matters rather than offering clarity. For clearing up such matters, I recommend RC Sproul (though he does not bother to make a case for the accuracy, but he does help offer clarity), and I also recommend one livestream, but aside from that I ONLY recommend the Bible. Bottom Line here: If we compare the Biblical doctrines to the Bible, instead of reading and listening to men, then we can easily submit to that and come to correct and clear understanding (God is the best communicator who has ever been).
2) Biblical doctrine is compatibilistic, even if human philosophy finds that to be having our cake and eating it too. Let's not forget about camels and eyes of needles. Thus, the bottom line here is that God is above and beyond the limits of the human perspective which you are arguing from.
3) I don't use the Kalam, though I do see it agrees with Romans 1. My reason for this, is because the Bible clearly details that people reject God for heart reasons, not for intellectual reasons, and it is the Gospel which has the power to change their heart. Romans 1 makes it clear that everyone already knows the Kalam argument is true, so to argue for it is merely redundant.
4) It's ironic you would say that others better not use the Kalam, because of what Bill (William Lane Craig) has said regarding "truthmaker theory". If what Bill says is true, that there is no grounding problem because there is no need for the Truthmaker, then specifically that is to say that the answer to the Kalam can simply be "but Bill, you are applying truthmaker theory, and truths just are true with no need for the Truthmaker" so it is Bill who has plainly given up any right to use the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Tim, I really would like a response to this, because this is an important and valid point).
5) BONUS: I find it incredibly offensive to reshape the symbol of the moment when the Lord graciously laid down his life for us all, into a symbol of human free will. I can't help but think of what the Satanists say "let: do what though wilt, be the whole of the law". Now, I am not trying to imply you are suggesting that same surface level rebellion, but rather I spiritually concern about the replacing, of the symbol of Christ's victory over death, with a symbol of our own freedom to think. I hope you take this as my heartfelt honesty; I am very sincere here, and I am not trying to take a cheap shot.
Thanks again!
As much as I disagree with you, Tim, I also recommend you as one of the few voices which contributes effectively to the discussion (a short list which James White does not make it on to, though I agree with him, but he does not speak effectively on the matter).
I FORGOT ONE: libertarian free will, in my experience, is always defined as the ability to choose according to one's own nature; you are the only person whom I have heard give a different definition. Now, I'm a Bible guy, so I may simply not have been around such discussions enough to hear other definitions; so I am speaking for myself on this point, rather than declaring the facts.
@@FreethinkingMinistries I slipped up. I guess there is a distinction between libertarian and creaturely free will, so I slipped up on that point. Please let me take that detail back.
@@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah Hi Nicholas. The term "Creaturely" free will has not been given a standardized definition - to my knowledge. Calvinist James White refers to "creaturely freewill" but that is CLOAKED language.
In Calvinism:
1) The creature is FREE to be/do only that which is infallibly decreed
2) The creature is NOT FREE to be/do otherwise than that which is infallibly decreed
Libertarian freedom is standardly understood as a rejection of Determinism - which is what Calvinism is founded on.
@@dw6528 Reformed Theology defines determinism specific and only and merely as it is founded on God's absolute power and absolute authority and absolute knowledge. If your god is less than absolute, then fine, but that is not the Biblical God. If you are trying to expand our definition of determinism to mean anything more than that, then you are no longer speaking about Reformed Theology.
Obviously nothing happens which is not decreed by the Infallible One. No one is sneaking up on God and doing something which He did not choose.
Is the cross not enough for you? I don't understand the objection to God being absolute.
God is the Truth, and the Truth will set you free. If you think there is a contradiction between God's determining and freedom of the will, then your god cannot pass a camel through the eye of a needle and is not the Biblical God. Humanistic philosophy cannot save you. Let me offer a vague analogy: if a human can train a dog without defying the dog's ability to be freely acting within its nature to be trainable and indulge its own craving for treats, then how infinitely closer is a human to a dog than the infinite farness of God being so high above us.
Whatever God chose, it is worth it, which is why He chose it. God is right and we are wrong. If you are so proud as to know better than God, then you should be very afraid. I pray you will listen to God rather than men.
This is very insightful. Thanks!
Excerpt from John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7:
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his PLEASURE one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his PLEASURE to doom to destruction."
Ezekiel, Chapter 18, Verses 23, 32 (ESV):
"Have I any PLEASURE in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? ... For I have NO PLEASURE in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live."
When I tell you to go watch The Avengers and that's how to find out probably a red flag
Great video! If I were to look at a crystal ball and see what you were eating for dinner later tonight, that doesn't mean Im now responsible for what you chose to eat
Is that how God knows stuff, though? Really? He "looks through a crystal ball" in order to gain knowledge?
It's actually bordering on blasphemy to suggest...I hope you realize that.
Why are you talking about "responsibility"?
Knowledge is NOT the prerequisite for responsibility.
"Free Will" is NOT the prerequisite for responsibility, either.
There is only ONE prerequisite for establishing responsibility.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@ryangallmeier6647 It's an expression, obviously God doesn't "look through a crystal ball". What I'm saying is that if someone were to know the future, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm the cause of whatever I observed
@@DeFyYing What if that "someone" were Omni-Prescient (knowing all things beforehand, infallibly); and, what if that someone were also Omnipotent (the Creator of all things)?
I know, you're attempting to divorce God's infallible foreknowledge from His power as the Creator. Problem? You cannot divorce these attributes of God from one another, or you have division in the very essence of the Deity itself.
So, let's ask this question, and see if you can give an answer: HOW DOES GOD KNOW STUFF?
William Lane Craig and Pastor Mike Winger's answer is: God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on the choices we make and the events that occur in time.
This makes the Creator's knowledge dependent on His own creation for His knowledge of it (as these Molinists have clearly stated; I have a video where I document both men spewing this nonsense!).
Next, you mentioned "responsibility". As if responsibility is somehow divorced from foreknowledge. It isn't.
Responsibility falls under there rubric of LAW.
Foreknowledge doesn't take from responsibility; nor does it establish it.
Law is what establishes responsibility.
'Human Free Will' doesn't establish it, either.
Only LAW establishes responsibility.
And, since God is NOT under any laws imposed by any one, He is never "responsible" for anything He says or does.
Responsibility is simply a word that can never properly apply to God (excepting Jesus in His incarnation, who was made "subject to the law" in His humanity).
That God decisionally decreed whatsoever comes to pass in His creation (including the wicked, sinful acts of men) does NOT make Him responsible for any of it because there is no higher authority to whom He is obligated to give a response for any infraction of some law imposed upon Him.
Hope you take the time to answer the question I asked. It's important. The Molinists give a borderline blasphemous answer. Don't be like them.
More questions of me?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
God "allowing" things doesn't make Him responsible for it. You just said "it gets God off the hook for the evils of man" that my friend is an oxymoron. No calvanist holds God responsible for the evils of men. Its a clear difference, did He allow it? Yes. Who hardened Pharoahs heart? Who put it in the heart of the Egyptians to help the Hebrews leaving? Who saved the Hebrews from Egypt? From what I can see, God did it all! Molonism seems to take away or ignore that God is in fact fully sovereign. Maybe I'm wrong but Molina is also listed as a jesuit. Why would someone leaving catholicism still cling to a title and rank in that organization? What you meant for evil God meant for good. Much love friend Jesus Christ is King
C.G. No calvanist holds God responsible for the evils of men.
DW:
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
Accordingly:
1) No decree for sin or evil = no sin or evil
2) No decree for a sinful evil impulse in the human brain = no sinful or evil impulse within the human brain.
Now - it makes perfect sense that a Calvinist would say he does not hold his god responsible for the evils which his god decrees to infallibly and irresistibly come to pass.
Responsibility within Calvinist doctrine is not the same thing as Responsibility within NON-Calvinist doctrine.
For the Non-Calvinist - a person is *FOUND* morally responsible based on what he is *FOUND* to have done.
For the Calvinist - a person is *MADE* morally responsible.
And held morally responsible for the things he is *MADE* to do.
John Calvin explains:
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god THOUGH THE REASON DOES NOT APPEAR, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
Can a Calvinist be saved? “Yes”
So you think they are right? “No”
Can an Armenian be saved? “Yes”
So you think they are right “no”
Can a Molonist be saved? “Yes”
So you believe they are right? “No”
God knows what we will choose before we are born because He is outside of time. That doesn’t stop our freewill.
You can not come unless you are called. We are all called. Few answer.
Once truly saved you can not lose your salvation. So don’t worry. He has you and now freely love and serve Him.
Well put!
Please add provisionism, and Christianity that subscribes to none of those.
The problem of evil and justice It´s an argument against an all good/benevolent God. Is a problem of a characteristic of God. Have you ever consider that the God (not talking of any particular definition of god) but the characteristics of God you thought was the true one is false and the real God maybe just created the universe and opted to not interfere or maybe he actually is ok that evil exist or even so he is fine with torture and pain on innocents creatures. And if you thought your God was all good/benevolent then the evidence maybe be pointing that is not the right characteristics of "god".
I like roses
I prefer the T.R.U.M.P. card:
freethinkingministries.com/t-r-u-m-p/
Here's the latest version:
freethinkingministries.com/the-t-r-u-m-p-card/
Here is absolute BIBLICAL proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
If God hasn’t created anything he cannot be a trinity, because the word existed in the begining, similar to the earth and the heaven were created in the begining. Anything that is referenced to be in the begining means that it began to be, its tempora, the point in time or space at which something begins.
"Doth not he see my ways, and count all my steps?" (Job 31:4)
"For thou, O God, hast heard my vows: thou hast given me the heritage of those that fear thy name." (Psalm 61:5)
"According to the faith of God's elect." (Titus 1:1)
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isaiah 46:10)
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:10)
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)
"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" (Ecclesiastes 8:4)
Y'all should really look up Soteriology101.
Leighton Flowers and I are colleagues at Trinity Theological Seminary. Moreover, I’ve been on his show several times.
Here's one of our conversations: ruclips.net/video/l96fNslAxck/видео.html
Good presentation of the challenges of both Calvinism (Manichaeism), and Arminianism, and there challenge to explain God's all-loving nature on the one hand, and his sovereignty on the other.
Arminians believe that God uses his foreknowledge to influence history and this influence can involve things like the judicial hardening of pharoah, or forcing Balaam to only utter blessings on Israel when Balaam wanted to utter curses. But Stratton points to the challenge of the texts that talk of God predestination grandson his plan. The question is can an all-powerful, all-knowing being manipulate free humans to accomplish the fulfillment of prophecy and outcome of history without say a near infinite amount of flood events that push the "restart" button on creation?
Molinism seems to do a much better job of answering the thousands of conditional statements we find through the Bible that are conditioned on men choosing to obey God. Molinism seems to give a better account of the Biblical data talking about predestination and God's sovereignty.
So most molinist argue that it does a better job explaining the all-loving nature of God, and the "whomsoever will" passages, and the modifiers "all the world," regarding Christ's plan of salvation. Further that we have an example in 1 Sam. 23:9-13 of the very hypothetical conditional knowledge represented by molinist! God answers Davids future hypothetical what if questions! Remember that Calvinists say this type of knowledge can't exist! But it is in the text! So Calvinists have no explanation for God making up a hypothetical response since the only agent in 1 Sam 23 is God (because God is controlling all of David's actions, the people of Keilah's actions and Saul's actions. In fact it gets worse.
On Calvinism, God forces David to ask about the future of a play God has written where every actor is just a marionette not actual choosing anything, further God tells him what would happen but doesn't. Not because David chose to leave Keilah as the passage states but because God didn't implement that alternative scene in his play, remember there is only one agent in all the universe on Calvinism.
which one are you
God is laughing at us little humans of His creations to try to understand His mind😅
Tim, you obviously know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, your answers are too long-winded, that's when you lose a lot of your listeners. Try to be more concise and brief with your response next time.
the idea of God's sovereignty does NOT mean He is in control, but that his truh is the mesure informing of everything, including the positive or negative consequences of our decisions to follow his will or to reject it
God is love, but I'm a Nazarist so love hurts.
I'm not an Amrinian, but that's a poor view of foreknowledge.
I want to know where in the Bible it says God meticulously controls all actions and thoughts of all people for all time.
Leighton Flowers slays this.
If God did control all actions He would be evil, we know that there is no darkness in Him at all! Proving that evil is not the will of God. What kind of service you will be to God depends on how much you submit to and embrace God’s will. Don’t be a rebel against God, thinking you’re in God’s will.
fredc61 Incoherent response.
If God controls all actions of his creation including creatures then there is only one agent!
If there is evil the only responsible agent in the universe is God, then God is responsible for that evil!
This has been the problem of divine determinism since Augustine invented the view shortly after leaving the gnostic sect known as Manichaeism. It makes God responsible for original sin and the author of every sin.
Further it turns the entire creation into a Kabuki theatre. God authors The play, then creates marionettes, then pulls the strings.
Incoherent with God compelling men to obey him, follow him, giving men conditional promises, sending prophets to compel men to freely act, sending disciples to compel men to freely act by giving rationale arguments.
Why continue with this gnostic heresy from the early church. Augustine was the only church father to hold this view.
@@ubergenie6041 if you are saying that God created evil, you don’t know Him. There is no darkness (sin) in God at all! A God of love created you with the ability to love, to love requires free will. Forced love is not love at all. Calvinists only focus on and want to be all knowing and pass over God’s command of loving people like God does. Calvin hated people that disagreed with him and conspired against them. God resists those that are puffed up with their own knowledge and refuse to follow Him.
Meticulous divine providence is the foundational core of Calvinism.
It is what separates Calvinism from its alternatives and makes Calvinism unique.
However - it is also a double-edged sword.
On the one hand - it functions as a wide-phylactery for the Calvinist.
He enjoys boasting about it - in the form of divine sovereignty
On the other hand - he spends all of the rest of his time trying to HIDE the EVIL aspects of it - behind a plethora of SEMANTIC MASQUERADES.
Consequently - the Calvinist has a love-hate relationship with his doctrine.
Calvinism also falls into either the monergism or docetism heresy. Ask your local Calvinist, was Christ's humanity predestined or not? If they say yes, then Christ never had free will and His divine nature has overtaken it (hence monergism). If they say no, then they are either not true Calvinists or they say that Christ was unique in having that free will. If they say the latter, they are falling into docetism as Christ isn't really human in the same way as we (under Calvinism). Therefore we are not really saved by Christ because he hasn't assumed true humanity (see SaintGregory of Nazianzus).
As explained in Romans, man had free will in the garden. As our representative, Adam freely chose to reject God. Now man is in bondage to sin and ratifies Adam’s decision to reject God.
We are condemned by the way man excercise a free will. Jesus is the second Adam. We are justified by the way He used His free will.
God allows evil and death using them as instruments to renew us. Calvinists assert that all those things have 2 causes. The primary cause is God who intends to use them for good and the 2nd cause could be our free will. All other views could be accurate but use concepts foreign to the Bible.
My question is, if we truly believe God is working ALL out for our good and is infinitely wise, compassionate, and just, why would we need to invent theories foreign to the Bible about God to “exonerate” Him for allowing evil to exist and be condemned to hell?
The guest's simplistic and amatuerish misrepresentation of Calvinism is shocking, since he claims to have believed it at one point.
DW:
EXHAUSTIVE: Everything - without exception
DIVINE: A reference to a THEOS
DETERMINISM: The belief that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes.
This is enunciated Calvinism's doctrine of decrees.
WHATSOEVER comes to pass does so by infallible decree
The term "Whatsoever" is a UNIVERSAL term - which means EXHAUSTIVE
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
The doctrine of decrees is that which separates Calvinism from its alternatives and makes it unique and distinct from its alternatives.
The foundation of the house is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
The rest of the house is built on top of that foundation.
I agree. I stopped listening when he reduced all of Calvinism to a dismissive acronym, EDD (Exhaustive Divine Determinism). He clearly hasn’t studied Calvin. Anybody can reduce anything to an absurd reductionism.
@@avwads DW: EDD is clearly enunciated by Calvin - and by all of the confessions.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3)
EXHAUSTIVE: Everything without exception
DIVINE: A reference to a THEOS
DETERMINISM: The doctrine of decrees
We understand the Calvinist does not find the doctrine of decrees palatable. He asserts the doctrine of decrees as TRUE and as what the Bible teaches.
He then spends the rest of his time trying to find ESCAPE MECHANISMS in order to treat the doctrine of decrees *AS-IF* it is FALSE.
So your response here is totally understandable.
Lots of talked g with little sense :-(
Molinism is the one I trust the least, might as well believe in Mormonism. The concept is far from biblical truth.
Provisionism is closest to Bible.
@THE BHSC search for SOTERIOLOGY101. They have a website and a RUclips channel with tons of information.
@THE BHSC I thought that might be the case, but figured better to suggest it anyway. I also disagree with Flowers on OSAS, but do agree with him on most everything else.
Come on Tim. Your god is most aduradly not onni beneficent. This is Not the greatest being WE can iimagine. How about, All R called, All R saved, From all time? A triple A rating. This Supreme being IS the greatest we can imagine. A return triple A rating. Thats my counter claim. Freewill in this case, visa vi molinism, is not a maximally geeat morality If i it cant guarantee past , present, future perfect worlds. Intuitivly, granting for the moment this scenario is not logical, So what. A true Supreme being has to be able to Exceed the greatest we can imagine. God has to be the ideal, otherwise.... this...
Pretty much didn’t get anything out of this...well there was some rambling. Waste of time :(
Calvinism is a false religion.
Christ died for the sin of the world.
John 1:29
1 John 2:2.
Salvation is CONDITIONAL. It’s by faith. It’s not unconditional.
I only accept two isms evangelism and baptism
All other isms tend to to send you down a path that tends to stray into deception
Even though they sound and look good ➕🌈🇦🇺🇮🇱
Amen! Let’s seek The Lord’s Holy Spirit to guide and teach us and not man. He promises that to us in the scriptures. Like the apostle Paul said run the good race till the end. Keep the faith! strive not to sin not even in thought like Jesus showed us. But in case you sin even in thought. Repent and ask for forgiveness. Let’s be sorts of the word and not just listeners. It’s not going to be easy but let’s endure till the end in Jesus Mighty name amen! To one day be in His holy presence and be called good servants. Blessings to all my brothers and sisters in Christ.
What a bunch of foolish nonsense! Study God’s word rightly divided according to 2 Timothy 2:15 in your King James Bible.
Get saved by grace through faith by trusting alone in the gospel of Christ:
“How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures”
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
No one will suffer “in hell” forever…. The Bible doesn’t teach this….. otherwise good presentation
Tim Stratton holds to the same, fallacious definition of 'human libertarian free will' as all synergists do: 'the power of contrary choice' (or, 'the equal ability to choose between two or more incompatible options under the same circumstances').
Problem: that's NOT the biblical definition of human libertarian free will.
Think about it: did Jesus possess 'the power of contrary choice' to sin or not; did Jesus possess 'the power of contrary choice' to lie or not?
NO!
Jesus could ONLY be sinless; Jesus told the TRUTH! He didn't LIE! Nor could He have.
He didn't posses 'the power of contrary choice' to sin or to tell errors, falsehoods, and lies.
Tim Stratton, and all synergists like him, are assenting to a false definition of 'human libertarian free will,' that they think is actually true!
That's the very definition of DECEPTION: believing a LIE to in fact be true; and, conversely, believing what is in fact the truth to be a lie.
*Just like what happened in the Garden, with the temptation by the serpent.
Adam and Eve assented to the LIE of the serpent as if it were true.
And, in doing so, they were assenting that what God said was FALSE! Calling God a liar!
The BIBLICAL definition of Human Libertarian Free Will (cf. Jn. 8:31-38):
1). a will that never assents to any errors, falsehoods, or lies as if they were truth; and,
2). a will that never wills to do anything other than that which is good and well-pleasing to God.
Anything less than this is SLAVERY; not Freedom!
Jesus possessed the BIBLICAL definition of 'human libertarian free will'.
Tim Stratton's definition of 'human free will' is what's in question, here.
And, it's a FALSE definition.
Hope this helps.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
I wonder if you heard of "justandsinner" channel. That might be interesting for you 😀 I'm a regular visitor there.