5 Point Molinism vs 5 Point Calvinism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The famous five points of Calvinism, while internally consistent, are logically impossible to hold if they are held along with other essential Christian doctrines such as God’s maximal greatness and eternal Hell. Tim explains why this is an offers an alternative.
----------------
Notes
T.R.U.M.P.
T.otal Depravity
R.esistable Amazing Grace
U.nlimited Unconditional Love
M.iddle Knowledge of the Elect
P.erseverence of the Free Saints
The Omni Argument
1. If irresistible grace (the “I” of T.U.L.I.P.) is true, then for any person x, if God desires to, has the power to, and knows how to cause person x to go to Heaven, then person x will go to Heaven.
2. If God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then for any person x, God desires to, has the power to, and knows how to cause person x to go to Heaven.
3. There is at least one person who will not go to Heaven and is eternally separated from God’s perfect love (Hell).
4. Therefore, one cannot affirm both (i) that irresistible grace is true and (ii) that God is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (a maximally great being).
5. God is a maximally great being.
6. Therefore, irresistible grace is false.
7. Therefore, [exhaustive] divine determinism is false (God does not causally determine all things).
8. God is completely sovereign and does predestine all things (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5,11).
9. Therefore, predestination and determinism are not to be conflated.
10. The best explanation of all the data is Molinism.
----------------
Find us online!
freethinkingministries.com
/ freethinking...
Buy Tim's book!
www.amazon.com...
#FreethinkingMinistries #Philosophy #Apologetics
Acts 7:51 It seems as though the Holy Spirit can be reisisted. "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always 'resist' the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."
I think Calvinists would argue that a believer can resist the Holy Spirit for a time in their walk. I don’t think they believe this is a resisting of salvation.
You certainly got my attention!!! Been drawn to reformed theology and Calvinism. I hadn't heard an argument presented clearly enough against tulip to get my attention.... You got my attention.
Calvinism is heretical look at thomism instead
@@alexjoneschannel what is thomism? Honestly it is my first time hearing the term. Can you reply with a helpful youtube video that does justice to the topic
@@alexjoneschannel Ive been wrestling with the differences between Thomism and Calvinism. Could you elaborate?
I found many especially the bible itself, But besides the many things the corner stone is faith, I mean Calvinism says regeneration (being saved) comes first before faith and this does not work with the word and the many calls to believe the many scipture about being responsible to believe, the many reason based on sef and sin that men don't believe and the many scripturas that when God hardens its not arbitrary but based on rejecting truth suppressing truth and the like, Besides that the word shows that faith is Not a work it is submissively and an act of humility not false humility if its true, Think of the publican and the Pharisee both praying, In that scripture the humility of Faith in the publican verse the Pharisee who thought he was good based on things including his being Jew and being a Pharisee
there are many other things but the Faith coming before Salvation is key to all of the 5 points without that you just don't have Calvinism\
Here is my problem, is I am having the worst time finding a church outside of calvisinism that believes in the word to where they don't hold other false beliefs from not separating from the world being soft on sin, engaging ion semi occult practice, Christian yoga or Christian versions of AA , Rejecting the lordship of Christ and many other things
@@alexjoneschannelThomistic soteriology is identical Calvinistic soteriology
Tim, totally agree with your portrait of the Prodigal Son for the "Resistable Grace" petal in TULIP - a great verse that demonstrates this is Jeremiah 17:5, which says "Cursed is the man who trusts in man - who makes flesh his strength - whose heart departs from the Lord."
I used this verse in a debate with a group of atheists where the title of the debate was "How to End Up In Hell".... this verse shows the common theme in Scripture that people who trust in themselves depart from the Lord, rather than the Lord departing from them.
I'm glad I found your channel after watching the interesting debate that went off the rails With James white and William lane Craig.
I find it very interesting to look at the Perspectives and reasoning of Religious leaders and thinkers.
I'm also super excited to see the interaction on proof texts that both sides have used as "foundations for their gospel".
To see 2 intelligent seeming men disagree on the very same texts with honest intentions and good faith is amazing.
I think that religion is based on personality culture economics and geographic location.
I'm not sure there's such a thing as a Calvinism or a molinism. . as much as a type of person who thinks a certain way.
A lot of the religious leaders are very similar in personality speech and mannerisms... And I wonder if it is the same with their reasoning
Let me know if I’m missing something key here. I had to piece together what molinism w middle knowledge was as it’s very abstrusely written about and not easy to decipher.
Basically in very rough terms molinism w middle knowledge says:
God has middle knowledge which means he knows what would happen in all possible scenarios so He pre selects the optimal free will world and that’s the one we are currently in. There is evil in world because free will. We are responsible for choices and Gods punishments are just because free will. This means a lot of people will freely choose evil but some won’t.
This also means that yes - God has complete knowledge and sovereignty in that He picked this free will world - I actually call his knowledge of the hypothetical would be free will worlds, threads, because they aren’t actually worlds yet.
A thing is in the doing and here we are! The actual doing is time consuming costly and has impact. And we are in it, choosing our course.
Because He knew all free will would be threads, He chose the one that is best for His plans and according to a his purposes. He knows past present and future. He chose this optimal free choice thread over other possible threads and according to His purposes: which is, was and always will be Jesus!
Jesus is the purpose the Logos for mankind in all threads.
So now God says, freely choose what you will!
Also remember he interacts with us in the world. He is part of the thread too of course! We are not alone. That means within the course of this optimal free will world He knows what will be but is also engaging with us and interacting as we go along.
Make Molinism Great Again?
The Omni Argument Against Irresistible Grace also defeats the argument for hell, Reprobation and Limited Atonement by someone like John Piper. He thinks God needs some people damned in order to display His justice and glory to the saved.
But if Irresistible Grace is true, then God has the ability and willingness to override us and MAKE us understand and accept the Gospel. So why not do that for His glory and justice? God wouldn't NEED an object lesson in billions of damned souls in order to 'convince' us!
There's another more ancient soteriological theory known as "Apokatastasis" in Greek, aka "Universal Restoration". Early theologians like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa and others, all believed that those who were not saved are ultimately restored by God. They understood the metaphors of fire and punishment in the New Testament, such as the "Furnace of Fire" (Matt. 13:50), where Old Testament metaphors of disciplinary correction! (Proverbs 17:3, Proverbs 27:21, Malachi 3:2-4, Isaiah 1:22-27, Isaiah 48:10, Psalm 12:6, Deuteronomy 4:20).
The key issue is whether all who were not saved are irresistibly (deterministically) restored by God, or if they freely chose (in a libertarian sense) to stop rejecting His love and grace. If this Apokatastasis is deterministic and irresistible, then it is Calvinism. If it is free in a libertarian sense, then Molinism is going to provide the best explanation.
Both Calvinism and Molinism are compatible with "Universal Restoration." Indeed, I have argued that Molinism gives universalism it's best shot.
Middle Knowledge turns God into Dr. Strange. I think Molinism in regards to middle Knowledge has been influenced by Marvel Comics, Greek Mythology, and philosophy far too much it no longer sounds theological or biblical based. It is one thing to say God has foreknowledge but this category of middle knowledge sounds made up just to bring some harmony because we cannot accept Calvinism.
//Middle Knowledge turns God into Dr. Strange.//
Well, Doctor Strange was actually given God-like powers so he could save the Marvel Comics Universe just as God saved the actual universe. So, you've got it backwards. Here's a video I made on the topic:
ruclips.net/video/GYwrk9zahcY/видео.html
//I think Molinism in regards to middle Knowledge has been influenced by Marvel Comics, Greek Mythology, and philosophy far too much it no longer sounds theological or biblical based.//
Well, it's derived from Scripture, and the only way to make sense of all the biblical data. See more here:
ruclips.net/video/KxMkKOBq1Rw/видео.html
//It is one thing to say God has foreknowledge but this category of middle knowledge sounds made up just to bring some harmony because we cannot accept Calvinism.//
There's many reasons to reject Calvinism:
ruclips.net/video/g7LMXdDMGy0/видео.html
@@FreethinkingMinistries I'll check those resources. There are many reasons to reject Molinism and Arminianism as well.
@@joshbeard9809such as?
@@TheGraceMessage2028 You'll need to clarify. I looked at my comment and still don't know what you are asking for. Such as what? Thanks!
Tim. Can you please explain how "mere" Molinism differs from WLC's historic version?
In Molinism, God predestines all things. Does God also determine some things, like some human actions?
God certainly can. All that’s needed for mere Molinism is that God does not always causally determine all human thoughts, actions, beliefs, evaluations, and behaviors.
@@FreethinkingMinistries What can God determine? What can He not determine?
Can a person know that what s/he is doing is the result of determination?
Is it possible for a Christian to walk away from God and lose their salvation?
Here's my thoughts on the matter:
freethinkingministries.com/once-saved-always-saved/
Dr. Tim,
Have you looked into an Ordo Salutis for Molinism? Are there several models?
If God is maximally great in His omnibenevolence, then He could forgive someone who sins to the point of making Him wrathful. Which means He could not have any wrath for anyone (wouldn't a maximally great God forgive everyone?)
So how is it that God has so much wrath for so many people?
People always cry out for God to put a stop to evil without considering they may be part of the problem 😂
People are judged and divided from God eternally when they never repent. His wrath is not for the person He created per se but for their choice: their lack of submission to His way…for the rebellion inside them that refuses to say you are God and I am not or refuses to love Him and His way.
When we repent and turn from sin we have reconciliation and that’s loving. Jesus made it so.
But Love is not only forgiving it’s also just and holy
Freely choosing evil - rebellion against God - and refusing to give it up ever in this life, will demand justice, a consequence
You get your chance to choose in this life and that is fair
Why does love also mean justice:
Well it’s simple and we know this in life as fact:
If someone beats you over head with a club in unprovoked violence that act is evil and requires justice and a consequence
Humans either repent and stop the bad thing, the rebellion, the lack of submission the lack of love for Him and to His way (and the Bible tells us exactly what is and isn’t evil - not the world) or you don’t do that.
If you don’t repent and ask forgiveness (via Jesus) you get the consequences of your actions. It’s on you.
Because God IS forgiving and loving He makes a way for us to reconcile (through Jesus) but even that was bought with a price, Jesus took that consequence, because again God is not just warm squishy do whatever you want
lovey dove. His love is HOLY, just and divine
I’m not smart enough for all of this. I’m only wise in ways because I was so stupid I had to learn a lesson.
I feel as if I have a choice. But I feel God is fully sovereign in my future. And everyone else’s. I feel I have the appearance of free will. But ultimately God predestined it.
I struggle with eschatology. I really struggle with molinism and calvanism. And so many people preach with such certainty. Very few are humble enough to let us know that there is always another argument that has evidence to back it up.
God has revealed so much to me over the years. But this right here and eschatology are whooping my butt
@circleup7415 I feel exactly the same. I am so indecisive on this topic it's honestly frustrating, some days I think maybe calvinism is right and then other days I think maybe molinism is right. What's worse is that there are so many believers who seem to be earnestly seeking the truth that end up with differing views with regards to this issue, and everyone is quite confident about their view to be true. Although I plan to continue to wrestle with this topic, as of right now I am agnostic.
I’ve been here too!
It’s too bad someone can’t just explain it simply
I’m not a Calvinist or an open theist they have serious problems that reflect on Gods character in ways that aren’t biblical
So how to solve the paradox
Sovereignty vs Free Will as both seem to be true in Bible!
If you are struggling with this issue I think molinism holds a key here
Now it doesn’t mean it HAS to be this way, His way is mysterious and Higher than ours, and it’s ok to say I don’t get it but I trust you Jesus!
BUT if you’re like me and you need just one logical scenario whereby God is sovereign and gives free will this is it.
Molimism w middle knowledge for dummies below (and I mean that fondly as I am the biggest 😂)
Basically in very rough terms this philosophy of molinism says “God has middle knowledge which means he knows what would happen in all possible scenarios so He pre selects the optimal “ free will world” and that’s the one we are currently in. There is evil in world because free will. We are responsible for choices and Gods punishments are just because free will. This means a lot of people will freely choose evil but some won’t. And this world holds the optimal amount that God knows could would be reconciled to Him freely.
This also means that yes - God has complete knowledge and sovereignty in that He picked this free will world and knows past present and future. He chose this optimal free choice world over other possible choices and according to His purposes which is, was, and always will be reconciling as many as will come, to Jesus!
So that’s where I have landed with this and I also get that my puny brain can’t fathom all that God is but I feel this theory of monolism helps answer some questions that were banging around in my mind about God and these two issues free will vs sovereignty
God's attributes may not be used to cancel each other out. God is benevolent AND just. He is not benevolent to the annihilation of his justice. He is wrathful against the evil AND merciful toward the evil. He intends to glorify both his graciousness and his justice. Without God's just wrath on evil and evildoers, how will anyone experientially know his righteousness, justice, and holiness?
I discuss this in my book and make it clear that Molinism solves the mystery. I encourage you to read Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Good questions by Arthur!
As a Doctoral Graduate, you should be able to give a succinct, yet substantive answer to some basic questions, especially those that are directly relevant to your doctoral dissertation.
Am I wrong?
Yep, how does God's Omnibenevolence work with respect to the final judgement of the wicked?
Are we, as Christians, not all guilty of the same sins the Bible lists as the reason for the judgment of the wicked in the Eschaton?
Oh, except the one about "unbelief".
Is God's wrath a part of His Omnibenevolence?
Is it in opposition to it?
What say you, Dr. Tim?
Nearly all claims. I'm beginning to spot a pattern. Non omni benevolent if annihilated? By comparison to hell, hell yes. People in hell screaming to get out are supposed to think this is anything but, well, hell. Hedons for creater, hedons for all creation=omni benevolents. Sorry about tone there, it just seems so, Horrible.
By being God. Nothing lost in translation. By being in paradise on this earth as originally intended .
@@FreethinkingMinistriesthe Bible really should be enough, prob 2, the problem of intruction. A book by a fallible person to tell us what the infallible book is about. The Holy Spirit should take you the rest of the way there. Infallible.
Best Scripture against Calvinism...
“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!"
Acts 7:51
Wait… the Holy Spirit is irresistible! 😂
Under that same Omni argument, wouldn't an omni-benevolent God be incapable of allowing any sin in the first place? It seems to me that molinism is just kicking the question down the road not facing it head on. If some how God couldn't help but sin to happen then you are stuck in the very same trap of God somehow not being omnipotent. If he allowed sin so that he could save everyone, but decided to respect free will and let some perish then once again he is no longer omni-benevolent under this rubric. With middle knowledge you run into the same logical issues, as well as losing Scriptural high ground to stand on. John 10 and the golden chain in Romans 8 both require a ton of twisting to read middle knowledge into. I respect molinism as an alternative to arminianism, but there seems to be less logical consistency and Scriptural consistency than with Calvinism.
Alan, I encourage you to read my book. I discuss why a perfectly powerful, knowledgeable, good, and loving God would allow evil, pain, and suffering all while supporting my case with scripture. The Molinist has logical grounds and the Calvinist does not. Moreover, there is no loss of spiritual high ground with Molinism (as shall soon be seen with my upcoming debate with James White on the topic: "Is Molinism Biblical."
5:50 “Or Reject Gods maximum greatness and perfection”
Question:
What if Gods greatness and perfection is beyond our comprehension?
(and such claims might shortchange potential arguments)
Being beyond comprehension does not mean contradictory
Yep, that was a very well put syllogism. Much appreciated.
Dr. Stratton, with regards to 1 Samuel 2:25 (NAS):”But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death.” How do you reconcile that within Molinism? Why would the Lord want to put them to death if His greatest will was for all people to be saved? My understanding of Calvinism is that while God wants all to come to faith and repentance, His greatest and overriding desire is to bring glory to himself through His workings in history. Thanks in advance!
Thanks for your question, Mikel.
Consider the entire passage:
22 Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 23 So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours. 24 No, my sons; the report I hear spreading among the Lord’s people is not good. 25 If one person sins against another, God[d] may mediate for the offender; but if anyone sins against the Lord, who will intercede for them?” His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death.
First, although there are competing interpretations of this specific Old Testament verse, Mere Molinism can make sense of any and all of the competing interpretations. See my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism.
However, if one applies mere Molinism to soteriological views, then questions are raised. Given the biblical data and logically deductive arguments based upon perfect being theology (and supported by Scripture), my conclusions seem to follow. So, we are left with either affirming a contradiction in Scripture, or rejecting the interpretation of this verse which is contrary to the competing biblical data and theological arguments.
It seems to me that Eli's sons freely rejected God's commands (not to mention Eli's rebuke), thus, God "desired," or "willed," or simply "chose" to put them to death. It does not follow that God ultimately desired for the sons to freely reject His commands.
Bottom line: one ought to be careful to not put too much theological freight onto the back of one disputed Bible verse. We must consider the whole of Scripture (which is what I did in Chapter 2 of my book).
Regarding your comments of God's "competing desires, and God's ultimate desires for His "own glory," I discuss why this approach ultimately fails in my book as well. I encourage you to take a look at it.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Thank you for the response! I have your book and am working through it. As I come across other areas of concern I’ll be sure to reach out to your ministry. Thank you for always being respectful and winsome in your approach!
@@FreethinkingMinistries The WHOLE of Scripture denies your Jesuit-invented theories!
What do we have in Scripture?
In a nutshell:
1). Creation---everything Good!
2). The Fall---everything corrupted!
3). Redemption---all the sinners Graced by God=Saved. All the sinners NOT Graced by God=Destroyed in the Lake of Fire.
Did God know all this before He created?
Does God possess the Omnipotence to actually bring to fruition His PURPOSE?
And, what's the purpose again?
The END THING!
God's whole purpose from the very beginning was the END GOAL.
This is known as the Teleological Principle in God.
Ever think much about this, Tim?
You might wanna start.
Questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Lastly, with Molinism like Arminianism it seems with the research I have been doing is just adding human attributes to God or making God into our image so we have a God we like, rather than this holy and just God who will send those He chooses to Hell. We do not start out as neutral beings. We are total depraved thus we do not deserve heaven nor His grace and mercy. Nor will we accept Him without the work of the Holy Spirit. We are hostile to God and do not desire Him.
A nasty dose of realism. I do commendU for your, calvinst take on things. It's the simplised thing. Divine executive privilege. God has morall And epistomological carte blanche. These molies remind me of Catholics protesting their own church. The pope is supposed to be infallible. God is supposed to be sovieren.
//Lastly, with Molinism like Arminianism it seems with the research I have been doing is just adding human attributes to God or making God into our image so we have a God we like, rather than this holy and just God who will send those He chooses to Hell.//
Why should you trust "the research you've been doing" if a deity who determines all Christians to do research, study the scriptures, and reach false theological beliefs is also determining your conclusions about this matter?
See more here: ruclips.net/video/g7LMXdDMGy0/видео.html
For more about Hell, see the following: ruclips.net/video/VdILqN3oWro/видео.html
// We do not start out as neutral beings. We are total depraved thus we do not deserve heaven nor His grace and mercy. Nor will we accept Him without the work of the Holy Spirit. We are hostile to God and do not desire Him.//
And Molinists agree. I don't think you understand that which you reject.
To me Molinism just sounds like a much more convoluted form of Calvinism. My issue is not with Him having foreknowledge (knowing what we will do) which I definitely believe He has, or even middle knowledge, in the sense that He knows what I’d most likely do in any given circumstance (since He knows me even better than I do) and using that to achieve His good purposes (like I would with my children for example), my problem is with the “possible worlds” scenario.
If God premeditatedly thought of different worlds and possibilities before creating this one, and only actuated a world in which people in some given circumstances will respond the way He wants them too (even without causing them to), He is effectually predetermining who will be saved and who won’t, because freedom would just be an illusion since He chose to create this particular world and rejected the other worlds, so He would ultimately be the author of evil and sin because, given many options, He would have predetermined to create the world in which Adam and Eve sinned. And since we know that God is not the author of sin we cannot postulate that He premeditatedly created the world where they would sin.
I personally don’t think that God picked and chose one specific world, because the only way that all this is not just a big game, is that if God just created one world (without considering other possible worlds) and gave us all free will, period. Because if you make God to be someone who picks and chooses between different possible worlds in order to accomplish his purposes, you definitely end up in determinism (albeit a more disguised and convoluted one compared to Calvinism), and you’d also grossly underestimate God’s power as well as taint His intentions. God is not like a big computer that spews out the best possible scenario just to win some sort of game, God created us out of love and in order to have a relationship with us and He made us in His image and our life is immeasurably valuable to Him, and He is so powerful that He can create just one world and still achieve His ultimate purpose. Or it would all really sound like cheating, wouldn’t it?
//To me Molinism just sounds like a much more convoluted form of Calvinism.''
Many people feel this way because both views have a high view of predestination of all things. However, the big difference is in the manner in which all things are predestined. The Calvinist says that God makes all things happen by way of his omnipotence (and thus, humans possess no libertarian freedom), the Molinist says that God predestines all things by way of His omniscience (and thus, preserves human libertarian freedom).
@@FreethinkingMinistries yes, exactly, that is the issue. They are both deterministic. I really don't view biblical predestination that way. I think that God has predestined Christ as the Savior of the world because of the Fall, and He has predestined that those who are freely in Christ by faith will be saved, but He didn't predestined individuals to salvation or damnation neither directly by determining everything that comes to pass (Calvinism), although He definitely has foreknowledge of it, nor by determining one specific world where all things will come to pass exactly as He desires. I believe that both scenarios preclude true freedom and that in the first one you pretty much just have God playing with moist robots, in the second one you have a big movie production where you have real human actors in it but it's all still just a big play.
@@Franci0242 you are confusing and conflating predestination with determinism. God can predestine via determinism or predestine via middle knowledge. The latter is not deterministic and that's exactly why informed determinists reject Molinism.
@@FreethinkingMinistries I don't agree, if you re-read my whole comments you'd understand what I mean. I believe that Molinism is determinism because in it God predetermined a certain world to come to pass, a world where things would go a certain way instead of just creating only one world and dealing with it. To me, it really seems that the god of Molinism is a less powerful god because he has to make all these calculations of probabilities to achieve one specific world that better fits the bill. While the biblical God doesn't have to do that, He can directly deal with any possible world in which people have free will because He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
@@Franci0242 This will be my final comment. You said:
//I believe that Molinism is determinism because in it God predetermined a certain world to come to pass, a world where things would go a certain way instead of just creating only one world and dealing with it.//
Determinism is the idea that antecedent conditions causally determine or necessitate all effects.
Libertarian freedom is the ability to choose such that antecedent conditions are insufficient to causally determine or necessitate one’s choice. So, either antecedent conditions are sufficient or insufficient to necessitate one's choice. If they are sufficient, then determinism is true; if they are insufficient, then one possesses the libertarian freedom to choose. According to Molinism, he does create a world of libertarian agents and God "deals" with these agents just as much as Dr. Strange "dealt" with all the agents in Endgame.
//To me, it really seems that the god of Molinism is a less powerful god because he has to make all these calculations of probabilities to achieve one specific world that better fits the bill.//
That doesn't make any sense and is an attack against a straw man (or "straw god'). First, why would God be "less powerful" if he had to run calculations? If anything, this would make God less knowledgeable, but not less powerful. Second, you do not understand that which you reject. You provide a caricature of the God the Molinist describes. A necessary being -- who is also necessarily omniscient -- does not "make calculations" or infer "probabilities." An omniscient God simply KNOWS the truth value to all propositions. This includes the truth value to CCFs.
//While the biblical God doesn't have to do that, He can directly deal with any possible world in which people have free will because He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.//
As I’ve said elsewhere, “If perfect power and perfect knowledge are necessary attributes of God, then middle knowledge comes along for the ride.” This is because God’s decree is contingent and not necessary. However, God’s attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence) are necessary.
Btw: Omnipresence is not a necessary attribute of God. It is contingent upon God creating space. If God creates space (which He obviously did), then, since God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then God is aware of and causally active at all points in space. That's what it means to be omnipresent.
God bless.
Thanks a lot, Dr. Tim. I'll definitely check your book.
Wait I’m just curious do you hold to universalism
This was great
God who is sovereign shows his maximally great love and justice to those he has chosen. 2. Thess. 2:13. You are presupposing a non discriminating God. This is a product of human sentiments not scripture. Out of all the people in the Ur of Chaldees God chose Abraham, why? Out of all Davids brothers God chose David to be king, why? Out of all the men Christ could of chose to be his disciples he choses his twelve, why? The reason is that God has the right to show and demonstrate his love and mercy more specifically and effectually to those whom he particularly delights in. The reason for this is because he does all things after the good pleasure of his own will. He has no obligation to measure up to your standards of fairness.
If God's grace is resistible does this mean His grace is not sufficient? Does this mean no matter what God does it just is never enough for some to be saved? Does this mean God is weak and insecure and needs man to complete the transaction of salvation? Seems the R of Molinism makes God weak and needy. Cannot God save whoever He wishes? Is it not fallen man who wants to play a role in salvation? Who are we to complain who He chooses and who He doesn't. Doesn't He have the right as a just and holy God to do with one lump of clay for good and another for another evil? Look at Jacob and Esau. Look at the Disciples. Did He not call them. None of these people choose God. He choose them. The disciples and Apostles were not able to resist His irresistible grace it appears.
//If God's grace is resistible does this mean His grace is not sufficient?//
God's grace is sufficient to save all persons who do not freely reject His love and grace.
//Does this mean no matter what God does it just is never enough for some to be saved?//
The essence of salvation is love. Love cannot be forced upon another. Thus, God limits His power for the sake of love and salvation. Of course God has the power to force all people into His presence, but God does not rape . . . he invites, and we have the freedom to reject His loving invitation.
See more here: freethinkingministries.com/once-saved-always-saved/
// Does this mean God is weak and insecure and needs man to complete the transaction of salvation? //
Nope. Not at all.
//Seems the R of Molinism makes God weak and needy.//
It's actually Calvinism that leads to the view of a "needy deity." I discuss this in my book and show that John Piper's view (along with other Calvinists) entails that God needs some humans to experience eternal Hell for his own glory. If that's the case, God NEEDS creation and humans become necessary beings (albeit with beginnings). Quite frankly, that's a horrible view and a low view of God.
//Cannot God save whoever He wishes?//
Not if God gives them the power to reject Him (which an insecure God would never do).
//Is it not fallen man who wants to play a role in salvation?//
Man can do absolutely nothing to save himself. Molinism does not entail otherwise.
//Who are we to complain who He chooses and who He doesn't.//
I'm not complaining. However, it sounds like you are referring to Romans 9. That passage implies libertarian freedom: freethinkingministries.com/but-who-are-you-o-man-romans-9/
// The disciples and Apostles were not able to resist His irresistible grace it appears.//
Have you read Deuteronomy? A good theologian and biblical scholar must seek to make sense of ALL the biblical data.
My only issue with “trump” is that total depravity is a phrase that has been co-opted to mean “total inability necessitating pre-faith regeneration” in today’s theological climate. I enjoy Keathley’s phrase “radical depravity”
Well, I guess you could roll that R and get RRUMP!
I do know how the "T" has been co-opted, but the way the "TRUMP supporter" defines it is key -- and one that the Calvinist will agree with: "every aspect of human existence has been infected by sin."
@@FreethinkingMinistries I totally agree! Clarity wise, unfortunately, many don’t want to give you the chance to explain what you are referencing, they have a pre-existing dictionary in their heads of what terms mean that helps them presuppose and categorize everyone so as to argue with a predictable opponent 😂
So I guess you could argue that we need to continue to clearly support “total depravity” while clarifying that it does not mean “total inability that necessitates pre-faith regeneration” instead of handing the phrase over to the re-definition?
@@DustinHarrisWHBC yes, in fact, we can also grant the "pre-faith grace" needed in order to make it possible for the human to respond (although this does not necessitate a positive response given the "R" of TRUMP).
@@FreethinkingMinistries totally. But total inability that needs “regeneration” to precede faith logically necessitates irresistibility, correct? So your “R” would render a “pre-faith regeneration” position incompatible.
Personally, I think that co-opting total depravity to mean “total inability needing pre-faith regeneration” is an attempt to create a false dilemma wherein you either affirm TI or affirm some pelagianism or semi-pelagianism where man is “good”. The middle ground where man is totally depraved but can still freely respond to God’s gracious appeal for salvation needs to be present and clear to fight that false dilemma
@@DustinHarrisWHBC it would not be a "complete regeneration." It would be a kind of grace that makes it possible to reject God's love or not. I think this is what is typically meant by "prevenient grace."
Great syllogism until the assertion occurred. God is a maximally great being "is" an assertion; and we can't derive soundness from plucked ancient literature sources no matter how much one wants too. If I said Abraham Lincoln is a vampire hunter and began to quote versus Timur Bekmambetov book would you accept the claim? God can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. God is a god of contradictions which in of itself is a contradiction. Why would a God capable of creating the universe, maximally great, omnibenevolent chose such an inept method to deliver the most important message though scrolls, books, and text that can be damaged, lost, mistranslated, and misinterpreted?
In my book I offer biblical data which supports the maximal greatness of God.
Humes guillotine as it relates to Divine ontology.
You’re likely to lose many with the acronym TRUMP. Further, I don’t care for the phrase “Total Depravity” anyway. That well has already been poisoned a thousand times over. How about “Pervasive Depravity?” But then, the acronym would be PRUMP. That’s no good. Maybe “Significant Depravity?” But SRUMP is even worse. I don’t know how you could modify it but TRUMP is not a advisable, and Total Depravity is even less so.
Still, I appreciate the content, and keep up the good work! From a friend and fellow Molinist ;)
He made it clear that the trump acronym is based on the trump cards in card games, not Donald trump. Why would people be against that?
@@taylorj.1628
If they’re snowflakes.
There's also the acronym ROSES
Radical Depravity
Overcoming Grace
Sovereign Election
Eternal Life
Singular Redemption
This is what I thought he was going to expound in the video when I clicked it lol
@@mzg1237 you read Refreshing Grace?
@@qaz-fi1id His allusion to ROSES might have come from Kenneth Keathley’s book “Salvation and Sovereignty.”
Nice stuff: thinking I'll put this in a tab to re-watch later in order to better remember the acronym. :)
Shades of Norm Geisler in there with the "Erased vs Effaced." Love it.
besides the fact that molinism is not taught anywhere in scripture, this argument falls apart at "omnibenevolent." God is absolutely not omnibenevolent. Read Psalm 145 again and ask yourself
1. Does every generation praise God, declare his mighty acts, tell of his greatness? v1-7
2. Is God truly gracious and merciful to all, or just all who love him? 8-9
3. Do all his works give thanks to him? v10
4. Does he really sustain all who fall, or just all who look to him? v14-16
Read v20 again. _The Lord keeps all who love him but all the wicked he will destroy_
God did not want Eli's sons to repent. God did not command Noah or Israel to proselytize. He commanded Israel to destroy the pagan nations, not save them. Jesus rejoiced that God did not open the hearts of the wicked cities in Matt 11.25. THINK.
Read your bible better Tim and stop trying to force conclusions that you want.
Tim seems like a really nice guy. That's why he's not a calvinst.
And IF my aunt had balls she would be my uncle
Yes, God is love. However, His love for believers and the world is not the same. God loves believers unconditionally because of God the Father's love for the Son. However, does not God have absolute conditions of love for unbelievers and even hates the world for what they did to His Son and how the world views the cross?
//Yes, God is love. However, His love for believers and the world is not the same.//
If a one loves another person, then one desires the eternal best for that person. As a wrote in my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism:
"Perhaps a more concrete, personal way to put the issue is to take a moment to think about the loved ones in our lives, people whom we love so much that we are willing to die for them. Would we not want what is best for them? Would we not want them to experience eternal paradise in heaven? If our answer is “No,” can we truly say we love them? Certainly not.
If a man declared his love for his wife, but in his heart did not really care if she suffered in hell for all eternity, then his wife would have good reason to think they needed marriage counseling! If a mother told her daughter how much she loved her, but then added, “but I hope you don’t make it to heaven,” this child will probably need therapy and have trust issues for the rest of her life! It is utterly absurd to even entertain the notion that a person can really love another person and still not desire the eternal best for that person.
In brief, if an imperfect human desires heaven for those he loves-yes, for those whom he does not even know, and even for those who hate him-it seems obvious that an all-loving being (God)-who is the ground of love (1 John 4:8)-would at the least desire that every human created in his image would go to heaven."
//God loves believers unconditionally because of God the Father's love for the Son. However, does not God have absolute conditions of love for unbelievers and even hates the world for what they did to His Son and how the world views the cross?//
God does have unconditional love for all people. This was Jesus's point of the parable of the prodigal son. The Father never stopped loving his son, and he never forced him back into his presence. The son was the one who caused division. The son was the one who came to his senses and repented. God hates sin, but does not hate the sinner -- He loves them.
@@FreethinkingMinistries First, God is love but He is holy and just. His love is perfect and should not be compared to human love. Second, In the prodigal Son parable Jesus was sharing how the father loved the son regardless what He did or didn't do because the son already belonged to Him. God the Father through the Son loves all His Son has died for. However, there are those The Father does not love the same because they do not belong to Him. There are plenty of verses where it shows God hating or abhorring unbelievers, doers of wickedness, and the world. Lastly, I am still wrestling with this topic. Initially 3 weeks ago Molinism sounded good but since then I currently lean towards Calvinism. None of them are 100% accurate. However, somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism is probably the most biblically and theologically sound. I do hope to continue through videos and articles on this topic as well as read all the current literature on these three theological systems as well as read what they founders of these beliefs actually believed. My concern is people are responding to others based on caricatures and misunderstanding of other viewpoints and what the early theologians of the the 17th century and before believed.
@@FreethinkingMinistries God can be unconditional love but at the same time hate the world and those who love darkness and be perfectly loving and just. His love and justice go hand in hand. You cannot have a God of partials or varies in these. He is 100% love, just, wrathful, righteous, compassionate, gracious, merciful, truthful, and Holy all the time and at the same time. This is what makes Him perfect and such a Holy God. My concern when we overemphasis God is love without acknowledging His other characteristics or say if fallen man would do this then obvious God would too. If we run this out we are basically saying if God doesn't love like fallen man would love a sibling then He is not loving. This is so dangerous, backwards, and is not biblical. Either way we have to be careful we are not sissifying God and adding human qualities to His nature.
@@joshbeard9809 you are reaching some odd conclusions.
//First, God is love but He is holy and just.//
Yep . . . God is just because He is love! After all, it is unloving to turn a blind eye to injustice.
//His love is perfect and should not be compared to human love.//
God's perfect standard of love is what we compare human love to. You are getting it backwards. God's knowledge is perfect, humans have limited knowledge and ought to seek more knowledge. God is perfect in power, humans have limited power. God is perfect love, humans are not, but are to strive to love all people (just as God does), from our neighbors to those who consider us to be their enemies (See Matthew).
//Second, In the prodigal Son parable Jesus was sharing how the father loved the son regardless what He did or didn't do...//
Yep . . . that's the unconditional love I was speaking of.
You continued: //... because the son already belonged to Him.//
What do you mean by "belonged"? At any rate, the son had the power to separate himself from his father, and he did. Nothing forced the son back into the presence of his father and the son could have chosen to separate himself from his father forever. But, as Jesus makes clear, the son came to his senses and chose to return to his father's unconditional love.
//God the Father through the Son loves all His Son has died for.//
Which is the entirety of humanity. Amen to that!
//However, there are those The Father does not love the same because they do not belong to Him.//
No, just as the father in the Parable loved his son, the son had the power to break that relationship.
//There are plenty of verses where it shows God hating or abhorring unbelievers, doers of wickedness, and the world.//
Brother, if you want to aspire to be a good theologian and biblical exegete, you must make sense of Scripture as a whole. A stong case can be made that God hates the sin but loves the sinners. A strong case is made that since God first loved humankind, when a person does not resist his love, he is saved. As noted above, this seems to be demonstrated by Jesus in his Parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11-32. Jesus is telling this fictional story of a dad-a great dad-who loves his son the way God loves humanity (e.g., John 3:16; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; etc.). Make sure to spend time in those famous passages. Scripture is specific and clear that God loves all people, wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, and desires no one to perish.
In fact, the purpose of Jesus’s parable is to provide an analogy of the great and loving Heavenly Father so that those listening to this parable could begin to understand the way God loves everyone. His love was always available to his son, and it never decreased or disappeared. The son, however, made some choices-free choices-that separated him from the love of his father. It was not until the son made the choice to return to his father’s love, that their relationship was restored. Plummer says it well:
"The Parable of the Prodigal Son . . . completes the trilogy of these parables of grace . . . The first two parables give the divine side of grace; the seeking love of God. The third gives the human side; the rise and growth of repentance in the heart of the sinner . . . Like the Lost Coin, it is peculiar to Lk., who would take special delight in recording a discourse, which teaches so plainly that God’s all-embracing love is independent of privileges of birth and legal observances . . . This coming to himself is manifested in the thought of home and the longing for it. Want rekindles what his revelry had extinguished . . . The repentance is as real and decided as the fall. He prepares full confession, but no excuse; and, having made a good resolution, he acts upon it without delay . . . He had not counted on his father's love and forgiveness when he decided to make this request."
This brings forth a relevant counterfactual: If the son would have never made the choice to return to his father, then their relationship would have never been restored. This is representative of God’s love for all people. God loves all people unconditionally, just as the father in the parable, and his love is always available. Indeed, God is omnibenevolent.
Peter Van Inwagen nicely describes the maximally great nature of God: “God is love as he is Goodness and Knowledge and Power: all these things are perfectly realized in him . . . We may equally well say that God is Goodness or that God is Knowledge or that God is Power . . .”
//Lastly, I am still wrestling with this topic. Initially 3 weeks ago Molinism sounded good but since then I currently lean towards Calvinism. None of them are 100% accurate.//
Keep wrestling! In the meantime, while you are in the midst of this wrestling match, I would encourage you to not speak so definitively. You've been doing this for 3 weeks; I've been doing this for nearly 20 years in some form or fashion.
//However, somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism is probably the most biblically and theologically sound.//
And that is the middle knowledge position (a.k.a., Molinism).
//I do hope to continue through videos and articles on this topic as well as read all the current literature on these three theological systems as well as read what they founders of these beliefs actually believed.//
Nearly half of my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism, is all about the history of thought behind these views. I survey Luther, Calvin, Molina, Arminius, and so many more. The Study Guide to the book (found on Amazon) goes further and discusses why Arminius was likely a "closet Molinist," but notes that the Arminians (not to be confused with Arminius), did not understand middle knowledge, and thus, when they defended Arminius at Dort, they did not do so accurately (a caricature was provided instead of the real thing). This led to 500 years of confusion.
//My concern is people are responding to others based on caricatures and misunderstanding of other viewpoints and what the early theologians of the the 17th century and before believed.//
That's why my academic work carefully surveys each of these early theologians. I encourage you to get both my book and its study guide.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Just revealing where your claims lead when fully carried out.
I heard of ROSES but not TRUMP. Interesting vid!
I like ROSES a lot, but the TRUMP card specifically gets us to Molinism with "Middle Knowledge of the elect." It also avoids doubling up on a letter (as ROSES does with 'S'). I discuss TRUMP in this book:
www.amazon.com/gp/slredirect/picassoRedirect.html/ref=pa_sp_atf_aps_sr_pg1_1?ie=UTF8&adId=A06655241V2GFUCYVV9TN&url=%2FHuman-Freedom-Divine-Knowledge-Molinism%2Fdp%2F166671786X%2Fref%3Dsr_1_3_sspa%3Fkeywords%3DMere%2BMolinism%26qid%3D1652278085%26sr%3D8-3-spons%26psc%3D1&qualifier=1652278085&id=7858646139679343&widgetName=sp_atf
God desires that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth. I take it that desires are things that rationalize actions. For example, I have a desire to lose weight, so the rational action would be for me to go on a diet. If an Omni God desires that all men be saved, then he would actualize a world in which all men are saved.
I assume you take God’s omnipotence to be the ability to actualize any logically possible world. If you say it is logically impossible for God to actualize such a world where all men are saved then you’re saying God desires something that is not logically possible. That would be irrational. Are you willing to say that God is irrational?
If you say a world where all men are saved is a logically possible world then does that mean the free gift of grace applies to all men (universalism)? If not, why didn’t god actualize a world where his desire for all men to be saved was actualized given that it’s logically possible?
If you say that free will of the libertarian variety is necessary in order to have morally significant choices then god cannot know what any human will choose prior to the choice because Libertarian free will means that all choices are not causally determined by antecedent conditions. If humans have libertarian free will then god is just rolling the dice with creation, and He doesn’t know what the outcome will be! Is God gambling or does He know the eventual outcome prior to creation?
If God knows the eventual outcome prior to creation then libertarian free will is not possible. If libertarian free will is not possible then humans cannot make truly morally significant choices. If humans cannot make morally significant choices then those that end up in hell were determined to go to hell prior to creation, and evil was necessary to accomplish God’s goal.
If God knows the eventual outcome of creation prior to or at the moment of creation on Molinism, why would anyone reject Calvinism? Isn’t pre-determinism the problem Molinism was created to solve? Given my argument, how does Molinism fix this problem?
Thanks for the comment. Since it is lengthy, please allow me the courtesy of copying and pasting so I can respond to each point and keep my thoughts in order.
//God desires that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth. I take it that desires are things that rationalize actions.//
Not at all. In my book I explain that desires are horrible "reasons" to reach conclusions about ultimate reality. As Ben Shapiro is famous for stating: "Facts don't care about your feelings" (or desires). Indeed, if one's greatest desire is for divine determinism to be true, then that is a horrible "reason" to affirm divine determinism. It's not a "rationalized action" by any means -- it's an unchecked bias.
Moreover, if EDD is true, then all of our desires are determined by a deity of deception. God would be the one who determines if we act upon a certain desire or not. There is no escape if one affirms EDD -- ALL THINGS are determined and necessitated by God in one way or another.
//For example, I have a desire to lose weight, so the rational action would be for me to go on a diet.//
We are discussing metaphysical and theological truths, not diet plans.
//If an Omni God desires that all men be saved, then he would actualize a world in which all men are saved.//
If that is a feasible world, yes, I agree. That is why -- as a Molinist -- I am a **hopeful** universalist. Now, in my book I have argued that universalism is probably false (based upon logic and scripture), but that word "probably" gives universalism a chance (as I discuss in my recent academic journal article against the Hiddnnesses Objection).
//I assume you take God’s omnipotence to be the ability to actualize any logically possible world.//
Nope. I have made it clear in my writings that an omnipotent God can create any logically feasible world. If God desires true and maximal love with Humanity, then, I have argued that God must grant humanity libertarian freedom. If that's the case, then there are logically **possible** worlds that are not **feasible** for God to actualize.
//If you say it is logically impossible for God to actualize such a world where all men are saved then you’re saying God desires something that is not logically possible. That would be irrational. Are you willing to say that God is irrational?//
In my book I argue that the essence of salvation is love and that love entails libertarian freedom. So, if there is a feasible freedom-permitting world in which all people freely choose to not reject God's love and grace into the infinite future, then God -- a perfectly good and loving being -- would create that world. If it is not available, then God will create the best feasible freedom-permitting world in which nothing that actually exists deterministically prevents any person from an eternal love relationship with God. Thus, since nothing is deterministically preventing this eternal relationship with God, God can desire that ALL love Him in return, even though He knows that some will freely choose to reject His love and grace. There's nothing irrational or illogical with this explanation.
Be careful not to confuse certainty with necessity. I recommend The Only Wise God, by William Lane Craig.
//If you say a world where all men are saved is a logically possible world then does that mean the free gift of grace applies to all men (universalism)? If not, why didn’t god actualize a world where his desire for all men to be saved was actualized given that it’s logically possible?//
Before you continue down this journey, it is vital for you to study the literature regarding the key differences between logical possibility and feasibility. Without this understanding, one is sure to make all kinds of modal errors during their reasoning processes. Again, I highly recommend the Craig book I referenced above.
//If you say that free will of the libertarian variety is necessary in order to have morally significant choices then god cannot know what any human will choose prior to the choice because Libertarian free will means that all choices are not causally determined by antecedent conditions. If humans have libertarian free will then god is just rolling the dice with creation, and He doesn’t know what the outcome will be! Is God gambling or does He know the eventual outcome prior to creation?//
That's completely false. If God is necessarily omnipotent (perfect in power), then God has the power to create libertarian free agents (even if He never does). If God is necessarily omniscient (perfect in knowledge), then God knows exactly how these libertarian agents would freely choose if He were to create them (and even if He never does). This is what is meant by middle knowledge. So, to reject middle knowledge, you must reject either God's perfect power or His perfect knowledge -- or both! God's perfect power and knowledge are both supported by scripture and logically deduced via the Ontological Argument (and abductively supported by a cumulative case of other deductive arguments). Are you willing to affirm that God is less than a maximally great being?
I for one, am not! I affirm -- and argue -- that God is a maximally great being.
//If God knows the eventual outcome prior to creation then libertarian free will is not possible.//
That's simply the epitome of a false assertion. The definition of libertarian freedom is not "the ability to trick God." Moreover, as I made clear in my debate with James White, "knowledge does not stand in causal relation." God knowing how one will freely choose, does not mean it was not freely chosen. You are making a category error here.
//If libertarian free will is not possible then humans cannot make truly morally significant choices.//
Amen to that! Moreover, we lose the power to rationally infer best explanations based upon all the available data. Both rationality and morality are destroyed if humans do not possess libertarian freedom.
//If humans cannot make morally significant choices then those that end up in hell were determined to go to hell prior to creation, and evil was necessary to accomplish God’s goal.//
Which is why I reject Calvinism or any view that affirms exhaustive divine determinism.
//If God knows the eventual outcome of creation prior to . . . creation on Molinism, why would anyone reject Calvinism?//
That's a confused question.
//Isn’t pre-determinism the problem Molinism was created to solve? Given my argument, how does Molinism fix this problem?//
Molinism reject "pre-determinism" or simply "determinism." Molinism affirms, however, exhaustive PREDESTINATION of all things. In my book, I deductively argue that predestination and determinism are not the same thing and that it is a logical error to conflate these different philosophical concepts.
I encourage you to read my book, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism (Wipf and Stock, 2020).
All your points are mere opinions! You want to take on Reformed Theology we need to compare to scripture! Molina was a jesuit who formulated these idea against the early reformers!
I do not want to "take on Reformed theology." After all, I am a Reformed theologian who earned a PhD in theology from a staunch Reformed University. I simply reject 5-Point Calvinism and exhaustive divine determinism. Don't conflate Reformed theology with Calvinism; those are two different things.
Moreover, as Dr. Kurt Jaros has noted, the concept of what Molina referred to as "middle knowledge" was around since the time of Augustine and advanced by Gregory of Nyssa. Rejecting middle knowledge because Molina was a Jesuit is to commit the genetic fallacy.
You are giving "man" the power of salvation not God.
Romans 1:16 - For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone WHO BELIEVES!
If you don't like God's condition, then you can always be a Muslim.
Can a molinist believe in irresistible grace?
Yes, a 5-point Calvinist can, and should be, a “mere Molinist,” I do explain this in my book.
The honest Calvinist would simply reject omnibenevolence as an attribute of God. Also, we do have to factor in inability as taught in John chapter 6 and elsewhere.
Clavinsts cut through the bull. I'll give em that. So, when we say God is omni benevolent, a maximally great being, by who's terms though. There's a conflation going on here is there not? If you grant gods moral sovrenty then your invoking divine command executive privilege. He has moral carre blanche. This is the soft tissue. Humes guillotine raises its ugly head. Our finite minds cannot know, without divine revelation what that entails. If you define a maximally great being to the creation, then clearly God is Not omni benevolent. This world is most assuredly not perfect And let's not even talk about Hell. So gods character can appear to us as moral, immoral, or A moral. It's subjective. As to Gods utility, this is objective He has to have the three- all powerfull, all knowing ( what's logically possible) and omni present. This is truly a scary prospect.Gods power defines what a supreme being is. Not gods character. We have to be carefully not to ' get' God coming and going. In general terms, he could be ultimate evil, however his moral essence could be squared with God being an omni benevolent being, seen from the creations perspective. It appears to me, not possible with the Abrahamic faiths however, particularly Christianity 😅
Saying maximally doesn’t make you crazy talk of time stones and dr strange any more coherent!😂😂😂
I never made such claims. Be that as it may, using the word "maximally" clarifies my position and appealing to analogies or illustrations in pop-culture help people grasp the view scholars offer.
Let me know if you have an actual objection.
In your 10 step argument the Calvinist can reject Premise 2. They would say that YHWH is omnibenevolent but that does not mean He wants all men to be saved. Their argument could look something like this.
Premise1) YHWH is Omnibenevolent
Premise2) YHWH had the power to, and knew how to save the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom Matt11:20-24
Premise3) The people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom were not saved
Premise4) If YHWH had the power to, and knew how to save the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom but YHWH did not save them, then YHWH did not want to save them
Conclusion) Therefore Omnibenevolence and wanting to save all people are not to be conflated
Now at this point the Molinist and Arminian will point out to their Calvinist and Congruitist brothers that there are many passages that just come right out and say that YHWH does want all men to be saved. But the Calvinist and Congruitist will either appeal to two different kinds of wills/wants in YHWH that is His Moral Will and His Sovereign Will. Or they will appeal to competing wills in YHWH. An analogy of Moral Will and Sovereign Will would be Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as the "transcendent creator" of the Sherlock Holmes stories has a moral will that murder is evil but at the same time he has a sovereign will that some of his characters commit murder. A possible example of these types of wills in YHWH would be the story of Yoseph being sold into slavery by his brothers. YHWH's Moral Will was for the brothers not to kidnap Yoseph and sell him into slavery. But it was YHWH's Soverein Will for the brothers to kidnap Yoseph and sell him into slavery(Gen50:20). And a possible example of competing wills in YHWH would be the free will defense regarding evil. YHWH wants all men to be saved but He also wants all men to be free. And the free will defense says that YHWH wants all men to be free more than He wants all men to be saved. Being how much the Molinists and Arminians love the free will defense and being how it assumes that there are competing wills in YHWH they have to admit that competing wills in YHWH is at least a possible explanation of how Matt11:20-24 and Irresistible Grace works with all the passages that talk about how YHWH wants all to be saved. The difference is that the Calvinist and the Congruitist will deny that this other want in YHWH that is competing with YHWH's want that all men be saved, is that all men be free. The Calvinist and Congruitist would say that YHWH has Free Will and Necessary Moral Perfection. So Free Will and Necessary Moral Perfection are logically compatible. Which means that YHWH could have created a world inhabited by people that have both free will and necessary moral perfection. And that world would be both Free and yet without sin. So it cannot be YHWH's want that all men be free that is competing with YHWH's want that all men be saved. Many Calvinists and Congruitists would say that this other want in YHWH that is competing with His want that all men be saved is that He wants to express His wrath(Rom9:22). But others will appeal to Skeptical Theism and say that we don't know what the other competing want is. In short both the Calvinist and the Congruitist can explain why YHWH did not save the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom even though He knew how to save them, and had the power to save them. Simply put He wanted something else more than their salvation. And that competing want was not their free will.
As already mentioned in this thread, the “divine competing desires” view has been dealt with in my book. It fails for 4 reasons.
@@FreethinkingMinistries I guess your going to make me buy your book to find out what the four reasons are😉 Maybe I will.
If you could answer these questions I'd be grateful.
Why did YHWH not lead the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom to freely choose to be saved when He had both the knowledge and the power to do so? Matt11:20-24
If YHWH's ultimate desire is for all people to freely choose to love Him, then why did He not create a world inhabited by people that have both free Will and necessary moral perfection like He does?
@@redbearwarrior4859 "Why did YHWH not lead the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom to freely choose to be saved when He had both the knowledge and the power to do so"
How can you make someone *freely* do something? That is a logical contradiction.
@@leonardu6094 no, you misunderstood my question. Or perhaps I misspoke. I meant to ask why did YHWH not give the people of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom the signs (via His power) that He knew (via His middle knowledge) would result in them freely choosing to be saved?
@@redbearwarrior4859 Good question. Some Molinists (Braxton Hunter) have pointed out that verse (Matthew 11:21) is not a particularly good verse to show support for middle knowledge because when examined closely, it seems to be a case of Hyperbole to make a different point (condemning another group for rejecting the Gospel). There are better examples of scriptural verses displaying God's perfect knowledge of counter-factuals. But like i said, that's actually a very good question!
"Everyone gets the opportunity to choose God (or something like that)". Really? Tell me about the opportunity of meso-Americans, who had never heard of El or Yahweh, or Jesus, to repent and trust Christ either in how Christ was presented to the patriarchs, or to the Hebrews in the OT, or to the Nations in the NT, prior to Columbus. 🍿
It seems you must be chosen by God to be born in a time and place where one can hear about the holy God and his appointed Savior Jesus Christ - in order to be saved. "Faith comes BY HEARING and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD."
This can be solved by understanding that God judges people by their responses to the light that they have. Any video with William Lane Craig talking about “those who have never heard” will address this. Also according to Romans 1 all are without excuse because God gives them sufficient knowledge to accept him. The Bible leaves open the possibility that some can draw near to God and have the sacrifice of Jesus applied to them without being entirely aware of all of the details. Look at Job or Abraham, they didn’t know about Jesus. Yet these men were certainly saved.
Have you ever studied inclusivism? Many molinists are inclusivist.
@@zaktindal If God just judges people based on ethics then evangelism is not only pointless, it's cruel. You're now damning those who hear but don't believe who would have been saved otherwise because they were relatively moral.
The standard to be saved is to be perfect, which is why Jesus' perfect righteousness is imputed to us who trust/have faith in His meritorious cross-work. That is the narrow path that leads to eternal life and it is the exclusive means by which anyone is saved.
YHWH is Jesus, He makes that very clear in the Gospels, the OT prophets and saints knew their redeemer.
@@FTWbiology God does not judge people based on ethics.
@@zaktindal Agreed.
He judges based on if you're covered by the blood of the Lamb. Period.
5 Point heresy and eisegesis vs Doctrine of Biblical Grace....
With the exception of point #1, I agree entirely with the logic. I would say humans are fallen but not “totally depraved”. We are still created in God’s image and still capable of great good even though we are marred creatures in need of redemption. (As long as we are capable of “doing good”, we can’t be “utterly/totally depraved”. God commended many OT saints for their “righteousness”. That would not be possible if we were “utterly/totally/maximally depraved”.
I would also find a different acronym. The use of “TRUMP”is going to turn off a lot of otherwise possibly interested listeners.
Thinking on this:
I suppose if you can’t think of any other acronym than “TRUMP”, perhaps you can tweak the first point and make it “tainted humanity” rather than “total depravity”.
So, unregenerate men are "still capable of great good"?
According to who? Man's judgments? Your subjective opinion?
The Scriptures teach that all our so-called righteous acts are like a MENSTRUAL RAG in the sight of God (Is. 64:6, NET).
Why do you exalt fallen man to say such unbiblical nonsense about his abilities?
I don't get it.
Anyways,
*Soli Deo Gloria*
It’s okay, my friend. Trump won.
We have to be depraved. Our moral default position is Hell. Including baby's.The only way humans are not totally depraved is prehaps fallen angels get exclusive right to level 8 or get their very own hell. The offer you can't refuse.
5 points of NO to Molinism😂