Molinism discussion

[B. W.]

...(I don't know that Molinism really accomplishes anything in the context of maintaining the primary premises of Calvinism because it assumes some level of free agency that Calvinism in it's High or Traditional form just doesn't allow for, no matter how creative the explanations become. It makes God in one sense a master manipulator who is attempting to avoid responsibility to His own nature and standards by rendering sin and evil certain while putting man into a situation where his actions are unavoidable.

Does this seem like a reasonable assessment of the issues within the context of attempting to reconcile Molinism with Calvinism? Perhaps this is why some assert that Molinism (or anything but Calvinism itself) inevitably must lead to some form of Open Theism?

...(Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Molinism can't serve as a form of reconciliation of Calvinism to Free will, but at least in the case of Ware and other High Calvinists, it would appear to be an exercise in futility. Low Calvinism or a recognition of Weak Sovereignty would likely find itself much more able to work in that context.)

Yes, Ware has been labeled as a 4 Point Calvinist by the Hi Calvinist advocates because Mr. Ware leaves out the L of Tulip, in the use of Molinism. So at least he is exploring the matter but it leads to the other petals of the Tulip which poses the problem you mentioned.

The Fall was due to disobedience and the original language definitions for sin implied the missing the Mark, or moral twisting away from something (to get away with it) an ascertain of self to determine what makes good and evil…

So if you apply the original languages definition of sin you have Romans 5:12-14 read like this from the CJB translation:

"Here is how it works: it was through one individual that sin (Moral Twisting) entered the world, and through sin (Moral Twisting), death; and in this way death passed through to the whole human race, inasmuch as everyone sinned (Missing the Mark by moral twisting)." 5:12

"Sin (Missing the Mark by moral twisting) was indeed present in the world before Torah was given, but sin (Missing the Mark by moral twisting) is not counted as such when there is no Torah." Rom 5:13

"Nevertheless death ruled from Adam until Moshe, even over those whose sinning (Missing the Mark by moral twisting) was not exactly like Adam's violation of a direct command. In this, Adam prefigured the one who was to come." Rom 5:14 -Complete Jewish Bible (Definition for Sin added in by me).

This is saying that our moral twisting causes us to miss the high Mark of God due to directly disobeying God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The one who originated it, the fallen angelic being, was caught red handed doing what? Twisting God’s Command!

Did God create man’s fall as a certainty – no. He was testing obedience of a free moral being fashioned to reason. In fact, denying such a test would demonstrate that God is not all powerful if he denied choice and not as Just as he claims to be. Did God foreknow the fall would happen?

Yes, and now understand the concept mentioned in the bible concerning the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world – Jesus pronouncement that the ruler of the world expelled (John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11) and thus the pronouncement found in Genesis 3:14-15).

We actually see God’s handling of ridding the universe of disobedience/rebellion while proving he is worthy not to be disobeyed in the process! Think about it? If one truly loves, they will obey, not out of fear or as an automaton, but with true willing desire for a relationship of communion with the object of love.

Bible tells us in Romans 13:10 and Matthew 22:37-40 and John 17:3, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26) That love fulfills the law and God desire to restore a lost relationship that mankind choose to twist out of for rebellion’s way which lead to death in all relationships, hopes, dreams, purpose, and decays all toward physical death. You need faith in God’s love to be restored and God’s showed great grace to restore love back into the heart. Deny choice, you deny the ability to love and deny a morally reasoning being the option to reside forever with the true object of their love. Think about it… (Hebrews 9:27)

In other words, the concept of Original Sin needs revision in Ware’s use of Molinism to avoid the framing of God as the master manipulator creator of sin and rebellion, evil, etc and etc...

1 Timothy 1:5 -" Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith..." NKJV

Please note, I am not anti-Calvinist and not implying any such thing here either by what I wrote and like William Lane Craig, seek to help close the gap between opposing sides...

This is where Molinism leads, or takes us – to a ledge which one peers over leading to more investigation into and proclamation of The Lord’s great Name!
-
-
-

[Glen]

...(I don't know that Molinism really accomplishes anything in the context of maintaining the primary premises of Calvinism because it assumes some level of free agency that Calvinism in it's High or Traditional form just doesn't allow for, no matter how creative the explanations become. It makes God in one sense a master manipulator who is attempting to avoid responsibility to His own nature and standards by rendering sin and evil certain while putting man into a situation where his actions are unavoidable.

Does this seem like a reasonable assessment of the issues within the context of attempting to reconcile Molinism with Calvinism? Perhaps this is why some assert that Molinism (or anything but Calvinism itself) inevitably must lead to some form of Open Theism?

...(Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Molinism can't serve as a form of reconciliation of Calvinism to Free will, but at least in the case of Ware and other High Calvinists, it would appear to be an exercise in futility. Low Calvinism or a recognition of Weak Sovereignty would likely find itself much more able to work in that context.)

Yes, Ware has been labeled as a 4 Point Calvinist by the Hi Calvinist advocates because Mr. Ware leaves out the L of Tulip, in the use of Molinism. So at least he is exploring the matter but it leads to the other petals of the Tulip which poses the problem you mentioned.

The Fall was due to disobedience and the original language definitions for sin implied the missing the Mark, or moral twisting away from something (to get away with it) an ascertain of self to determine what makes good and evil…

So if you apply the original languages definition of sin you have Romans 5:12-14 read like this from the CJB translation:

"Here is how it works: it was through one individual that sin (Moral Twisting) entered the world, and through sin (Moral Twisting), death; and in this way death passed through to the whole human race, inasmuch as everyone sinned (Missing the Mark by moral twisting)." 5:12

"Sin (Missing the Mark by moral twisting) was indeed present in the world before Torah was given, but sin (Missing the Mark by moral twisting) is not counted as such when there is no Torah." Rom 5:13

"Nevertheless death ruled from Adam until Moshe, even over those whose sinning (Missing the Mark by moral twisting) was not exactly like Adam's violation of a direct command. In this, Adam prefigured the one who was to come." Rom 5:14 -Complete Jewish Bible (Definition for Sin added in by me).

This is saying that our moral twisting causes us to miss the high Mark of God due to directly disobeying God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge. The one who originated it, the fallen angelic being, was caught red handed doing what? Twisting God’s Command!

Did God create man’s fall as a certainty – no. He was testing obedience of a free moral being fashioned to reason. In fact, denying such a test would demonstrate that God is not all powerful if he denied choice and not as Just as he claims to be. Did God foreknow the fall would happen?

Yes, and now understand the concept mentioned in the bible concerning the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world – Jesus pronouncement that the ruler of the world expelled (John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11) and thus the pronouncement found in Genesis 3:14-15).

We actually see God’s handling of ridding the universe of disobedience/rebellion while proving he is worthy not to be disobeyed in the process! Think about it? If one truly loves, they will obey, not out of fear or as an automaton, but with true willing desire for a relationship of communion with the object of love.

Bible tells us in Romans 13:10 and Matthew 22:37-40 and John 17:3, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26) That love fulfills the law and God desire to restore a lost relationship that mankind choose to twist out of for rebellion’s way which lead to death in all relationships, hopes, dreams, purpose, and decays all toward physical death. You need faith in God’s love to be restored and God’s showed great grace to restore love back into the heart. Deny choice, you deny the ability to love and deny a morally reasoning being the option to reside forever with the true object of their love. Think about it… (Hebrews 9:27)

In other words, the concept of Original Sin needs revision in Ware’s use of Molinism to avoid the framing of God as the master manipulator creator of sin and rebellion, evil, etc and etc...

1 Timothy 1:5 -" Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith..." NKJV

Please note, I am not anti-Calvinist and not implying any such thing here either by what I wrote and like William Lane Craig, seek to help close the gap between opposing sides...

This is where Molinism leads, or takes us – to a ledge which one peers over leading to more investigation into and proclamation of The Lord’s great Name!
-
-
-

I don't see were one could apply moral reasoning or logic to adams sin, this formula has missing ingredients-inlightenment of good and evil. Even the gospel isn't based on mans ability to reason, or logically being able to except the preaching of the cross, God knew if he offered it through that medium mans pride would sprout over being able to grasp it within himself, which is the oposite of Gods intentions 1 Cor 1:19-23. Mans rational, Logic, etc.. is a hindrance concerning the gospel, not an asset.

Though we find some condescending passages that seem to support a more open view, its a wishful mirage if God made the above contrare to mans natural instincts.

Grace, Glen.

[Canuckster1127]

Both good points BW and Glen. I agree that logic fails to fully rectify or explain everything that is at work here. I'm also not stating that Molinism can't provide some insight in reconciling Calvinism with Free Will. The view I mentioned and find within Ware is not the whole of Calvinism and Glen, coming from a position of Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation which I think you mentioned you do (if not, please don't let me put words in your mouth) there's actually a lot of common ground with Calvinism but with universal atonement (instead of limited atonement) and salvation (which are not the same things) in the end coming about with God offering grace and mercy continuously until all people are convinced and make a decision for God. Some similar questions exist in that point of view along with some others. In any form of universal salvation however, there's still going to remain the question if free will can ultimately exist if man is not free to resist the grace of God and to choose to embrace the consequences even if it seems impossible that anyone, once fully aware of God and His love for us would choose to resist. That's perhaps (and I'm not a UR proponent or a universalist) a more consistent point of view in that universalism in that context presents issues that are not necessarily morally irreconcilable and in that situation, I don't see mystery as without merit.

I'm fine with mystery and accepting logic cannot address all issues and fully reconcile. The issue I seem to have is I can't reconcile mystery to explain morally contradictory statements that cannot by definition exist together without compromising the character of God.

Anyway, I'm still very much thinking along these lines because of my own examination of some of these issues elsewhere and it wasn't my intent to derail this or suggest that Molinism can't be looked at upon it's own merits to provide an approach that is viable. It just leapt out at me when I saw the examination of Ware in this context and remembered that he'd been mentioned in this material so I thought I'd toss it out there.

[Glen]

Both good points BW and Glen. I agree that logic fails to fully rectify or explain everything that is at work here. I'm also not stating that Molinism can't provide some insight in reconciling Calvinism with Free Will. The view I mentioned and find within Ware is not the whole of Calvinism and Glen, coming from a position of Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation which I think you mentioned you do (if not, please don't let me put words in your mouth) there's actually a lot of common ground with Calvinism but with universal atonement (instead of limited atonement) and salvation (which are not the same things) in the end coming about with God offering grace and mercy continuously until all people are convinced and make a decision for God. Some similar questions exist in that point of view along with some others. In any form of universal salvation however, there's still going to remain the question if free will can ultimately exist if man is not free to resist the grace of God and to choose to embrace the consequences even if it seems impossible that anyone, once fully aware of God and His love for us would choose to resist. That's perhaps (and I'm not a UR proponent or a universalist) a more consistent point of view in that universalism in that context presents issues that are not necessarily morally irreconcilable and in that situation, I don't see mystery as without merit.

I'm fine with mystery and accepting logic cannot address all issues and fully reconcile. The issue I seem to have is I can't reconcile mystery to explain morally contradictory statements that cannot by definition exist together without compromising the character of God.

Anyway, I'm still very much thinking along these lines because of my own examination of some of these issues elsewhere and it wasn't my intent to derail this or suggest that Molinism can't be looked at upon it's own merits to provide an approach that is viable. It just leapt out at me when I saw the examination of Ware in this context and remembered that he'd been mentioned in this material so I thought I'd toss it out there.

There is some common ground I would share with the calvanist, but would take exception with limited election being the final intent of Gods will, and would see a hidden trait of self righteousness in a position of limited election even though its claimed God did all the sorting with out merit being a factor, this is self delussional because the very fact that one thinks he was elected gives way for pride without even knowing its being germinated.

That hidden trait would be shared by both views ( a virus we all share ) from my vantage point looking in. Freewill is willing to come out of the closet and take its stand for pro choice of the species, but by doing so is still openly draging the old adamic mans ball and chain that God freed him from concerning the gospel of his salvation.

I except the reality of both the relative open view built on condescension, and the determined view built on absolutes that are Soveriegn over the limitations of the middle open view.

And I am a proponent of the UR position, though I disagree with some of its eschatology, being that the a high percentance of those who claim this view lean toward preterism, which I wouldn't subcribe to.

Grace, Glen.

[B. W.]

Both good points BW and Glen. I agree that logic fails to fully rectify or explain everything that is at work here. I'm also not stating that Molinism can't provide some insight in reconciling Calvinism with Free Will. The view I mentioned and find within Ware is not the whole of Calvinism and Glen, coming from a position of Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation which I think you mentioned you do (if not, please don't let me put words in your mouth) there's actually a lot of common ground with Calvinism but with universal atonement (instead of limited atonement) and salvation (which are not the same things) in the end coming about with God offering grace and mercy continuously until all people are convinced and make a decision for God. Some similar questions exist in that point of view along with some others. In any form of universal salvation however, there's still going to remain the question if free will can ultimately exist if man is not free to resist the grace of God and to choose to embrace the consequences even if it seems impossible that anyone, once fully aware of God and His love for us would choose to resist. That's perhaps (and I'm not a UR proponent or a universalist) a more consistent point of view in that universalism in that context presents issues that are not necessarily morally irreconcilable and in that situation, I don't see mystery as without merit.

I'm fine with mystery and accepting logic cannot address all issues and fully reconcile. The issue I seem to have is I can't reconcile mystery to explain morally contradictory statements that cannot by definition exist together without compromising the character of God.

Anyway, I'm still very much thinking along these lines because of my own examination of some of these issues elsewhere and it wasn't my intent to derail this or suggest that Molinism can't be looked at upon it's own merits to provide an approach that is viable. It just leapt out at me when I saw the examination of Ware in this context and remembered that he'd been mentioned in this material so I thought I'd toss it out there.

There is some common ground I would share with the calvanist, but would take exception with limited election being the final intent of Gods will, and would see a hidden trait of self righteousness in a position of limited election even though its claimed God did all the sorting with out merit being a factor, this is self delussional because the very fact that one thinks he was elected gives way for pride without even knowing its being germinated.

That hidden trait would be shared by both views ( a virus we all share ) from my vantage point looking in. Freewill is willing to come out of the closet and take its stand for pro choice of the species, but by doing so is still openly draging the old adamic mans ball and chain that God freed him from concerning the gospel of his salvation.

I except the reality of both the relative open view built on condescension, and the determined view built on absolutes that are Soveriegn over the limitations of the middle open view.

And I am a proponent of the UR position, though I disagree with some of its eschatology, being that the a high percentance of those who claim this view lean toward preterism, which I wouldn't subcribe to.

Grace, Glen.

Hi Glen, I'll let Bart answer you on this and I hope he will.

If not, then could you go into a bit more detail on the closet pro-choice of the species comment?

Thanks
-
-
-

[Glen]

Both good points BW and Glen. I agree that logic fails to fully rectify or explain everything that is at work here. I'm also not stating that Molinism can't provide some insight in reconciling Calvinism with Free Will. The view I mentioned and find within Ware is not the whole of Calvinism and Glen, coming from a position of Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation which I think you mentioned you do (if not, please don't let me put words in your mouth) there's actually a lot of common ground with Calvinism but with universal atonement (instead of limited atonement) and salvation (which are not the same things) in the end coming about with God offering grace and mercy continuously until all people are convinced and make a decision for God. Some similar questions exist in that point of view along with some others. In any form of universal salvation however, there's still going to remain the question if free will can ultimately exist if man is not free to resist the grace of God and to choose to embrace the consequences even if it seems impossible that anyone, once fully aware of God and His love for us would choose to resist. That's perhaps (and I'm not a UR proponent or a universalist) a more consistent point of view in that universalism in that context presents issues that are not necessarily morally irreconcilable and in that situation, I don't see mystery as without merit.

I'm fine with mystery and accepting logic cannot address all issues and fully reconcile. The issue I seem to have is I can't reconcile mystery to explain morally contradictory statements that cannot by definition exist together without compromising the character of God.

Anyway, I'm still very much thinking along these lines because of my own examination of some of these issues elsewhere and it wasn't my intent to derail this or suggest that Molinism can't be looked at upon it's own merits to provide an approach that is viable. It just leapt out at me when I saw the examination of Ware in this context and remembered that he'd been mentioned in this material so I thought I'd toss it out there.

There is some common ground I would share with the calvanist, but would take exception with limited election being the final intent of Gods will, and would see a hidden trait of self righteousness in a position of limited election even though its claimed God did all the sorting with out merit being a factor, this is self delussional because the very fact that one thinks he was elected gives way for pride without even knowing its being germinated.

That hidden trait would be shared by both views ( a virus we all share ) from my vantage point looking in. Freewill is willing to come out of the closet and take its stand for pro choice of the species, but by doing so is still openly draging the old adamic mans ball and chain that God freed him from concerning the gospel of his salvation.

I except the reality of both the relative open view built on condescension, and the determined view built on absolutes that are Soveriegn over the limitations of the middle open view.

And I am a proponent of the UR position, though I disagree with some of its eschatology, being that the a high percentance of those who claim this view lean toward preterism, which I wouldn't subcribe to.

Grace, Glen.

Hi Glen, I'll let Bart answer you on this and I hope he will.

If not, then could you go into a bit more detail on the closet pro-choice of the species comment?

Thanks
-
-
-

Hi B.W.

I would see it being a trait of religious humanism we all fall back into at times Romans 10:1-4, flaring up in protest demanding mans right to choose his own fate, over scripture that shows Gods Soverignty over them as the potter Romans 9:19-20, which pricks the old mans ego while limited election feeds it, same ego for both doctrines just two different reactions.

Romans 6:6, is the answer, but we all resist it, and can't let go of the fact salvation can't be of ourselves Ephesians 2:8 in any measure for reasons stated above, knowing that pride and self righteousness would manifest if man was dealt a hand in the process, God made preaching of the cross contrare to mans reasoning,logic, wisdom, and ability to grasp the truth of Gods spiritual things by his carnel mind 1 Cor 1:18,23.

Grace, Glen.

[Glen]

Both good points BW and Glen. I agree that logic fails to fully rectify or explain everything that is at work here. I'm also not stating that Molinism can't provide some insight in reconciling Calvinism with Free Will. The view I mentioned and find within Ware is not the whole of Calvinism and Glen, coming from a position of Ultimate or Universal Reconciliation which I think you mentioned you do (if not, please don't let me put words in your mouth) there's actually a lot of common ground with Calvinism but with universal atonement (instead of limited atonement) and salvation (which are not the same things) in the end coming about with God offering grace and mercy continuously until all people are convinced and make a decision for God. Some similar questions exist in that point of view along with some others. In any form of universal salvation however, there's still going to remain the question if free will can ultimately exist if man is not free to resist the grace of God and to choose to embrace the consequences even if it seems impossible that anyone, once fully aware of God and His love for us would choose to resist. That's perhaps (and I'm not a UR proponent or a universalist) a more consistent point of view in that universalism in that context presents issues that are not necessarily morally irreconcilable and in that situation, I don't see mystery as without merit.

I'm fine with mystery and accepting logic cannot address all issues and fully reconcile. The issue I seem to have is I can't reconcile mystery to explain morally contradictory statements that cannot by definition exist together without compromising the character of God.

Anyway, I'm still very much thinking along these lines because of my own examination of some of these issues elsewhere and it wasn't my intent to derail this or suggest that Molinism can't be looked at upon it's own merits to provide an approach that is viable. It just leapt out at me when I saw the examination of Ware in this context and remembered that he'd been mentioned in this material so I thought I'd toss it out there.

There is some common ground I would share with the calvanist, but would take exception with limited election being the final intent of Gods will, and would see a hidden trait of self righteousness in a position of limited election even though its claimed God did all the sorting with out merit being a factor, this is self delussional because the very fact that one thinks he was elected gives way for pride without even knowing its being germinated.

That hidden trait would be shared by both views ( a virus we all share ) from my vantage point looking in. Freewill is willing to come out of the closet and take its stand for pro choice of the species, but by doing so is still openly draging the old adamic mans ball and chain that God freed him from concerning the gospel of his salvation.

I except the reality of both the relative open view built on condescension, and the determined view built on absolutes that are Soveriegn over the limitations of the middle open view.

And I am a proponent of the UR position, though I disagree with some of its eschatology, being that the a high percentance of those who claim this view lean toward preterism, which I wouldn't subcribe to.

Grace, Glen.

Hi Glen, I'll let Bart answer you on this and I hope he will.

If not, then could you go into a bit more detail on the closet pro-choice of the species comment?

Thanks
-
-
-

Hi B.W.

I would see it being a trait of religious humanism we all fall back into at times Romans 10:1-4, flaring up in protest demanding mans right to choose his own fate, over scripture that shows Gods Soverignty over them as the potter Romans 9:19-20, which pricks the old mans ego while limited election feeds it, same ego for both doctrines just two different reactions.

Romans 6:6, is the answer, but we all resist it, and can't except the fact salvation can't be of ourselves Ephesians 2:8 in any measure for reasons stated above, knowing that pride and self righteousness would manifest if man was dealt a hand in the process, God made preaching of the cross contrare to mans reasoning,logic, wisdom, and ability to grasp the truth of Gods spiritual things by his carnel mind 1 Cor 1:18,23.

Grace, Glen.

[Canuckster1127]

Hi Glen,

I appreciate your answer and I understand what you're saying. Of course there are some key differences between Calvinism and UR. That's by definition. Calvinism sees God choosing selectively, the "elect." Where UR sees God as choosing all, in a form of universal atonement, vs. Limited atonement.

As you might surmise, I'm not in agreement with either the UR or the High Calvinist position. While I believe the atonement is sufficient to save all, I don't believe it is appropriated by all. Both UR and Calvinism, as I understand them anyway, equate that God exercises a form of strong sovereignty meaning that he is going to bring about His intended results "Ultimately", in a limited way in the one instance and a universal manner in the other. That's probably over-simplistic but I think on a high level it works.

In that regard, although the premises change from one system to the other, the basic logic progression and structure is the same.

Where I think I part paths with both systems is in the definition of whom the "elect" are. Toward the end of the thread I put up recently on my views of Calvinism, I did some fairly in depth examination of Romans 9. In it I note that the themes present within Romans and based upon the culture and world view don't allow for the typical Calvinist assertion that the "elect" are individuals with regard to their salvation. The elect that are being dealt with in Romans 9-11 is in the context of contrasting Jews with Gentiles and noting that the vocational calling of the Jews as God's chosen people was for the purpose of preparing the way and ushering in the presence of Christ. With the promise of Christ having been fulfilled the Jews are now in a position where 2 of their most cherished underlying points of national identification are no longer true in Christ. First, Israel has fulfilled the promise to Abraham that through his seed Christ will come to be a blessing to all nations. Further the law, which was cherished by Israel as part of their national identity is now being declared complete in Christ and salvation to the Gentiles is being declared by faith apart from the law. This is the theme throughout Romans 9 - 11. The idea of individual election in the context of Calvinism or UR, can't be found before the 5th century in Augustine and it came through particularly strong in the renaissance and reformation due to the increased emphasis upon the individual and a reduced emphasis. Reading Romans 9 in a manner that supports individual election in either a Limited Atonement manner or Universal Atonement manner comes about when the reader in this modern era applies the philosophical framework of their day into the text as a practice of eisogesis, rather than contextually establishing the historical, grammatical method of exegeis to put oneself into the mindset and culture of the original audience and human author who wrote under inspiration.

As to self-righteousness, I agree that's a danger in the context of limited atonement. Even if the decision is seen, as it is, by Calvinists as based outside of any merit of the individual and solely within the will of God; in practice Calvinists identify themselves as within that elect and as such they compare themselves to the reprobate (who often conveniently fall into different races, nationalities and socio-economic stratas). Calvinism arose in the transition from the Feudal system with universal Papal oversight, and moved toward the monarchies in Europe replacing them with a strong sense of nationalism at work. Further Papal Authority, when removed left a huge need for authority and the cry of those days was "Sola Scriptura".

UR of course, as you describe does eliminate any such appeal to self-righteousness on that basis. When the view of election that I describe above is applied with a sense of God's univeral call but God's permissive will at work to provide man with the ability to resist the drawing unto Himself by the Holy Spirit, then there is no room for self-righteousness. The absurdity of categorizing any such decision as in and of itself as a "human work" ignores that when God's permissive will is in effect. that the source of that situation is God Himself. The work of the Holy Spirit to woo or draw us to God and the foundation in Grace precludes any self-righteousness. Neither is it Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

Anyway, I hope that helps. I have a lot of acquaintances in other circles Glen, who hold to a UR position or some other form of universalism. I think the issues are important but I don't believe that most forms of universalism precludes fellowship. To be honest, while I don't accept the dichotomy that only Calvinism and UR are the only option, if I were reduced to that, I'd be obliged to lean toward UR because at least it maintains the character of God as loving.

I hope this makes sense and addresses what you're saying. If not, please restate and if I can help in anyway, I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks!

bart

[Glen]

Hi Glen,

I appreciate your answer and I understand what you're saying. Of course there are some key differences between Calvinism and UR. That's by definition. Calvinism sees God choosing selectively, the "elect." Where UR sees God as choosing all, in a form of universal atonement, vs. Limited atonement.

As you might surmise, I'm not in agreement with either the UR or the High Calvinist position. While I believe the atonement is sufficient to save all, I don't believe it is appropriated by all. Both UR and Calvinism, as I understand them anyway, equate that God exercises a form of strong sovereignty meaning that he is going to bring about His intended results "Ultimately", in a limited way in the one instance and a universal manner in the other. That's probably over-simplistic but I think on a high level it works.

In that regard, although the premises change from one system to the other, the basic logic progression and structure is the same.

Where I think I part paths with both systems is in the definition of whom the "elect" are. Toward the end of the thread I put up recently on my views of Calvinism, I did some fairly in depth examination of Romans 9. In it I note that the themes present within Romans and based upon the culture and world view don't allow for the typical Calvinist assertion that the "elect" are individuals with regard to their salvation. The elect that are being dealt with in Romans 9-11 is in the context of contrasting Jews with Gentiles and noting that the vocational calling of the Jews as God's chosen people was for the purpose of preparing the way and ushering in the presence of Christ. With the promise of Christ having been fulfilled the Jews are now in a position where 2 of their most cherished underlying points of national identification are no longer true in Christ. First, Israel has fulfilled the promise to Abraham that through his seed Christ will come to be a blessing to all nations. Further the law, which was cherished by Israel as part of their national identity is now being declared complete in Christ and salvation to the Gentiles is being declared by faith apart from the law. This is the theme throughout Romans 9 - 11. The idea of individual election in the context of Calvinism or UR, can't be found before the 5th century in Augustine and it came through particularly strong in the renaissance and reformation due to the increased emphasis upon the individual and a reduced emphasis. Reading Romans 9 in a manner that supports individual election in either a Limited Atonement manner or Universal Atonement manner comes about when the reader in this modern era applies the philosophical framework of their day into the text as a practice of eisogesis, rather than contextually establishing the historical, grammatical method of exegeis to put oneself into the mindset and culture of the original audience and human author who wrote under inspiration.

As to self-righteousness, I agree that's a danger in the context of limited atonement. Even if the decision is seen, as it is, by Calvinists as based outside of any merit of the individual and solely within the will of God; in practice Calvinists identify themselves as within that elect and as such they compare themselves to the reprobate (who often conveniently fall into different races, nationalities and socio-economic stratas). Calvinism arose in the transition from the Feudal system with universal Papal oversight, and moved toward the monarchies in Europe replacing them with a strong sense of nationalism at work. Further Papal Authority, when removed left a huge need for authority and the cry of those days was "Sola Scriptura".

UR of course, as you describe does eliminate any such appeal to self-righteousness on that basis. When the view of election that I describe above is applied with a sense of God's univeral call but God's permissive will at work to provide man with the ability to resist the drawing unto Himself by the Holy Spirit, then there is no room for self-righteousness. The absurdity of categorizing any such decision as in and of itself as a "human work" ignores that when God's permissive will is in effect. that the source of that situation is God Himself. The work of the Holy Spirit to woo or draw us to God and the foundation in Grace precludes any self-righteousness. Neither is it Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism.

Anyway, I hope that helps. I have a lot of acquaintances in other circles Glen, who hold to a UR position or some other form of universalism. I think the issues are important but I don't believe that most forms of universalism precludes fellowship. To be honest, while I don't accept the dichotomy that only Calvinism and UR are the only option, if I were reduced to that, I'd be obliged to lean toward UR because at least it maintains the character of God as loving.

I hope this makes sense and addresses what you're saying. If not, please restate and if I can help in anyway, I'd be happy to do so.

Thanks!

bart

Hi Bart.

I would agree that Romans 9-11 is speaking of Gods covenant people Israel, but I wouldn't see where their promises have been established yet, I used it because it shows the vessel made for destruction are not cast away, even though they were enemies of the gospel of grace for the Gentiles sake they are still beloved Romans 26-32. There are other parts of the epistle wrote to jew and gentile that speak of God not only being the God of the jew, but also the gentile, and has adamic truth that concerns all of adam sons Romans 3-5 being a fertil field to see that all the grains are included in Gods justification through Christ, 1Tim 2:3-6 also speaks of Gods will for all men, 2 Cor 5:18-20, Colossians 1:20, Eph 1:10-11 etc...

As far as UR being a johny come lately I would disagree, many are said to have held to it in the early stages, Origin being one who taught it, who was latter given the heritic label and treated pretty badly from what I have read, his writtings have been tampered with so who really knows the full reason.

History is wrote by the ones in power so I don't put to much trust in it my self.

I am glad you still except UR as fellow brethern , it can get a little rowdy some times when people find out you believe in it.

Grace, Glen.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks Glen. I don't believe I made any comments with regard to UR being a Johnny come lately. There certainly are forms of universalism that date back to Origen, but I think you'd find that the underlying premises related to those forms of Universalism are quite a bit different than UR. UR, and I'm not an expert on it by any means, appears to me to be tied again, into the basic structures that frame the Calvinism/Arminianism with just a few difference in some of the premises that result in the conclusions being what they are. Perhaps there's more to it. I know that The Shack when it first came out was fingered as having some UR themes when it was revealed that the author Wm P. Young had elements of it in the original manuscript that were removed in the final release. Some too have accused Rob Bell in his recent book, "Love Wins" of having sentiments in that direction, though he denies it or any other form of universalism.

Don't misunderstand me, and I say this respectfully; I don't believe UR is orthodox and I don't agree with it but I'm willing to discuss and seek to understand where UR proponents are coming from. I don't believe however that it's a given that anyone who holds to it lacks saving faith. If we're not careful in addressing some of these issues we can descend into a form of gnosticism that ties salvation and saving faith with holding the right "thoughts" in regard to it, rather than having been saved through the work and grace of God.

Let me ask you as question, just as a point of interest but how do you reconcile the Great Commission and evangelism within the context of your UR belief system? I know how many reformed traditions reason it out. It would seem there would have to be some different rationale there than what I'm familiar with.

(This may need to be split to another topic as it's not Molinism and that's what this thread is about. Let me know if you'd like to have some back and forth so we understand each other better and I can split this off and start our own thread. I'm not seeking an argument. I just want to understand beeter where you are coming from on some of these issues.)

[B. W.]

Bart and Glen, please continue…

This does pertain to Molinism as a philosophical discipline and as such branches out into other venues to look further into and once into, back again. The venue here is still a UR form of determinism. There are different types of Universalism. Christian Universalist uses bible verses in same format as do the staunch stoic minded Christian determinist does to buttress their position. So, even the three combined knowledge’s that Molinism uses to help define God's Knowledge (God’s Natural, Middle, and Free knowledge acting together) may help uncover some truths about God and exposes presuppositions as well.

One such presupposition concerns defining God’s love. What is love? A presupposition claiming that love conquers all is just as opinionated in demanding mans right to choose his own fate as anything any Arminian or Calvinist argues for or against. There is a certain amount of pride and self righteousness manifested in the ideology of Universalism logic which basically claims love conquers even the most savage of beast.

So Glen you have to add UR into the mix of doctrines built on condescension to be honest...
-
-
-

[Glen]

"Canuckster1127"]Thanks Glen. I don't believe I made any comments with regard to UR being a Johnny come lately. There certainly are forms of universalism that date back to Origen, but I think you'd find that the underlying premises related to those forms of Universalism are quite a bit different than UR. UR, and I'm not an expert on it by any means, appears to me to be tied again, into the basic structures that frame the Calvinism/Arminianism with just a few difference in some of the premises that result in the conclusions being what they are. Perhaps there's more to it. I know that The Shack when it first came out was fingered as having some UR themes when it was revealed that the author Wm P. Young had elements of it in the original manuscript that were removed in the final release. Some too have accused Rob Bell in his recent book, "Love Wins" of having sentiments in that direction, though he denies it or any other form of universalism.

Hi Bart.

Looking back on your remarks I see you are correct, that wasn't your intent, a blunder on my part for not reading it slower. I have heard of the two authors and their books but haven't read either one, though I did listen to an interview with the guy who wrote the shack, though I have read alot of books in years past from various authors and subjects I don't rely on them to much anymore to mold my doctrinal beliefs.

Code: Select all

Don't misunderstand me, and I say this respectfully;  I don't believe UR is orthodox and I don't agree with it but I'm willing to discuss and seek to understand where UR proponents are coming from.  I don't believe however that it's a given that anyone who holds to it lacks saving faith.  If we're not careful in addressing some of these issues we can descend into a form of gnosticism that ties salvation and saving faith with holding the right "thoughts" in regard to it, rather than having been saved through the work and grace of God.

I knew the storm I was walking into when I excepted the position, and I am greatfull for your spirit in the matter seeing you rightfully understand I am not preaching another gospel of salvation, just a wider application of its intent than you would.

Let me ask you as question, just as a point of interest but how do you reconcile the Great Commission and evangelism within the context of your UR belief system? I know how many reformed traditions reason it out. It would seem there would have to be some different rationale there than what I'm familiar with.

I would restrict the Great Commission to the circumcisions ministery Acts 1:21-22, which is the original reason for God seperating them out from the other nations Exodus 19:6, 1Peter 2:9, the taste of that comission was being witnessed to during their pentacostal period, that was cut off Romans 9:27-28, that work is on hold because the nation must be converted first Acts 13:31, 7:51, 28:26-28.

We have another hidden intent going on while the revealed will seemed to be the gathering of the Royal Nation to fulfill their witness to the nations, but it failed to even convert the nation, instead we see them all put in unbelief Romans 11:32 and scattered Luke 21:24, because it wasn't Gods time to restore their earthly kingdom Acts 1:7, that hidden intent was the heavenly called one new man blessed spiritualy in the heavens Ephesians 1:3, 2:4-8, Colossians 3:1-4, vs Revelation 3:21, Matthew 24:13-14, 25:31,32, Acts 3:20-21, the earthly nations are partakers of their spiritual blessings Romans 15:27, Isaiah 59:20,21, etc...Of coarse this depends on ones Eschatology. So I would see the Holy Spirit being the sole commissioner for all things Spiritual for Gods intent at this time, which is an all spiritual calling and inheritance, no spiritual signs and wonders on earth because Gods will is being done in heaven at this time Ephesians 3:10, 6:12-13. The ages to come have some missing out of the kingdom earthly blessings, while other get to partake, that doesn't mean their damned without hope, or that God can't reach into the grave and restore them when death is destroyed, at least it's not a limitation I would presume is beyond Gods power.

(This may need to be split to another topic as it's not Molinism and that's what this thread is about. Let me know if you'd like to have some back and forth so we understand each other better and I can split this off and start our own thread. I'm not seeking an argument. I just want to understand beeter where you are coming from on some of these issues.)

I yea I have kinda side tracked the thread from its original intent, a varity thread would be a better place to let the rabbits run.

Grace, Glen.

[Glen]

Bart and Glen, please continue…

This does pertain to Molinism as a philosophical discipline and as such branches out into other venues to look further into and once into, back again. The venue here is still a UR form of determinism. There are different types of Universalism. Christian Universalist uses bible verses in same format as do the staunch stoic minded Christian determinist does to buttress their position. So, even the three combined knowledge’s that Molinism uses to help define God's Knowledge (God’s Natural, Middle, and Free knowledge acting together) may help uncover some truths about God and exposes presuppositions as well.

One such presupposition concerns defining God’s love. What is love? A presupposition claiming that love conquers all is just as opinionated in demanding mans right to choose his own fate as anything any Arminian or Calvinist argues for or against. There is a certain amount of pride and self righteousness manifested in the ideology of Universalism logic which basically claims love conquers even the most savage of beast.

So Glen you have to add UR into the mix of doctrines built on condescension to be honest...
-
-
-

Hi BW.

I am not sure I understand how self righteousness could be applied to a UR position, I believe I am without merit, My positional stance is because of Christs obedience, faithfulness, sacrifice and his gracious free gift, Though I still have self righteous residue from being yoked to this corruptable tabernacle, it wouldn't be from thinking I am having any involvment in my salvation, or that I was a lucky spin of the limited selection raffle.

Isn't condescension God stooping down and dealing with man on his level? stepping out of the way and letting those free choices from the slave market of sin, Ephesians 2:2-3 bring about its carnel fruits? What scripture are you thinking about that would show that I am quilty of that?

Grace, Glen.

[B. W.]

Hi BW.

I am not sure I understand how self righteousness could be applied to a UR position, I believe I am without merit, My positional stance is because of Christ’s obedience, faithfulness, sacrifice and his gracious free gift, Though I still have self righteous residue from being yoked to this corruptible tabernacle, it wouldn't be from thinking I am having any involvement in my salvation, or that I was a lucky spin of the limited selection raffle.

Isn't condescension God stooping down and dealing with man on his level? stepping out of the way and letting those free choices from the slave market of sin, Ephesians 2:2-3 bring about its carnal fruits? What scripture are you thinking about that would show that I am guilty of that?

Grace, Glen.

Hi Glen to answer you,

How self righteousness could be applied to a UR position is that there is a fair amount of self righteous justification for it from its proponents the same as you cited that there exist between any Calvinist or Arminian positional stance.

I do not think it was condescension that God stooped down and dealt with man on man’s very level as it is written in Philippians 2:5-11. UR negates this purpose as there is no purpose for God to do so. The Lord did so for you. He been engaging you choice to accept his salvation as he so stated how it comes John 3:5-10, John 3:11-13, John 3:14-17 now notice the next verses: John 3:18-21, There is a condemnation for those that reject and if a condemnation then UR is untrue in it presuppositional statement about God allowing all in heaven.

UR takes no account of any warnings about where such condemnation leads as Jesus plainly says in Mark 9:43 to avoids at all cost. If this refers to a cleansing torturous bath to be avoid at all cost, then it be a strange love that tortures until one cries uncle and be so bound by fear in heaven that they must love out of terror, God.

What do you know about the Christian gospel message?

You admit to still having self righteousness, wouldn’t that corrupt heaven, if the Lord just let you in, on UR’s terms? (Isaiah 26:10) There is only one way to secure your salvation, and that is through trusting in Christ alone. From that, you become born again (do you understand what this means?) into his kingdom. The Lord then builds a living relationship with you that sanctifies you in the process. You know it. Have you experienced this yet, or maybe you only thought you had, but did you really?

Do you want to become born again? This time, for real? Why take a chance on UR when reality about human nature as it is self evident? God deals justly as it is written in Job 34:11, Isaiah 3:10-11, Romans 2:6, and Galatians 6:7. If one rejects His terms, how He stepped down out of heaven, to become as one of us, knowing first hand our human nature, then die on a cross exposing humanities self righteous sin toward goodness, afterwards providing a way through him (John 14:6) so that people can return to God in a just manner that demonstrates respect for person deciding if they’ll reject or accept his offer. Reject it – then its Isaiah 3:11 NKJV, accept it then Isaiah 3:10 NKJV. Fair is fair and impartial to all.
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

THanks for the further explanation Glen. I'm going to digest it and not respond immediately so I give it some thought and am not just reacting.