Evidence for God from Science

The last post I put up on my examination of Reformed Theology addresses some of this from a position that would be closer to Arminianism than Calvinism but there are some elements to it that tie more to what I refer to as "Trinitarianism" or God's motivation to act based not in need but as an extension of His Character fully consistent with Love. How well that defines choice in the context of God's Decretive Will verses God's Permissive Will I don't know but it does brush up against it I would think.

Basically all the traditions of Hard Determinism, Hard Arminianism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Eastern Orthodoxy combine their respective notions of Free Will within the definition of choice/choose in various ways and means.

I’ll wait and see if anyone defines these further but for now what does choice/choose mean?

So what does the word choice – choose by itself actually mean? Below is Dictionary-com defines choice/choose

Dictionary-com
CHOICE

choice [chois] Show IPA noun, adjective, choic•er, choic•est. noun

1 - an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.

2 - the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.

3 - the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.

4 - an alternative: There is another choice.

5 - an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.

Origins of Choice: 1250–1300; Middle English chois < Old French, derivative of choisir to perceive, choose < Germanic; see choose……choice c.1300, from O.Fr. chois, from v. choisir "to choose," from a Gmc. source (cf. Gothic *kausjan "to taste, test"), from P.Gmc. base *kaus-, *keus-. Replaced O.E. cyre, from the same base, probably because the imported word was closer to choose. Sense of "that which is preferable

Related forms

choice•less, adjective

choice•ly, adverb

choice•ness, noun

pre•choice, noun

++++++++

CHOOSE

choose [chooz] Show IPA verb, chose; cho•sen or ( Obsolete ) chose; choos•ing.

verb (used with object)

1 - to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.

2 - to prefer or decide (to do something): He chose to run for election.

3 - to want; desire.

4 - (especially in children's games) to contend with (an opponent) to decide, as by odd or even, who will do something: I'll choose you to see who gets to bat first.

Origins of choose: before 1000; Middle English chosen, chēsen, Old English cēosan; cognate with Gothic kiusan, Old High German kiosan ( German kiesen ); akin to Greek geúesthai to enjoy, Latin gustāre to taste ( see gusto)....O.E. ceosan "choose, taste, try" (class II strong verb; past tense ceas, pp. coren), from P.Gmc. *keusanan, from PIE base *geus- "to taste, relish" (see gusto). Variant spelling chuse is M.E., very frequent 16c.-18c. Only remotely related to choice. The irregular pp. leveled out to chosen by 1200.

Related forms

choos•a•ble, adjective

choos•er, noun

pre•choose, verb (used with object), -chose, -cho•sen, -choos•ing.

re•choose, verb, -chose, -cho•sen, -choos•ing.

un•choos•a•ble, adjective

Did God create us with an ability to choose? I think all fields of Hard Determinism, Hard Arminianism, Judaism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy would say yes...

…as that would be consistent with God's own good Charterer to do so.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The last post I put up on my examination of Reformed Theology addresses some of this from a position that would be closer to Arminianism than Calvinism but there are some elements to it that tie more to what I refer to as "Trinitarianism" or God's motivation to act based not in need but as an extension of His Character fully consistent with Love. How well that defines choice in the context of God's Decretive Will verses God's Permissive Will I don't know but it does brush up against it I would think.

How can God decree without forethought into the matter of remaining true to himself so as not deny who he is within His dealings with those He placed in his creation as moral reasoning beings?

Some things cannot be known about God but what is known about God, Jesus revealed to us through his actions and words in the gospel accounts as well as in the Old Testament in his interactions with the Father and Holy Spirit and human beings recorded there as well too. It shows him always engaging men and women in marvelous ways.

In my opinion based on the historical documents, the early church writers before Augustine’s time had another view of God than we do now. This view of was largely discarded by the West, in exchange for a one sided view and this was a tragic loss to the Western Church tradition. So we end up with trying to figure things out by using terms such as God's Decretive Will and God's Permissive Will. Wonder if we are somehow missing the boat in doing so?
-
-
-

Does anyone think we had a choice in being born into adams transgression? Can non-coercion even be allowed in the mixture of Gods will, or his purpose in the creation and its fall? is there a middle ground between Ephesians 2:2-3, Romans 5:21, we are stuck in one or the other until God draws us and opens our understanding, our will only keeps us in blindness and adds nothing to our escape from that condistion.

Its great to feel like we have a say in the matter, but we don't not really the potter has the power over the clay for his purpose, not ours.

In the relative revealed will of God, that was broadcasting the kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent and so on while he blinded them from doing exactly what he is telling them to do, which caused the fulfillment of his hidden intent that no one understood was going on until after it happened. So he is behind and out front of what going on, even in the evil age His will is being done.

Sit back and enjoy the ride its his carnival.

Glen wrote:Does anyone think we had a choice in being born into adams transgression? Can non-coercion even be allowed in the mixture of Gods will, or his purpose in the creation and its fall? is there a middle ground between Ephesians 2:2-3, Romans 5:21, we are stuck in one or the other until God draws us and opens our understanding, our will only keeps us in blindness and adds nothing to our escape from that condition.

It’s great to feel like we have a say in the matter, but we don't not really the potter has the power over the clay for his purpose, not ours.

In the relative revealed will of God, that was broadcasting the kingdom of heaven is at hand, repent and so on while he blinded them from doing exactly what he is telling them to do, which caused the fulfillment of his hidden intent that no one understood was going on until after it happened. So he is behind and out front of what going on, even in the evil age His will is being done.

Sit back and enjoy the ride its his carnival.

Hi Glen, I appreciate your post and from your comments, I take it to mean that you are from the Hard Calvinist Determinist position of complete and utter fatalism by your comment, “Sit back and enjoy the ride.” Therefore, your stance is that human beings have no choice as the ancient Greek philosophers like to say – our lives are spun by the hands of the gods.

Adam’s sin is like an analogy to cancer. As cancer twist the natural nature of the human cells, so did Adam’s sin twist our human nature. Sin, is likened to a spiritual cancer. It leads to death. It decays relationships, spoils life, brings ruin to natural order. It is incurable by human efforts. Like genetic cancers, this spiritual cancer does not appear at first birth but develops as time goes on. It infects all of us so that the cancer belongs and develops within each person individually. It is their-own cancer as it effects each person differently. This is where PSA (Penal Substitutable Atonement) comes in: Jesus breaks that curse. This is also where Christ Victorious comes in, the great physician who heals by great loving care.

Here is a great article on Original Sin from CRAM. Please read as it address your comments better that I can: CRAM on Original Sin

Next you seem to be referring to some impersonal force of grace that draws people so I ask, is grace really an irresistible brute force? Or instead, a person – a divine Person of the Godhead? What does the bible say on this matter?

Jesus was full of Grace (John 1:14, John 16:14-15) and John 15:26 and John 16:7-11 speaks of hat? So is grace a mere impersonal force pushed inside within the person to draws them, or is it a divine person that woos, calls, asks, pleads, convicts, reproves, shames, showing one’s spiritual cancer, offering to heal it by God’s surgical tool from the Son’s Grace shown?

Rom 10:14 --How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Luke 24:49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Rom 10:15 - And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF PEACE, WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"

Rom 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Rom 10:17 - So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

John 1:1, 14 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Note: John 15:26 and John 16:7-11 again…Who convicts? An impersonal force” or Divine Person of the Divine Trinity?

Therefore, it is not by some unknowable divine fatalism you seem to be suggesting that saves, or elects, if that was the case, then there would be no need of the Holy Spirit to plead through the voice of redeemed men and women to a lost world.

Be Blessed Glen…
-
-
-

Let me add one more then to Glen,

Please read the Reformed Theology Discussion on this Forum posted on Jan 9 and Jan 10 by Bart aka 'Caunuckster'

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 3&start=90

It might help you better discover more on the subject matter you posted..

Blessings!

I stated this a few posting above:

Did God create us with an ability to choose? I think all fields of Hard Determinism, Hard Arminianism, Judaism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy would say yes...

I think they all, in their own ways state the human beings do exercise some degree of choice – unless one is a hard core determinist who thinks even the very human act of scratching one’s nose was caused by God, then, they would be the only one disagreeing on matters of human choice.

It is the theological positions of Hard/Soft Calvinist Determinism, Hard/Soft Arminianism, Judaism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy on free will that influences their usage of the individual word choice / choose. Disagreement comes in how each side affixes choice/choosing to the term Free Will. Each side in effect describes their own version of Free Will but, individually, choice/choose, well, no. So debates swirl around ‘Free Will Choice and not on choice itself.

In my opinion, for what it’s worth, Molinism helps bridge that gap no less than by just getting people talking about choice – all the choices an all knowing God can conceivable know. Even with Molinism of William Lane Craig, people will disagree and that is okay. People are at least examining things again, and remember, Craig’s stated desire is that of ‘Peace Maker’to bridge the gap. Jesus said what about Peace Makers in Matthew 5?

In such discussion peoples wires get crossed because what one may means by ‘free will choice’ is not how another means or defines it. Each side interprets according to his/her own perspective and things get ugly ‘right quick’ as they say in the southern USA. This is called the dangers of cross culture communication. A friend reminded me to never to say in Middleton Australia, “hey, mate let me have the keys to your trunk…” Something about that phrase in Middleton Australia does not mean what it means in the USA.

The Hi Calvinist/Hard Determinist interprets free will only one way, and applies that definition, logic, to anyone else who uses the same term despite the person who uses it having a different interpretation. Same goes with the other positions I mentioned as well. Then it comes down to who can shout, cry, or simply out bible verse the other side. In this approach, no one hears, so that simple choice/choosing is overlooked – completely and all is discussed is Free Will Choice.

Therefore, since in theological circles - choice/choose is related to free will causes me reason and ask, is choice/choosing just a simple attribute of intelligence to be able to decipher what one should do or not do, how one justifies ones behavior between options, how to pick the good food from spoiled food, to decide what course one takes from a series of options, etc?

Would and could All Knowing God foresee all our humanly possible choices and actual choices as well too regarding simple choices? Would this knowing-foreknowingness in reality actualize God’s own sovereignty and not detract from it? Could not God then do his will in such an environment he ordained people with the simple ability to choose? All God would need to do is send forth an option to engage choice. Is not God more than capable of this?

Does the bible saying anything about this? Let’s look…

What does Genesis 1:29-30, Genesis 2:16-17 say on this matter?

How does Gen 1:28, Gen 2:15, Gen 2:19 relate to Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 2:16-17?

Did God give us the endowment to uses various options at our discretion? Did God speak these to humanity? Would not this be an extension of God's Character fully consistent with His Love, Justice, Righteousness, Sovereign Will, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc and etc to do so?

God honors his words and keeps them (Isaiah 55:6-11, Numbers 23:19)? If God does not honor His word, gifts, promises – what would he be? Did God design and endow us with the ability to make intelligent decisions/choices regarding our affairs on earth as well as in our relationships(Gen 2:20)?

Why or why not?
-
-
-

Hi Glen, I appreciate your post and from your comments, I take it to mean that you are from the Hard Calvinist Determinist position of complete and utter fatalism by your comment, “Sit back and enjoy the ride.” Therefore, your stance is that human beings have no choice as the ancient Greek philosophers like to say – our lives are spun by the hands of the gods

.

Hi B.W.

I wouldn't take a total depravity stance, but I would believe that we had no choice in being in adam or his transgression that we had no part in, and honestly I am not one to study greek philosohers so I would be out of line speaking on exactly what they believed, other than mars hill in Acts, though I relize there influence in theology its not a major interest of mine. looking back on my post I relize it was little on the flippant side, hit and run sorry for that.

Adam’s sin is like an analogy to cancer. As cancer twist the natural nature of the human cells, so did Adam’s sin twist our human nature. Sin, is likened to a spiritual cancer. It leads to death. It decays relationships, spoils life, brings ruin to natural order. It is incurable by human efforts. Like genetic cancers, this spiritual cancer does not appear at first birth but develops as time goes on. It infects all of us so that the cancer belongs and develops within each person individually. It is their-own cancer as it effects each person differently. This is where PSA (Penal Substitutable Atonement) comes in: Jesus breaks that curse. This is also where Christ Victorious comes in, the great physician who heals by great loving care.

I would see Adams path to transgression the same as the one a child takes from innocent ignorance to when he understands good and evil Romans 2:14-15. We could see God using the same kind of ignorance to fulfill his will in Christ steps to the cross, Adam nor the ones causing the Prince of life to be murdered had any idea they were being used by God for a purpose. Your above analogy could be one way to look at it except he came to put Adam to death not heal him Romans 6:6, the new man wasn't conscience until after faith is implanted, the conscience state before hand was Ephesians 2:2-3, and seeing God created mans will it would seem to me, He would have the advantage and Sovereignty to do what He wills with it.

Here is a great article on Original Sin from CRAM. Please read as it address your comments better that I can: CRAM on Original Sin

I will take a look at and comment afterward.

Next you seem to be referring to some impersonal force of grace that draws people so I ask, is grace really an irresistible brute force? Or instead, a person – a divine Person of the Godhead? What does the bible say on this matter?

No I wouldn't see grace that way, grace being a by product of love I would see it more inline with 1 Cor 12:31 and 1 Cor 13:1,13, Romans 12:21, the seed of faith planted by Gods Omnipresent Spirit Ephesians 2:8 contains those fruits, which is a life long experience learning how to let God work through that seed to produce fruit for his glory instead of the old mans Galatians 5:17.

Jesus was full of Grace (John 1:14, John 16:14-15) and John 15:26 and John 16:7-11 speaks of hat? So is grace a mere impersonal force pushed inside within the person to draws them, or is it a divine person that woos, calls, asks, pleads, convicts, reproves, shames, showing one’s spiritual cancer, offering to heal it by God’s surgical tool from the Son’s Grace shown?

I would see this inlike manner to those said to be his friends, and also confrontational in Sauls case a pattern for Gods grace to his enemies Luke 6:35,36, but also at the same time letting others go on in non-belief for His hidden intentions the cross being the major example, and the reason for a limited election at that time, this is where I part with the calvanist theory, I don't see Gods will being a limited election for his final intentions for Israel or the sons of Adam, seeing Romans 11 shows those cast away for the sake of the reconciliation of the world 2 Cor 5:18-20 are still called beloved by God and still have hope Romans 11:26-32.

Rom 10:14 --How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Luke 24:49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

Rom 10:15 - And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF PEACE, WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"

Rom 10:16 - But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Rom 10:17 - So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

John 1:1, 14 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Note: John 15:26 and John 16:7-11 again…Who convicts? An impersonal force” or Divine Person of the Divine Trinity?

Therefore, it is not by some unknowable divine fatalism you seem to be suggesting that saves, or elects, if that was the case, then there would be no need of the Holy Spirit to plead through the voice of redeemed men and women to a lost world.

Be Blessed Glen…
-
-

I would see the above in light of what I have previously stated on Gods Love, grace, mercy and purpose for only saving a remnant at that time, and within the same understanding that Gods revealed will isn't His hidden intentions for not opening the eyes of all the house of Israel and gathering them back to establish their covenant on earth Romans 11:26, Jeremiah 31:31-34, etc...the gracious period we find our selves in is silent among the prophets and is a mystery Ephesians 3:9 within the time of the gentiles Luke 21:24, Acts 28:27,28, Ephesians 2:4-8, Colossians 3:1-4, and it has to do with the heavenly things of Colossians 1:20 at this time.

Grace, Glen.

Thank you Glen for taking the time to clarify!

I misunderstood the tone of your post as being hard core deterministic and responded in that manner, my apologies.

So to avoid missunderstanding again let me inquire if you are from an Arminian, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, or Universalist background so I know how to better address what you are saying...

Blessings...

B. W. wrote:Thank you Glen for taking the time to clarify!

I misunderstood the tone of your post as being hard core deterministic and responded in that manner, my apologies.

So to avoid missunderstanding again let me inquire if you are from an Arminian, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, or Universalist background so I know how to better address what you are saying...

Blessings...

Hi B.W.

Went to baptist, and assemblies of god assemblies mostly, tried some non-denominational ones along the way, drifted away from the pentacostal belief and more so a UR but still hold to a premill belief, where as most UR lean to the preterist view. I am probably out of my league here, but its interesting to see how the theological mind see things compared to my layman's approach of just sticking to the scripture.

Grace, Glen.

After looking over the universal thread, I would find no fellowship possible here and would be wasting my time and yours.

Grace, Glen.

Glen wrote:After looking over the universal thread, I would find no fellowship possible here and would be wasting my time and yours.

Grace, Glen.

Glen, we have a lot of people here who believe different things. You may learn a few things, and perhaps teach some of us a few things, as well. I certainly don't see it as a waste of my time, to converse with people whos views differ from my own. Tbh, I'd like to know some more about universalism from someone who holds to it, as opposed to reading about it from a source that doesn't believe in it.

Hi Glen,

This is a discussion on the subject of Molinism and not Universalism. Feel free to begin your own topic thread on universalism if you so wish.

Universalism holds to a deterministic view point in that all are saved at some point by God, including all fallen angels and Satan in its most hard determinist format. Softer universal determinism adds in aspects of annihilationism of a rare few. Both believe is a fiery bath of cleansing. There is Christian Universalist and Secular Universalist in general.

As it pertains to Molinism, the molinist method of inquiry would be a good neutral way of check to see if universalism determinism is accurate or not. Someone using this approach would have to square all aspects of God’s character. If you change your mind, you are welcome to participate.

Blessings

Let’s get back to Molinism. I am posting a link to a PDF by a Dr. Kenneth M Gardoski. He postulates from a Calvinist position. Please note how he wrongly lumps and classes Molinism’s ‘Middle knowledge’ as Arminian and Open theism as Arminian as well. As we have seen from the links and articles posted that Molinism’s method is not Arminian – it seeks to bridge the gap between too quarreling sides. This illustrates earlier what was mentioned as a common debate tactic to make opponents look like allies to error..

There are several things in the article that are good. He gives basic definition of Arminian and Calvinist ideas on Free Will. He states that: According to the Calvinist man is free to the extent that he chooses as he wills without compulsion. Yet, the tenants of Dr G’s view on predestination appear to make compulsion a mandatory requirement as on Page two of article Dr Gardoski wrote: “If by God, then election is based solely on God’s sovereign will unconditioned by man’s choice. But if destinies are not determined by God, then by what are they determined?.”

This illustrates what Dr William Lane Craig mentions about the conflict that determinism poses: summed up as man has choice but no he does not in the long run scheme of God’s will. This presents a paradox and passed off as an unexplainable mystery we dare just accept. Note Dr Gardoski’s comments:

The Calvinist in the end appeals to mystery: we do not understand how these things can be, but we accept them by faith because the Scriptures teach them. Arminianism

Now let us look at the article and I’ll post a few comments along the way…feel free to add your own. Please note that I took the liberty to restructure the Doctor’s long paragraphs for easier reading….In it, he helps identify a forgotten option by ignoring it. That option is what helps Molinism to bridge the Gap as Dr Craig stated his neo-Molinism purpose is.

Arminianism
Dr. Kenneth M. Gardoski
Arminianism

Libertarian Free Will (page 3)

Arminianism is based on a particular definition of free will called libertarian. Libertarian free will means that man can always choose either of two courses of action, and there is no antecedent power, whether internal or external, which determines the choice. But logically speaking, there are always antecedent causal influences which determine the choices we make. According to the Calvinist man is free to the extent that he chooses as he wills without compulsion. This definition of free will is compatible with God’s sovereignty over all things, including all our choices. This is why the Calvinist notion of free will is called compatibilistic free will, or compatibilism.

Furthermore, on a libertarian notion of free will, how can God know the future? Arminians respond several ways. First, open theists conclude that God cannot know the future free choices that people will make. This seems to be the most logically consistent view, but it certainly flies in the face of God’s ability to make exact predictions concerning the future.

Second, many Arminians conclude that God just knows intuitively or passively all that will happen, but He does not plan or cause things to happen. In response, if God knows all future events, then they have been predetermined by something.

The question again is, by what?

If our future choices are known by God, then they are fixed, and if they are fixed, then they are not free in the libertarian sense.

Third, some Arminians respond with a view called middle knowledge. Because God knows all future possibilities and how every person would freely respond in any set of circumstances, God can choose to bring about one particular set of circumstances in which the person freely chose. But in response, if God knew what a particular choice would be ahead of time, and brought to pass the circumstances in which the choice would occur, then the choice was guaranteed ahead of time, which sounds like the Calvinist view of free will compatible with God’s sovereign control of all events.

There is something missing in this article – can you identify it?

Look at Page two from same article quoted above as it looks at a Molinist method of approach…

Furthermore, while Arminian predestination conditioned upon foreseen faith appears to protect undetermined free will choices, upon further reflection it does not. If God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ and person B will not, then those facts are already fixed and determined. The question is: by what are those destinies determined?

If by God, then election is based solely on God’s sovereign will unconditioned by man’s choice. But if destinies are not determined by God, then by what are they determined?

Some impersonal force or fate operative in the universe which makes things turn out the way they do?

Further, if I somehow determine my own election (God looked ahead and saw that I would believe and chose me on that basis), then God does not receive ultimate credit for my salvation. Arminianism

The author again is missing the eternal cause or condition…and ‘leads the witness’ to the Calvinist idea through rhetorical pandering to his side’s view point. This serves to obfuscate the external option so much that it is now forgotten and simply summed up as…

The Calvinist in the end appeals to mystery: we do not understand how these things can be, but we accept them by faith because the Scriptures teach them. Arminianism

The scriptures also teach and demonstrate what is missing from both the Calvinist and Arminian scuffle. What Dr. Kenneth M. Gardoski accuses as, “Some impersonal force or fate operative in the universe which makes things turn out the way they do?” is not an impersonal force at all, but rather God’s own external option which is none other than himself walking toward wherever you hide and asking – where are you (Gen 3:8-9), with intent to offer you the option of repentence (Luke 24:46-47, Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30) along with new life in relationship with him (John 3:14-21 and John 17).

You, as an unsaved sinner, can remain in hiding, or come out and stand before him. That choice is yours alone to make. God is always in your face till the day your mortal flesh dies. God has not turned his back on you or I, he is always there confronting us through dreams, in life’s incidences, in creation itself (Job 33:14-18, Romans 1:19-21) and through his word. His goal is a just reconciliation that does no damage to the promises, gifts, endowments he gave humanity. If he did do damage to these, then how can he really remain God true to his own being?

God always engages human beings with himself which engages a choice to respond too. He imposes himself unto humanity and man perceives it not, so he sent forth his divine word, Jesus Christ, to reconcile man back to himself. In so doing, he engages a just choice in a just manner. Those that see return to him are saved, and also learn how to walk in relationship with him. Those that refuse and rebel their sin is their own and such will be eternally banished away from Godhead’s presence(s) – Father, Son, Holy Spirit forever. (Note the Hebrew word panyim – is a dual meaning word referring to Presences or faces, interesting to look into as an aside).

The Lord foreknowing the result of that engagement He can then do whatever he so wills (Acts 17:26-27)….with no injustice to himself as demonstrated in his dealing with those whom created as morally reasoning beings he gave special promises and gifting too. The missing option is none other than God himself, imposing himself upon the world of lost humankind, caling out to each person in various ways to engage their reason (Isaiah 1:18, “Come let us reason together says the Lord, though your sins are as scarlet, they’ll be white as snow…” NKJV

God did not turn his back on man; man turned his back on God as evidence by the next verses from Isaiah 1:19-20 which is God engaging an option to humankinds (God) endowed ability to reason – make a choice. Humanity does not have this option unless God initiates it. He is just to all and calls to all. He knows the final response to this engagement and does what he wills. His predestined will is described in Romans 8:29, 32 as fashioning us into whose image of character?
-
-
-

I just came across a reference to Bruce Ware whom you mentioned earlier in this thread B.W. I thought it might be interesting to note what is says about Molinism as Ware attempts to attach it to Calvinism. In the context of Calvinism, it suggests that Moilinism must be altered in order to avoid the suggestion of libertarian freedom and so it instead goes through the construct of compatabilist freedom.

So Ware posits that God has the ability, through His middle knowledge to envision all of the different situations that could arise and know exactly what that person would do and what impact any variance to any or all variables would render.

So, to the extent that God's decretive will pronounces and ensures that sin or evil will take place, God then places men (or mankind as represented by Adam in the fall) in the exact circumstances and situations that will give rise to the person developing a controlling motive of its own accord and act sinfully out of those motives, thus relieving God of any direct responsibility for either the resultant sin. In this way God maintains absolute control ove sinful human motives without causing them.

The thinking further is that God knows exactly which circumstances will ensure the resultant action which ultimately find their source in the nature of the person rather than the circumstances that God has engineered knowing what the result will be. So a combination of knowing what circumstances will appeal to the nature of the person so that their strongest inclinations will take over and result in what God requires by way of sin or evil to promote His Decretive Will while absolving Him of any direct responsibility.

Of course to me this doesn't really accomplish anything when compared to other forms of High Calvinism. It begs the question as to how in the context of such absolute control, a sin nature or inclination can be present without God's ultimately being responsible. If the claim or the implication is that sin arises within the individual who sins outside of God then that goes to a presumption of some form of libertine agency within mankind that is not subject to God's Sovereignty and it seems to me that it's being selective in its context only to the extent necessary to create doubt over the implications of Strong Soveriegnty.

What flaw in Adam's nature would make it inevitable that if he were placed in the precise circumstances that God provided in the Garden of Eden, with the temptation of the tree of Good and Evil and the presence of Satan all there by God's divine plan that wouldn't in itself be attributable to God in the first place?

I don't see how it works or helps in conjunction with High Calvinism to address the questions that arise in the original system. It doesn't, to me, provide any answers other than further complicating the scenario and creating more opportunity to appeal to mystery.

It's sort of an appeal to a scenario that people may be familiar with in police work. Police will often use computers to enter chat rooms to pretend to be underage children in an effort to draw out sexual predators. They will then set-up the circumstances so that the predator, acting of their own accord on their own motives will show up at the arranged place and then the police will arrest them and charge them with the crime. It sounds good, but the problem is when you appeal to that sort of scenario with God you leave out the fact that the police in this situation are not those criminal's creator who then must ultimately have responsibility for the circumstances that gave rise to or created that desire. Neither are the police in complete control of all the circumstances to where they could if they chose orchestrate it so that these criminals never acted on their inclinations and thus harming nobody else. By appealing in this manner to Molinism it appears to ignore for the purposes of this line of reasoning that God remains Sovereign and there is not any free agency or license within men where this reasoning could rest in the first place.

Also, this misses the point too that in this constructed set of circumstances, that the police never actually allow someone to be hurt. They are seeking to protect people from the "evil" that they've enticed. That can't be said of the God that is portrayed, even with an appeal to Molinism.

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 assesment 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.)