Evidence for God from Science

I have some general questions about Calvinism, Armenian ism and Molinism. Mostly, I want to get a idea on which of the three lead the way in the debate. From what I can tell, Calvinism beats Armenian but Molinism may prove to beat both of them. When I first got into apologetics, I was first taught a lot about Calvinism and how there are many apologists who hold to Calvinism, but recently I've learned about Molinism and since one of if not the top living apologist William Lane Craig holds to Molinism, I"m curious if he has ever debated any top Calvinists on the topic. I'm honestly open to any of the three, but I"m currently leaning towards either Calvinism or Molinism. Let me know where you all stand and what evidence that you see points toward any of the three. Thanks and God bless.

Molonism is not Scriptural, nor does it solve the problems as it claims to do. Lane Craig uses molonism as a mechanism to answer the argument of evil. And from what I have seen about his arguments against Calvinism, it is pretty weak compared to his apologetic work.

I am a Calvinist, as for me, it provides the only real foundation for apologetics.

I am undecided, but Open Theism makes the most sense to me so far (interesting how you didn't include it among the available options).

One of the main reasons is that all attempts I've seen to explain away the hundreds of Old Testament passages of God regretting past choices, changing His mind, testing people's hearts, numerous failed prophecies, and so forth, have proven to be utterly dishonest.

August wrote:Molonism is not Scriptural, nor does it solve the problems as it claims to do. Lane Craig uses molonism as a mechanism to answer the argument of evil. And from what I have seen about his arguments against Calvinism, it is pretty weak compared to his apologetic work.

I am a Calvinist, as for me, it provides the only real foundation for apologetics.

Interesting August, I've only come across Molinism just recently, because of a friend of mine who holds to Molinism. It's interesting to note, that this friend in general, has a rather liberal view of theology and thus, he views Calvinism with great displeasure. He also seems to emotionally be against some of the implications of Calvinism, where as I personally could care less, I'm just wanting to go wherever the evidence leads to. But anyway, what specific arguments, scripture verses help develop a case for Calvinism and against Molinism and Armianism? Also as a more important question, whether if one is a Calvinist, Molinist, Open Theist, or Armenian, they all like to point to verses that seem to indicate that this is how God is. This is also something I see within the Catholic and Protestant debates as well. And from a casual reader's standpoint (as well as my standpoint currently) I look at all these divisions and at the Bible verses that give indication to all these views and it urges me to ask from a attempted nonbiased or free thinking standpoint, does this show that the Bible does indeed contain contradictions and or show that either parts of the Bible or (God forbid) the whole Bible is not inspired? Because if it were, wouldn't all these issues be more clearer at the very least and crystal clear at the most? And wouldn't we see complete or fairly good consistency with God's nature and harmony with what He says throughout both the Old and New Testaments? And if we do, then how do theologians, intellectuals, and ordinary believers go about in showing that these divisions are nothing but mere misunderstandings and the Bible does indeed show perfect harmony and consistency as far as showing us who God is, what His nature is like and what specifically He expects of us? Anyway, thanks for your time August and God bless.

does this show that the Bible does indeed contain contradictions and or show that either parts of the Bible or (God forbid) the whole Bible is not inspired?

It shows that there are apparent contradictions. Now, of course, it is possible to reconcile them with some effort. The question is which one you find the most convincing.

Here's something to think about, though. If God has definitive knowledge of the future, why did He allow all these seemingly contradictory passages into His Word, some of which concern issues as important as salvation, knowing with absolute certainty that they would cause issues centuries later? (there are, for example, passages that indicate a works-based salvation like Matthew 25 as well as those that clearly teach faith alone. Because of that, today, we have two subsets of Christians telling each other that they will go to Hell).

Say August, are you around?

Sorry D, you asked some big questions that requires long answers. I will frame some questions first, and we can take it from there.

To break down the disagreements between the various theologies, it comes down to a couple of key questions:
1. What is the character of God?
2. What is the natural state of man?

The first question is about the sovereignty of God. Does God decree all that comes to pass or not? Is God fully in control or not? Does God, as the Molinists maintain, have future knowledge about all possible worlds, and does the world actuated by God depend on the libertarian free will actions of God's creatures?

The second question is probably the one that causes more divide than anything. What is the nature of man? What role does man play in his own salvation? Does man have libertarian free will...i.e. uncaused decisions and actions? Do these actions change the way in which God acts?

The different answers to these questions cause the confusion. I think that there are reasonable, but not necessarily true, answers from many perspectives. I myself find the traditional reformed (Calvinist) answer to have the most merit, because it starts from a proof of Godly omnipotence...also the most important assumption regarding apologetics. The other perspectives cannot argue for the omnipotence of God and remain logically consistent with their own theology.

Thanks for responding August, I was also wondering, how do Calvinists respond to the classical problem of evil, or to the problem of evil that Craig says you need Molinism to explain? Thanks for your time and God bless.

Although I have never heard the term before, I believe that I and a large number of men I know and know of would be considered Molinists.

derrick09 wrote:Thanks for responding August, I was also wondering, how do Calvinists respond to the classical problem of evil, or to the problem of evil that Craig says you need Molinism to explain? Thanks for your time and God bless.

I am only posting due to the lost posts so I can keep track of this. I lost my post and do not think I even saved it as I usaully do. I'll see what others say before I chime in agian.

Anyways great topic
-
-
-

Craig's argument is essentially that God has mysterious purposes embellished with big words and verbosity.

Molinism appears to be the only position that truly embraces an infinite God.
Just as a chess player (I love the game:) ) must be able to look at possible moves and understand the consequences before moving, an infinite God must be able to know not only the future in its entirety, but also must be able to know all possible variations on what would happen if He did something differently. That is the core of Molinism.

Interesting thread. First time I have been exposed to Molinism. Considering the degree that I understand it, I think it is closest to my own biblical worldview which is a belief in both the sovereignty of God and free will that I struggle to reconcile. I need to study this closer as I often get into conversations regarding the Calvinst and Armenian points of view.

Thanks for this thread derrick09.

I'll say for me, I'm undecided...maybe not a TULIP, but more like a TUIP (I think that's right)? (Calvinist)

The problem I have is that we generally look at knowledge and say "Wel, just because you know something is going to happen doesn't mean that there can't be free will." The problem I have is that in GOD's case whatever he knows WILL happen. It's hard for me to understand where free will comes in...

...I've always thought that God puts his future knowledge of every action we will do somewhere else, (in a little box XD or huge one), but that would be limiting Him...so I dunno.

I see it a bit like a history book. When you read it, you already know what'll happen(if you already know the history), but the people still had free will when they did it. God, being outside of time, would see all of time as history.