LOL! I didn’t know what molinism truly was until I saw your analogy. I can wrap my head around the picture you paint, too well. Thanks for the chuckle.

Wow that is truly strange... much strength and wisdom brother!

@Sage the response Dr.JW gives in the video is perfectly scriptural. God allows evil men to act out the evil desires of their hearts. That's what he is saying and it is true. The story of Joseph being sold to egypt is a very clear example thereof. The brothers meant it for evil but God MEANT IT for good. Or one even more thaught provoking argument would be that David raped Bathseba. God's response was "you did it in secret but I WLL repay you in public". What happened? Absalom raped david's wives publicly. So is absalom responsible for his sin? Yes!! He loved it and was not forced to it. Was that sin still part of God's decree to chastise David? Yes! So, the souvereign decree is the clear teaching of scripture. The only question is will you submit to that? I find great comfort in a good God who is souvereign. Because non of my suffering ever is meaningless then. And so should you ;)

@Sage the word "allow" was attached to the object "evil men". God is not the one who delights in planning evil. But he has decreed that men do act out their evil desires. Very often he keeps evil men from being as evil as the could be. This is the very reason why God does decree evil yet men is responsible. Because when God decrees evil he simply lets men do what they want to do. Perfect example is isaiah 10.

@Sage I have zero clue what you’re saying. Edit

But here, in Genesis, is God talking to Cain, telling him of two possible choices Cain could take, telling it in such a way that either one could truly happen, and the consequences of each, if Cain chose the one or the other. That's what I meant by not needing Molinism. God holds Cain accountable. He is telling him that if he does one thing, there will be a certain outcome, but if he does the other, instead, "sin lieth at the door," which sounds like a lion, crouching at the door to devour him, to me. Both have to be true possibilities for Cain, because God cannot lie.

Your founder believed that the will is not free. He wrote a book on the subject. The Bondage of the Will. 😁

@@Saratogan not everything Luther said is necessarily believed. Lutherans do not hold to double predestination, and as far as freewill vs God's sovereign choice stands as something that we cannot fully understand. Because lutherans will affirm God is in control and we cannot choose Him, but He chooses us. However we also recognize that God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. I put "freewill" in quotations because what "freewill" we have is within God's control. There is a long portion on freewill in the Lutheran confessions. Its been a while since I have read it.

@Sage, All I am saying is that the "will" is a third order thing. Where does the "will" reside? I think it obvious that the "will" resides in the "mind" The "mind" is that which does the willing. Scripture speaks of 3 minds. The "mind of the flesh" (Rom 8:6,7); The "mind of the Spirit" (Rom 8:6,27) and; the "mind of the Lord/Christ". (Rom 11:34, 1 Cor 2:16). The "mind" is also subordinate to something else - nature. Paul says in 1 Cor 2:14 that the natural man receives not the things of the spirit for they are foolishness to him and neither can he know them. His nature lacks the capacity to apprehend spiritual things. His mind says to him that spiritual things are foolishness. So, he wills precisely what his nature and mind demand and I suppose the will is free within those confines. However, that "will" does not seem all that free to me. It certainly is not free to please God. The Lord bless your day!

@@leeenk6932 Calvinism / Reformed Theology does not teach man is devoid of a ‘free’ will. That’s a misconception there. I think what is often not understood (and how could we?) is how profound the consequences of the fall really were and how rapidly the corruption became complete. Man then became utterly enslaved to sin in his very nature - therefore no longer capable of choosing good, or indeed God. I think this is clearly taught in scripture.

@@LaMOi1 I'm no expert in reformed theology, so I'm sorry if I mis represented anything. Actually what you just said is what confessional Lutherans would affirm. That we are dead in sin, incapable of choosing God, slaves to sinful nature. And God has to make us alive by grace through the working of the Holy Spirit, which when one hears the gospel preached, then the Holy Spirit works faith within us. I know there will be differences nevertheless, but I think reformed and Lutherans are actually the closest in this regard.

What if the counsel of God is that mankind should have freewill? Shall that counsel stand?

@@apilkey, I have said elsewhere in these comments that the "will" is a third order thing. The will is subordinate to the mind and the mind is subordinate to nature. The will only posits to do things that come into the mind and the mind only thinks things that nature allows. So, the will is free within the confines of mind and nature. Thinking of the will as a third order thing, could God counsel that it be totally free seeing that the mind of the flesh is at war with God? Paul says the natural man receives not the things of the spirit because they are foolishness to him and neither can he know them. (1 Cor 2:14). That free will you speak of is subject to a mind that thinks spiritual things are foolish and he also lacks the capacity to appreciate spiritual things because they are foreign to his nature. To your hypothetical, could the counsel of God be that the natural man who only possesses the mind of the flesh will something antithetical to his mind and nature?

@@Saratogan You asked, “… could the natural man who only possesses the mind of the flesh will something antithetical to his mind and nature?” ...According to Romans 2:14 the Gentiles BY NATURE did the things contained in the law so that flies in the face of total inability: ROMANS 2:14 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, DO BY NATURE the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Question: Was the nature of the Gentiles to obey or disobey the things contained in the law?

@@Saratogan Question: could those born again believers in 1 Corinthians 3:1,2 receive the things of the Spirit? Yes or no? 1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. So if born again Christians can’t receive the things of Spirit either then your 1 Corinthians 2:14 proof text does not mean what you need it to mean.

@@apilkey , If you read carefully, Paul in chapter two gives us two natures on man first the spiritual man, second the natural man. Beginning chapter three he introduces a third which he calls carnal (fleshly). He describes the Corinthian believers as such and that as baby Christians they are still influenced by the flesh. Paul's plan is, as a good father, to feed them with simple principles of the faith with the full expectation that they will grow into and receive solid food of the spirit. He has no such expectation of the natural man. You do not feed something that is dead -- spiritually or physically. The metaphor used does not cause me any concern. I appreciate the dialogue. The Lord bless your day!

What are you talking about?

anything outside of calvinism places human free will over the sovereignty of God

I think that’s many people’s problem, trying to rationalize free will with sovereignty. Free will of humans isn’t equivalent to sovereignty. One surpasses the other. God’s Divine Decree ordains all things and all He ordains will come to pass. He accomplishes this through the pre-ordained free choices of men. The problem lies in what is defined as free will. Free will in the humanistic, philosophical sense is a fiction. Free will is the ability to choose freely what you desire most. To choose in accordance with your nature. There is no such thing as an arbitrary or contradictory will. This is a man made invention and not biblical. The problem with molonism is middle knowledge. That becomes the determining factor, not the decree of God. God isn’t in control, middle knowledge is and that is a made up proposition. It’s just a way from humans to try and reconcile their conceptions of a faulty view of free will and God’s sovereignty. There is no contradiction between God’s decree and true, authentic biblical free will. The ability and free choice to choose what you desire, based on your nature. All of which God created and has control over. We choose freely and God ordains those choices. Just because it is beyond our ability and limitations to fully work out how God accomplishes this, doesn’t make it a contradiction. It is fully logical and coherent, albeit marvelous and miraculous. As all things with the incomprehensible God are

@@davidliu7967 Thank you so much, my brother for taking the time to respond to what I said. Would it be all right if I respond to a couple of your points? I mean it not to be argumentative just to be a discussion. I am very grateful that God raised an intellectual like yourself in the Christian faith we need people like you! I disagree with your first statement I do not think that rationalizing in and of itself is a problem. It can perhaps lead to problems if you make errors. Maybe that’s what you meant. But I’ll repeat, I don’t think literature is ever an end in itself. The Bible not being excluded. I believe the Bible requires intellect in order to understand it. Molinists and Calvinists both need to rationalize what the Bible means. I suppose my Hesitation with the rest of the first part of your comment would be that, in the Bible you see both. yes I can see how logically God having sovereign control would seem to weigh heavily on human free will. But you don’t only see God’s sovereignty depicted in the Bible. You also read, and in fact, way more than you read about God sovereignty, about human free will and the consequences of our sinful free choices. That is what led me to a belief similar to molinism. It’s about ratio. If two things are depicted in the Bible is equally true, I think you make an error if you create a philosophy that puts one out of the ratio over the other. As for your statement about middle knowledge being in control, that is not how the Molinists see it. And that’s not how I would see it either. The way I see it is logically there’s different levels of control. God holds the absolute ultimate level of all control, but there are different levels of control that exist inferior to his level of control. So to say that middle knowledge holds a certain level of control isn’t the same as saying that middle knowledge holds supreme control over even God, because ultimately God can choose to do things another way, but it is his will, and his choice that ultimately makes the decisive decision. if I kill somebody with an ax, I am guilty of murder, even though I’m not in control of the lower levels, in that case the laws of nature that hold together the composition of the ax and the anatomy of the human body. We don’t blame the ax and say the ax had control because of its composition or blame the human body for the death because if the brain wasn’t in the skull the person wouldn’t have died. And as for the rest of your comment, I would pretty much just agree. Thanks for your comment, my friend. I enjoyed it. It was a good morning exercise for my brain.!

But who created the subjunctive conditionals? It must be God but how did He create them without determining them?

How does God know who I will be apart from his choice make me? As if I have existence outside of God himself. The arguement is that there are conditions to salvation outside of God, he doesnt have the power to raise sinners to spiritual life.

Hi Greg, I appreciate your attempt to understand the issues, but I don’t think what you have said is logical, accurate or scripture based. Molinism is a product of human intellectual speculation, not divine revelation. If your position is that molinism provides a good theodicy for the problem of evil, I believe this does not acknowledge the complexity of the issue, or how much mankind lacks in regard to knowledge of God. Free will does not provide a sufficient theodicy. I have not heard a perfect theodicy (that is not to say that such a thing does not exist!). That said, we can refer to scripture and know that God’s ways are not our ways (Is 55.8), and that we should not lean upon our own understanding but trust in God (Pr 3.5).

Re God’s love: In Molinism, as with Armenian soteriology, the elect are not personally selected by God. Christ does not choose His bride. Further, there is no significant difference between God’s love for the elect (Christ’s bride) and God’s love for the reprobate, since the belief is Christ loved all the same and died for all (not just the elect). If a husband loves his wife the same way he loves the town prostitute, then does he really love his wife? Some God has chosen to be His children and they are the bride of Christ. Some are given over to Satan and remain objects of wrath. We dare not question God’s judgement, or His will, or how He loves. We must fear Him, fear Him and echo the call to flee the wrath that is to come. Run to the cross, and trust in Christ alone.

How dare thou hateth the kooji sweaters!

Koojis increase your IQ significantly

Is the set of creatures with free agency (non-determined subjunctive conditionals) smaller than the set of creatures with without free agency (determined subjunctive conditionals)? If yes, why? However, it seems to me that the number of creatures in one set would be equal to that of another set. If this is so and, as molinism suggests, God picks which "free agents" to use, then I see no difference between God selecting and God determining.

His omniscience and omnipotence prior to the decree does include as necessary selection of Elect.

@@spourchoable Not in the bible

@@jesst5244 are you saying the Bible does not teach that God is all powerful, all knowing, eternal, and unchanging? I believe it does and from that logic would seem to lead to the conclusion that God selected the elect prior to the foundation of the world. Additionally there is a lot of scripture to back it. Romans 8:29 &30 to start.

@@spourchoable Sure does!

yes it is where does all knowledge come from? does God know all things from the beginning or does He learn things along the way?

Those of us who affirm Molinism do so because, like Molina, we find that middle knowledge best explains a wide range of biblical data. The concept has been fruitfully applied to areas such as the problem of evil, the problem of the unevangelized, the doctrine of inspiration, divine foreknowledge and human freedom, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, biblical warnings against apostasy, and more. One doesn't need Molinism to be a Christian, but it certainly helps if one wants to be an intelligent Christian who loves God with one's mind.

@@nosyt42 I love God with my mind, but see a lot of fruit in trusting the full sovereignty, power, and knowledge of God, with no desire to impose my man-centered limitations to better understand His will when it comes to the unsaved or sin or tragedy, outside of what has been revealed in Scripture. I think the systematics laid forth by most Reformed theologians distills this tension well. So I guess I’m just not an intelligent Christian.

@@bassistguy13 I strongly disagree with the claim that "systematics laid forth by most Reformed theologians distills [the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility/freedom]. Broadly, they either appeal to mystery or imply that God is the author of evil in a theologically objectionable, unbiblical sense. If the purported resolution to the tension makes God the cause of sin, then the biblical Christian should reject it. The mistake is trusting "the full sovereignty, power, and knowledge of God," but not his moral perfection or ability to be sovereign over creatures with free will.

@@nosyt42 Unfortunately that is a frustrating mischaracterization of God and His power over sin, and being the ultimate decider of the fate of men that I hear a lot, i.e. a very common strawman put forth by people who genuinely have not objectively considered a perspective other than what they already hold. I believe that man actually would sin far worse than even the attrocities that we witness (1 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, various Psalms). I think as someone who sees value in the biblical theology that lead to the reformation, I simply submit to Scripture when it leads me to wrestle with something that is uncomfortable. I think one needs to create these "God decreed evil" problems in order to try and (mistakingly) create a moral problem for a morally perfect entity, again depending heavily on a strawman tactic to burn. It seems most apparent that God allows certain sinful things to happen so as to execute His will for His glory and the good of those who believe in Him; not to be confused with actually being the primary cause of sin. I also find it interesting that your initial comment depended on attacking the intelligence of someone who disagrees with you, and I think you would find that this ad hominem attack definitely utilized more often from an Armenian/Molinistic camp than Reformed.

@@bassistguy13 If man does not have free will, then I confess I have difficulty in understanding this language of "permission." If God is not the cause of our sin, then the antecedent conditions of our sin are insufficient to produce the effect, which just is the causal account of libertarian free will. According to many Reformed theologians (specifically Calvinists who affirm causal determinism; it should be noted that "Reformed" includes many Arminians, not just Calvinists), God's sovereignty implies that God causes all things, the tacit implication being that he also causes our desire to sin and our actually sinning. Of course, these Calvinists do not *claim* that God causes these things, but it's what their view *implies*. This is quite evident in the writings of early Reformed authors like Luther and Calvin to contemporary authors like Paul Helm and Guillaume Bignon. My initial comment wasn't meant to be an attack on the intelligence of Reformed thinkers. On the contrary, I think there are many brilliant ones! What I said was that Molinism *helps* those who want to be intelligent Christians. It does so by providing an intellectually satisfying resolution to a wide range of theological puzzles which are not explicitly or implicitly resolved in Scripture itself. Some, like James White, have said that Molinism is somehow unbiblical, but so far the attempts at supporting this claim have relied on importing other philosophical assumptions into the text that the text itself does not contain.