Comments on: Molinism: Free will and divine sovereignty living in harmony

By: Unable or unwilling? | Reason To Stand

Unable or unwilling? | Reason To Stand — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:02:26 +0000

[...] On the other hand, if I am unwilling then I logically have the ability to act in a manner other than that which I choose. That my actions are foreknown is not the same as saying that my actions or choices are less free. In fact, you could even say that my actions are predetermined so long as you account for my freedom to choose at some point (aka, in eternity past as part of God’s omniscience as a brute fact per Molinism). [...]

By: Is Libertarian Free Will a Myth? | Reason To Stand

Is Libertarian Free Will a Myth? | Reason To Stand — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:08:19 +0000

[...] Unfortunately, the shoe fits and I haven’t heard a reformed person (who doesn’t hold to Molinism, which excludes them from being classically reformed) offer any reason why such a characterization [...]

By: David Emme

David Emme — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 07:42:47 +0000

As 2quite often I am oing research to see if there be any who came to an understanding that I have and most often do not see it. Here it is: The sin nature is the knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge of good and evil is free will. Man has free will but according to Psalms 14 and 53, man will always reject God

By: Is salvation available for all men? | Reason To Stand

Is salvation available for all men? | Reason To Stand — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:02:15 +0000

[...] I was recently asked on twitter about my view of salvation and how I viewed it in light of my recent postings on Molinism. [...]

By: Answering the grounding objection against Molinism | Reason To Stand

Answering the grounding objection against Molinism | Reason To Stand — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:13:05 +0000

[...] of the strongest objections to the doctrine of Molinism is what has commonly been called “the grounding objection” which, stated simply, is; [...]

By: Resources for more information on Molinism/Middle Knowledge | Reason To Stand

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:03:43 +0000

[...] my post on Molinism/Middle Knowledge garnered some interest I figured it would be helpful to provide some more resources on the [...]

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:42:45 +0000

Dually noted. See comment below.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:42:16 +0000

At this point I'm going to just simply say that this line of discussion has nothing to do with the topic at hand and end it there.

By: Atlantians

Atlantians — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:31:39 +0000

Oh I was not judging your righteousness.
You have none.
You are a depraved evil wicked person just like me.
Your righteousness and mine are the sovereign gift of Christ through His shed blood.

What I was doing was pointing out your hypocrisy.
What I was judging was your own words.

Furthermore, you say:
"I'd rather discuss the topic and not my feelings,"

Good. I am glad that you realized attacking people personally was a bad thing. Please apologize to Jacob now that you want to be, as you put it: "mature enough to engage the subject rather than the presenter and don't get offended when someone strongly opposes you. "

By: Atlantians

Atlantians — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:28:12 +0000

Odd, I recall you making Jacob the issue when you responded to his blog post. Lets see:
You said:
"Oh, and I suggest you rethink your title because it is incredibly arrogant and unloving towards your fellow brothers in Christ. Not to mention it is thoughtless and indicative of a woeful lack of study in either area. Theological or philosophical."

His title: "What Happens When Philosophy Subverts Biblical Theology".

Somehow that title:
"What Happens When Philosophy Subverts Biblical Theology"
Is equal to:
"incredibly arrogance" "unloving towards your fellow brothers in Christ" "thoughtless" "indicative of a woeful lack of study in either area. Theological or philosophical."

You then said:
"You see, my accusation of your opinions being arrogant and unloving doesn't stem from the mere fact that you disagree with me. It stems from the fact that in disagreeing with me you are not satisfied with merely objecting to a doctrine but you feel the need to go further and heap ad-hominim attacks on a wide range of very Godly brethren simply because you find this doctrine repulsive (because, as you say, it conflicts with your precious Calvinism)."

So again, you seem to be the "brother" who is not "mature enough to engage the subject rather than the presenter" and does "get offended when someone strongly opposes you."

It seems once again you accuse another of what you yourself demonstrate yourself guilty of.