Comments on: Ken Keathley on Molinism

By: jim fletcher

jim fletcher — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:59:55 +0000

double predestination is provable only from a futuristic approach.the book of revelation has we christians in heaven already. time flows in one direction but god does not live within the confines of time.god sees all events in past,present and future equally.there is a future you and me.we are either around his throne or not.its all about god not us.we are part of the plan. time is a place bordered on both sides by eternity.history is the future.it has already taken place.revelation proves that.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:23:21 +0000

I agree with the commentator in that Keathley ultimately fails to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism. However I don't think its a problem with Keathley so much as its a problem with the contradictions inherent in Calvinism.

By: Mark Lydecker

Mark Lydecker — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:53:00 +0000

Here is a fairly new response to Keathley's new book on Molinism: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35...

By: Floating by

Floating by — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:12:48 +0000

I think the "apologetic" being done here is a defense for the reason this apologist has hope. That is the Gospel of Christ not God's particular election of individuals (no hope for everyone there). There really is no good faith offer of salvation from and all loving God in your system. What you do have is a God that always gets His way, because of His power!!! God, as man would want to be, I say.

By: Shfengoli

Shfengoli — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:24:32 +0000

No. No, I don't mean that.

Ever read the "About" page here? It says something about providing answers to honest questions, and something about Certified Apologetics Instructors and starting the site "in cooperation with the North American Mission Board." Kinda thought there'd be more apologetics going on here.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:06:51 +0000

"it begins with a couple ideas from Scripture, and philosophizes its way to unorthodoxy. "

You mean it follows the original philosophy out to it's logical conclusion? Sorry, but Calvinism is still a man-made philosophy no matter how you slice it. The only question that remains is whether it is a _good_ man-made philosophical system which adequately and accurately explains reality (like the trinity).

By: Shfengoli

Shfengoli — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:57:36 +0000

Calvinists either don't see these as problems because either (1) they think the ethical requirements on God are foreign to Scripture, or (2) they're no more paradoxical than the doctrine of the Trinity (perhaps a mind-bender, but not contradictory). Calvinists reject hypercalvinism because it isn't Scriptural. If axiom one is Sola Scriptura, then you can't get to hypercalvinism from the text. It leaves out many, many premises; it begins with a couple ideas from Scripture, and philosophizes its way to unorthodoxy. http://reasontostand.org/archives/2010/03/15/more...

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:08:36 +0000

Do they not have these problems because there exists no logical paradox inherent in the Calvinistic system (in accordance with what Keathley points out in his article above) or do they not have these problems because they choose to ignore the paradox which exists (under the guise of wanting to 'stick with Scripture and not philosophy' no less).

The problem is that most Calvinists pretend there exists no paradox inherent within their system. It's that they don't carry their beliefs out to their logical conclusions. The problem is also that Calvinism, when carried out to it's logical conclusion, ends up with what some call "hyper-calvinism". However most recognize that this position is untenable and undesirable and so they prefer, rather, to simply live with a logical paradox rather than closely examine and resolve the paradoxical problems inherent in their philosophy.

By: Shfengoli

Shfengoli — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:58:30 +0000

Dang! Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed.

Ever notice how Israel went to war with the Philistines, even if the Lord had already decided the outcome? Why did they do that?! Why didn't the Lord "causally determine" the Philistines to just wander to some other country?

It could be that you've been fighting your own Calvinist straw man all these years. Calvinists don't have these problems you pretend.

By: Wes Widner

Wes Widner — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:38:47 +0000

I suppose God has simply predestined us to disagree on this topic (though I find it odd to think that God could cause us to think something that is not true, but then again "his ways are above our ways" I guess). I suppose we are both simply constrained by our causally predestined dispositions to believe what we believe so why argue this point any more? Persuasion implies an ability to think otherwise which is certainly not something a truly sovereign God would ever permit in his meticulously controlled world (which also makes the whole notion of sin rather odd).

Oh well, I suppose I'll have to yield to the apparent strength of your argument (which I was causally predestined to do by God I guess). Seriously, why argue about this stuff in the first place if all things are causally predestined by God and even the concept of free will (in any sense, including limited) is outside the realm of possibility?

Must be fun to live in your world where you borrow a concept of limited free will in order to bash the very notion. Oh the irony!