Molinism discussion

[Glen]

Hi BW.

I am not sure I understand how self righteousness could be applied to a UR position, I believe I am without merit, My positional stance is because of Christ’s obedience, faithfulness, sacrifice and his gracious free gift, Though I still have self righteous residue from being yoked to this corruptible tabernacle, it wouldn't be from thinking I am having any involvement in my salvation, or that I was a lucky spin of the limited selection raffle.

Isn't condescension God stooping down and dealing with man on his level? stepping out of the way and letting those free choices from the slave market of sin, Ephesians 2:2-3 bring about its carnal fruits? What scripture are you thinking about that would show that I am guilty of that?

Grace, Glen.

Hi Glen to answer you,

How self righteousness could be applied to a UR position is that there is a fair amount of self righteous justification for it from its proponents the same as you cited that there exist between any Calvinist or Arminian positional stance.

I do not think it was condescension that God stooped down and dealt with man on man’s very level as it is written in Philippians 2:5-11. UR negates this purpose as there is no purpose for God to do so. The Lord did so for you. He been engaging you choice to accept his salvation as he so stated how it comes John 3:5-10, John 3:11-13, John 3:14-17 now notice the next verses: John 3:18-21, There is a condemnation for those that reject and if a condemnation then UR is untrue in it presuppositional statement about God allowing all in heaven.

UR takes no account of any warnings about where such condemnation leads as Jesus plainly says in Mark 9:43 to avoids at all cost. If this refers to a cleansing torturous bath to be avoid at all cost, then it be a strange love that tortures until one cries uncle and be so bound by fear in heaven that they must love out of terror, God.

What do you know about the Christian gospel message?

You admit to still having self righteousness, wouldn’t that corrupt heaven, if the Lord just let you in, on UR’s terms? (Isaiah 26:10) There is only one way to secure your salvation, and that is through trusting in Christ alone. From that, you become born again (do you understand what this means?) into his kingdom. The Lord then builds a living relationship with you that sanctifies you in the process. You know it. Have you experienced this yet, or maybe you only thought you had, but did you really?

Do you want to become born again? This time, for real? Why take a chance on UR when reality about human nature as it is self evident? God deals justly as it is written in Job 34:11, Isaiah 3:10-11, Romans 2:6, and Galatians 6:7. If one rejects His terms, how He stepped down out of heaven, to become as one of us, knowing first hand our human nature, then die on a cross exposing humanities self righteous sin toward goodness, afterwards providing a way through him (John 14:6) so that people can return to God in a just manner that demonstrates respect for person deciding if they’ll reject or accept his offer. Reject it – then its Isaiah 3:11 NKJV, accept it then Isaiah 3:10 NKJV. Fair is fair and impartial to all.
-
-
-

Hi BW.

Well of coarse that kind of superior attitude my leak out with any belief system, we are still all human and if we feel we are right about something then that will be apparent, if I have come across as being over the line that way then I would apologize.

The position I take isn't based on freewill, so any attribute infered to myself concerning my salvation would be misplaced humanism, I would see my position more inline with a boast for Christ than myself.

I would disagree that I have done away with the need for Christ, all I am doing is broading the intent based on Gods will.

Galatians 5:16-17, shows the believer can be influenced by the flesh as long as we are yoked to it, plus the preaching under the law might not be the best place to build a doctrine based on signs and wonders long gone with that born again hope.

But I get your inference about my salvation, and its a sad that you need to go there .

[B. W.]

Hi BW.

Well of coarse that kind of superior attitude my leak out with any belief system, we are still all human and if we feel we are right about something then that will be apparent, if I have come across as being over the line that way then I would apologize.

The position I take isn't based on freewill, so any attribute infered to myself concerning my salvation would be misplaced humanism, I would see my position more inline with a boast for Christ than myself.

I would disagree that I have done away with the need for Christ, all I am doing is broading the intent based on Gods will.

Galatians 5:16-17, shows the believer can be influenced by the flesh as long as we are yoked to it, plus the preaching under the law might not be the best place to build a doctrine based on signs and wonders long gone with that born again hope.

But I get your inference about my salvation, and its a sad that you need to go there .

You say Sad to me??? Glen, It is your eternal destiny that maybe is at stake here, not mine. It is more from the love of Christ imploring you to be reconciled back to God is why I asked. You claim you are secure, but how are you? Can you take to time to explain this?

Now back to UR determinism:

UR is based on fatalism. No need for Christ to have come. All are saved by default. This is deterministic fatalism (enjoy the ride –smirk) as much so as hyper Calvinism is fatalistically deterministic. Why would Christ have to come, if all are saved by default in the afterlife? Can you please answer this?
-
-
-

[B. W.]

The main tenants of Universalism in all it various forms is its concept that since God loves, this would cause him to accept all into heaven and therefore it does not matter how one lives his or her life, or what religion one follows or not follows, all roads lead to heaven and God. It is atheism in reverse, instead of nothingness after one dies – it’s all heaven the UR way.

Let’s use the Molinist philosophic method and investigate the subject of human-centric love and if time permits look into God’s love.

The Molinist model of inquiry regarding Human-centric love would follow this format:

Natural Knowledge of Love: Human beings have defined love in various ways. The ancient Greeks used four words to describe love: Eros, Storge, Phileo, Agape. The ancient Hebrew used several words to define love as well. Both based on the human experience with love. English uses only one word for love that can be used in the same context as the others. Therefore: Man has a natural disposition and knowledge to love in various ways

Middle Knowledge of Love: This involves man’s experiences and decision to love or not to love, whom to love and not to love. It involves all the reasons for loving, being loved, or rejecting love. These are ideas about love. It is influenced by Natural knowledge of love.

Free standing knowledge of Love: Is what we actually do that shows of love or not to show it. It is our actions that come from Natural and Middle knowledge concerning Love. Do we love perfectly? The answer would be no – we do not as our actions clearly show.

Since we are looking at human-centric love, can this model be trusted to define what God’s love is like? Should we base doctrine on it alone or not?

Thoughts?
-
-
-

[Glen]

Looks like my points are being proven, someone got their ego tweaked and now the old mans religious prides at stake! thanks for the confirming its your gospels main source.

I think I am done with you B.W.

[domokunrox]

Its hard to follow what you guys are discussing.

What stood out to me was that Glen has stated something to the extent that the topic at hand cannot be intellectualized? Am I right?

Bart, it seemed like you weren't too sure if you agree with that statement or not? Or some aspects are, while others cannot be left alone?

[Canuckster1127]

Glen, if you want people to focus on the elements of your presented belief and not you personally, you should probably extend the same courtesy to others. It's hard to separate these issues from being personal, but I think if you go back and read what B.W. has said he's addressing those elements of your belief that he believes are not in accordance with scripture and it's grounded in a genuine concern for you. It's one thing to disagree with what he's saying, it's another thing to make him personally the object of your response rather than addressing what he's saying.

[B. W.]

Glen there is no malice or vendetta I my heart towards you nor have you provoked me at all. This is a discussion on Molinism. I do not see why the molinist method cannot be applied to investigate Universalism. It is currently used to open up dialogue to help bridge the gap between hard line Christian determinist and Hard core Arminianist doctrine to reach a state of common ground to then work off of. UR fits the bill as deterministic, so why can’t the molinist method help bridge the gap as well between parties? That was my intent. Have a nice day and God bless!
-
-
-

[RickD]

Glen,
I'd like to hear how the determinism of UR can be reconciled with God's love. The way I see it, is that if Universalism is true, and everyone who ever existed, will spend eternity with God, then where is the choice on humanity's part to love God? If eternity is already determined, as in UR, then we're at the same argument we have with the determinism that some Calvinists believe. Love is not love, if we are forced(determined) to love God.

[B. W.]

Glen, I'd like to hear how the determinism of UR can be reconciled with God's love. The way I see it, is that if Universalism is true, and everyone who ever existed, will spend eternity with God, then where is the choice on humanity's part to love God? If eternity is already determined, as in UR, then we're at the same argument we have with the determinism that some Calvinists believe. Love is not love, if we are forced(determined) to love God.

I think many people would like to look at the concept of love involved in the determinism of Universalism using the Molinist method. As I stated earlier:

The Molinist model regarding Human-centric love would follow this format:

Natural Knowledge of Love: Human beings have defined love in various ways. The ancient Greeks used four words to describe love: Eros, Storge, Phileo, Agape.

We will look at these four Greek words to get a better grasp of the Natural love we human beings have and form a base of understanding to build off of because of the ease of classifying (so please feel free to add to the list too)

Classifying Human Natural Love

Eros: This type of love which bases love in relationships purely on sexual attraction. The English word Erotica is derived from this word. It also denotes a strong longing for something - food, shopping - that is more inclined to the realm of an obsessive nature. Eros is also a superficial kind of love - a strong crush....

Storge: describes the love we find in families between the different members. It is the love of mother, father, brothers and sisters and involves commitment.

Phileo: brotherly kinship kind of love. The bonding soldiers develop during combat. It also is a good deed doing kind of love. It also describes in a negative sense a selfish love that that seeks to love to others only if they can get some sort of gain from or out of the relationship.

Agápe: In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection one may have toward something or someone as well as a higher sense of love that is more than merely being limited to only mean unconditional. It the kind of love that breaks forth into caring, tending too, developing, fostering, nurturing, taking care and in the older version of the KJV this word was translated charity in old English meaning – cherishing.

The ancient Hebrew used several words to define love and were used to describe the same as the four Greek words do with an emphasis of Agape’s taking care of things. English uses only one word for love that can be used in the same context as the others.

Middle Love

The human use of Middle love works in tandem with Natural love producing the fruit with the area of free exercise of Love in actual workings in our day to day lives. So we will now take a brief glimpse into the Middle Knowledge type of human love:

Middle Love: do we really have agape love that seeks to tend too and take care of things? The answer would be yes based on the word usage found in 1 John 2:15 regarding loving the things of the world. Much of this kind of agape love influences our decisions on what we pursue in this mortal life. The usages of Eros, Storge, Phileo also influences what we decide to pursue and all the reason involved in choosing what we do choose.

We have heard the oft retort that God is like a loving parent who would always love his children assuming that all people are his kids, yet, the bible does not teach this – there are two kinds of children – the children of the devil-darkness and those belonging to God. This type of thinking helps UR or others to think in the term that God will not do anything harmful as eternal punishment to anyone if he is the loving parent, This concept is based on Storge and not agape. So theological doctrines uses storge to base doctrine upon.

Phileo – also used in the negative sense helps one choose their theological doctrine because it seeks only to get some sort of gain from the relationship. So such love God is based on gaining something from God in mental reasoning gymnastics that attempt to manipulate God to act according to their demand. Often choose and decided upon by using this sort of reasoning: One says – they will not, cannot, accept a God who dares to punish for eternity. This is a equality based assumption and a negative use of phileo love seeking to manipulate God to gain heaven on their personal terms, not God’s (John 3:16).

A personal choice is then decided upon which theology position to choose to base their life upon – which affects the Free Standing exercise of love – through the use of knowledge human love alone. These are but a few illustrations of how our human love leads us toward what we choose and follow and there is a lot more…

More later if anyone is still interested...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

A quick word on agape: Agape (love) was defined many years ago as being unconditional. That meaning has shifted to mean something other than what it once was when the phrase unconditional love (agape) was coined. Decades and decades ago ‘unconditional’ was added to agape to express that God opened the doors of salvation to all and was limited to that meaning.

This was largely brought about as a reaction to limited atonement in that God’s love offers a choice of salvation to all, despite God knowing that all not all will accept it, because that is what such love logically would do - offer to all freely a choice. For God’s love (agape) to be love, it would make an unconditional statement of grace to forgive sins, be transformed, set free, etc to those that believe in Christ alone. Therefore, it had a condition founded firmly in the bible based in John 3:15-16.

That was the basic idea in the use of word unconditional added to define God’s agape love and this was also based in part in how God takes care of tends to the things of life. He makes the rain fall on just and unjust, provides food, etc and etc to all – saint and sinner alike. It was the kind of love that always reminded people that there is a God out there (Romans Chapter one mentions this principle) vying to awaken ones attention and need to return to him. There is more but I am only covering the basic’s here as time permits. Others may feel free to add more.

Nowadays, unconditional agape love has changed to mean unbridled tolerance and acceptance based on mostly storge and phileo kinds of love and has little to do with what it once meant. If God’s agape love was actually meant to be all tolerantly accepting and truly without condition, then Jesus would not have spoken what he said in John 3:15-21 and another said in John 3:36. Jesus would not have said either – that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Light and no can come to God unless by him. Therefore, agape love really does not mean unconditionally tolerant saving all – in fact agape love of God is indeed conditional upon invoking a response to ether accept Christ or reject him totally.
-
-
-