ROSES vs TULIP

While I was doing research for my Philosophical Theology essay, I came across the book I've been waiting for (without knowing it) - Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (published in 2010) by Kenneth Keathley, Professor of Theology and Dean of Graduate Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina.

I also discovered that Keathley gave a presentation on 'A Molinist View of Election or How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian' at the Building Bridges: Southern Baptists and Calvinism Conference in Nov 07. In fact, I think it was Caleb who mentioned this conference to me a while back.


In Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, Keathley argues for a ROSES [as opposed to TULIP] model of salvation, seen through the lens of Molinism. ROSES is an acronym that stands for Radical Depravity, Overcoming Grace, Sovereign Election, Eternal Life and Singular Redemption. Molinism, simply put, argues that God is able to perfectly accomplish His sovereign will through genuinely free creatures by means of His omniscience.

Incidentally, Keathley suggests that ROSES could be called "three-point Calvinism" (T, U and P), because it rejects limited atonement and irresistible grace. This is essentially the position I hold, two/three-point Calvinism (depending on how you define 'unconditional election'). Again, I would describe myself as a two-point Calvinist (if there is such a thing):

Total Depravity - Yes
Unconditional Election - No*
Limited Atonement - No
Irresistible Grace - No
Perseverance of the Saints - Yes

*More precisely, 'election is unconditional for God and conditional for man' (Geisler), the sole condition being faith in Christ alone. Keathley affirms that 'election is unconditional but reprobation is conditional. God actively ordains the salvation of the elect, but he only permits the damnation of the reprobate'.

Ironically, I don't think I'll refer to this book in my Philosophical Theology essay after all. But I'll definitely read it 'for my soul' - as my philosophy tutor, David Efird, likes to say.

*****

Molinism places mystery where it should be located, i.e. in God's infinite attributes rather than in his character. Critics of Molinism, particularly open theists, contend that the Molinist fails to give an adequate explanation of how it is that God infallibly knows what choices free creatures are going to make. This is generally known as "the grounding objection", because it questions whether Molinism provides any grounds or basis for God's middle knowledge.

Molinists generally reply by arguing that God innately knows all things by virtue of his omniscience, and that it is simply in the nature of God to have infallible knowledge of all things. The Molinist advocate affirms, but may not be able to explain to everyone's satisfaction, that God has exhaustive foreknowledge of what creatures with libertarian freedom will do.

If Molinists have to appeal to mystery at this point, it is doing so at a better and more reasonable point. I'd rather have the Molinist difficulty of not being able to explain how God's omniscience operates, instead of the Calvinist difficulty of making God appear to be the author of sin. In other words, Molinism's difficulties are with God's infinite attributes rather than his holy and righteous nature.

Implicit in the grounding objection is the denial that God has the ability to create creatures with libertarian freedom (of the morally significant kind). This places a surprising constraint on the scope of God's sovereignty. The Molinist embraces a richer conception of God's sovereignty, since God exercises meticulous providence despite the existence of free creatures!

One of the things we understand the least about God is how his infinite attributes operate - his omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. So why place the mystery of reprobation in God's character? Molinists do not claim to know God's purposes exhaustively, but one of the things most clearly revealed about God is his holiness, righteousness and goodness. Would we not rather place the mystery within the transcendent, infinite, inexhaustible omniscience of God rather than the revealed character and purposes of God?

- Kenneth Keathley, A Molinist View of Election or How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian

Links: Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 1) (20 Mar 10), Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 2) (21 Mar 10), Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 3) (23 Mar 10)