Man's Response

The reception of God's grace is not by imposition of an overwhelming omnipotent sovereignty without willingness on man's part. One could even fail to accept and properly cooperate with God's grace. There is no question that God sincerely desired to bless Israel. Nevertheless, she refused His grace and placed herself instead under His judgment by her rebellion and idolatry.

God's desire for Israel, as for all men, was good: "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil..." (Jeremiah 29:11). However, because the blessings of His grace were contingent upon Israel's faith and faithfulness, she reaped instead the judgment of God.

We are even told that by their rebellion they "limited the Holy One of Israel" (Psalm 78:41). Think of that - limiting the omnipotent, sovereign God, which Calvinists say is impossible! Indeed, we are told that the rabbis "rejected the counsel of God against themselves" (Luke 7:30) - but there is no hint that they thereby annulled God's sovereignty or gained control over God.

Paul intimates that Christians can also limit the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives and His empowerment for ministry. The Christian life and victory is not alone by sovereign power, but the believers' faith and obedience as "labourers together with God" (1 Corinthians 3:9) is essential: "Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily" (Colossians 1:29); "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13).

God truly and powerfully works within the believer and we can do nothing but by the leading and empowering of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, however, we must give ourselves willingly to the work of God through us.

- Dave Hunt, What Love Is This?

"But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me." - 1 Corinthians 15:10 (NIV)

God's Sovereign Choice

God did not cause Pharaoh to sin (nor has He ever done so for anyone). Rather, He arranged circumstances and events to put this particular man, whose every quirk and wicked impulse He foreknew in detail, to be in authority at that particular time, in order to use his evil to fulfill His will.

Is an act of that nature the kind of Calvinistic "sovereignty" to which we object? Not at all. We affirm as biblical and reasonable both God's ability and His sovereign right to arrange circumstances and to position on the stage of life those players whom He foreknows, so that His will is effected in human affairs - and to do so without violating their will or encouraging (much less becoming accessory to) their crimes.

- Dave Hunt, What Love Is This?

"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." - Genesis 50:20 (NIV)

Prayer Changes Things

We had an interesting discussion at cell group this evening on whether prayer changes things.

Does prayer change things? One view is that prayer doesn't change things - it simply changes us and aligns us to God's will. But this assumes that our prayers and God's will are mutually exclusive.

(Then why pray? Because God commands us to pray? Of course, God commands us to pray. But surely God commands us to pray precisely because prayer changes things, not in spite of the fact that prayer doesn't change things!)

Why assume that our prayers and God's will are mutually exclusive? Why not rather say that our prayers and God's will are related? In particular, our prayers are the means by which God accomplishes His will - His good, pleasing and perfect will.

For example, it is God's will that 'we may gain a heart of wisdom' (Psalm 90:12, NIV). At the same time, God commands us to ask Him for wisdom.

"If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." - James 1:5 (NIV)

Praying for wisdom is the means by which God gives us wisdom. This is not to say that God only gives us wisdom when we ask for it. Certainly, God in His sovereignty and mercy also gives us wisdom even when we do not ask for it. The point is that God hears our prayers when we ask Him for wisdom.

Indeed, James goes on to say that 'you do not have, because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures' (James 4:2-3, NIV).

An Objection

One might object that this view - that our prayers are the means by which God accomplishes His will - makes God dependent on us. However, there is a difference between a) God changing His mind based on His latest knowledge of our free choices as they come to pass and b) God working all things for His glory and our good based on His infallible foreknowledge of our free choices from eternity. The first position is the open theist position and the second position is the middle knowledge position.

The open theist position holds that the future is open (hence the name "open theism") because God cannot know the future. On the other hand, the middle knowledge position holds that God is in control of all things because He knows the future and works our free choices - including our prayers - for His glory and our good. (Calvinism holds that God is in control of all things because He causes our choices, which are not free.)

Personally, I believe that prayer changes things. Not because God depends on our prayers, but because God responds to our prayers!

The Middle Knowledge Position

God's knowledge of what we could freely choose to do in all possible worlds is His natural knowledge, His knowledge of all things by the very nature of who He is.

God's knowledge of what we will do in this particular world - the world which God has created and we live in - is His free knowledge, His knowledge of the world which He has freely created. And this particular world is the best possible world in which all things work 'for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose' (Romans 8:28, NIV). In creating the best possible world, God works our free choices for His glory and our good.

God's knowledge of what we would freely do in all possible worlds is His middle knowledge, His knowledge of what happens between His natural knowledge and His free knowledge (hence the name "middle knowledge").

*Knowing what we would freely do in all possible worlds, God freely creates the best possible world in which our free choices only ever work for His glory and our good.*

Links: Prayer According to God's Will (5 Dec 10), A Molinist View of Prayer (31 Dec 10)

Determinism and Free Will

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism; the way you play it is free will." - Jawaharlal Nehru, First Prime Minister of India (1947-1964)

"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." - Acts 17:26-27 (NIV)

Genuine Faith

The nature of genuine faith fits with Jesus' condemnation of any request for "fire from heaven" to compel people to follow him. The underlying reason is that true faith in God must be voluntary. If faith is to be genuine, it can never be compelled by force. This provides another reason why governments should never try to compel adherence to any particular religion.

A clear respect for people's individual will and voluntary decisions is seen throughout the ministry of Jesus and the apostles. They always taught people and reasoned with them and then appealed to them to make a personal decision to follow Jesus as the true Messiah (see Matthew 11:28-30; Acts 28:23; Romans 10:9-10; Revelation 22:17).

Genuine religious belief cannot be compelled by force, whether by fire from heaven or by the force of civil government, and Christians should have no part in any attempt to use government power to compel people to support or follow Christianity or any other religion.

But what about the laws God gave to Israel in the Old Testament, especially in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? Those laws required people to give tithe money to support the Jewish priesthood and temple services, and they required people to make certain specified sacrifices to the Lord every year (see Leviticus 23). They even ordered severe punishments for anyone who tried to teach another religion (see Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

But these laws were only for the nation of Israel for that particular time. They were never imposed on any of the surrounding nations. They were part of the Old Testament system that came to an end when Jesus established a "new covenant" for God's people in the New Testament. Such a system was ended by Jesus' teaching that some areas of life were "things that belong to Caesar" and some areas of life were "things that belong to God". Such Old Testament laws enforcing religion were never intended for people after Jesus established his "new covenant", or for any time after that.

- Wayne Grudem, Politics - According to the Bible

Amen! I would just add that if God does not ordain governments to compel faith, how much more does God Himself not compel faith (by means of irresistible grace)!

(Incidentally, Calvin believed that God does ordain governments to compel faith. But that's a different story.)

To be sure, Christ's love compels us to believe. However, Christ's love does not compel our belief. Grace is compelling but resistible.

"For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died." - 2 Corinthians 5:14 (NIV)

Moreover, Christ's love compels all to believe precisely because Christ died for all, not only for some. (The alternative is to say that Christ only died for some, and therefore only compels some to believe.) The atonement is unlimited in extent and limited in effect.

Again, the question is not whether the atonement is limited in effect. (It is.) Rather, the question is why the atonement is limited in effect. Is the atonement limited in effect because it is not given to all, or is the atonement limited in effect because it is not received by all? In other words, is the atonement limited in effect because God does not want all to be saved, or is the atonement limited in effect because not all want to be saved?

"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." - Acts 17:30-31 (NIV)

Seeking the Truth in Love

Charles Simeon (CS): Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

John Wesley (JW): Yes, I do indeed.

CS: And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

JW: Yes, solely through Christ.

CS: But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

JW: No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

CS: Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

JW: No.

CS: What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

JW: Yes, altogether.

CS: And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

JW: Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

CS: Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

- John Piper, A 250-yr-old Model: How Calvinist Simeon Related to Wesley

What about free will?

The question of God's sovereignty and its relation to human freedom troubles many people. If God directs everything, how can man be a free agent and therefore morally responsible? If God knows in advance what man is going to do, what choice has he in the matter? Admittedly there are profound aspects to this question which are not altogether clear, but it is helpful to keep several things in mind:

First, man's will is always a relatively small part of any given circumstance. Man has no control over where he is born, into what family, or with what abilities or disabilities, advantages or disadvantages. He is subject to many influences beyond his control. He is rather like a baby in a playpen. He has real freedom, but only within certain prescribed bounds. Francis Schaeffer points out that when someone throws a man a ball, he can either catch it or let it fall. Barring some physical defect, he is not so limited that he has no power of decision or choice.

Second, God's foreknowledge (which is not to be confused with His election or with predestination) is not in itself the cause of what happens. For example, God foreknew that Demas would forsake the Apostle Paul for love of this world, but God's foreknowledge did not predispose Demas to turn back, much less compel him to do so. Demas acted in freedom; he made his own personal choice, under no compulsion.

Again, God foreknew that Saul would receive Christ and become Paul the Apostle, but on the Damascus Road Saul exercised his own will in answering the Lord's summons. God foreknows your decisions before you make them - He knows what you will do and where you will go - but this foreknowledge does not interfere in the slightest with your complete freedom to act.

- Paul E. Little, Know What You Believe

A Molinist View of Samson's Marriage

Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. When he returned, he said to his father and mother, "I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife."

His father and mother replied, "Isn't there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?"

But Samson said to his father, "Get her for me. She's the right one for me." (His parents did not know that this was from the LORD, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.)

- Judges 14:1-4 (NIV)

Was Samson's marriage from the LORD? Was Samson's marriage part of God's will? In one sense, Samson's marriage was not part of God's will. In another sense, Samson's marriage was part of God's will.

Samson's marriage was not part of God's will of command. (God commanded the Israelites not to marry non-Israelites.) At the same time, Samson's marriage was part of God's will of decree. (God used Samson's marriage as an occasion to confront the Philistines.) Indeed, everything is part of God's will of decree.

God did not predestine Samson to marry a Philistine woman, as though Samson could not have done otherwise. (It makes no sense to say that God commanded the Israelites not to marry non-Israelites, and yet predestined Samson to marry a Philistine woman.) Rather, God predestined that Samson would freely marry a Philistine woman, even though Samson could have done otherwise.

God did not predestine (cause) Samson to marry a Philistine woman. Rather, God predestined (decreed) that Samson would freely marry a Philistine woman.

"It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves." - William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience

It was up to Samson to choose whether he would marry a Philistine woman, but it was up to God whether Samson was able to choose whether he would marry a Philistine woman.

Knowing that Samson would freely marry a Philistine woman under certain circumstances, God decreed/ordained/predestined that these circumstances (under which Samson would freely marry a Philistine woman) would come to pass - in His sovereignty and for His glory.

Again,

1. God gives us the opportunity to enter into relationships - and enter into relationships freely!

2. God knows whether (and under what circumstances) we would enter into relationships - and who we would enter into relationships with!

3. Knowing all of the above, God works all things according to His will.

"This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church." - Ephesians 5:32 (NIV)

God knows what we will do and how things will work out, but it is still up to us to arrange our own life. Only after all of the arrangements have been made can we say confidently that this is what God had originally ordained.

- Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage

Links: A Molinist View of (the UK General) Election (7 May 10), A Molinist View of Relationships (19 May 10), The First and Ultimate Matchmaker (4 Jun 10)

Grace and Growth

"What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow." - 1 Corinthians 3:5-7 (NIV)

"Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this." - 2 Timothy 2:7 (NIV)

"Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." - Jude 21 (NIV)

Links: By Grace Alone (23 Apr 10), Grace-Driven Effort (11 Jun 10)

Grace-Driven Effort

Salvation is by grace alone (according to Scripture alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and to the glory of God alone). At the same time, God calls us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling - not because His grace is not sufficient, but precisely because His grace is sufficient for us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (for it is Him who works in us to will and to act according to His good purpose)!

Total Depravity

One of the most striking evidences of sinful human nature lies in the universal propensity for downward drift. In other words, it takes thought, resolve, energy, and effort to bring about reform. In the grace of God, sometimes human beings display such virtues. But where such virtues are absent, the drift is invariably toward compromise, comfort, indiscipline, sliding disobedience, and decay that advances, sometimes at a crawl and sometimes at a gallop, across generations.

People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; we drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; we drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated.

- D. A. Carson, For the Love of God (Volume Two)

Depravity is total. But grace abounds!

"For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-10 (NIV)

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." - Philippians 2:12-13 (NIV)

"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me." - Colossians 1:28-29 (NIV)

Links: By Grace Alone (23 Apr 10), Grace and Growth (29 Jun 10)

The First and Ultimate Matchmaker

There is no doubt, the talmudic Sages conclude, that God Himself had to be the first and ultimate shadkhan (matchmaker). Who else could blend two disparate personalities so that they cleave together "as one flesh"? Did he not arrange the union of Adam and Eve? The conclusion was irresistible, and it was written no fewer than five times in midrashic literature: "Marriages are made in Heaven."

This is not a romantic American cliche, but a serious statement of predestination. God determines which people will unite successfully and serve as vehicles for human survival. Does not the Talmud say: "Forty days before the birth of a child, a heavenly voice proclaims: 'The daughter of so-and-so will be married to so-and-so?'" The Talmud even illustrates how this idea induced a spirit of quietism in some people, with the tale of a young woman who refused to wear pretty clothes, jewelry, or cosmetics to attract a husband, because she believed that - regardless of what she might do - her suitor would be brought to her by God.

This raises a thorny question: If the selection of a mate is preordained, why is it necessary to go through the elaborate charade of selecting a suitable mate? And why do so many marriages fail?

Rabbi Akiva responds to a similar question of predestination by saying, "Everything is known to God, yet free will is given to man." God knows what we will do and how things will work out, but it is still up to us to arrange our own life. Only after all of the arrangements have been made can we say confidently that this is what God had originally ordained.

- Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage

Links: A Molinist View of (the UK General) Election (7 May 10), A Molinist View of Relationships (19 May 10), A Molinist View of Samson's Marriage (30 Jun 10)

A Molinist View of Relationships

In a previous post, A Molinist View of (the UK General) Election, I wrote that according to Molinism,

1. Knowing what tempts us and how much grace we need (to not be tempted beyond what we can bear), God gives us the ability to resist temptation (by His grace) or resist His grace.

2. God knows whether (and under what circumstances) we would resist temptation or resist His grace.

3. Knowing whether (and under what circumstances) we would resist temptation or resist His grace, God works all things according to His will.

Grounded in God

Our view of relationships should be grounded in our view of God. Indeed, our view of everything should be grounded in our view of God.

If we believe that we don't have the God-given ability to choose to enter into a relationship with God, how much more should we believe that we don't have the God-given ability to choose to enter into a relationship with someone else!

If we believe that we have the God-given ability to choose to enter into a relationship with someone else, how much more should we believe that we have the God-given ability to choose to enter into a relationship with God, the perfect relationship!

Of course, to say that we have the God-given ability to choose to enter into a relationship with God is not to say that God does not predestine (Arminianism). God does predestine.

The question is not whether God predestines. The question is whether God foreknows what He predestines (5-point Calvinism) or whether God predestines what He foreknows (Molinism).

Arminianism - God does not predestine.
5-point Calvinism - God foreknows what He predestines.
Molinism - God predestines what He foreknows.

"It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves." - William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience

"The Lord predicted Peter would deny him and by the use of middle knowledge ordained the scenario that infallibly guaranteed Peter would do so. However, God did not make or cause Peter to do as he did." - Kenneth Keathley, A Molinist View of Election or How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian

Molinism and Relationships

Applying the Molinist view to relationships,

1. God gives us the opportunity to enter into relationships - and enter into relationships freely!
2. God knows whether (and under what circumstances) we would enter into relationships - and who we would enter into relationships with!
3. Knowing all of the above, God works all things according to His will.

"This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church." - Ephesians 5:32 (NIV)

Links: A Molinist View of (the UK General) Election (7 May 10), The First and Ultimate Matchmaker (4 Jun 10), A Molinist View of Samson's Marriage (30 Jun 10)

A Molinist View of (the UK General) Election

Although I'm not a UK citizen, being a Commonwealth citizen I could vote in yesterday's UK general election. And I'm a Molinist.

According to Molinism,

1. Knowing what tempts us and how much grace we need (to not be tempted beyond what we can bear), God gives us the ability to resist temptation (by His grace) or resist His grace.

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13 (NIV)

2. God knows whether (and under what circumstances) we would resist temptation or resist His grace.

For example, Jesus knew that 'if the miracles that were performed in [Korazin and Bethsaida] had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes' (Matthew 11:21, NIV). Of course, the point is not that the miracles that were performed in Korazin and Bethsaida were not performed in Tyre and Sidon. The point is that even if the miracles that were performed in Korazin and Bethsaida were not performed in Tyre and Sidon, Tyre and Sidon - under the circumstances which did obtain - could have chosen to repent but nevertheless chose not to repent.

Indeed, God knew that Judas would betray Jesus under certain circumstances. Again, the point is not that Judas might not have betrayed Jesus under different circumstances. The point is that even if Judas would not have betrayed Jesus under different circumstances, Judas - under the circumstances which did obtain - could have chosen not to betray Jesus but nevertheless chose to betray Jesus.

3. Knowing whether (and under what circumstances) we would resist temptation or resist His grace, God works all things according to His will.

Knowing that Judas would betray Jesus under certain circumstances, God created a world in which these circumstances would obtain and Judas would betray Jesus - leading to Jesus' death and resurrection for our justification.

Turning to the UK general election,

1. God gives us the opportunity to vote - and vote freely!
2. God knows whether (and under what circumstances) we would vote - and which party we would vote for!
3. Knowing all of the above, God works all things according to His will.

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." - Romans 13:1 (NIV)

*****

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: A Molinist View of Relationships (19 May 10), The First and Ultimate Matchmaker (4 Jun 10), A Molinist View of Samson's Marriage (30 Jun 10)

By Grace Alone

"Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." - Romans 4:4-5 (NIV)

We do not earn our salvation as an obligation. We receive our salvation as a gift. We do not work for our salvation. We work out our salvation.

(Of course, just because salvation is a gift does not mean that it is only given to some. On the contrary, salvation is given to all and only received by some.)

"For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them - yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-10 (NIV)

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed - not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence - continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." - Philippians 2:12-13 (NIV)

"We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me." - Colossians 1:28-29 (NIV)

*****

If salvation is by grace alone, we cannot earn it. If we cannot earn our salvation, what makes us think that we can earn anything else? If we cannot earn our salvation, how much more can we not earn a degree, a job, a husband/wife?

Links: Grace-Driven Effort (11 Jun 10), Grace and Growth (29 Jun 10)

Another Anti-Calvinist Argument

(1) God commands all to repent only if He makes it possible for all to repent.
(2) God commands all to repent.
(3) Therefore, God makes it possible for all to repent.

(4) God makes it possible for all to repent only if Jesus died for all.
(5) God makes it possible for all to repent - from (3).
(6) Therefore, Jesus died for all.

(7) Limited Atonement is true only if Jesus did not die for all.
(8) Jesus died for all - from (6).
(9) Therefore, Limited Atonement is not true.

(10) 5-point Calvinism is true only if Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints are true.
(11) Limited Atonement is not true - from (9).
(12) Therefore, 5-point Calvinism is not true.

Link: An Anti-Calvinist Argument (13 Feb 10)

Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 3)

If Molinism were simply the overlaying of a philosophical grid on top of Scripture, then it would be a very bad idea and should not be done. Rather, Molinism is a precise philosophical system that arose out of a commitment to certain principles clearly taught in the Bible: (1) God can and has created beings with significant and genuine creaturely freedom; (2) God can and does exhaustively know what free creatures would do in every possible scenario; and (3) God can and does sovereignly and meticulously accomplish His will through His omniscience - namely that aspect of His knowledge we call middle knowledge.

The Bible teaches a high view of divine sovereignty: God has exhaustive knowledge of all things, meticulous control over all things, sovereign freedom above all things, and yet at the same time He is perfectly free from the sin and evil of this world. Scripture also declares a robust view of human freedom, choice, and agency: there are contingent events; certain contingent events are conditioned by our decisions; and God uses His counterfactual knowledge of our free decisions to accomplish His will. Molinism - and its advocacy of the concept of middle knowledge - is the one view of providence that holds to a consistent view of both biblical teachings.

- Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach

Links: ROSES vs TULIP (19 Mar 10), 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 2)

So why do I embrace Molinism? Because, like the Calvinist, I am convinced the Bible teaches that (1) God is sovereign and His control is meticulous; (2) man is incapable of contributing to his salvation or of even desiring to be saved; (3) God through Christ is Author, Accomplisher, and Completer of salvation (i.e. salvation is a work of grace from beginning to end); (4) individual election is unconditional; and (5) the believer is secure in Christ.

However, like the Arminian, I am also convinced the Bible teaches that (6) God is not the Author, Origin, or Cause of sin (and to say that He is, is not just hyper-Calvinism but blasphemy); (7) God genuinely desires the salvation of all humanity; (8) Christ genuinely died for all people; (9) God's grace is resistible (this means that regeneration does not precede conversion); and (10) humans genuinely choose, are causal agents, and are responsible for the sin of rejecting Christ (this means that the alternative of accepting salvation was genuinely available to the unbeliever). As we will see, there is only one position that coherently holds to all ten affirmations, and that is Molinism.

- Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach

Links: ROSES vs TULIP (19 Mar 10), Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 1) (20 Mar 10), Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 3) (23 Mar 10)

Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 1)

Calvinism has at least three dilemmas: (1) reconciling God's sovereign election of individuals with his genuine desire for the salvation of all; (2) adhering to a deterministic view of sovereignty without blaming God for the fall of Adam; and (3) adhering to limited atonement and irresistible grace while also affirming that the gospel is genuinely offered to everyone. There is an alternative to Calvinism - called Molinism - which provides answers to these three quandaries that are both biblical and logically consistent.

Most Christians have heard about Calvinism, but not as many are familiar with Molinism. I suspect some who embrace Calvinism do so because they recognise the Bible teaches that God is sovereign and Calvinism is the only theological system of which they are aware that attempts to do justice to God's sovereignty. Calvinism often wins by default, especially when Arminianism is understood to be the alternative. Simply put, Molinism argues that God perfectly accomplishes His will in free creatures through the use of His omniscience. It reconciles two crucial biblical truths: (1) God exercises sovereign control over all His creation, and (2) human beings make free choices and decisions for which they must give account.

So what is Molinism? Named after its first proponent, Luis Molina (1535-1600), a sixteenth-century Jesuit priest, Molinism holds to a strong notion of God's control and an equally firm affirmation of human freedom. In other words Molinism simultaneously holds to a Calvinistic view of a comprehensive divine sovereignty and to a version of free will (called libertarianism) generally associated with Arminianism. As Doug Geivett argues, the fact that Molinism is the one proposal that tries to hold simultaneously to both is a point in its favour, since both "are prima facie true".

Molinism teaches that God exercises His sovereignty primarily through His omniscience, and that He infallibly knows what free creatures would do in any given situation. In this way God sovereignly controls all things, while humans are also genuinely free. God is able to accomplish His will through the use of what Molinists label His middle knowledge...

So Molinism formulates a radical "compatibilism" - a Calvinist view of divine sovereignty and an Arminian view of human freedom - and for this reason is often attacked from both sides of the aisle. Calvinists such as Bruce Ware and Richard Muller consider Molinism to be a type of Arminianism, while Roger Olsen and Robert Picirilli (both card-carrying Arminians) reject Molinism for being too Calvinistic. However, Molinism is attractive to many leading Christian philosophers of our day, such as Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Flint, and William Lane Craig. One of the main reasons is that it demonstrates it is logically possible to affirm divine sovereignty and human freedom in a consistent manner. Even open theist William Hasker, who is no friend to Molinism, admits, "If you are committed to a 'strong' view of providence, according to which, down to the smallest detail, 'things are as they are because God knowingly decided to create such a world', and yet you also wish to maintain a libertarian conception of free will - if this is what you want, then Molinism is the only game in town."

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I want because I believe Molinism is faithful to the biblical witness. The Molinist model is the only game in town for anyone who wishes to affirm a high view of God's sovereignty while holding to a genuine definition of human choice, freedom, and responsibility. William Lane Craig goes so far as to describe the Molinist notion of middle knowledge as "the single most fruitful theological concept I have ever encountered". As we apply Molinism to the vexing questions of predestination and election, the reasons for his enthusiasm will become evident.

- Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach

Links: ROSES vs TULIP (19 Mar 10), Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 2) (21 Mar 10), Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Part 3) (23 Mar 10)

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)

Prevenient Grace

Consider the woman who throws a rope to a drowning man. Suppose that no further activity on her part determines either that he grasp or that he reject the rope. Should he grasp it, we might well say that his doing so was a free action. But it would be preposterous to say that the process of his being saved from drowning began with his grasping the rope. Clearly, it began with her offering him the rope in the first place.

- Thomas P. Flint, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account