Well, we shouldn't complicate it, of course, but unfortunately Augustine of Hippo did so c. 400 A.D. and the rest is history.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well, we shouldn't complicate it, of course, but unfortunately Augustine of Hippo did so c. 400 A.D. and the rest is history.
Here's a premise for you:
There are no idle words or characters in scripture.
Each and every single word and person in scripture is important and reveals more about God than most of us are capable of understanding.
So....
Even the guy who helped Jesus carrying the crosspiece of the cross has a HUGE story to tell.
His name is given for a reason and repeated several times by the Gospel accounts.
And when that much writing is given to any subject....its ALWAYS important. But we never hear a peep out of a pulpit about him. Which usually suggests controversy. And that ALWAYS makes me look deeper. Your mileage may vary. Everyone's does.
I believe that we do have free will to an extent, when it comes to aalvation it goes in this order
God draws or quickens a person
The person hears or ignores him
the person freely chooses or rejects his invitation for salvation
In my understanding we are free to choose or reject Christ but before this happens we are slaves to sin and the flesh and do not desire the things od the spirit as we live in sin and see it as foolishness
But I have been labeled a calvinist because of this not sure it warrents that but this is the case with me at least
God draws or quickens a person
The person hears or ignores him
the person freely chooses or rejects his invitation for salvation
In my understanding we are free to choose or reject Christ but before this happens we are slaves to sin and the flesh and do not desire the things od the spirit as we live in sin and see it as foolishness
But I have been labeled a calvinist because of this not sure it warrents that but this is the case with me at least
Sounds Good but I have my concerns,
Allowing humans freedom is risky at best, even infrastructures where in a society it is called democracy, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And even in those societies there run by law and order, where you either comply or you get locked up.
Its a nice concept but we see that God does not allow many things, tho it's fair to say hes tolerant, I believe over emphasizing on his tolerance is at best something that leads to idealism.
Nothing in the Bible suggests that God is "outside time" If God were outside time this would remove Him from all that is happening and make Him remote and unresponsive to our prayers because He would be unable to change His mind about anything or to will new things into existence. He would be like the lifeless idols of the world, whose idols, the prophet said, "....are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. 5They have mouths, but cannot speak; they have eyes, but cannot see; 6they have ears, but cannot hear; they have noses, but cannot smell; 7they have hands, but cannot feel; they have feet, but cannot walk; they cannot even clear their throats. 8Those who make them become like them, as do all who trust in them (Psalm 115:5-7)
The name of God as revealed to the Patriarchs and again to Moses was YHWH (Exodus 3:14-15) which refers to a Being which, unlike everything else in creation is TRANSCENDENT because He is not CAUSED by any antecedent but is "eternally self-existent" IN THE PRESENT." The name YHWH is a blend of JAH which refers to God and HOVEH. Since the Hebrews had no present tense form of "BEING" they used the word HOVEH which is derived from the verb to "breathe" This has the effect of bringing the self-existent God into the PRESENT. When the writers of the LXX translated the NAME into Greek they used the PRESENT TENSE PARTICIPLE of the verb of Being which was ο ων,
God is certainly able to change His mind when dealing with human beings who being created in the image of God also have the power of self-determination. God COULD have chosen to rule the universe by controlling every happening but He did not
According to the Bible, God created everything else that exists (Gen. 1:1, Jer. 10:16, John 1:1-3), including the ability by volitional beings (souls) to choose to rebel against His Lordship (Gen. 2:16, Deut. 30:19). Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (Isa. 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (John 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence (GW) or Spirit of God (HS) created (John 1:1-3) and sustains the physical universe (Heb. 1:3), including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (Rom. 5:6-8, Matt. 27:30)! (What God was doing before the creation of time/space is as inconceivable as nothing/atheism.)
Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are God’s ongoing first miracle (Rom. 1:20), and supernatural resurrection to judgment will be the final miracle (Heb. 9:27-28, 1Cor. 15:12-26). If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (John 14:9-25). God desires communion.
Omnipotence is connected with omnitemporality (in Rev. 1:18): “I am the Apha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Romans 1:20 refers to God’s “eternal power”, and Jeremiah 10:10&16 names God “the Lord Almighty”, who is true, living and eternal. God’s infinite power implies omnipresence (per Psa. 139:7-8). God transcends spatial existence while being immanent in all points of space. (Other scriptural support for this view includes 1Kings 8:27, Isa. 66:1, Jer. 23:33, Acts 17:27-28 and Eph. 4:6.)
God’s superiority over His creation must be viewed as a matter of degree or quantitatively in order to preserve the continuity between God and humanity that would be requisite for communication. IOW, God is both inside and outside of time. The Bible teaches that God differs from creatures in kind or qualitatively, so that attaining equality with Deity is impossible (Isa. 55:9, Eph. 3:19). We can be like God (Gen. 3:3), and we can become one with the Son of God (John 17:21-23), but we cannot become God (cf. Humanism).
Regarding God's ability to change His mind: If God cannot do what He has decreed to be evil, then He would not be as free as volitional creatures, and there would be no basis for praising His holiness. Paul (in Rom. 9:16-21) upholds the freedom of God to love or hate as He chooses. Just as God created physical laws such as gravity, so He created moral laws such as “love everyone” and determined a plan of salvation involving the atoning death of Messiah to win our redemption from hell. Thou shalt love (Matt. 22:37-40).
The cliche “might makes right” is true; it is because God is almighty that only He can determine what is right ultimately. There is no super-divine authority that determines God; God is self-determined. The only basis humans have for evaluating whether God is just is understanding how God’s acts and judgments are consistent with the moral principles He has ordained for those created in His image (Rom. 3:22-26). God’s is free because God could have chosen to anoint Satan to embody evil logic/lies rather than Jesus to manifest love and truth (John 1:14, Phil. 2:9-11), and this earthly existence would be hell (Rev. 19:11-13, 20:7-10 & 21:6-8).
If God were ever to change His mind, it would mean that God is tricky and that morality is ultimately arbitrary. Thus, ultimate reality would indeed be a farce. This is why we should be eternally grateful that God has decreed loving to be right, and He promises never to change (Mal. 3:6). Let us praise God in the spirit of Psalm 66:1: “Shout with joy to God, all the earth! Sing to the glory of his name; Offer him glory and praise!”
From
https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html
What is Molinism and is it biblical?
Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.
The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.
1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.
2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.
3. Creative command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.
4. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.
Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.
According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.
Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal.
Is Molinism biblical?
Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, Matthew 11:21–24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Here, Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” This type of “if-then” is an example of divine knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, Molinism sees this verse as evidence that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.
Strictly speaking, Molinism is a view that cannot be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The same is true of other philosophical-theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. Middle knowledge is a philosophical concept that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the same time, it can be evaluated on multiple levels, including biblically and philosophically.
Molinism is often criticized by both Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty. Arminians claim that, if God is in control of who is or is not saved, then free will is merely an illusion. Molinists would argue that both sovereignty and free will are biblically represented and real, and that middle knowledge allows both a God who is completely in control and a humanity who is completely free.
Not all people feel Molinism is the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11), even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10–11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24–26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21–22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33–36).
That being said, it should be noted that Molinism would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level where Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism disagree most is in interpreting doctrines such as total depravity and limited atonement, in light of these other ideas.
https://www.gotquestions.org/molinism.html
What is Molinism and is it biblical?
Molinism is named for the 16th-century Jesuit, Luis de Molina. Molinism is a system of thought that seeks to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. The heart of Molinism is the principle that God is completely sovereign and man is also free in a libertarian sense. Molinism partly seeks to avoid so-called “theological determinism”: the view that God decrees who will be saved or damned without any meaningful impact of their own free choice. Today’s highest-profile defenders of Molinism are William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga.
The primary distinctive of Molinism is the affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scientia media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.
1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths: all things which “can be.” In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths. This knowledge is independent of God’s will, a point few if any theologians would dispute.
2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge consists of what philosophers call counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. These are facts about what any creature with a free will would freely do in any circumstance in which it could be placed. This knowledge, like natural knowledge, is independent of God’s will.
3. Creative command – this is the “moment” where God actually acts. Between His knowledge of all that is or could be, and all that actually comes to be, is God’s purposeful intervention and creation.
4. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create: all things that “actually are.” God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is. This knowledge is completely dependent on God’s will.
Using middle knowledge, Molinism attempts to show that all of God’s knowledge is self-contained, but it is ordered so as to allow for the possibility of man’s free will. In other words, man is completely free, but God is also completely sovereign—He is absolutely in control of all that happens, and yet humanity’s choices are not coerced.
According to Molinism, God omnisciently knows what you would have been like had you lived in Africa instead of Australia, or had a car accident that paralyzed you at age 9. He knows how the world would have been changed had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated. More importantly, He knows who would choose to be saved and who would not, in each of those varying circumstances.
Accordingly, it is out of this (middle) knowledge that God chooses to create. God has middle knowledge of all feasible worlds, and He chooses to create the world that corresponds to His ultimate desires. Therefore, while a person is truly free, God is truly in control of who is or is not saved. Molinists differ on how God defines His underlying desires. For example, some believe God is seeking the maximum number of people to be saved. Others believe God creates in order to maximize some other divine goal.
Is Molinism biblical?
Molinists point to various texts to establish that God has “middle knowledge.” For example, Matthew 11:21–24 where Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida. Here, Jesus tells those cities that “if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” This type of “if-then” is an example of divine knowledge of what would happen given a different set of circumstances. As such, Molinism sees this verse as evidence that the doctrine of middle knowledge is true.
Strictly speaking, Molinism is a view that cannot be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The same is true of other philosophical-theological systems such as Calvinism or Arminianism. Middle knowledge is a philosophical concept that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. At the same time, it can be evaluated on multiple levels, including biblically and philosophically.
Molinism is often criticized by both Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty. Arminians claim that, if God is in control of who is or is not saved, then free will is merely an illusion. Molinists would argue that both sovereignty and free will are biblically represented and real, and that middle knowledge allows both a God who is completely in control and a humanity who is completely free.
Not all people feel Molinism is the best way to think about God’s sovereignty and human free will. The Bible teaches that God is sovereign over all things (Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 10:29; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11), even human decisions (Proverbs 20:24; 21:1). Although God does not stir men to sin (James 1:13), He is still working everything, from individuals to nations, to the end that He has willed (Isaiah 46:10–11). God’s purposes do not depend upon man (Acts 17:24–26). Nor does God discover or learn (1 John 3:20; Job 34:21–22; Psalm 50:11; Proverbs 15:3). All things are decreed by God’s infinitely wise counsel (Romans 11:33–36).
That being said, it should be noted that Molinism would agree with everything said in the above paragraph. It is not on this level where Calvinists and Molinists disagree. Where Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism disagree most is in interpreting doctrines such as total depravity and limited atonement, in light of these other ideas.
When did time begin? Do you even know what it is? How can God know the end from the beginning? How can Lord Jesus be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world? How could God know that Adam would disobey and eat the forbidden fruit? How could God know the future if He is bound by time?
All "isms" are problematic. God did not give us a book of systematic theology. Too often the systematic approach lends itself to being influenced by preconceived notions of what is sound doctrine. It also feeds the intellect and not the spirit of the believer.
Since God has always existed throughout all time, it seems reasonable that time has no beginning but is an attribute of God.
I would say that time is a scale by which we describe the relative periods between prior and subsequent events.
Since God knows He will always exist, He can plan many projects beginning at any time (t1), and by which He intends to achieve an envisioned outcome at the project's end at time some later time (t2).
By having an attitude at the foundation of the world that He is prepared to do whatever it takes to prove His love for his creatures and win their allegiance, which later entailed Him surrendering to death on a cross to fulfil a type of described in advance of His sacrifice, He could be called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
How do you know that God knew that Adam would disobey and eat the fruit. Scripture doesn't say He knew that that would happen.
We know some of the the future, although we are bound by time. Now? By planning for the future and then manipulating the present to set up ourselves to fulfil those plans when the future arrives.
We use this figure of speech as humans. "If your mother were alive to hear you say that, she would twist your ears off." Are we claiming exhaustive middle knowledge, knowledge of all possible hypotheticals and counterfactuals? Is that what we are doing when we use this figure of speech? Why are you interpreting the words,
"If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes," as intended literally, when we don't consider them literally when a human uses that construction as a figure of speech?
There seem to be Bible students who insist on making literal in God's mouth, expressions which, in the mouth of men, we would interpret as figurative. And who also insist on making figurative in God's mouth, expressions which, in the mouth of men, we would interpret as literal Odd.
B
Blue155
Guest
God is both inside as well as outside of time. He has prophets tell of future events down to the hour.
God is also immutable. Meaning God does not change whatsoever. God is the same today as He was thousands of years ago...meaning same God for both covenants.
This has been the belief for thousands of years. This is why a HUGE part of Judaism and Eastern Cultures does not allow for change over the centuries. "God has his friends, you do as they did in order to tag along with their relationship. You don't have one....they did. So you cannot start a new style of worship. You continue their style and manner of worship over the centuries as that is the only fitting worship that would begin to gain and be worthy of God's attention. "
This whole concept of a "Personal Relationship " with God through Jesus is new...as in New Covenant. (Scary as all get out IMHO) And it's not all that simple as people would like to believe because man is intrinsically evil. People have to change in order to even start to have a relationship with God. People are also extremely talented with self-delusion.
Which is why Jesus also told that famous verse "Away from me you doers of iniquity, I never knew you"
But the essential truth is that God will never be surprised by a surprise party. No pleasant surprises in Heaven. Jesus had to come among us to get those. But I'm sure He didn't like the disgusting/bad surprises either. (People are inventive)
No. Actuaries calculate the probabilities thof when I will most likely die. But knowing the probabilities does not allow them to accurately predict exactly when and where and how I will die. God knowing all possible event chains does not allow Him to know exactly which event chain will occur. unless He predetermines the entire event chain. I do not think that the theory of God knowing counterfactuals delivers Molinists from also being predeterminists.
Like I said before...
I have concerns as well. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and etc.
God has definitely been manipulative of humans before. And I am not arguing that. (Israelites plundering the Egyptians and Babylonians before on their way to Israel to build their home)
But....
There exists this thing called a "free will" offering in the Old Covenant. We aren't robots just doing as programmed. We obviously have free will and exercise it. Usually we, as humans, use it to perform wickedness....but not always. Especially when we make careful effort not to.
Either God is omniscient or He isn't. If God is not omniscient then He isn't Sovereign and is unworthy of worship. Everything begins to unravel that we know about God to be true including His prophesies of future events....some down to the hour of precision.
The free will offering you speak about is also volunteering in another translation, which means when a person volunteers something for God, it most likely means it's because God has appealed to them in there hearts, and his appeal has remained in there hearts, where his willing appeal likely means his appeal has been tied in there hearts. And such an appeal being tied in your heart would most likely appeal to being what God wants you to be, and if that means means being a vessel for God, then that means giving your life to God and letting his life live in you.
There definitely something wonderful about being an instrument for God.
That's how i see it.
I have no idea what that means either but based on Gideon’s response looks like another free will discussion.
How exciting!
Molinism is the idea that God has middle-knowledge, knowledge of counter-factuals. God knew what every person would freely do in each given circumstance and God used that middle-knowledge prior to creation to predestine all that come to pass while people are still completely free.ah thanks for that sounds interesting, I'll have a think about it lol, I don't think I'll be able to resist
It is trying to reconcile predestination and free will.
Well according to his word God pricks the conscience of every deed commited by a sinner whether saved or unsaved. And according to his word his moral laws are written in the hearts of the unsaved.. I would of thought such a moral law written on a persons heart would warn them not to sin before they sin, giving them a choice beforehand from God
I just wonder how does molinism fit into this,