Love Dr. Keathley and his book Salvation and Sovereignty. When i was in seminary at a different school writing a paper on predestination and free will, I sent him an email and he sent me a long, greatly informative email, which he didn't have to do because I was not a student under him or at his school. Brilliant and kind theologian who has been a big influence on me.
I’m reading the book of concord now. I have such a hard time disagreeing with it. and it’s helpful for me because I don’t want nicer to rheology to be a modern invention. Luther helps me keep my soteriology historic. On a side not, I have not even begun to scratch the surface of Luthers writings. Would would you know of a place where I could find Luther suggesting that the grace of God is resistible in the work of salvation?
The conclusion that Calvin himself came to was equal ultimacy because that was the logical conclusion to his deterministic framework. It’s not “hyper” Calvinism, it IS Calvinism. Best for them to just accept it, own it, and preach it that way. At 41:00 this is exactly the point!
All this stuff is very interesting and fascinating but why do we have to tag ourselves with all these classifications. I was once in a church service in Merthyr Tydfil in Wales (many years ago) and in the service there was a report back from a youth team who had been street evangelizing and some people had responded to the Gospel and got saved. The young man giving the report said "and they became Christians" - no tags, no delineations, just "Christians". That statement was, at the time, so profound to me having grown up with so much 'Christianeze' like "got saved" and "got born again" that something simple like "became a Christian" did not even occur to me. But once again, I do like your presentations. Never would have thought that Rowntree was a Calvinist - back in my young days (some 40 years ago) all calvinists were cessationists and all pentecostals, like myself, were continuationists (hope I got my terminology right) but we had other names for these categories.😀
Maybe my mind is just to simplistic. My thoughts are this...Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying "my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose." God is sovereign is he not? If Isa 55:8-9 tell us that His ways, thoughts are not ours why do we suppose that we can even begin to understand God's knowledge? Does me understanding what might be God's knowledge change the gospel? Does it change the great commission? Go and tell. Holy Spirit takes care of the rest. Anyway, I love listening. I love the exposure to new knowledge even if I think it just might complicate things unnecessarily. Forgive my simplicity.
And let me add...I have learned a great deal from this channel. I don't suppose myself even an "arm chair" theologian. This channel really makes me think. I believe I am probably very Molinistic in my belief. I am definitely not Calvinistic. That's why shows like this help. I wasn't meaning to or trying to belittle in my first comment. I love the exposure to God's word mostly!! Thanks for all you do here!!
@@TheRemnantRadio yeah, he definitely didn’t explain how “middle knowledge” plays into the Molinist view of God directing world circumstances to put people into a place where they would freely choose to receive him.
I would suggest to read his books "salvation and sovereignty". The way Will Craig describes it and i quote; through God's foreknowledge, He foreknew who would responds to His saving grace, and position the person in the ability to received the saving grace." God middle knowledge is like an infallible barometer. God knows unfailingly what would happen but does not necessitate determinism.
This was incredible. I, however, don't understand how Keathley's position is at all unconditional? When he was explaining this it seems that his answer was edited out.
The ambulatory analogy this gentleman offers falls short since we are told that we do have to “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved. Note Romans 10:8, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” So salvation is dependent on accepting the free gift that God has presented. Therefore I would adjust the analogy to include each one deciding to call the ambulance or not call the ambulance to get the help they needed to survive. God provides the “ambulance” free of charge but it’s entirely up to us to “call” 911 and have the ambulance show up at our door.
In response to what this fine gentleman had to say about irresistible grace and his preaching through Exodus: God tells Moses ahead of time that he will harden Pharaohs heart in Ex 7:3-4, “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.” When Pharaoh hardens his own heart during this process, it’s because God already determined to harden it. God uses means and humans still act within his means. Again, God told us ahead of time what HE would do, he didn’t tell us that Pharaoh would act in a certain way and so he would then harden him as a result. God is the primary actor for his own glory. Romans 9:17-18 is further proof, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Paul does not say in Romans: “God, seeing that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, decided to take advantage of the situation and further harden his own heart seeing that he could receive glory as a result.” No, God is the sovereign and primary actor for his own namesake and purposes. This gentlemen’s handling of this text does not take it at face value. He’s arguing from his desired conclusions not TO a true meaning/conclusion. And John 6, especially 6:44 is iron clad irresistible grace. All who are drawn are raised, without fail. I am far less committed to Calvinism than I used to be, I’d rather not highlight to others that I’m a Calvinist because of the “traditions” that come with it that I don’t hold too. One such tradition being cessationism. But I find that too many people reject it and are begging the question in their arguing against it because it doesn’t sit well with them and not because they’ve been convinced biblically that it’s wrong. So many go to the scriptures with the purpose to disprove it rather than be convinced by the Word. Maybe other than limited atonement, I’ve yet to hear anyone put forth strong biblical reasons to reject any point. I like what Francis Chan said, he’s still a 5 point Calvinist but in so far as he continues to be BIBLICALLY convinced.
If God hardened Pharaoh heart initially why would the writer of exodus later make a distinction. First saying that Dr Pharaoh hardened hi own heart and then later that God did. If these are both decisions made solely by God than the distinction lacks any difference.
@@ethanstone1342 you’re ignoring that God uses means. God can be sovereign over decisions and outcomes even as man makes them. Let me quote a NT passage that makes this point clear. This is Peter talking to those who observed and/or participated in the crucifixion of Jesus: Acts 2:22-23, Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-23 this man, DELIVERED UP BY THE DETERMINED PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, YOU EXECUTED by* nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men. It was God’s will to deliver him up. It was his sovereign plan. But man killed him. Do you see the sovereign decree of God? Do you also see how man makes real decisions even as God is sovereign over what is taking place? It was Gods will to crush him to make an offering for sin (Isa 53:10), AND AT THE SAME TIME Peter says to those in this passage that THEY EXECUTED HIM. Both are true. This is what I mean when people just don’t like Calvinism. You’re not taking the text at it’s basic meaning and you then argue from your preconceived conclusions. You can’t dismiss a passage because YOU think it makes God the arbiter of sin. You also need to leave room for mystery. No one is saying we can entirely understand how God can be sovereign over sinful human decisions yet not the one actually sinning. Nonetheless these passages teach that. *I wouldn’t use caps if TH-cam allowed me to italicize or bolden my words lol.
@@davidjanbaz7728 please refer to my response to Ethan. You both are arguing from your feelings and desired interpretation (begging the question) and not from biblical texts.
read irenaues and the apostolic fathers. the apostolic fathers worked directly with the apostles. Irenaues was about 1 generation from the apostles. He was a Christian martyr and apologist who died in 202 AD. They all hold strongly to man's free-will. The reason they dealt with the subject is because gnostics pushed fatalism saying you dont have free will. Irenaues would say if man does not have free will to choose good or evil than man cannot be guilty or rewarded by choosing either seeing he has no choice. I would encourage you to read his writings "against heresies".
PLEASE a part 2. I'm trying to wrap my head around how this "Counterfactual Knowledge" equals sovereignty when it seems the choice lies with the man..... I'm like you in the Soteriological homelessness, but it seems like Molinism is ALMOST there LOL.
Hey! Hopefully I can help here. I sat under Keathley at SEBTS. Since God knew all things, including counter factuals, and is not obligated to create or create in a certain way, then God ultimately chose before creation to “enact a specific possible world” out of all of the possible worlds that could have been enacted. Therefore EVERYTHING that occurs ultimately occurs because God created that possible world. However, it still retains human free will because God’s choosing of that world includes choosing that history would play out with genuine human freedom, even though it is in his nature to know beforehand all of those free choices, and his nature to work within those choices.
@@DustinHarrisWHBC Thank you so much! This definitely clarifies Keathley's position. The philosophical part of my brain is still hurting processing it, but your explanation helped a lot!!!
@@wilbr11 ahaha yes! for me, molinism answers some of the "how" questions about God's interaction with time, foreknowledge, etc., but I dont think it in itself is a great biblical breakdown of soteriology. I think it is supplemental to one though!
Molinism is very similar to the Lutheran's position, just that the Lutheran would stop at crux theologorum; the molinists went further trying to explain it.
I wish dr. Keathley had mentioned Biblical texts like 1.Cor.2:7-8 to explain the Biblical foundation for God’s knowledge of counter-factual truths: 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for IF they had, they WOULD not have crucified the Lord of glory.
This episode was fantastic, but you missed tackling THE core question!! How does Dr. Keathley’s ambulatory model accomodate unconditional election (which he holds to as a 3 point Calvinist)? From what was described, Michael’s election seems contingent on him not rejecting the gospel, which by definition is not unconditional. And if you are willing to give up genuine unconditional election, then there is no point being a Molinist at all - you might as well be straight up Arminian. Sorry, but this is a pretty big omission for an episode on Molinism, and it feels unsatisfying. Other than that, I am a huge fan of your work @The Remnant Radio :)
So Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God of armies, the God of Israel says: *‘If* you will indeed surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, *then* you will live, this city will not be burned with fire, and you and your household will survive. *But if you do not* surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, *then* this city will be handed over to the Chaldeans; and they will burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape from their hands.’” ~ Jeremiah 38:17-18 Here God clearly gives Zedekiah a real, and genuine choice, with two contingent options. Now, if the choice truly is Zedekiah's, and God foreknows what decision Zedekiah will make, then the logical conclusion is that God possesses Middle Knowledge.
54:56 5 C’s God is in Control Some things are genuinely Contingent God is able to accomplish His will with Certainty There are some things that are Conditional Gods use of Counter-factual knowledge
Is God "IN" time or is he "OUTSIDE" of time? That is a huge question, because if he is "OUT" of time then he does not need history to have knowledge. Looking at logical possibilities is using worldly Hume'ian understanding of knowledge and therefore makes historical objective truth only possible and not absolute. Just because we think something is an either/or does not mean it is actual. The end result is absolute and then cannot be undone. PS. If your character determines what you would do in a certain situation, does that not make it compatibilism? "It was all of him." Amen!
Actually, Jesus did debate the pharisees and saducees on specific points of doctrines. Some of the stuff i John, and even some of the parables, are rather heady and use theological language. And some of the teaching in the epistles are rather brainy, and we're told to be teachers.
@@jacobdiscipleofjesusforeve419 Yes, but they did do a little debating. Actually though, it wasn't Jesus and other believers, and when Paul debated he want debating other believers. Unlike TRR, who are all Christians. So that's a good point. But still, Jesus did explain some rather heady concepts with His disciples, and Paul taught often, and the epistles taught some heady stuff sometimes. But of course it all point to Jesus. Hopefully TRR gets continually better at discussing this stuff with a view not towards the discussion but towards Jesus.
Scriptural logic requires this view not to be true. This only leaves bondage of the will. God's will. If God only is sovereign by his omniscience, then he's not sovereign at all, only omniscient. The will of man is almighty with this view.
God is not sovereign by His omniscience. He uses His attributes including omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence to carry out His sovereignty. Sovereign means to rule with supreme authority.
Just a thought on predestination, God has already given prophecies for the end in the revelation (Daniel too and others ) about the endgame of this age. And specifically saying things like during I believe the 4 seal a 1/4 of the Earth is killed then another 1/3 and not to mention 2/3 of the jews. So are those random people or preordained people destined for damnation?? Bc I'm pretty sure the parable of the weat and tares is referring to that also. Seems to me their are wicked people destined for damnation vice versa like the angel told Daniel in ch 12 those in the dust of the earth will awaken some to everlasting damnation some to everlasting righteousness.
@@matasaina2011 God knows all things, so your question is incoherent! God gave us a mind to understand some of his mystery! I agree that your salvation is the most important but knowledge helps us understand this salvation ! Or you will buy into false doctrines:to many new cults springing up in these last days! We are to study so we can righly interpret the Bible or bad interpretations can make the Bible teach false doctrines.
@@matasaina2011 indeed, that is true of God, that we professed and confessed and beliefs on the Son and the work of the Son in order to be save. But the world is not linear and Christians is challenged and forced to defend its worldview, and the term is a necessity in explaining the Christians worldview. The terms does not neglects the truth of God, the terms were a tools in explaining the truth of God. Christians philosophy is not created out of a vacuum or on a boring weekends but it was the philosophical outcome when Christians worldview is questioned and challenged.
I disagree. Philosophy is linked to theology and always has been. Thomas Aquinas said Philosophy was the servant or handmaiden of theology. They were part of the same until Kant. There still is philosophical theology. There is also Christian philosophy. You can’t reason through theology without philosophy. So going back to the simple foreknowledge view to avoid reasoning is probably not the best answer. Just my 2 cents
Molinism's an intriguing ism to an extent. The problem is it's more then just a philosophical construct, it's lost in the ethereal. Rather than ethereal generalities, I am convinced the search for knowledge starts with asking better questions. Something like this..random and impromptu: 1. What does God see when he sits on his throne? On a random Monday afternoon? 2. Where is he when he sits on his throne? 3. Does he personally interact with our cosmos? 4. If our cosmos is separate from his location, how does any interaction occur?
Interesting set of question... If He is indeed omnipresent, then the question of his throne's location and whether it is physically located in our "cosmos" seems a moot point. As to what He "sees" @ any given moment, seems to wrap back into omnipresence, no? What do you really hope for in answering those questions for yourself?
@@itsme5993 OK. Let's reverse for a second and go over one basic definition. -Define "us"- Among other descriptions, we are discribed as priest and kings..judging angels no less. Now that is an odd situation, because you would assume that future kings/priest/whatever would have an intense desire to understand how our reality works. Not philosophical constructs, but the actual mechanics of how things work. Otherwise, why are you looking forward to engaging in priest/king stuff? Historically, we Christians want ignorance. Fundamentalist rejected intellect. Further back, Dort instructs us twice to avoid looking into the deep things of God. Ironicly, that's the opposite of Proverb's mention of dark sayings of the wise. BTW. Omnipresent would seem to be related to new-age concepts. God is in everything. He's in the tree in my front yard. Technically, he would be in that new pack of toilet paper I bought.
@@nathanpriddis412 omnipresence is not a new age concept. What you are describing is closer to pantheism, or process theism. Omnipresence doesn't mean that God is all things but rather that he is everywhere. Omnipresence is a classical theistic doctrine. Which is clearly spelled out in scripture.
@@ethanstone1342 A fair point. New Age is a recent term little more than a slogan, and could mean many things to different people. Omnipresent- Is God in our World? I say no. Ours is a 3+1 dimension world. This would make God subject to the same physics as us, locality, time, mass or non-mass. When the angels visited Sodom, they where spirits, but very material, just like us. If one claims however that God exist everywhere, then you are not far off from what a physicist might term, non-locality. Locality is a distinction. A description. But to say something or someone is everywhere, loses meaning. A gas or fluid will seek to fill a volume, but it is very much a collection of molecules, each having distinction in locality and velocity. Classical understanding- I've brought up this point before, but prior to the 1500-1600's, science basically was Greek Philosophy. Yes the Greeks gave us the concept of atoms, but it was a philosophical position, not an actual scientific theory. This means our classical doctrines where created prior to any attempt to discribe the actual functionality of our world. Name a doctrine that factors in, an accurate description of our world? There are none. Even modern doctrines like Dispensationism (1827-->) did not benefit from modern understanding of reality. If the text of Scripture mentions the functioning of our world, but the reader doesn't possess knowledge of our world, the text will not be deciphered. Allegory will have to be resorted to, or portions of text ignored.
@@nathanpriddis412 omnipresence isn't just about physical locality. It deals with the entire space-time continuum. God is ever-present in all localities and at all times. He is not created that He should be constrained to the laws of our known universe. The miraculous works of God are prime examples of how He specifically supercedes natural and physical laws. As for your continued desire to understand the mechanics of our reality, I agree that we should desire that. However, we also exist on a metaphysical/spiritual plane of existence. The unseen realm has as much gravitas as does the mundane. So to disavow the pursuit of the contemplative and theological constructs is tantamount to your own complaint against the understanding of the mundane realm. Don't give up on one to seek the other. And yes, ignorance is rampant on all sides of this argument.
Who? The dudes in the video? They just look like young dudes dressed like young dudes. You sound like an idiot for saying that looks gay somehow lol. I think there's some projection going on here...
Man, it was great to have Kenneth Keathley as a Professor! Great guy.
Love Dr. Keathley and his book Salvation and Sovereignty. When i was in seminary at a different school writing a paper on predestination and free will, I sent him an email and he sent me a long, greatly informative email, which he didn't have to do because I was not a student under him or at his school. Brilliant and kind theologian who has been a big influence on me.
Interesting to hear someone coming to near Lutheran conclusions on the issue. Thanks guys.
I’m reading the book of concord now. I have such a hard time disagreeing with it. and it’s helpful for me because I don’t want nicer to rheology to be a modern invention. Luther helps me keep my soteriology historic.
On a side not, I have not even begun to scratch the surface of Luthers writings. Would would you know of a place where I could find Luther suggesting that the grace of God is resistible in the work of salvation?
@@TheRemnantRadio w c
@@richardfrerks8712 saw a ww
Finally! I concur with this soteriological position! Replaying for my husband. Great interview!!
Great topics, please do invite Dr. Kirk MacGregor to the show on the philosophical side of Molinism.
I often say that I want to think like a Calvinist but live like an Arminian. I really enjoyed this conversation.
Nice. I have also heard the idea of work like an Arminian, sleep like a Calvinist
I want to think like Jesus and live like Jesus
@@jacobdiscipleofjesusforeve419 Right, I can't believe people follow Calvin's words, more than the bible.
The conclusion that Calvin himself came to was equal ultimacy because that was the logical conclusion to his deterministic framework. It’s not “hyper” Calvinism, it IS Calvinism. Best for them to just accept it, own it, and preach it that way. At 41:00 this is exactly the point!
Jesus was not a calvinist. He is all truth
Moreover, Calvinism is NOT "the gospel." Truth is that Scripture was around LONG before John Calvin was ever created.
All this stuff is very interesting and fascinating but why do we have to tag ourselves with all these classifications. I was once in a church service in Merthyr Tydfil in Wales (many years ago) and in the service there was a report back from a youth team who had been street evangelizing and some people had responded to the Gospel and got saved. The young man giving the report said "and they became Christians" - no tags, no delineations, just "Christians". That statement was, at the time, so profound to me having grown up with so much 'Christianeze' like "got saved" and "got born again" that something simple like "became a Christian" did not even occur to me. But once again, I do like your presentations. Never would have thought that Rowntree was a Calvinist - back in my young days (some 40 years ago) all calvinists were cessationists and all pentecostals, like myself, were continuationists (hope I got my terminology right) but we had other names for these categories.😀
Maybe my mind is just to simplistic. My thoughts are this...Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying "my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose." God is sovereign is he not? If Isa 55:8-9 tell us that His ways, thoughts are not ours why do we suppose that we can even begin to understand God's knowledge? Does me understanding what might be God's knowledge change the gospel? Does it change the great commission? Go and tell. Holy Spirit takes care of the rest. Anyway, I love listening. I love the exposure to new knowledge even if I think it just might complicate things unnecessarily. Forgive my simplicity.
And let me add...I have learned a great deal from this channel. I don't suppose myself even an "arm chair" theologian. This channel really makes me think. I believe I am probably very Molinistic in my belief. I am definitely not Calvinistic. That's why shows like this help. I wasn't meaning to or trying to belittle in my first comment. I love the exposure to God's word mostly!! Thanks for all you do here!!
This guy is brilliant!
Well that was a great explanation of Molinist soteriology, definitely need to hear more about the Molinist view on election.
I heard that. He was like “ it’s a Calvinist view of election”.
Then I heard “and Gods election
Is based off his foreknowledge”.
I was like🤔
@@TheRemnantRadio yeah, he definitely didn’t explain how “middle knowledge” plays into the Molinist view of God directing world circumstances to put people into a place where they would freely choose to receive him.
I would suggest to read his books "salvation and sovereignty". The way Will Craig describes it and i quote; through God's foreknowledge, He foreknew who would responds to His saving grace, and position the person in the ability to received the saving grace."
God middle knowledge is like an infallible barometer. God knows unfailingly what would happen but does not necessitate determinism.
This was incredible. I, however, don't understand how Keathley's position is at all unconditional? When he was explaining this it seems that his answer was edited out.
The ambulatory analogy this gentleman offers falls short since we are told that we do have to “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved. Note Romans 10:8, “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” So salvation is dependent on accepting the free gift that God has presented. Therefore I would adjust the analogy to include each one deciding to call the ambulance or not call the ambulance to get the help they needed to survive. God provides the “ambulance” free of charge but it’s entirely up to us to “call” 911 and have the ambulance show up at our door.
In response to what this fine gentleman had to say about irresistible grace and his preaching through Exodus:
God tells Moses ahead of time that he will harden Pharaohs heart in Ex 7:3-4, “But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.”
When Pharaoh hardens his own heart during this process, it’s because God already determined to harden it. God uses means and humans still act within his means. Again, God told us ahead of time what HE would do, he didn’t tell us that Pharaoh would act in a certain way and so he would then harden him as a result. God is the primary actor for his own glory.
Romans 9:17-18 is further proof, “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’
Paul does not say in Romans: “God, seeing that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, decided to take advantage of the situation and further harden his own heart seeing that he could receive glory as a result.”
No, God is the sovereign and primary actor for his own namesake and purposes. This gentlemen’s handling of this text does not take it at face value. He’s arguing from his desired conclusions not TO a true meaning/conclusion.
And John 6, especially 6:44 is iron clad irresistible grace. All who are drawn are raised, without fail.
I am far less committed to Calvinism than I used to be, I’d rather not highlight to others that I’m a Calvinist because of the “traditions” that come with it that I don’t hold too. One such tradition being cessationism. But I find that too many people reject it and are begging the question in their arguing against it because it doesn’t sit well with them and not because they’ve been convinced biblically that it’s wrong. So many go to the scriptures with the purpose to disprove it rather than be convinced by the Word. Maybe other than limited atonement, I’ve yet to hear anyone put forth strong biblical reasons to reject any point.
I like what Francis Chan said, he’s still a 5 point Calvinist but in so far as he continues to be BIBLICALLY convinced.
Don't let the style of the Jewish writer make you think that God hardened Pharoah's heart before Pharoah did ; that would make God unjust !
If God hardened Pharaoh heart initially why would the writer of exodus later make a distinction. First saying that Dr Pharaoh hardened hi own heart and then later that God did.
If these are both decisions made solely by God than the distinction lacks any difference.
@@ethanstone1342 you’re ignoring that God uses means. God can be sovereign over decisions and outcomes even as man makes them. Let me quote a NT passage that makes this point clear. This is Peter talking to those who observed and/or participated in the crucifixion of Jesus:
Acts 2:22-23, Israelite men, listen to these words! Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-23 this man, DELIVERED UP BY THE DETERMINED PLAN AND FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, YOU EXECUTED by* nailing to a cross through the hand of lawless men.
It was God’s will to deliver him up. It was his sovereign plan. But man killed him. Do you see the sovereign decree of God? Do you also see how man makes real decisions even as God is sovereign over what is taking place? It was Gods will to crush him to make an offering for sin (Isa 53:10), AND AT THE SAME TIME Peter says to those in this passage that THEY EXECUTED HIM. Both are true. This is what I mean when people just don’t like Calvinism. You’re not taking the text at it’s basic meaning and you then argue from your preconceived conclusions. You can’t dismiss a passage because YOU think it makes God the arbiter of sin. You also need to leave room for mystery. No one is saying we can entirely understand how God can be sovereign over sinful human decisions yet not the one actually sinning. Nonetheless these passages teach that.
*I wouldn’t use caps if TH-cam allowed me to italicize or bolden my words lol.
@@davidjanbaz7728 please refer to my response to Ethan. You both are arguing from your feelings and desired interpretation (begging the question) and not from biblical texts.
read irenaues and the apostolic fathers. the apostolic fathers worked directly with the apostles. Irenaues was about 1 generation from the apostles. He was a Christian martyr and apologist who died in 202 AD. They all hold strongly to man's free-will. The reason they dealt with the subject is because gnostics pushed fatalism saying you dont have free will. Irenaues would say if man does not have free will to choose good or evil than man cannot be guilty or rewarded by choosing either seeing he has no choice. I would encourage you to read his writings "against heresies".
PLEASE a part 2. I'm trying to wrap my head around how this "Counterfactual Knowledge" equals sovereignty when it seems the choice lies with the man..... I'm like you in the Soteriological homelessness, but it seems like Molinism is ALMOST there LOL.
Also, I'd love to understand how this fits in with the "Perseverance" vs Apostacy aspect of Calvinism vs Arminianism
Hey! Hopefully I can help here. I sat under Keathley at SEBTS. Since God knew all things, including counter factuals, and is not obligated to create or create in a certain way, then God ultimately chose before creation to “enact a specific possible world” out of all of the possible worlds that could have been enacted. Therefore EVERYTHING that occurs ultimately occurs because God created that possible world. However, it still retains human free will because God’s choosing of that world includes choosing that history would play out with genuine human freedom, even though it is in his nature to know beforehand all of those free choices, and his nature to work within those choices.
@@wilbr11 also Keathley holds strongly to a perseverance
@@DustinHarrisWHBC Thank you so much! This definitely clarifies Keathley's position. The philosophical part of my brain is still hurting processing it, but your explanation helped a lot!!!
@@wilbr11 ahaha yes! for me, molinism answers some of the "how" questions about God's interaction with time, foreknowledge, etc., but I dont think it in itself is a great biblical breakdown of soteriology. I think it is supplemental to one though!
Would love to see William Lane Craig on this issue it would be fantastic.
AWESOME
IM NOW CLEAR SPIRITUALLY ON MY BELIEFS✝️♥️
I JUST BLASTED THIS OUT ON MY MEWE GROUPS
Molinism is very similar to the Lutheran's position, just that the Lutheran would stop at crux theologorum; the molinists went further trying to explain it.
Yeah that's accurate
Great stuff today, guys.
This was great ! Very clear in the presentation and confirmed my view that Molinism is a more accurate view than Calvins 4th and 5th point.
I wish dr. Keathley had mentioned Biblical texts like 1.Cor.2:7-8 to explain the Biblical foundation for God’s knowledge of counter-factual truths:
1 Corinthians 2:7-8
But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for IF they had, they WOULD not have crucified the Lord of glory.
At times he did not really adress the questions directly. But, in his defence, his book “Salvation and Sovereignty “ is very thorough.
This episode was fantastic, but you missed tackling THE core question!! How does Dr. Keathley’s ambulatory model accomodate unconditional election (which he holds to as a 3 point Calvinist)? From what was described, Michael’s election seems contingent on him not rejecting the gospel, which by definition is not unconditional. And if you are willing to give up genuine unconditional election, then there is no point being a Molinist at all - you might as well be straight up Arminian. Sorry, but this is a pretty big omission for an episode on Molinism, and it feels unsatisfying. Other than that, I am a huge fan of your work @The Remnant Radio :)
Thanks guys this was very informative.
Can this just EVER engage with what the guest says after a long answer before going “yeah… now what about..” and changing the conversation??
So Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "This is what the LORD God of armies, the God of Israel says: *‘If* you will indeed surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, *then* you will live, this city will not be burned with fire, and you and your household will survive. *But if you do not* surrender to the officers of the king of Babylon, *then* this city will be handed over to the Chaldeans; and they will burn it with fire, and you yourself will not escape from their hands.’” ~ Jeremiah 38:17-18
Here God clearly gives Zedekiah a real, and genuine choice, with two contingent options. Now, if the choice truly is Zedekiah's, and God foreknows what decision Zedekiah will make, then the logical conclusion is that God possesses Middle Knowledge.
What were the 5 “Cs”? Control, Contingent, Conditional... I missed the others.
54:56
5 C’s
God is in Control
Some things are genuinely Contingent
God is able to accomplish His will with Certainty
There are some things that are Conditional
Gods use of Counter-factual knowledge
Is God "IN" time or is he "OUTSIDE" of time? That is a huge question, because if he is "OUT" of time then he does not need history to have knowledge. Looking at logical possibilities is using worldly Hume'ian understanding of knowledge and therefore makes historical objective truth only possible and not absolute. Just because we think something is an either/or does not mean it is actual. The end result is absolute and then cannot be undone.
PS. If your character determines what you would do in a certain situation, does that not make it compatibilism? "It was all of him." Amen!
I wonder if he realizes by now that he’s a Provisionist. I’m late coming to this video 😅
Is this obedient to Jesus? Did Jesus say to debate theology, church history? Just looking for the biblical reference.
Actually, Jesus did debate the pharisees and saducees on specific points of doctrines. Some of the stuff i John, and even some of the parables, are rather heady and use theological language. And some of the teaching in the epistles are rather brainy, and we're told to be teachers.
@@VeryBasicBible Jesus rebuked the Pharisees big difference
@@jacobdiscipleofjesusforeve419 Yes, but they did do a little debating.
Actually though, it wasn't Jesus and other believers, and when Paul debated he want debating other believers. Unlike TRR, who are all Christians. So that's a good point.
But still, Jesus did explain some rather heady concepts with His disciples, and Paul taught often, and the epistles taught some heady stuff sometimes. But of course it all point to Jesus.
Hopefully TRR gets continually better at discussing this stuff with a view not towards the discussion but towards Jesus.
Paul openly rebuked Peter in Galatians when the Church was on the verge of splitting so yes it's normal.
Scriptural logic requires this view not to be true. This only leaves bondage of the will. God's will. If God only is sovereign by his omniscience, then he's not sovereign at all, only omniscient. The will of man is almighty with this view.
God is not sovereign by His omniscience. He uses His attributes including omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence to carry out His sovereignty.
Sovereign means to rule with supreme authority.
I guess I’m a molinist then... 🤔
Just a thought on predestination, God has already given prophecies for the end in the revelation (Daniel too and others ) about the endgame of this age. And specifically saying things like during I believe the 4 seal a 1/4 of the Earth is killed then another 1/3 and not to mention 2/3 of the jews. So are those random people or preordained people destined for damnation?? Bc I'm pretty sure the parable of the weat and tares is referring to that also. Seems to me their are wicked people destined for damnation vice versa like the angel told Daniel in ch 12 those in the dust of the earth will awaken some to everlasting damnation some to everlasting righteousness.
Does God even know these terms?
Obviously someone doesn't!
@@davidjanbaz7728 God isn't really interested bn philosophical questions and theology. He just wants to know, do you believe in my Son and trust Me.
@@matasaina2011 God knows all things, so your question is incoherent!
God gave us a mind to understand some of his mystery!
I agree that your salvation is the most important but knowledge helps us understand this salvation !
Or you will buy into false doctrines:to many new cults springing up in these last days!
We are to study so we can righly interpret the Bible or bad interpretations can make the Bible teach false doctrines.
@@matasaina2011 indeed, that is true of God, that we professed and confessed and beliefs on the Son and the work of the Son in order to be save.
But the world is not linear and Christians is challenged and forced to defend its worldview, and the term is a necessity in explaining the Christians worldview. The terms does not neglects the truth of God, the terms were a tools in explaining the truth of God.
Christians philosophy is not created out of a vacuum or on a boring weekends but it was the philosophical outcome when Christians worldview is questioned and challenged.
This comment is funny considering the topic 😆🤣.
But I do value taxonomy and such in our complex world which God created, though.
This this guy is contradicting himself so many times, I'm glad he told us what theological institute he is a teacher,
I’d return to standard arminian soteriology before I’d subscribe to molinism. Too much philosophy forced on scripture.
I disagree. Philosophy is linked to theology and always has been. Thomas Aquinas said Philosophy was the servant or handmaiden of theology. They were part of the same until Kant. There still is philosophical theology. There is also Christian philosophy. You can’t reason through theology without philosophy. So going back to the simple foreknowledge view to avoid reasoning is probably not the best answer. Just my 2 cents
Molinism's an intriguing ism to an extent. The problem is it's more then just a philosophical construct, it's lost in the ethereal.
Rather than ethereal generalities, I am convinced the search for knowledge starts with asking better questions. Something like this..random and impromptu:
1. What does God see when he sits on his throne? On a random Monday afternoon?
2. Where is he when he sits on his throne?
3. Does he personally interact with our cosmos?
4. If our cosmos is separate from his location, how does any interaction occur?
Interesting set of question... If He is indeed omnipresent, then the question of his throne's location and whether it is physically located in our "cosmos" seems a moot point. As to what He "sees" @ any given moment, seems to wrap back into omnipresence, no?
What do you really hope for in answering those questions for yourself?
@@itsme5993 OK. Let's reverse for a second and go over one basic definition.
-Define "us"-
Among other descriptions, we are discribed as priest and kings..judging angels no less. Now that is an odd situation, because you would assume that future kings/priest/whatever would have an intense desire to understand how our reality works. Not philosophical constructs, but the actual mechanics of how things work. Otherwise, why are you looking forward to engaging in priest/king stuff? Historically, we Christians want ignorance. Fundamentalist rejected intellect. Further back, Dort instructs us twice to avoid looking into the deep things of God. Ironicly, that's the opposite of Proverb's mention of dark sayings of the wise.
BTW. Omnipresent would seem to be related to new-age concepts. God is in everything. He's in the tree in my front yard. Technically, he would be in that new pack of toilet paper I bought.
@@nathanpriddis412 omnipresence is not a new age concept. What you are describing is closer to pantheism, or process theism. Omnipresence doesn't mean that God is all things but rather that he is everywhere.
Omnipresence is a classical theistic doctrine. Which is clearly spelled out in scripture.
@@ethanstone1342 A fair point. New Age is a recent term little more than a slogan, and could mean many things to different people.
Omnipresent- Is God in our World?
I say no. Ours is a 3+1 dimension world. This would make God subject to the same physics as us, locality, time, mass or non-mass. When the angels visited Sodom, they where spirits, but very material, just like us.
If one claims however that God exist everywhere, then you are not far off from what a physicist might term, non-locality. Locality is a distinction. A description.
But to say something or someone is everywhere, loses meaning. A gas or fluid will seek to fill a volume, but it is very much a collection of molecules, each having distinction in locality and velocity.
Classical understanding-
I've brought up this point before, but prior to the 1500-1600's, science basically was Greek Philosophy. Yes the Greeks gave us the concept of atoms, but it was a philosophical position, not an actual scientific theory. This means our classical doctrines where created prior to any attempt to discribe the actual functionality of our world. Name a doctrine that factors in, an accurate description of our world? There are none. Even modern doctrines like Dispensationism (1827-->) did not benefit from modern understanding of reality.
If the text of Scripture mentions the functioning of our world, but the reader doesn't possess knowledge of our world, the text will not be deciphered. Allegory will have to be resorted to, or portions of text ignored.
@@nathanpriddis412 omnipresence isn't just about physical locality. It deals with the entire space-time continuum. God is ever-present in all localities and at all times. He is not created that He should be constrained to the laws of our known universe. The miraculous works of God are prime examples of how He specifically supercedes natural and physical laws.
As for your continued desire to understand the mechanics of our reality, I agree that we should desire that. However, we also exist on a metaphysical/spiritual plane of existence. The unseen realm has as much gravitas as does the mundane. So to disavow the pursuit of the contemplative and theological constructs is tantamount to your own complaint against the understanding of the mundane realm.
Don't give up on one to seek the other. And yes, ignorance is rampant on all sides of this argument.
Yeah this is just Calvinism with extra steps
You guys prove you could be LGBT and Christian.
Could you explain? I’m not connecting the dots from the video.
What??
It's not what you say it's how you look sound and act that makes you gay. Actions speak louder than words
Who? The dudes in the video?
They just look like young dudes dressed like young dudes.
You sound like an idiot for saying that looks gay somehow lol.
I think there's some projection going on here...
@@dansaber8435 Please don’t troll, here. You’re mocking God and endangering yourself, therein.