Molinism

[OneLight]

When you post, keep in mind that nobody can read your mind, and what you do post is taken from the words posted. So, in essence, it is meant for the reader as much as for you. Clarity is best. When people start playing word games, the thread goes nowhere and peoples patience run thin.

I thought I was being clear. Here is what I said, There is a difference between God correcting me by saying I was too nice, and Him correcting me by saying I was wicked. Please note I am putting myself in the position of being corrected by God. I don't see an issue here.

You know, it took me until reading this again to see where my error was. I misread your post, which you can see If you notice, you said to nice and I read it as niot to nice. Please accept my apologies.

Oh my, and then I responded to what you said not perceiving that I had misspelled? Now I say, that bad feelings can be in the air simply because of one little mistake. Is it possible to give people the benefit of the doubt even though their choice was sinful??

What do you mean by "benefit of the doubt"? Please explain this. I am convinced that what I believe this means may not be what you are trying to say.

What I mean is, there is a doubt as to the intentions of one who chooses to sin against me. How do I know he wasn't under a lie, and would not have done so apart from that lie? I don't know, so I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you. That does not lesson the fact that they sinned nor make the sin any less a sin. It may affect how you respond to the person. You cannot confuse the two. Sin is sin, guilty as charged. Forgiveness is a whole different story.

[xero]

Romans 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

What point are you trying to make with this passage? Could you explain that why, in the context of which it was written (describing the future glory of heaven, etc) it is relevant to the conversation regarding free will? I am confused...

It says "THE CREATURE WAS MADE SUBJECT to vanity, NOT WILLINGLY, BUT BY REASON OF HIM THAT HAS SUBJECTED the same in hope."

I capped for emphasis, obviously, but it also makes it easier to see why I quoted the passage as proof against man having free will.

The creature you are claiming is free is said to be a subject in scripture. You can point at vanity and hope as what we are subjected to but it is reason which we are subjected by and its Gods reason so were subjected to God.

[childeye]

It does not matter if the sin is past or present, watering it down is wrong.

I didn't water down the sin. The sin remains as gievous as the damage it causes. I'm addressing the blame in proportion as to whether or not the person knew the damage they would cause.

Well of course the choice was sinful. We are all fully aware of that in 20\20 hindsight. The benefit of the doubt is saying they were in over their heads with Satan and not by their own doing. The question we should be asking is, would we have faired better given the same circumstances?

You forgot the rest "Even a thought can be a sin before it is put into action. Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."" We are told about the spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:10-20

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual

hosts

of wickedness in the heavenly

places.

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

Those who follow the Lord will fair batter then those who do not. That is not hard to figure out. The point of my full response is that sin starts on the inside and flourishes when it is follow through in action. At either state, it is sin.

You'll get no argument from me about this. I agree whole heartedly, the sin starts when one even contemplates it as a viable course of action. But this is not any evidence of freewill since there exists a will of the flesh through which temptation enters and which the temptor uses against us. You neglected to answer my question. Would we have faired better than Adam given the same circumstances?

Perhaps better wording on your part would of changed how I read "So to keep the conversation going, here's a free arrow for your quiver to aim at my position on this subject." Taking aim is the same as taking a shot. Never point a weapon at anyone unless you plan on using it.

I think it's worded well, note "to keep the conversation going", Also "to aim at my position on this subject". Of course I wanted you to use it against my position. I was inviting it. The arrow and quiver was simply a metaphor to spruce up the dialogue. But fine, I guess I could have just said, here is some good scripture that you could ask me to address.

What I have against what you present is that you minimize sin by trying to show that the sinner, well, 'it really was not their fault, they were just duped or weak ... go easy on them' attitude. That is what is wrong with the world today, minimizing sin to make it sound like no big deal.

I think life and death is a big deal. The only thing bigger is believing slanderous things about the Maker and giver of Life. So respectfully, I would say that what is wrong with the world, is men have no mercy nor understanding for those who have done the same things we all have done.

Jesus said God desires mercy and understanding not God desires no go easy on them attitudes and no excuses. Now I ask you, in the following exchange, who are the ones who are finding fault with others and who is the one that is defending the sinners? ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹ Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I Think we've been here before. Let's face it, you believe there is freewill and that is at the foundation of your reasoning. Which brings you to the conclusion that men can simply choose to be good or evil because they know right and wrong. You therefore justify blaming people and see no rational reason to "downplay" anyone's sin. That is acting responsibly to you. Apart from Adam having a freewill in his innocence, I believe that freewill is a lie and sin is a disease of the flesh and a blindness of the eyes that only God can cure. Hence I have mercy and understanding and to me that is acting responsibly to me.

[OneLight]

What I have against what you present is that you minimize sin by trying to show that the sinner, well, 'it really was not their fault, they were just duped or weak ... go easy on them' attitude. That is what is wrong with the world today, minimizing sin to make it sound like no big deal.

I think life and death is a big deal. The only thing bigger is believing slanderous things about the Maker and giver of Life. So respectfully, I would say that what is wrong with the world, is men have no mercy nor understanding for those who have done the same things we all have done.

Jesus said God desires mercy and understanding not God desires no go easy on them attitudes and no excuses. Now I ask you, in the following exchange, who are the ones who are finding fault with others and who is the one that is defending the sinners? ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹ Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I Think we've been here before. Let's face it, you believe there is freewill and that is at the foundation of your reasoning. Which brings you to the conclusion that men can simply choose to be good or evil because they know right and wrong. You therefore justify blaming people and see no rational reason to "downplay" anyone's sin. That is acting responsibly to you. I believe that freewill is a lie and sin is a disease of the flesh and a blindness of the eyes that only God can cure. Hence I have mercy and understanding and to me that is the responsible thing to do.

Slander is lying and is a sin. Having no love for your neighbor is a sin. The problem, as I see it, is that sinning is not seen as bad anymore. The Post Modern and Metamodernism attitude that has grown stronger in this world is the attitude I speak of. They are like reeds bending in the wind, this way and that way, depending on what they feel is right with no absolute moral right and wrong, no compass to guide them.

I have a long history of working with people who are trying to change their lives. It is only when they see themselves in reality, instead of how they want to think of themselves, is when change begins. They need to face the real world. If I have been too soft or over empathetic, they may get the idea that I don't see their situation as sever as it really is. I cannot allow this to happen. I can, though, once they have broken through the hard line of reality, help them feel at ease and do everything I can to stand beside them as they go through their changes. There is a time to be soft and a time to be hard. Softness comes when they need it, not always when they want it. Helping someone see the real issue is loving them in a hard manner.

[childeye]

I have to clear something up. Saying that man has free will does not mean that he must therefore be responsible for his own salvation. Salvation can still be a gift to the saved. Predestination, etc (if you are worried about such things) can still be affirmed if one believes in free will. One would simply hold to a compatibilist view of free will in which free will and determinism can coexist. It seems like people are missing this and quoting verses which can easily be upheld by a compatibilist view in order to assert that humans do not have free will.

What is freewill? Are you saying there are degrees of freewill? What verses of scripture would you use to point out that men have a freewill?

[childeye]

What I have against what you present is that you minimize sin by trying to show that the sinner, well, 'it really was not their fault, they were just duped or weak ... go easy on them' attitude. That is what is wrong with the world today, minimizing sin to make it sound like no big deal.

I think life and death is a big deal. The only thing bigger is believing slanderous things about the Maker and giver of Life. So respectfully, I would say that what is wrong with the world, is men have no mercy nor understanding for those who have done the same things we all have done.

Jesus said God desires mercy and understanding not God desires no go easy on them attitudes and no excuses. Now I ask you, in the following exchange, who are the ones who are finding fault with others and who is the one that is defending the sinners? ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹ Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I Think we've been here before. Let's face it, you believe there is freewill and that is at the foundation of your reasoning. Which brings you to the conclusion that men can simply choose to be good or evil because they know right and wrong. You therefore justify blaming people and see no rational reason to "downplay" anyone's sin. That is acting responsibly to you. I believe that freewill is a lie and sin is a disease of the flesh and a blindness of the eyes that only God can cure. Hence I have mercy and understanding and to me that is the responsible thing to do.

Slander is lying and is a sin. Having no love for your neighbor is a sin. The problem, as I see it, is that sinning is not seen as bad anymore. The Post Modern and Metamodernism attitude that has grown stronger in this world is the attitude I speak of. They are like reeds bending in the wind, this way and that way, depending on what they feel is right with no absolute moral right and wrong, no compass to guide them.

I have a long history of working with people who are trying to change their lives. It is only when they see themselves in reality, instead of how they want to think of themselves, is when change begins. They need to face the real world. If I have been too soft or over empathetic, they may get the idea that I don't see their situation as sever as it really is. I cannot allow this to happen. I can, though, once they have broken through the hard line of reality, help them feel at ease and do everything I can to stand beside them as they go through their changes. There is a time to be soft and a time to be hard. Softness comes when they need it, not always when they want it. Helping someone see the real issue is loving them in a hard manner.

Well said, Onelight. I certainly can respect that view and agree with it completely. I can definitely relate. There are times when we must be hard, and at other times gentle. If I see someone downplaying their sin I will be hard. If I see someone beating themselves up, I will be consoling. Love covers a wide spectrum of responses to sin. But this freewill thing I just don't see it. To me, all sin happens out of ignorance because anyone would have to be ignorant of something to go against God who is ever looking out for the best interests of us all... Apart from Adam being innocent in the garden and the Truth setting people free, I see nothing that I would consider as a will that is free.

As far as the world goes, I think sin is not considered bad anymore becasue everybody appears to do it and no one seems to be able to stop it. If there is a freewill it's not working. And people throw up their hands and do not seek a doctor precisely because they believe they have freewills and simply choose to be abominations. If only they would look at Romans 1 and read why they are abominations, they may consider that only Christ can heal them. Only the Truth can set them free. That is how I see and address the real issue and I try to be as gentle as I possibly can. Sometimes however, being gentle is not possible.

[childeye]

Romans 8:20 "For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

What point are you trying to make with this passage? Could you explain that why, in the context of which it was written (describing the future glory of heaven, etc) it is relevant to the conversation regarding free will? I am confused...

It says "THE CREATURE WAS MADE SUBJECT to vanity, NOT WILLINGLY, BUT BY REASON OF HIM THAT HAS SUBJECTED the same in hope."

I capped for emphasis, obviously, but it also makes it easier to see why I quoted the passage as proof against man having free will.

The creature you are claiming is free is said to be a subject in scripture. You can point at vanity and hope as what we are subjected to but it is reason which we are subjected by and its Gods reason so were subjected to God.

I read you loud and clear xero. God knows what He's doing. He is making sure we will appreciate what he will give us. At least I hope I see it as per His will. Scripture says that God gave men stomachs so that they would remember to thank Him for our food which He gives us. God gives both hunger and fullness.

[OneLight]

What I have against what you present is that you minimize sin by trying to show that the sinner, well, 'it really was not their fault, they were just duped or weak ... go easy on them' attitude. That is what is wrong with the world today, minimizing sin to make it sound like no big deal.

I think life and death is a big deal. The only thing bigger is believing slanderous things about the Maker and giver of Life. So respectfully, I would say that what is wrong with the world, is men have no mercy nor understanding for those who have done the same things we all have done.

Jesus said God desires mercy and understanding not God desires no go easy on them attitudes and no excuses. Now I ask you, in the following exchange, who are the ones who are finding fault with others and who is the one that is defending the sinners? ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹ Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I Think we've been here before. Let's face it, you believe there is freewill and that is at the foundation of your reasoning. Which brings you to the conclusion that men can simply choose to be good or evil because they know right and wrong. You therefore justify blaming people and see no rational reason to "downplay" anyone's sin. That is acting responsibly to you. I believe that freewill is a lie and sin is a disease of the flesh and a blindness of the eyes that only God can cure. Hence I have mercy and understanding and to me that is the responsible thing to do.

Slander is lying and is a sin. Having no love for your neighbor is a sin. The problem, as I see it, is that sinning is not seen as bad anymore. The Post Modern and Metamodernism attitude that has grown stronger in this world is the attitude I speak of. They are like reeds bending in the wind, this way and that way, depending on what they feel is right with no absolute moral right and wrong, no compass to guide them.

I have a long history of working with people who are trying to change their lives. It is only when they see themselves in reality, instead of how they want to think of themselves, is when change begins. They need to face the real world. If I have been too soft or over empathetic, they may get the idea that I don't see their situation as sever as it really is. I cannot allow this to happen. I can, though, once they have broken through the hard line of reality, help them feel at ease and do everything I can to stand beside them as they go through their changes. There is a time to be soft and a time to be hard. Softness comes when they need it, not always when they want it. Helping someone see the real issue is loving them in a hard manner.

Well said, Onelight. I certainly can respect that view and agree with it completely. I can definitely relate. There are times when we must be hard, and at other times gentle. If I see someone downplaying their sin I will be hard. If I see someone beating themselves up, I will be consoling. Love covers a wide spectrum of responses to sin. But this freewill thing I just don't see it. To me, all sin happens out of ignorance because anyone would have to be ignorant of something to go against God who is ever looking out for the best interests of us all... Apart from Adam being innocent in the garden and the Truth setting people free, I see nothing that I would consider as a will that is free.

As far as the world goes, I think sin is not considered bad anymore becasue everybody appears to do it and no one seems to be able to stop it. If there is a freewill it's not working. And people throw up their hands and do not seek a doctor precisely because they believe they have freewills and simply choose to be abominations. If only they would look at Romans 1 and read why they are abominations, they may consider that only Christ can heal them. Only the Truth can set them free. That is how I see and address the real issue and I try to be as gentle as I possibly can. Sometimes however, being gentle is not possible.

This is where I have to strongly disagree. I was a heavy drug addict after I excepted Jesus in my early twenties. I knew I was wrong, but didn't care. I said to myself that I would deal with this later and if I died before I did, then I suffer eternal separation from God. I knew all well this was true, but I enjoyed the high I got more then I worried about eternity. Was I ignorant? No, not at all. It was a choice I made and I took, and still take, full responsibility for my action. Ignorance points to the mind, the understanding, where salvation is of the heart.

You seem to think free will is designed to be only implied in the correct manner, to bring someone toward God. By your examples of free will, I honestly believe we have different understandings. To me, free will is the ability to choose. It really is that simple. Being set free from sin is not having free will. Free will comes in the choosing salvation or not choosing salvation, not being set free.

[RedMomma]

Woweee this is heated topic reds not touching this one Lol but kudos to fresno joe and onelight i did learn quite a bit here and all i can say is wow lol

[childeye]

What I have against what you present is that you minimize sin by trying to show that the sinner, well, 'it really was not their fault, they were just duped or weak ... go easy on them' attitude. That is what is wrong with the world today, minimizing sin to make it sound like no big deal.

I think life and death is a big deal. The only thing bigger is believing slanderous things about the Maker and giver of Life. So respectfully, I would say that what is wrong with the world, is men have no mercy nor understanding for those who have done the same things we all have done.

Jesus said God desires mercy and understanding not God desires no go easy on them attitudes and no excuses. Now I ask you, in the following exchange, who are the ones who are finding fault with others and who is the one that is defending the sinners? ³⁰ But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

³¹ Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. ³² I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I Think we've been here before. Let's face it, you believe there is freewill and that is at the foundation of your reasoning. Which brings you to the conclusion that men can simply choose to be good or evil because they know right and wrong. You therefore justify blaming people and see no rational reason to "downplay" anyone's sin. That is acting responsibly to you. I believe that freewill is a lie and sin is a disease of the flesh and a blindness of the eyes that only God can cure. Hence I have mercy and understanding and to me that is the responsible thing to do.

Slander is lying and is a sin. Having no love for your neighbor is a sin. The problem, as I see it, is that sinning is not seen as bad anymore. The Post Modern and Metamodernism attitude that has grown stronger in this world is the attitude I speak of. They are like reeds bending in the wind, this way and that way, depending on what they feel is right with no absolute moral right and wrong, no compass to guide them.

I have a long history of working with people who are trying to change their lives. It is only when they see themselves in reality, instead of how they want to think of themselves, is when change begins. They need to face the real world. If I have been too soft or over empathetic, they may get the idea that I don't see their situation as sever as it really is. I cannot allow this to happen. I can, though, once they have broken through the hard line of reality, help them feel at ease and do everything I can to stand beside them as they go through their changes. There is a time to be soft and a time to be hard. Softness comes when they need it, not always when they want it. Helping someone see the real issue is loving them in a hard manner.

Well said, Onelight. I certainly can respect that view and agree with it completely. I can definitely relate. There are times when we must be hard, and at other times gentle. If I see someone downplaying their sin I will be hard. If I see someone beating themselves up, I will be consoling. Love covers a wide spectrum of responses to sin. But this freewill thing I just don't see it. To me, all sin happens out of ignorance because anyone would have to be ignorant of something to go against God who is ever looking out for the best interests of us all... Apart from Adam being innocent in the garden and the Truth setting people free, I see nothing that I would consider as a will that is free.

As far as the world goes, I think sin is not considered bad anymore becasue everybody appears to do it and no one seems to be able to stop it. If there is a freewill it's not working. And people throw up their hands and do not seek a doctor precisely because they believe they have freewills and simply choose to be abominations. If only they would look at Romans 1 and read why they are abominations, they may consider that only Christ can heal them. Only the Truth can set them free. That is how I see and address the real issue and I try to be as gentle as I possibly can. Sometimes however, being gentle is not possible.

This is where I have to strongly disagree. I was a heavy drug addict after I excepted Jesus in my early twenties. I knew I was wrong, but didn't care. I said to myself that I would deal with this later and if I died before I did, then I suffer eternal separation from God. I knew all well this was true, but I enjoyed the high I got more then I worried about eternity. Was I ignorant? No, not at all. It was a choice I made and I took, and still take, full responsibility for my action. Ignorance points to the mind, the understanding, where salvation is of the heart.

You seem to think free will is designed to be only implied in the correct manner, to bring someone toward God. By your examples of free will, I honestly believe we have different understandings. To me, free will is the ability to choose. It really is that simple. Being set free from sin is not having free will. Free will comes in the choosing salvation or not choosing salvation, not being set free.

Good post. Were you ignorant? I would say of course you were. For addiction is a trap that you fell into. That's why they call it addiction. The higher one gets, the more he dislikes sobriety. Most drug users have reasons for running away from reality. When they come down, that reality seems all the more worse so they get high again. The problem is they don't face the issues of that reality and the problems get even bigger which only makes them more inclined to not face them. Hence you said, I was wrong but I didn't care. How would you know you were wrong without something good?

But this makes no sense to me. You said you accepted Christ before you were a drug addict, and yet you say you didn't care about eternity afterwards because you enjoyed the high you got more than eternity. That is ignorance. salvation is not dependent upon whether you don't get high. This would make a man dread God. You were a drug addict and you valued the drug more than eternity? That sounds like ignorance to me. Addiction is far from freedom from the flesh. Tell me, what true knowledge made you think a small moment of being high was more important than an eternity of bliss? What knowledge made you understand that the torment of addiction was better than the peace of having want for nothing? Did you not recognize the will you were under was the will of the flesh which seeks it's own pleasure and avoids pain? Did you come to realize that the voice that was telling you to care about your condition and do something about it was God and not your flesh? Was it Love of others that eventually turned you around, or perhaps someone elses Love for you? Did others pray for you? Do you thank God for setting you free and not abandoning you, or do you believe it was by your own freewill? God is the Light of man. If you chose to do anything right or good, how do you say it was yourself, your flesh? What made you choose to care? Is not Love required to care? Just because you chose one way and then chose the other doesn't constitute freewill. You only need use the word will to have the ability to choose. The word free in front of it implies there is no other power that is behind it. There would therefore be no will of the flesh which is contrary to the will of God.

Of course you took responsibility for your actions, they were your actions. Ignorance of these powers that are working upon the wills of men however is a matter of the mind and heart and soul. Why is it scripture says to bring all thoughts into captivity? Do you not recall your saying that even thinking to sin as a viable option is sin? I say it this way because, it is impossible to not think of sin. How do you think I will not think of sin without thinking of sin? No, we combat the viabilty of the sinful path with Truth in our minds. With Truth we dispel the lies that would use our flesh to tempt us. And In our hearts, we feel the love and empathy for others and how our decisions will affect them. That is morality and that is God in us. Not some random back and forth ability to choose.