As we all know, Calvinists indulge in all sorts of convoluted interpretations to explain away the plain sense of Scripture. By refreshing contrast, here is the explanatory grid which one prominent Arminian epologist proposes:
One possible scenario is that God first resolves absolutely that Peter should freely elicit A in C and then, as it were, consults his middle knowledge to see just which particular graces would, if bestowed on Peter in C, obtain his free consent and thus issue in A. It follows that, given his antecedent resolution, God would have conferred some grace other than G if he had known by his middle knowledge that G would turn out to be "merely sufficient" with respect to A, i.e., that Peter would not freely consent to G in C. So G is rendered efficacious not only by Peter's free consent but also, and indeed more principally, by God's antecedent predetermination to confer a "congruous" grace that will guarantee Peter's acting well in C.
http://steven-n.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-free-will.html?showComment=1258668853262#c4864560501678746911
Stop and ask yourself how John 3:16 would look if you tried to filter that verse through his explanatory grid.
Hmm...
ReplyDeleteGod loves everyone. Just not all of them in this particular universe.
Would that work? :-D
"if He had known"!
ReplyDeleteOk.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWere you aware that this was the prominent Arminian epologist's explanation of congruism, which he claims is "the only way [he] know[s]...to reconcile TULIP with LFW"?
That means it's not his view, or the view of any Arminian, but the only way he knows to reconcile Calvinism and LFW.
I am just thrilled that I got my blog advertised on, of all places, Triablogue. I must also be moving up in life...
ReplyDeletesorry that this comment is off the subject, but does anyone know wher i can obtain sum of those paintings that manata had in his pic a while back? paintings, watercolored or oil, of philosophers? i asked but the post itself was deleted almost immediately.
ReplyDeletethnx and sorry again.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDeleteSteve,
Were you aware that this was the prominent Arminian epologist's explanation of congruism, which he claims is "the only way [he] know[s]...to reconcile TULIP with LFW"?
That means it's not his view, or the view of any Arminian, but the only way he knows to reconcile Calvinism and LFW.
********************
I'm also aware of the fact that Dan is a Molinist who subscribes to Molinism because he thinks "The scriptures teach God's providence and man's choice. Molinism reconciles the two cleanly. In explaining scripture, Calvinism has to 'explain away' man's freedom and Simple Foreknowledge has to explain away God's providence."
Congruism is a variant of Molinism. Do you think Dan would commend this position to Steven if Dan were fundamentally opposed to congruism? And don't you think Dan's preferred variant on Molinism will have to draw its own set of distinctions?
This is how to make oil and water mix by stirring really really hard when God's sovereignty and man's will are not like oil and water.
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs Boss points out, the above is unconditional election, not conditional election. James White has some youtube clips trying to reconcile John 3:16 with unconditional election.
But more to the point, we must not confuse the explinations of two texts with the explination of why the two texts don't conflict.
God be with you,
Dan
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
ReplyDelete"As Boss points out, the above is unconditional election, not conditional election."
You're kidding, right? Your very own formulation of congruism involves both conditional and unconditional factors.
Indeed, that's the whole point. To combine both.
"James White has some youtube clips trying to reconcile John 3:16 with unconditional election."
i) Which is irrelevant to whether or not congruism, or Molinism generally, interprets a verse like Jn 3:16 more plain sensibly than Calvinism.
ii) Moreover, I don't have any problems squaring Jn 3:16 with unconditional election. But you're changing the subject.
"But more to the point, we must not confuse the explinations of two texts with the explination of why the two texts don't conflict."
Irrelevant. The point at issue is not how to harmonize one text with another, but congruism or Molinism generally offers a plain sensible interpretation of Arminian prooftexts. The question applies to one text at a time.
Dear Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be using 'unconditional election' in some new sense apart from Dort and the 5 points of the remonstrants. Historically, the issue is did God look at us as believers when electing or not. Congruist say no, Arminian Molinist says yes.
I don't see a basis for your claim of using Molinist to read John 3:16. How do you think Molinists read it?
God be with you,
Dan
GODISMYJUDGE SAID:
ReplyDelete"You seem to be using 'unconditional election' in some new sense apart from Dort and the 5 points of the remonstrants. Historically, the issue is did God look at us as believers when electing or not. Congruist say no, Arminian Molinist says yes."
Why don't you go back and reread your own formulation to congruism? Look at all the caveats in your own formulation–such as the distinction between God's antecedent and consequence will, which takes into account response of the creature.
"I don't see a basis for your claim of using Molinist to read John 3:16. How do you think Molinists read it?"
Why don't you tell me what you think is the difference between a Reformed reading, an Arminian simple foreknowledge reading, and an Arminian-Molinist reading.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteThe distinction between God's antecedent and consequence will is irrelivant, since unconditional election logically preceeds it in congruism.
In contrast to some (but not all Calvinists) those who hold to simple foreknowledge and Arminian Molinists view 'kasomos' in John 3:16 the same way; as a refering to everyone (our Lord excepted).
As for the reasons why, please see Goodwin:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Redemption%20Redeemed%202.pdf
starting on page 134 (56 in the PDF file)
God be with you,
Dan