Does God "Always" Privide Sufficient Grace?

[psimmond]

Ian, I'm pretty sure that's not what he means. I think most Molinists would say that God provides sufficient grace to everyone regardless of their geographical location or where their life appears on the timeline of human history. God being a just God will ensure this grace is sufficient whether it's through general revelation or special revelation. So it's certainly possible that God would provide greater prevenient grace to the 2nd century Tibetan than to the comfort-enjoying European who lives in 2011 and has an opportunity to hear the gospel. Therefore, I believe it would make no sense to a Molinist to say that any one human is more culpable than any other.

steve7150 said:

Sounds like an intellectually acceptable form of Calvinism since there is really no so called "free will" on the part of the person who never hears the gospel.

I'd be interested to know how you define free will and whether or not you think you have free will.
I can't figure out why you think people lack free will according to Molinism.

According to Molinism, God surveyed what free agents would freely do in every possible world and then created the world that has an optimal balance between saved and unsaved. (The best world would of course have 100% saved, but this world is not feasible without stripping free will agents of their freedom.)

This is different than the classic Arminian view that God looked ahead through the corridors of time, saw what every creature did and then calls those who chose to believe in him his elect.

Arminians and Calvinist can agree that God's omniscience would allow him to know what every free-will agent would do in any situation even before a single one was created and did anything. (I'm not sure whether or not Open Theists would accept this.)

As far as I can see, God's knowledge of what every free agent would do (not what they did), in no way strips free agents of their free will or the responsibility that comes with the exercise of it; instead, it highlights God's amazing omniscience.

[Paidion]

Mr. Simmond, have you read Greg Boyd's books and given them a thorough evaluation?

It seems that I was an "open theist" decades before I knew open theism existed. Then after posting something on this forum, Steve Gregg suggested that I might be an open theist. I had never heard of such a thing. But I looked up the term on the Internet, and learned about the writings of such men as Greg Boyd and John Sanders. After reading and pondering their writings, the nascent thoughts which I had as a result of Bible study, began to crystallize.

[psimmond]

Boyd was my man for the last 2 or 3 years . I read a lot of his stuff and recommended it to others. The truth was, however, I always had a feeling deep down inside that something wasn't quite right. All of the fulfilled prophesies, numerous verses about God's exhaustive knowledge of future events, and the book of Revelation seemed to argue against Open Theism. On the other hand, I think Molinism lines up with the whole of scripture better than Open Theism, Arminianism, or Calvinism.

The verses that I used to use to support my belief in Open Theism, I now see as figurative rather than literal. This is quite easy by the way, since there are many verses in the Bible that say God knows everything about the future.

[steve7150]

steve7150 said:

Sounds like an intellectually acceptable form of Calvinism since there is really no so called "free will" on the part of the person who never hears the gospel.
I'd be interested to know how you define free will and whether or not you think you have free will.
I can't figure out why you think people lack free will according to Molinism.


Free according dictionary.com means unencumbered. I can think of numerous encumbrances on man starting with the devil blinding the minds of unbelievers 1st Cor 4.4. I became a believer about 9 years ago after hearing the gospel preached for the first time in my life. I did'nt grow up in a Christian family, i had thought Jesus was a prophet like Moses or Muhammed so had i died 20 years ago would you judge that i had biblical free will? Most people throughout history never really knew Jesus even if they had heard his name, therefore they have a lack of knowledge, which causes them to perish. That does'nt seem like free will to me. On the other hand we have a "will", in that we can make choices but biblical free will has a specific meaning and establishes rewards and consequences based on how we react to our "free will."

[psimmond]

steve7150 said:

Free according dictionary.com means unencumbered. I can think of numerous encumbrances on man starting with the devil blinding the minds of unbelievers 1st Cor 4.4. I became a believer about 9 years ago after hearing the gospel preached for the first time in my life. I did'nt grow up in a Christian family, i had thought Jesus was a prophet like Moses or Muhammed so had i died 20 years ago would you judge that i had biblical free will? Most people throughout history never really knew Jesus even if they had heard his name, therefore they have a lack of knowledge, which causes them to perish. That does'nt seem like free will to me. On the other hand we have a "will", in that we can make choices but biblical free will has a specific meaning and establishes rewards and consequences based on how we react to our "free will."

On a different thread I asked whether or not God has free will since it is not possible for him to do evil. Although I believe his nature limits him in this way, I still think he freely chooses to do the good that he does. (I believe libertarian free will is commonly defined as the ability to freely choose.)

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3834
Board index ‹ Theology ‹ Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology ‹ Molinism and OSAS

[Ian]

psimmonds said:

I believe it would make no sense to a Molinist to say that any one human is more culpable than any other.

This doesn`t ring true to me (or at least how you wrote it).
My brother has two mentally and physically handicapped daughters. They have zero culpability. But (say) a man who was once flooded with the joy and peace of the Holy Spirit (and has a good understanding of the Gospel and its demands on him) but then departs from the faith to lead a life of hedonism is at the other extreme.
Are not all people somewhere along the line between these extremes of culpability?
Would not Paul have been more culpable than any of us if he had refused to budge from his position even after his Damascus experience?

[psimmond]

Hi Ian,
I'm learning about Molinism so I'm not positive that Molinists would agree with my statement. But as far as I can tell, according to Molinism it's a black and white issue. Since the grace God provides to mentally handicapped individuals is sufficient for the outcome He desires and since the grace God provided to Paul was sufficient, all are judged culpable or not culpable depending on whether they accept or reject that grace. Hitler may have received a greater degree of grace than me since I grew up in a home with two Christian parents, but we both received sufficient grace. God knew I wouldn't need a Damascus experience but Paul would.

Jesus said "Much will be required of everyone who has been given much," and the verse before that tells us the reverse is also true.

What do you think?

[Ian]

Hi p,

That was a fast reply!

I don`t know what I think. But am in good company with TK who eloquently posted on my post here about the handicapped:
http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... andicapped

Verbatim`s post also resonated somehow.

But I digress.

[psimmond]

In my last post, when I said, "Jesus said 'Much will be required of everyone who has been given much,' and the verse before that tells us the reverse is also true," I didn't make it clear that I think that statement can be applied to those with limited mental capacity or other situational disadvantages. We can count on the fact that God will deal with all justly.

I'll check out the other thread.