tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post7580594113535531371..comments2023-05-18T03:50:23.681-07:00Comments on The Center for Theological Studies: God, the Sole Source of Contingency (Molina's "Concordia," Disputation 47, Section 4)Byronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11537490279115937176noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-4046078645878990712010-03-04T08:50:39.541-08:002010-03-04T08:50:39.541-08:00Kaitiaki,
I am gonna respond again and say that ...Kaitiaki,<br /><br /> I am gonna respond again and say that regarding Molina's idea of contingency, you have not provided a biblical response against his view of contingency. <br /><br /> But your quote at the end gives it away: "What Molina's contingency means for me is I am tempted to say I influence God's choice. That takes from me the God whose justice is absolutely impartial and whose mercy is boundless."<br /><br /> But it is your doctrine of God that takes away from God's "impartial" justice (as u have labeled it). How can God not be partial if He throws all in judgment to have mercy on a few? That's what Calvinism states: that God pulls "some" from the mass, as if to say that God doesn't desire to pull all. And that contradicts what you believe about God desiring all to be saved. If He desires all to be saved, then He would provide the means for all to be saved. And He has---by grace through faith, given to every single person. Romans tells us that "God has committed them all (Jew and Gentile) to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32, NKJV). This is on the heels of what was written before verse 32:<br /><br />"For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown to you they also may obtain mercy" (Rom. 11:30-31).<br /><br />God has committed all, Jews and Gentiles, to disobedience in order to "have mercy on all." It doesn't say He committed them all to have mercy on "a few," or "the elect," or anything of the sort. The scriptures must be distorted in order for Calvinism to shine through, which is why the issue is not theological, but philosophical.<br /><br /> Notice your statement from above about middle knowledge: that to affirm contingency, is to affirm that "I influenced God's choice." This is not what is being stated by the doctrine. What contingency states as a doctrine is that things did not have to be the way they are. Since you are a Calvinist, you should be thrilled that this doctrine exists. Calvinists always say that "God did not have to save me," so this doctrine should be embraced by you. <br /><br /> Next, regarding the idea that this doctrine makes God dependent on us: I would say that i honestly don't know where you get this idea from. But I do know that, ultimately, this goes back to the faith issue and regeneration. In any case, Genesis 15 shows us that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness" (Gen. 15:6). It wasn't the calling of God that made him righteous (although God called him of God's own initiative), and it wasn't Abraham leaving his country that made him righteous. No---it was the fact that he "believed God," had faith in God, that made him righteous. And this is how it is with every individual before God. God is not dependent on man bc He is the "one who calls" (Rom. 9). He is the one who chooses to call every person to Himself. No one makes Him do this or forces His hand. Secondly, it is Abraham's faith that justifies him. Just because he heard God's voice did not make him "elect" or "chosen" for salvation. And today, God calls all to Himself---but He does not "make" us come. We all have a choice: to believe or not to believe. Just like Abraham, we will only be justified when we say, "I believe." And God is not dependent on man because He set faith to be the way by which man would become saved (Gal. 3:18, 22). God did this so that even the Gentiles could come to faith.<br /><br /> You've got to show me where in the Bible in regards to salvation is there some other way that God designs the process if you intend to make your case. You state what the Bible says; but I require passages of Scripture at the site to support what is said, as I did above. To just write what you believe about the Bible without typing it or referencing it will not do.Deidre Richardson, B.A., M.Div.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415891901162852180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-2889041946739330562010-03-04T04:05:59.859-08:002010-03-04T04:05:59.859-08:00I guess I have to come back to looking at the kind...I guess I have to come back to looking at the kind of language the Bible uses. That it may be used to help us make theological and philosophical distinction does not mean that is the language of its original authors.<br /><br />The Bible says Jesus ascended into heaven when he left the earth. That was written from the disciples' perspective. He didn't actually go up - the meaning of ascend. If he left the ground and went "up" he actually went outwards. The difficulty with applying philosophical precision to such language is it makes a mockery of the intent.<br /><br />That God lowers the accuracy of his language to let us see his truth in a way we can understand it does not give us the right to use that language to paint his character inaccurately.<br /><br />The Bibles makes it quite clear that God is unchanging - that he ordains whatever comes to pass. Your quotation from Bruce Waltke would tend in that direction. <br /><br />It also says that he does not desire the death of any sinner. That some are lost cannot be interpreted in any way which denies what we just established. <br /><br />All I want to do is to accept both statements as absolutely true. Do I have to now find something in the sinner who is saved that explains why God saves him? Why can I not just say God doesn't change, my perception is incomplete and will always be incomplete? Can I not accept that, as a human, I can never completely define God or explain his character exhaustively? As long as I keep within the bounds of the Bible's plain intent I can surely not go wrong.<br /><br />The Bible says it is purely God's choice that I am saved - nothing (and that means nothing) in me was worthy. There is no difference between me and any other sinner, but God loved me anyway and sent his son to die for me. Then I will accept that. Anything else leaves something for me to boast about.<br /><br />What Molina's contingency means for me is I am tempted to say I influence God's choice. That takes from me the God whose justice is absolutely impartial and whose mercy is boundless.Kaitiakihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04091541905130901357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-76178446643163894142010-03-02T19:05:24.146-08:002010-03-02T19:05:24.146-08:00Kaitiaki,
When you talk of doing away with conti...Kaitiaki,<br /><br /> When you talk of doing away with contingency, I'm not sure if you understand what you're saying. Contingency itself states that everything is dependent upon God for its existence. To do away with this idea is to state that God "had to" do something, that it was "necessary." And the only thing necessary about God is His existence...<br /><br /><br />There are passages in Scripture, though, that show us how the world condition has drifted from what God intended it to be. For example, the issue of divorce. In Matthew 19:8, Jesus said, <br /><br />"Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8, NKJV).<br /><br />Jesus tells us here that divorce was never originally intended to be part of the plan of God or the world condition...and yet, we live in a world that is full of divorce. But if we take away the idea of contingency, then divorce was always in the plan of God. But what do we do with Jesus' words about divorce? If divorce was necessary to the plan of God, then Jesus is deceiving us here. And I'd like to believe that God is true, but every man a liar (Rom. 3:4).<br /><br /> You want to dispel with the idea of contingency, but there has to be sufficient justification for why believers must do away with this idea. All you've given me at this point is that you see things differently. However, that is no sufficient justification why we should do away with an idea. You have to have biblical evidence to do away with contingency. And I'm awaiting what biblical justification you have for your response...Deidre Richardson, B.A., M.Div.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415891901162852180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-14736195950702414762010-03-02T09:08:40.502-08:002010-03-02T09:08:40.502-08:00Certainly God sustains the universe he has made - ...Certainly God sustains the universe he has made - I am yet to be convinced of Molina's distinctions though. I would suggest we don't need to talk of contingency to describe the universe. <br />I would use exactly the same verses you quote for exactly the same reasons - but would describe the universe as working exactly as God has created it to work. That he has ordained all that comes to pass ("he does as he wills in the heavens and on the earth and none can stay his hand or say 'what doest thou?'" an other places) and that he has ordained that our decisions have consequences which he has also ordained ("You will say to me, 'why does he yet find fault for who has resisted his will?' No oh man, who are you to argue against God ..." then the illustration of the potter and the clay).<br /><br />Is my view logically inconsistent? Probably. But I don't have to be logically consistent - only faithful to Scripture. After all though I don't understand him perfectly (and no human can) I can at least understand the teaching of his word. If God sees no conflict, why should I?Kaitiakihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04091541905130901357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-172417803867627775.post-83275562643281651322010-03-01T22:02:38.656-08:002010-03-01T22:02:38.656-08:00Dear Readership,
Molina stated that God's wi...Dear Readership,<br /><br /> Molina stated that God's will was the source of contingency, the one responsible for all the contingent beings (human) and objects (creation) that are present in our world. Molina's view is validated by Scripture. While reading for Old Testament Theology a day or so ago, I found two passages that confirm Molina's thought that I wanted you to get ahold of:<br /><br />(1) Revelation 4:11---"'You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, and BY YOUR WILL THEY EXIST AND WERE CREATED'" (NKJV).<br /><br />(2) Jeremiah 33:9-16--- this passage shows God's faithfulness to His creation covenant. Bruce Waltke writes, "Apart from I AM's faithfulness to His irrevocable covenant to maintain the day and night, the cosmos would revert to chaos" ("An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach" by Bruce Waltke. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, page 205).<br /><br /> Just wanted to supply some scriptural backing for Molina. I believe in doing this to represent all theological systems fairly and give them as much scriptural backing as possible.Deidre Richardson, B.A., M.Div.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04415891901162852180noreply@blogger.com