I have missed Dr. Keathley. As I began, I had to leave the room. Here is the beginning. I have found out that they are doing podcast for this at lifeways website.
Sovereingty and permission as they relate to predestination.
Similarities of infralapsarian Calvinism and Molinism
Molinism–affirming divine sovereignty with genuine permission.
Olson–an Arminian rejects Molinism because it is to Calvinistic.
Supralapsarianism–the concept of permission rejected. Calvin held to double reprobation. The key to supralapsarianism is reprobation and damnation. God does not reject the reprobate because he is a sinner, but the sinner becomes a reprobate because he rejected God. Grace plays no part in the supralapsarian decree–Bruce Ware.
Most Reformed people follow the infralapsarian view.
There is a sweet lady, named Janet, sitting beside me taking meticulous notes in a word document. She just gave me the entire outline up to Dr. Welty. Below is the entie outline of Dr. Keathley.
+ Ken Keathley – A Molinist View of Election
- Two essential doctrines: sovereignty and permission (given to angels and humans) our freedom is a derived freedom
- Permission -
- Islam – Divine sovereignty taken to the extreme
- Process theology – permission taken to the extreme
- Biblical truth – God sovereignty rules over people who he allows a permission
- The similarities of infralapsarian Calvinism and Molinism
- Question of the reprobate – God’s decision based on our rejection or His choice
- Superlapsarians – double predestination prior to creation
- Infralapsarians God first allowed to permit the fall, then decided to choose some to be saved
- Molinism – high view of sovereignty with a robust understanding of permission
- Molin – 16th century Jesuit priest
- Calvin’s Supralapsarianism: The Concept of permission rejected
o Reprobation – God’s rejection of an individual
§ The reprobate becomes a sinner because he rejects God
o Damnation – God’s punishment of the individual who is reprobate
o Election & reprobation have equal
o Grace plays no part in the initial double decree
§ Grace does not enter the picture until God decides save the elect from the fall
- Infralapsarianism: the attempt to blend Calvinism & permission
o Dort – says that any attempt to lay sin at God’s feet is blasphemy
o Refuses double predestination
o Some aspects of God’s will with regard to evil etc. are permissive
o Election is unconditional but reprobation is conditional
- Problems with the Infralapsarianism position
o It is very difficult to reconcile permission with the traditional Reformed view of sovereignty
o The infralapsarian system is rationally inconsistent
o The concept of permission doesn’t solve anything is reprobation is still the result of “God’s good pleasure”
- Conclusions among Calvinists concerning infralapsarianism
o Many supra-Calvinists dismiss the infra as incipient Arminianism
o Some Calvinist despair of enterprise completely
o Many Calvinists appeal to mystery
o But there is difference between mystery and contradiction
- Molinism: affirming both sovereignty & permission
o 2 affirmation of Molinism: Meticulous sovereignty and libertarian free will
o God controls all things primarily by his omniscience but is not the determinative of all things
o 3 moments in Molinism
§ Counterfactual: a statement contrary to fact which still yet has truth content
§ Possible worlds: complex scenarios made up of counterfactuals
§ Natural knowledge – God knows everything that can happen, free knowledge – God sovereignly chooses what will happen to make His will , middle knowledge – God sees all the scenarios that can happen as the result of man’s free will
- Advantages of the Molinist Approach
o Molinism affirms the genuine desire on the part of God for al to be saved in a way that is problematic for Calvinism
o Provides a better model for understanding how it is simultaneously true that God’s decree if election is unconditional while his rejection of the unbeliever is conditional
§ Why is the reprobate reprobate? – because God wills it (i.e. wills the world where this can occur), although it is because of the reprobate’s choice
o In the Molinist system, unlike Arminianism, God is the author of salvation who actively elects certain one
o Molinism has a more robust and scriptural understanding of the role God’s foreknowledge plays in election that does either Calvinism or Arminianism
o Molinism provides a better model for understanding the biblical divine sovereignty and human responsibility
o Molinism places mystery where it should be located, i.e. in God’s infinite attributes rather than His character
o Molinism has a valid concept of permission that does not have to resort to special pleading
- Molinism is a defense not a theodicy (an attempt to explain why God created the world as He did)
- Molinism presents a forceful affirmation of both sovereignty and permission
If find this presentation troublesome for several reasons.
1. It begs the question with respect to “genuine permission.” Did Dr. Keathley ever substantiate what the Bible actually says about what constitutes “genuine permission” in a non-question begging fashion?
2. It seems to fail to deal with Supralapsarianism of the Robert Reymond variety. This is the sort of thing that makes one wish that there was interaction from the floor or with a representative of the other position, like Dr. Reymond.
3. Does Supralapsarianism reject the concept of “permission?” That strikes me as his own characterization of Supralapsarianism. However, here’s what Berkhof said, discussing the difference between the two positions:
Negatively, the difference is not found…(3) In any essential difference as to the question, whether the decree relative to sin is permissive. (He says this after (2) any essential difference as to whether the fall of man was decreed or was merely the object of divine foreknowledge). Continuing, “Supralapsarians (with few exceptions) are willing to admit that the decree relative to sin is permissive, but hasten to add that it nevertheless makes the entry of sin into the world a certainty. And Infralapsarisns (with few exceptions) will admit that sin is included in God’s decree, but hasten to add that the decree, in so far as it pertains to sin, is permissive rather than positive. … As a whole, however, Supralapsarians emphatically repudiate every interpretatinm of the decree that would make God the author of sin and Infralapsarians are careful to point out explicitly that the permissive decree of God relative to sin makes sin certainly future. (ST: 119)
So, it seems here that Dr. Keathley is inserting characterizations into his presentation of the state of the question that misrepresent the standard literature.
4. Does God’s grace play no role in the supralapsarian decree? I believe Dr. Reymond has replied to this objection raised by Dr. Ware. In fact, a smart Supra would reply simply that all the decrees are gracious since God is under no obligation to instantiate any of them or even conceive of them.
5. It is by no means certain that Calvin was a Supra. If that’s true,then it puts paid to characterization of it arising with Beza. Conversely, it also neglects the literature that states otherwise about Calvin.
6. Saying grace plays no part until God decides to save the elect from the Fall neglects:
a. Reymond’s view.
b. That Supra is a teleological order of decrees. Consequently, it is assumed that grace factors into the decree of election, even though it is placed first, and the fall is the chosen means to bring about the the end. The first decree is the end, the others are all means to the end.
c. At most this objection would apply to older Supralapsarianism, in which men are considered elect or reprobate prior to consideration of any means.
7. Throughout what I see here, Dr. Keathley seems to be confusing *certainty* (a decree) and *causality* (providence). From this error, added to his belief in LFW, he wishes to object and thus frames his Molinist alternative.
8. I see no mention is made of William Lane Craig’s explicit statement that the exegetical support for Molinism is paper-thin in his article on it in Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views. Was there ever any argument for it from Scripture?
9.. I agree that Infra is rationally inconsistent. But this doesn’t select for Molinism. Again, see Reymond.
10. In Molinism counterfactuals are known PRIOR to the decree. How? If choices are libertarian and there is any number of “possible worlds,” then this falls prey to the grounding objection. Where is his reply?
11. We Calvinists do not deny the existence of counterfactuals. The issue is over what grounds them: God’s self-knowledge of his own decrees or LFW. If LFW, then where is the argument for LFW?
12. Once we start saying that God determines certain events and that these ensure the instantiation of one and ONLY one possible world, we have a built in defeaters for LFW, for if these outcomes are already DETERMINED, then LFW is superfluous. The real issue here is therefore LFW, and the unargued argument for it. Consequently, Molinism is the very exemplar of special pleading from beginning to end.
Comment by genembridges — November 27, 2007 @ 9;30 pm
Bingo. Well said Gene. I really find it odd to find a Southern Baptist professor advocating Molinism. This kind of soft indeterminism does not provide a middle ground, is not biblically supported, and cannot be held with consistency if it is grounded in a view of free will that holds to power of contrary choice.
Comment by Timmy Brister — November 28, 2007 @ 4;41 am
Brother Gene,
Thanks for reading. I am not going to even try and presume to debate the issue with you. However, I do believe that Dr. Keathley has presented a point that we need to ponder as we strive to realistically build bridges towards each other’s position. Would you not agree?
Brother Timmy,
You are certainly up early. :>) I have not been able to identify you at the conference. Are you here? If you are, how would I be able to identify you, as I would be humbled in meeting you.
Also, what is it about Molinism that looses in the consistency spectrum for you?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 28, 2007 @ 5;37 am
Tim,
I’m mainly concerned here that Dr. Keathley, and all the people making presentations, put their best foot forward. This, from what I can tell, doesn’t do that. That’s why I find it “troubling.”
For example, he frankly misrepresents Supralapsarianism and does not appear to interact with the version put forward since at least the time of Hoeksema. That’s a major weakness. I have to seriously wonder if he has ever interacted with the other side in a meaningful fashion. For example, quoting Dr. Ware on grace and the decree with respect to Supralapsarianism is fine, but this is HIS argument, so HE needs to demonstrate this fact. Otherwise, he’s just quoting a characterization of Supralapsarianism and claiming it as his own. Later, he calls the Infra position, “rationally incoherent,” but Dr. Ware is an Infralapsarian. Ergo, why should we trust Dr. Ware’s statements about grace and the Supra position, if Dr. Ware is also espousing a “rationally incoherent” order of decrees, for Dr. Ware’s objections would, in fact, arise out of the standard Infra objections to Supra, which in turn are built on the whole of the Infra position. Ergo, if what Dr. Keathley, as I understand him, claimed to be true about grace and Supralapsarianism is at all true, he needs his own argument, otherwise, he later undermines the truth of the statement later in his presentation. Also, I can see Dr. Reymond, for example, reading this and saying, “No, that’s not true at all.” My understanding is that these presentations are also chapters or parts of chapters in a compiled book. He would do well to take his presentation and send it to Dr. Reymond, who is “the” leading advocate of Supralapsarianism at present, and have it critiqued. By the way, what really, really perturbs me here is that Dr. Reymond contributed the chapter on Supralapsarianism in a book published by Broadman & Holman. Instead of interacting with that one, which I think is becoming “the” view qua view among most Supras, the very one published by an SBC publisher no less, Dr. Keathely chose to interact with, from what I can tell, appears to be older Supralapsarianism. I hope I’m wrong, and maybe he will in his part of the book, but that strikes me as qualifying for a gaping lacuna.
He also says that Molinism is a “defense” but not a theodicy. What is defending? Is it defending “against” something? What would that be? Supralapsarianism? Infralapsarianism? This isn’t clear to me.
1. if I’m to understand Dr. Keathley, since Infralapsarianism is “rationally incoherent” and he rejects, I presume, the Amyraldian and Arminian order of decrees, may we conclude that Calvinism is true only insofar as Supralapsarianism (however defined) is true and, conversely, “non-Calvinism” is only true insofar as Molinism? As a Supralapsarian who understands Supralapsarianism exegetically (see Reymond in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views), I would say that, if Dr. Keathley is right about Infra, and Molinism is false, then Calvinism is only true insofar as Open Theism is true.
2. Which gets us to an obvious flaw in his own argument for Molinism, since Molinism seeks to defend LFW. Once a person converts, unless Dr. Keathley denies ES, which would mean he denies the BFM2K I might add, he no longer has LFW. So much for LFW, and if LFW goes, so goes Molinism. His choices become determined. Suddenly, we have ad hoc restrictions placed on LFW, for in soteriologies where LFW and ES are blended, the grace of God that was viewed quantiatively before conversion, suddenly becomes qualitative and effacious, and that’s one way his Molinism inconsistent.
3. In Molinism, there is one world that God instantiates. He grounds it his prior knowledge of LFW, via his knowledge of all possible worlds.
But where is the grounding of such knowledge? In libertarian freedom, the future free acts of men are not knowable, even by God, because if they are known by God they are part of His mind, but that would not be libertarianism, that would be compatibilism, which is not a libertarian argument. We Calvinists see such knowledge a species of self-knowledge. He knows what counterfactuals exist, because He knows the decree He enacted. Consequently, He knows what would have happened had HE, not WE, have chosen otherwise.
And grounding counterfactual knowledge in Middle Knowledge that is in turn GROUNDED in MAN”S LFW can only work at the sacrifice of the independence of God. God is sacrificing His own independence by grounding His own decrees in man’s choices. That abandons classical Christian theism by undermining the independence of God. I see that as problematic. I’m certain Greg pointed this out, as in the past month or two we had this same discussion on Triablogue and Greg participated in it.
This is the sort of thing that you get when you’re advocating a “defense” that is not itself exegetically derived. WLC frankly admits this, and he is “the” prime advocate of Molinism. He’s employing a philosophical,not an exegetical argument. This abandons the Protestant rule of faith without a supporting argument for that move.
4. Strictly speaking, he’s right, Molinism isn’t a “theodicy,” but this falls prey to the regressive fallacy insofar as Molinists generally appeal to the Free Will Defense theodicy (see, for exampleBruce Little’s blog_. As I recall, Bruce Little is also a Molinist. So, saying “Molinism is a defense, not a theodicy’ is only moving the question back by one step. One might ask where the Bible itself employs the FWD?
I have said many times, but not in quite some time, that I can work with an evangelical Arminian, even Wesleyans, often more than Baptists I know. Ergo, I agree, we can work to “build bridges,” but when it comes to LFW, how can one build a bridges to an action theory that simply and admittedly has no exegetical foundation (LFW itself) and/or a paper thin exegetical foundation (WLC himself on Molinism)? I agree, we do need to ponder it; obviously, I have at great length (because my Mom’s church is Bruce Little’s last church
), but we all need to be sure we accurately present the other side and put our best foot forward, particularly those in academia who have a reputation to defend many of us do not otherwise have. My fear here is for my brother, Dr. Keathley in that regard.
Also, orders of decrees are things that, dare I say, most of the people in that audience, Calvinists included, are mostly clueless about unless they’ve spent some time pondering them already. They likely wouldn’t catch many of the things I have or Steve Hays may have. WLC is frank in saying this question (Molinism) lies in the realm of philosophical, not exegetical theology. It is one of those that, if possible, needed a “classroom handout” for participants to read prior to the lecture. Even the Presbyterians’ eyes glaze over when you enter this discussion. Not to insult my fellow Baptist brothers, but how much moreso a bunch of Southern Baptists.
Comment by genembridges — November 28, 2007 @ 7;40 pm
Brother Gene,
Your last paragraph is spot on. We had heads of entities sleeping during some of the orders of decrees that were being explained. Dr. Stetzer termed this the “revenge of the nerds” conference. :>)
You are correct that these papers are being compiled into a book When it will be out is only under the providence of God. (see I did learn something)
I will be the first to admit that after we leave naming the 5 points, I am over my head. I took the notes as well as I could. However, I know that I missed much of Dr. Keathley’s information. What you have explained here is great and I encourage you to do more. However, you can contact Dr. Keathley at SEBTS through their website. I am sure he will exchange emails with you concerning your objections. Also, if you would like, ask him to respond to you on this comment thread. If you desire I will move it to the front page in order for others to respond if he chooses.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — November 28, 2007 @ 8;20 pm
I know how hypocritical it is for me to post this, being one who has numbed many a mind with the arcane.
If people well acquainted with the text of the Bible are not consequently well acquainted with the ins and outs of a theological system, might that not be, in and of itself, a critique of the theological system?
Comment by Bart Barber — November 28, 2007 @ 9;31 pm