Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Daciple]

I dont usually create Threads on the Board, but I wanted to discuss something a bit different than the usual Topics we see on here. I tried to ask this question in another Thread but there has been no responses so I decided to make a Thread specific for it and hopefully it will spark some discussions.

So I would like to know which or any of these 2 ideologies best describes or defines your view on Biblical Interpretation. Most usually there is a debate amongst Christians as to which of these is the more correct methodology for understanding Scripture and the operation of God. Usually the biggest divide amongst the groups would be the issue of Freewill.

Calvinism states basically that God plans every single thing that happens and determines all outcomes and had them all determined before Creation existed. Essentially there is no such thing as Freewill in Calvinism, and they assert Gods Sovereignty above all things stating that to give man Freewill impedes on Gods Supreme Sovereignty. There is definitely much more we can unpack in Calvinism and its TULIP ideology, which I am all for, but the Freewill issue was something I personally wanted to speak about more. Specifically as it concerns Salvation, as part of Calvinism it states that Salvation can not be lost.

In Arminianism it states that man indeed has Freewill and with Freewill as a driving force in the ideology it also supposes that man can indeed lose their Salvation. Again there is much else that can be unpacked from the ideology as opposition to Calvinism ( Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace ect) and of course I am happy to speak on all of these as well, but would like to see a conversation that goes down the Freewill and Salvation topic if possible.

Also there is a 3rd much less talked about ideology that seems to be a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism called Molinism. I have just recently began to study Molinism and was wondering if anyone else has heard of this, and if so what are your thoughts about it?

Hopefully we can have a productive discussion along these Topics which would be a bit refreshing from the same debates and dialouges we seem to get stuck in on the Forum sometimes. Anyway I am excited to see some responses and views concerning these Topics!! I will give my opinions as we move on, but would like to hear others thoughts before hand!

 

[Claire Rousseau]

I definitely oppose Calvinism.

I do not agree with the idea that God hasn’t given us freewill. He absolutely has. We are not soulless droids that are programmed to accept or reject salvation...God said “whosoever” believeth, and let him come and drink FREELY of the water of life.

I do believe we cannot lose our salvation, but not for the reason Calvinists believe it. The Bible says we cannot & I can testify from experience that we cannot.

I am an independent fundamental Baptist.
My beliefs are based on every Word of the King James Holy Bible.

 

[rainerann]

I have always had a problem with all schools of Christian thought that was named after the person that established them. It is the primary reason I have never investigated Calvinism in particular.

I had never heard of Molinism, and while I find that I agree with what I could understand of it from GotQuestions, it also appears to be a train of Christian thought named after the person who thought of it. I just don't see whereas this is necessary unless we are competing with other ideas that stem from a particular founder.

 

[Daciple]

@Claire Rousseau

I dont agree with Calvinism myself, and think much along the same lines as you do. I believe God is Sovereign however we have Freewill. Yet I dont believe we can lose our Salvation, or more like we wont ever lose our Salvation. Having Freewill we must conclude that we have the Freewill Choice to walk from Salvation, yet I dont believe anyone ever has or ever will.

Arminianism leans heavily upon the operation of Freewill, yet says we can/will or some have Lost Salvation, which is something I dont agree with. While I too am independent in my beliefs, I enjoy learning from the other systems of thought and their reasoning and Biblical understandings of the ideals incorporated into them.

Thats why I have an interest in Molinism, have you ever heard of it? You may find it is much closer to the views you have come up with in your independent studies of the Word of God. While of course I dont think any of these systems of thought/philosophies are perfect, I would say that Molinism is rather close to how I believed prior to having heard of it before.

A bit about Molinism:

Molinism is an attempt to provide a solution to the classic philosophical problems associated with God's providence, foreknowledge and the freedom of humanity. This view may be traced to the 16th century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina - hence, the name Molinism. Specifically, it seeks to maintain a strong view of God's sovereigntyover creation while at the same time preserving the belief that human beings have self-determined freedom, or libertarian free will.

"Molina's doctrine is called scientia media, or middle knowledge, because it stands in the middle of the two traditional categories of divine epistemology as handed down by Aquinas, natural and free knowledge. It shares characteristics of each and, in the logical order of the divine deliberative process regarding creation, it follows natural knowledge but precedes free knowledge."^ [1]^

"The most famous distinctive in Molinism is its affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of threelogical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time, rather one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge."^[3]^

• Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.
• Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what any free creature would do in any given circumstance, also known as counterfactual knowledge. It is also sometimes stated as God's knowledge of the truth of subjunctive conditionals.
• Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He freely decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.

God's knowledge and the decreed creation
The following is a synopsis of the logical order postulated in Molinism, relating the aspects (or moments) of God's knowledge to the world He chose to create.

1. God's knowledge of all possible and necessary truths (natural knowledge -- of what could happen).
2. God's knowledge of all feasible worlds (middle knowledge -- of what would happen through free choices under certain circumstances, including counterfactuals).
3. Divine decree to create His selected world.
4. God's Foreknowledge set through His selected decree (free knowledge -- of what will come to pass).

Postulating a middle knowledge and placing it between God's knowledge of necessary truths and God's creative decree is crucial to the Molinist scheme. By placing middle knowledge (and thus counterfactuals) before the creation decree, God conceivably allows for man's freedom in the libertarian sense. Placing this middle knowledge logically after necessary truths but before the creation decree also allows God to survey all feasible worlds and decide which world to actualize. https://www.theopedia.com/molinism

Here is a short video from William Craig Lane explaining it as well:

So from my personal studies of the Bible and thoughts concerning the Freewill vs Sovereignty debate, this was how I logically believed God has always acted. It also would have its hand on the whole Elect ideal, as in Calvinism the Elect are literally predetermined before time by God as to who would accept Jesus, where as this model and my independent thoughts concerning it, have always lead me to believe that God knew who would and wouldnt of their own Freewill accept Christ and those who would of their own Freewill accept Him are the Elect. Using Middle Knowledge He knew no matter what and how all aspects of worlds He would create, this or that person would or would not accept Christ. I believe that there are people that would not and will not ever in their own Freewill accept Christ.

Anyways I am wondering what you think of this ideology or if you have ever heard of it, or have any opinions on it?

 

[Vytas]

I checked Molinism, never heard of it before either, and at least on surface i think i agree with everything they claim...Calvinist doesn't make a lot of sense. I do not need to research anything to know i have free will. I know i do..
About planing every sigle thing that happens....World is going downwards, that is best evidence God doesn't interfere all that much in our lives. God only interferes when called (prayers), the more you pray the more God you see in your life...

 

[Daciple]

I have always had a problem with all schools of Christian thought that was named after the person that established them. It is the primary reason I have never investigated Calvinism in particular.

I had never heard of Molinism, and while I find that I agree with what I could understand of it from GotQuestions, it also appears to be a train of Christian thought named after the person who thought of it. I just don't see whereas this is necessary unless we are competing with other ideas that stem from a particular founder.

I understand and agree to a point. I dont believe any of these system are perfect, but I do believe that within each system they deal with topics that are essential to our reasoning and understanding of the Bible.

Freewill vs Sovereignty is something as a Christian I believe we need to have some sort of grasp on.

Doctrine of Election

Grace and whether it is irresistible or not

Application of the Atonement, is it limited or given to all men

These types of ideologies are components in understanding how God operates in the World and via the Word of God, and I think it is part of that Rightly Dividing Gods Word thing. Of course none of this is nessacarily Salvation Dependent but as a Christian and a Logical Human I would like to be able to better understand and explain to the best of my limited allowance, how it is God works and operates concerning this topics.

I have always had problems with both Calvinism and Arminianism, for the reason mentioned already (honestly I have much much much bigger problems with Calvinism I also completely reject everything in it other than Once Saved Always Saved, although I arrive at it from a wholly different reason than Calvinism) and after studying more upon these different ideals I came across Molinism which seems to take the things of Calvinism that I know is True specifically Sovereignty of God and OSAS, and combines it with the things I agree with concerning Arminianism, mainly Freewill and marries both together in a way in which I had already understood these doctrine in my independent studies.

Esstenially I agree, I am not all for systems of thought named after men, I am not one to sit and say believe in this or that or you are completely wrong (go argue with a Calvinist that is what they end up doing pretty much) but I would say that of the different systems of thought Molinism is the one I would most agree with and puts into structure what I had already determined in and of myself in independent study. However just as I am open to agree with it, I am open for critiquing it so if others find problems with it then by all means I would like to discuss those as well.

I would like to also discuss the problems and merits in the other 2 systems if others would like to...

 

[rainerann]

I understand and agree to a point. I dont believe any of these system are perfect, but I do believe that within each system they deal with topics that are essential to our reasoning and understanding of the Bible.

Freewill vs Sovereignty is something as a Christian I believe we need to have some sort of grasp on.

Doctrine of Election

Grace and whether it is irresistible or not

Application of the Atonement, is it limited or given to all men

These types of ideologies are components in understanding how God operates in the World and via the Word of God, and I think it is part of that Rightly Dividing Gods Word thing. Of course none of this is nessacarily Salvation Dependent but as a Christian and a Logical Human I would like to be able to better understand and explain to the best of my limited allowance, how it is God works and operates concerning this topics.

I have always had problems with both Calvinism and Arminianism, for the reason mentioned already (honestly I have much much much bigger problems with Calvinism I also completely reject everything in it other than Once Saved Always Saved, although I arrive at it from a wholly different reason than Calvinism) and after studying more upon these different ideals I came across Molinism which seems to take the things of Calvinism that I know is True specifically Sovereignty of God and OSAS, and combines it with the things I agree with concerning Arminianism, mainly Freewill and marries both together in a way in which I had already understood these doctrine in my independent studies.

Esstenially I agree, I am not all for systems of thought named after men, I am not one to sit and say believe in this or that or you are completely wrong (go argue with a Calvinist that is what they end up doing pretty much) but I would say that of the different systems of thought Molinism is the one I would most agree with and puts into structure what I had already determined in and of myself in independent study. However just as I am open to agree with it, I am open for critiquing it so if others find problems with it then by all means I would like to discuss those as well.

I would like to also discuss the problems and merits in the other 2 systems if others would like to...

I am inclined to agree with what you are saying here. You basically summarized what I was considering when I was reading the most beginner version of the subject I could find through GotQuestions.

It is the best collective opinion of individual subjects that somewhat frequently become assigned to the person that collected them. Unfortunately, we often forget the limitations they experienced, which is one of my complaints with Calvinism. Calvin's perspective reflects limitations when we completely read through scripture. Sometimes, it is like Calvin only read a part of it.

Molinism doesn't present this same downside. Honestly, it is unfortunate that we do not spend more time discussing this instead of something like Calvinism. I have been surprised by how often I see discussions of Calvinism in Christian discussion forums. I am glad you shared this Daciple. I do think it is good to be exposed to this.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I had never heard of Molinism but had come to the view that any attribute stated in isolation leads to error, e.g. past and future vs present, as if they can be somehow separated. Any doctrine needs to take into account past, present and future elements to give a meaningful theology of salvation.

I will read up a bit more on Molinism - just found this link.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P20/molinism-vs.-calvinism

 

[Daciple]

I had never heard of Molinism but had come to the view that any attribute stated in isolation leads to error, e.g. past and future vs present, as if they can be somehow separated. Any doctrine needs to take into account past, present and future elements to give a meaningful theology of salvation.

I will read up a bit more on Molinism - just found this link.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P20/molinism-vs.-calvinism

That is William Craig Lanes site, and he is the guy in that video and one of the major proponents of Molinism today. He also is very active in debating others from Atheists to Muslims, I believe he even debated Christopher Hitchcock concerning God. I have recently bookmarked that site as I began to study Molinism.

It looks like I am not the only one who wasnt familiar with this ideology. And I agree @rainerann usually Calvinism is a Hot Topic on many Christian forums, and that is because it has a massive stranglehold on a huge percentage of Christians, usually under the heading of Reformationists or Reformed Theology. I think it does us well to speak on Calvinism as I think there are serious problems in its teachings, and it does us well to point them out because so many people get caught up in it. However I think it is just as important to give differing perspectives so that others can see or try to understand these ideologies apart from Calvinism and form rational and biblical counter arguments to it.

I am enjoying learning about something new and I am glad others are able to be exposed to it, and thus come to their own conclusions...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I think there are truths in Calvinism that lead to error when overstated, in reaction many embrace the equal and opposite error of Arminianism and ignore the past and future elements of salvation. I don't debate people on this - people need to "see" it for themselves.

It's the same with discussions around one particular verse set against a clear body of other scripture. If you are going to study a verse, take at least a chapter, it better, a book in mind to do it.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

That is William Craig Lanes site, and he is the guy in that video and one of the major proponents of Molinism today. He also is very active in debating others from Atheists to Muslims, I believe he even debated Christopher Hitchcock concerning God. I have recently bookmarked that site as I began to study Molinism.

It looks like I am not the only one who wasnt familiar with this ideology. And I agree @rainerann usually Calvinism is a Hot Topic on many Christian forums, and that is because it has a massive stranglehold on a huge percentage of Christians, usually under the heading of Reformationists or Reformed Theology. I think it does us well to speak on Calvinism as I think there are serious problems in its teachings, and it does us well to point them out because so many people get caught up in it. However I think it is just as important to give differing perspectives so that others can see or try to understand these ideologies apart from Calvinism and form rational and biblical counter arguments to it.

I am enjoying learning about something new and I am glad others are able to be exposed to it, and thus come to their own conclusions...

Is it not just like America - Democrat or Republican!? Sometimes they both have a point, so why polarize?

 

[Daciple]

I think there are truths in Calvinism that lead to error when overstated, in reaction many embrace the equal and opposite error of Arminianism and ignore the past and future elements of salvation. I don't debate people on this - people need to "see" it for themselves.

It's the same with discussions around one particular verse set against a clear body of other scripture. If you are going to study a verse, take at least a chapter, it better, a book in mind to do it.

I agree but I also think WLC made a great point in the summary of your article:

So don’t be too hard on our Calvinist brethren. Offer them something better, and hope that they will embrace it.

My intention is to bring to light these other perspectives, and then to criique each one so that I can have a better and personal understanding. I wish I would have stumbled across Molinism earlier in my studies, as I was always in that gap between Cal and Arm, never able to fully agree with either.

I am sure as I begin to study Mol more intently I will come across errors and I am actually wondering if anyone has problems with it or comes up with questions of it as they study it. I have found that sometimes the best way to understand something is by taking it apart and rebuilding it. I at one point thought Calvinism may have been worthy of my focal point, I fully agreed with Sovereignty it is the utmost needed thing in a True Belief in God, but after deconstructing and reconstructing it, I can never agree with it. There are so many errors that I believe completely contradict the Word of God I can not stand by it.

I probably have spent much more time on Calvinism because as I stated earlier its much more prevalent than the other 2 systems. Since it is so impacting on Christianity today I studied it more deeply than the other 2, and know much more about it than the other 2. Eventually I hope to try to explain the positions of each so others can learn. Then deconstruct them showing the problems I have with each, then reconstruct them showing the things I agree with each and then finally explain why I accept one over another or which parts from the 3 I accept vs reject.

That was kind of my intention with the Thread and hope others will contribute with their thoughts and ideas and what they have learned as they studied these topics, or maybe if they never heard of them they can become familiar with them and as you said, see for themselves...

 

[Daciple]

Is it not just like America - Democrat or Republican!? Sometimes they both have a point, so why polarize?

Lol if Calvinism is Republican and Arminianism is Democrat, then Molinism is Ron Paul, the only politician I have ever felt comfortable voting for in my life lol

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Some things that are true can also be philosophically and logically difficult - e.g. quantum computing...

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/179588/how-does-quantum-superposition-make-calculation-faster

How can something be a 0 and a 1 at the same time!?

In bringing in our time bound understanding to these various "isms" we miss the essential ingredient that is most foreign to our nature - eternality. To me this is an order of problem akin to "superposition" in quantum theory and why I think there might be something in the concept of Molinism (though I would have to ponder on it to decide where I stood on it!)

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Ok... I quite like Molinism on first impressions, however, for balance, here is a critique of Molinism...

https://carm.org/molinism

 

[Claire Rousseau]

@Claire Rousseau

I dont agree with Calvinism myself, and think much along the same lines as you do. I believe God is Sovereign however we have Freewill. Yet I dont believe we can lose our Salvation, or more like we wont ever lose our Salvation. Having Freewill we must conclude that we have the Freewill Choice to walk from Salvation, yet I dont believe anyone ever has or ever will.

Arminianism leans heavily upon the operation of Freewill, yet says we can/will or some have Lost Salvation, which is something I dont agree with. While I too am independent in my beliefs, I enjoy learning from the other systems of thought and their reasoning and Biblical understandings of the ideals incorporated into them.

Thats why I have an interest in Molinism, have you ever heard of it? You may find it is much closer to the views you have come up with in your independent studies of the Word of God. While of course I dont think any of these systems of thought/philosophies are perfect, I would say that Molinism is rather close to how I believed prior to having heard of it before.

A bit about Molinism:

Molinism is an attempt to provide a solution to the classic philosophical problems associated with God's providence, foreknowledge and the freedom of humanity. This view may be traced to the 16th century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina - hence, the name Molinism. Specifically, it seeks to maintain a strong view of God's sovereigntyover creation while at the same time preserving the belief that human beings have self-determined freedom, or libertarian free will.

"Molina's doctrine is called scientia media, or middle knowledge, because it stands in the middle of the two traditional categories of divine epistemology as handed down by Aquinas, natural and free knowledge. It shares characteristics of each and, in the logical order of the divine deliberative process regarding creation, it follows natural knowledge but precedes free knowledge."^ [1]^

"The most famous distinctive in Molinism is its affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of threelogical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time, rather one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge."^[3]^

• Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.
• Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what any free creature would do in any given circumstance, also known as counterfactual knowledge. It is also sometimes stated as God's knowledge of the truth of subjunctive conditionals.
• Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He freely decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.

God's knowledge and the decreed creation
The following is a synopsis of the logical order postulated in Molinism, relating the aspects (or moments) of God's knowledge to the world He chose to create.

1. God's knowledge of all possible and necessary truths (natural knowledge -- of what could happen).
2. God's knowledge of all feasible worlds (middle knowledge -- of what would happen through free choices under certain circumstances, including counterfactuals).
3. Divine decree to create His selected world.
4. God's Foreknowledge set through His selected decree (free knowledge -- of what will come to pass).

Postulating a middle knowledge and placing it between God's knowledge of necessary truths and God's creative decree is crucial to the Molinist scheme. By placing middle knowledge (and thus counterfactuals) before the creation decree, God conceivably allows for man's freedom in the libertarian sense. Placing this middle knowledge logically after necessary truths but before the creation decree also allows God to survey all feasible worlds and decide which world to actualize. https://www.theopedia.com/molinism

Here is a short video from William Craig Lane explaining it as well:

So from my personal studies of the Bible and thoughts concerning the Freewill vs Sovereignty debate, this was how I logically believed God has always acted. It also would have its hand on the whole Elect ideal, as in Calvinism the Elect are literally predetermined before time by God as to who would accept Jesus, where as this model and my independent thoughts concerning it, have always lead me to believe that God knew who would and wouldnt of their own Freewill accept Christ and those who would of their own Freewill accept Him are the Elect. Using Middle Knowledge He knew no matter what and how all aspects of worlds He would create, this or that person would or would not accept Christ. I believe that there are people that would not and will not ever in their own Freewill accept Christ.

Anyways I am wondering what you think of this ideology or if you have ever heard of it, or have any opinions on it?

No, I had never heard of Molinism before.

I do believe that God, being omniscient, does know who will & will not believe on Christ & be saved, but I also believe that our decision to reject or believe the Gospel is made 100% of our OWN freewill.

God knows the end from the beginning but He isn’t going to intrude on our freewill to be saved unless we, by our own freewill, reject Him FIRST. Eventually, He will turn someone over to a reprobate mind, and then it becomes TOO LATE to be saved.

But He will NOT reject us before we have rejected Him first.

After all, Jesus chose his disciples & specifically selected Judas Iscariot (who did not believe on the Lord & was a devil) because He knew he would betray Jesus & turn Him over to be crucified, thus fulfilling God’s Will for our redemption.

I think this might (& this is merely my opinion but I am not claiming it is Bible doctrine) explain why God intercedes on our behalf before we get saved.
Twice in my life, BEFORE I got saved (I’ve been saved for 15 years now), I somehow miraculously “cheated” death (according to the laws of physics) & something interceded nanoseconds before I would have certainly perished.
The fact that I survived was blatantly supernatural & left me silent & solemn for a couple days after, as I struggled to absorb the reality that I survived 2 deadly accidents.

Now that I am saved, I still see the Hand of God move in my life, and it is always amazing when He answers prayers.

I’ve noticed that He does so in a way where you can KNOW it is Him.

Anyway, I’m inclined to reject Molinism, especially since it originated with a Jesuit.

I think it can be interesting to research these schools of thought sometimes , to know what you might encounter but I must warn you that anything that isn’t directly based on God’s Word, (KJB) or teaches contrary to it, can be dismissed as heresy.

Another good indicator of false doctrine is if someone teaches that God has changed how He feels about something because society is now accepting it :

(like homosexuality is no longer an abomination, or that divorce is not forbidden)

or says we cannot be sure of how God feels about that, when it is clearly written in Scripture but they just don’t want to accept it because it offends them.

Just as a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, when you mix a little bit of lies with the truth, it all becomes a lie.

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”.....Ecclesiastes 1:9

God Bless.

 

[Daciple]

Ok... I quite like Molinism on first impressions, however, for balance, here is a critique of Molinism...

https://carm.org/molinism

Thanks I always appreciate opposing views, I had seen that before I created this Post and I also came across its rebuttal:

http://freethinkingministries.com/an-unfortunate-appraisal-of-molinism-a-response-to-carm-orgs-what-is-molinism/

 

[A.J.]

I hate the terms, and hate the debate.... It's an oversimplified view of Grace. But as a former cage stage Calvinist, I maintain that Reformed theology is the most consistent and Biblical affirmation and teaching of Scripture..... Proper Reformed thought does not remove man's responsibility, accountability or necessity to respond to God's revealed will made known to man in His Living Word. However our proper response is dependent upon the miracle of Regeneration. If I don't see myself as a rebel before a Living God, why would I need a Savior?

 

[Daciple]

Anyway, I’m inclined to reject Molinism, especially since it originated with a Jesuit.

I too was hesitant to reject it upon that reasoning, then I came to the conclusion that I need to be objective and if I am going to reject something then it ought to be based on its merit and not necessarily where the information came from. There are many things incorporated into Christianity that were molded after Catholics of the past or other branches within Christianity. What matters in my mind overall is, does it detract from the Biblical Message or is it conflicting with the Biblical Message.

With that being said, can you give an explanation of how or why this detracts or conflicts with the Bible? I would like to hear a reasoning from either a logical position of the ideology or from a Biblical position. Rejection because of who came up with the ideology doesnt seem to me as a full proof reason to say it is not True or why we should not accept it.

Can you give a better explanation of these ideologies? I would be interested in hearing it thats for sure!

 

[Daciple]

I hate the terms, and hate the debate.... It's an oversimplified view of Grace. But as a former cage stage Calvinist, I maintain that Reformed theology is the most consistent and Biblical affirmation and teaching of Scripture.

What are the errors in Molinism that you have found? Or do you reject it simply because you adhere to Calvinism?