Sunday, December 27, 2009

Theologically ambidextrous

I am no theologian. For instance, although I have a general understanding of the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, I had never heard of Molinism — a Catholic theologian's grappling with the juncture of "the omniscience of God with human free will." An author named Ken Keathley, who has just had published a new book taking a "Molinist approach," explains "some areas of agreement between Molinists and Calvinists" at "Between the Times." It has seemed to me for a long time that something like his first point must be the case. Excerpts:
  1. Divine Sovereignty and human free will are both profoundly true. We hold to both because the Bible simultaneously teaches both. We reject two opposite but equally dangerous tendencies: the denial of free will (fatalism) and the deification of free will (open theism comes to mind). ....
  2. God, whenever He chooses, accomplishes His will with precision and success (Isa 14:24; Prov 16:33; Matt 10:29-30)). ....
  3. Despite the fact that God can and does accomplish His will through the wicked decisions and actions of sinful men (Gen 50:10; Acts 2:23), God is not responsible for evil nor is He the origin of sin. This is certainly not a distinctly Molinist doctrine. The Canons of Dort declare that the very notion of God as the author of sin is ”a blasphemous thought” (Art 15).
  4. Apart from a gracious work of the Holy Spirit, no one can repent and believe the Gospel. Fallen humanity has lost free will in the one place it really matters–in the ability to respond to God. Not only do Molinists and Calvinists agree on this point, but so do all orthodox Christians. To deny this fact is to embrace Pelagianism. The disagreement between Molinists and Calvinists lies in our respective understanding of the nature and extent of God’s enablement (i.e., whether it is always effectual). This dispute must not be papered over, but it shouldn’t be caricatured either.
  5. The Gospel is genuinely proffered to every hearer. If Calvinists generally find unsatisfactory the Molinist approach to point four, then Molinists usually look with skepticism at the typical Calvinist explanation on this point. But let’s remember that all good Calvinists and Molinists affirm “the well-meant offer” of the Gospel. As Wayne Grudem points out in his discussion of the Savior’s invitation of Matt 11:28-30, “Every non-Christian hearing these words should be encouraged to think of them as words that Jesus Christ is even now, at this very moment, speaking to him or to her individually…This is a genuine personal invitation that seeks a personal response from each one who hears it” (Grudem: 1994, 694. Emphasis original).
So we affirm that salvation is a sovereign, monergistic work of God, such that the redeemed are saved entirely by grace. At the same time, we genuinely repent and believe, we truly receive the Gospel, such that the Christ-rejecter is damned by his own choice. The Bible clearly teaches both concurrent truths. And we must simultaneously affirm both. To coin a phrase from Peter Thuesen, on this issue the biblical witness requires that we must be theologically ambidextrous. (more)
Molinists and Calvinists: Locked in a Wordy Embrace with the Same Gargoyle « Between The Times

1 comment:

  1. I just preached on #1 this week from Acts 13:42-52. People chose not to accept because the deemed themselves unworthy of eternal life. God appointed others to eternal life.

    Agree with these findings.


Comments are moderated. I will gladly approve any comment that responds directly and politely to what has been posted.