How Do I Know I am One of The Elect?

[mikeledes]

I have six children (8 and under) and a wife, a full time job, and a house and a church/ministry. Sorry…I cannot respond to all that you are saying. It is quite a bit of information. Listen to the link that I sent to you.

I understand we have a life outside of this forum. I just hope that the link you provided will contribute something new. I hope you have a great weekend. I won’t be back online until Monday. BTW, six kids! God Bless you!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Calvinator]

You constantly mis-represent the reformed postion.

Can you produce a standard text where any reformed theologian says:
a.) The elect don’t suffer.

and

b.) The elect don’t sin.

You seem to have a fetish for being inaccurate on this matter.

Bump for teflon.

I’ll make it easy for you.

Can you point to anything either Calvin, Sproul, Spurgeon, Edwards, or Packer have said that supports your assertion?

These guys have quite a bit of stuff on the 'net and are representative of reformed theology so it shouldn’t be to hard to pull something from them supporting your position that the elect don’t sin and or suffer.

Can you point to anything in the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession of Faith that supports your position that reformed theology teaches that the elect don’t sin and or suffer.

You can search at:
www.monergism.com
www.reformed.org
www.ccel.org

These sites will at least get you started.

 

[Teflon93]

Bump for teflon.

I’ll make it easy for you.

Can you point to anything either Calvin, Sproul, Spurgeon, Edwards, or Packer have said that supports your assertion?

These guys have quite a bit of stuff on the 'net and are representative of reformed theology so it shouldn’t be to hard to pull something from them supporting your position that the elect don’t sin and or suffer.

Can you point to anything in the Westminster Confession of Faith or the London Baptist Confession of Faith that supports your position that reformed theology teaches that the elect don’t sin and or suffer.

You can search at:
www.monergism.com
www.reformed.org
www.ccel.org

These sites will at least get you started.

Tell you what, Calvinator—you go ahead and respond to the dozens of questions you’ve ignored, and I’ll get right on that, okay?

In the meantime, there have been a number of posts from Baptists who were shunned by their churches upon having a tragedy as it signified “God’s punishment” and their “non-Elect” status. Where’d they get that idea?

Hint: they don’t read this forum.

 

[Calvinator]

Tell you what, Calvinator—you go ahead and respond to the dozens of questions you’ve ignored, and I’ll get right on that, okay?

In the meantime, there have been a number of posts from Baptists who were shunned by their churches upon having a tragedy as it signified “God’s punishment” and their “non-Elect” status. Where’d they get that idea?

Hint: they don’t read this forum.

You are deflecting.

I suspect you know you are wrong and don’t enjoy being called on it.

(Edited for charity)

 

[Truthstalker]

Calvin taught that the elect would suffer. I don’t know where they got the idea the elect have a free ride - it wasn’t from Calvin.

Luther’s “sin boldly” comment has been grieviously wrenched out of context. I suggest our Catholic friends look it up and consider that they may be misrepresenting Luther’s position completely. This has been discussed on another thread on CAF.

There seems to be an appalling ignorance on the part of some Catholic posters concerning Reformation theology that needs to be corrected if they want to be credible as apologists.

 

[Teflon93]

You are deflecting.

I suspect you know you are wrong and don’t enjoy being called on it.

(Edited for charity)

Fine—look for a series of threads featuring Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli in their own words.

You should know better, unless you haven’t read them yourself.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There is a Rite of Election for people who are joining the Catholic Church.

Does anyone know if there are any books or references about the theological implications of the Catholic Rite of Election?

We might could better reach some of the Protestants here by spending not all the time on what we don’t believe about Election versus what they believe about it

But

Also talking about what we do believe about it!

Election is believed by the Catholic Church.

 

[mikeledes]

Acts 27:14-44 has been used as a means of explaining all of the warnings given to Christians in the New Testament. Paul warns the men that if they leave the ship, they will not be saved. However, since God had ordained that they would be saved, then they warning goes unfulfilled. This is a wonderful example of God’s providence. However, we should not use this one incident as a rigid universal paradigm of the workings of God. What do I mean by that? That just because warnings were not fulfilled in this incident does not mean that all other warnings will go unfulfilled. This particular warning went unfulfilled because the men on the ship heeded it, regardless of whether that response was ordained by God or not. They did not commit the act (i.e. leave the ship) that Paul warned them not to do.

Now lets take a look at the following warning:

Hebrews 12:25

25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven,

So are we to assume that true Christians will never turn away from God and thus the warning will go unfulfilled? Let’s take a look at a verse I’ve used several times in this thread:

Galatians 1:6

**6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel. **

And there is no doubt that Paul is talking to genuine Christians. So if a genuine Christian can fail to heed a warning by turning away, will not God be “obligated” to do what He warned He would do. Otherwise, he would be lying. Moreover, if a genuine Christian can “turn away” from God, why can’t those referred to in passages like Hebrews 6 be genuine Christians? The Bible makes it clear that there will be those among the righteous who will not heed God’s warnings and will suffer the consequences and there will be those who heed the warnings and ultimately enjoy glorification:

Ezekiel 3:20-21

**20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also you will have delivered your soul.” **

The Bible clearly states that only those who persevere to the end will be saved and those who persevere to the end are those who have heeded the warnings.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Hello out there! Are there any Calvinists in the house? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[OneForTruth]

Hello out there! Are there any Calvinists in the house? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

God Bless,
Michael

By the way - I did not tell you that my wife hates this website either!!

How can I begin cleaning up what you have done? Do not ignore the plain texts that we present when you boldly assert the interpretation of a passage…let me go here first…the parable of the talents. What kind of person do we have here?

Matthew 25:24-25 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,** I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid**, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

Under grace or under law?

One thing I warn you not to do…press every detail out of every parable. You cannot do that.

What else do we learn here - faith without works is dead!! Demonic, eseless, dead faith (James 2 - Can that faith save him?? - James 2:24) Same here…

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Match these people up with the “whosoever is born of God” verses in 1 John. You will find they were not.

Matthew 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

Many are part of the visible church and are outwardly associated…but never had the inward call. They are tares/bad fish. See parables in Mat 13.

That is all the time I have for now.

 

[mikeledes]

By the way - I did not tell you that my wife hates this website either!!

How can I begin cleaning up what you have done? Do not ignore the plain texts that we present when you boldly assert the interpretation of a passage…let me go here first…the parable of the talents. What kind of person do we have here?

Matthew 25:24-25 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,** I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: 25 And I was afraid**, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

Under grace or under law?

One thing I warn you not to do…press every detail out of every parable. You cannot do that.

.

So I see you have a lot of things working against you! I understand. But you’re not the only Calvinist in this forum and they have not responded either. So you are not the only one who hasn’t “cleaned up” what I’ve done.

Regarding the parable in question, I used it primarily to counter your claim that what a person does have is only “illusory.” This parable clearly teaches the opposite.

The person in question in this parable is described as being a “slave” of the master and he is given a talent, one of his master’s possessions. Linkowski, what was the “talent” given by the master to his slave? What was he entrusted with? He is clearly given something? If we look at the context of the parable, Jesus is talking about being prepared for His Second Coming, the parable immediately before this one, and Final Judgement, the passage immediately after this one, in which He judges everyone according to their deeds.

What else do we learn here - faith without works is dead!! Demonic, eseless, dead faith (James 2 - Can that faith save him?? - James 2:24) Same here…

John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Match these people up with the “whosoever is born of God” verses in 1 John. You will find they were not.

Matthew 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

Many are part of the visible church and are outwardly associated…but never had the inward call. They are tares/bad fish. See parables in Mat 13.

That is all the time I have for now

Like I said earlier, being “In Christ” is a spiritual reality, not a physical one. There is not a single verse in the Bible in which a person who has not been legitimately born again is ever described as being “In Christ.” Why? Because if you’re not born again, you can’t be in Christ? Secondly, Jesus is speaking from his own perspective in John 15. Therefore, He knows who are truly in Him and who are those who are outwardly righteous. And yet He describes these people as a “branch in Me” and being “taken away” from Him. How can a person be spiritually taken away from Christ the Vine if they were not in Christ to begin with, if they were not spiritually united to Christ? You cannot be “taken away” from something you were never a part of.

Now let’s take a look at:

**6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

Note the order, cut off, dries up (i.e.dies) and burned. “Dries up” means that at one point the branch had life. Why did it die? Because it was cut off from its source if of life. That’s what happens to a person cut off from Christ. Moreover, a “branch” cannot cease to abide in Christ if they were not in Christ to begin with. It is very important not only to be incorporated into Christ by being born again, but also to abide (i.e. remain) in Christ. Abiding always comes after incorporation. That’s why 1 John 2:24,28 states:

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
**28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. **

John is obviously speaking to genuine Christians who have already been incorporated into Christ. Now he is urging them to follow up on their incorporation by abiding in Christ so that they won’t experience shame at His coming. Why would they experience shame if they do not abide? Because they know what they lost and know what’s coming (John 15:6).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Regarding the “they were never really born again” argument, this assumes that because the branch was cut off in John 15 they were never really in Christ. And yet we have verses like the following in which genuine Christians are described as being “cut off”:

Galatians 5:4

**4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. **

Romans 11:20-22

**20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. **

1 Timothy 3:6

6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.

If all these verse describe genuine Christians, why can’t the passages about cutting off in John 15 refer to genuine Christians?

God bless,
Michael

 

[Linkowski]

Mike,

I honestly do not have the time anymore to discuss this with you, Mike. You are ignoring other scripture passages that clearly teach the opposite of you are preaching here in your interpretations. You are pressing every word for every bit of meaning that you can without considering the many passages in 1 John as well as the scriptures that teach perseverance of the saints. It is clear in scipture that NOBODY can come to Christ unless the Father effectually draws one to Him (literally - drags - with the will of the person intact) - the eventual result is that this person will be raised up on the last day…nobody can be truly saved without this effectual grace and He that begins to work will complete it. If one is being sanctified - that have been perfected forever…

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
John 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

Those that fall away are only outwardly associated with the body and are not abiding in Christ inwardly (enjoying the sap from the vine)…those that were not put there by God will be taken away. The non-elect fish that got caught in the gospel dragnet will be sorted out later - they’re only because they were caught up in it…they may have been looking at “what’s in it for me”…just following…looking for prosperity and help for themselves. How many people followed Christ that did not much care for God but wanted to just be associated to see miracles/be fed/etc. There is a charge from Christ in the scriptures…

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

They tasted…they were enlightened - and that was it (ref Heb 6:4-6).

1 John makes it clear who is and who is not of God. The passages that you present show the characteristics of those that “have not seen God”. The warnings are the means by which the elect will be kept - the proud will cast them off and may find themselves in the “I never knew you” crowd. Not “I used to know you”…“I NEVER knew you”.

This is all the time I have for now.

 

[mikeledes]

Mike,

I honestly do not have the time anymore to discuss this with you, Mike. You are ignoring other scripture passages that clearly teach the opposite of you are preaching here in your interpretations. You are pressing every word for every bit of meaning that you can without considering the many passages in 1 John as well as the scriptures that teach perseverance of the saints.

Too bad you don’t have more time to discuss this with me. I have not ignored your verses. I just do not accept your interpretation of these verses in light of other clear passages. 1 John makes many stark contrasts between light and darkness, God and sin. The point is to emphasize the fact that sin and fellowship with God do not mix. For example, we have a passage like:

2 John 9

9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

If we interpret this as meaning that anyone who deserts the Gospel of Christ for a false gospel never had God, then how do we reconcile that with:

Galatians 1:6

6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

These have not abided in the doctrine of Christ. In fact, we read later that they have been “severed from Christ” and have “fallen from grace.” Do we now say, based on 2 John 9, that they never had God, despite the fact that Paul says they did? The letters of John must be interpreted within the broader context of the Bible. And when you have 1 John 2:28 state:

**28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming. **

Why would he even say something like this to those born of God if he knows that this is impossible? Especially in light of the verses you constantly quote? And when we read about those who cease to abide in John 15, we realize why John would say what he said.

There are false followers of Christ who never really believed in Him or just joined the Christian community with a malicious intent. These Christ would never describe as being “in Me.” They do not partake of the sap because they were never part of the vine, they were never a branch. I have presented passages that clearly depict unquestionably geunine Christians being cut off. Those have been ignored. There is not a single passage that describes any false Christian as being “in Christ.” I believe in the perseverance of the elect. I don’t believe in the perseverance of all of the justified because that teaching is not biblical. Like I said earlier, Ezekiel alone a contradicts Calvinism. But he is not alone.

Now there are other posts that I would have liked to see a response from you. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my last couple of posts, but those were not my most important posts. Those other posts have been ignored by you and every other Calvinist that has partcipated in this thread. That says a lot. You do not have the time to respond, and I understand that. I would have liked for you to use the little time you have to respond to my other post, but hopefully there will be others who will.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Unanswered…

I would like to examine four verses, all of which touch on the issue of perseverance. I ask that they be read prayerfully and with care.

1 Corinthians 9:26

26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

Romans 8:12-13

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Philippians 3:12-14

12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Hebrews 4:11

11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

Now the first verse is often explained away by claiming that it is merely talking about rewards, not salvation. However, this argument contradicts the Calvinist notion of the perseverance of the saints. Why? Because if Saint Paul had been disqualified, it would be because he failed to keep his body in subjection and that would mean he was overcome by sin. This reminds me of 2 Peter 2:20:

**20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world **through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.

So if perseverance is a sign of election, then 1 Corinthian 9:26 cannot be about mere rewards. If a person failed to persevere and was disqualified and did not receive the crown, does that not also mean that the person will not be saved? Compare** Matthew 10:22**

"… But he who endures to the end will be saved."

with Revelation 2:10

Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

and James 1:12

12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

So if the crown is given to all those who persevere to the end, then does that not mean that is given to all those who are glorified? If this is so, then doesn’t diqualification from receiving the crown mean the same thing as disqualification from being glorified? Thus Paul can only be talking about disqualification from final salvation in 1 Corinthians 9:26. But if he were a Calvinist, would he cast such doubt on his own salvation? It seems that Calvinists are far more certain of their own salvation than Saint Paul.

So regarding the original question of this thread, I respond with Saint Paul’s own words:

1 Corinthians 4:4-5

4For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
5Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Unanswered…

So class, let’s review what we’ve learned from Ezekiel.

"You shall llive means that God has deemed/declared you righteous and pleasing in His sight. Thus, it can never refer to someone who has not been justified by His grace:

Ezekiel 3:21

21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself."

Ezekiel 18:9

**9if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully–he is righteous **and will surely live," declares the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 18:21

21"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

"You shall die means that God has deemed you unrighteous/wicked and God has not found you pleasing in His sight.

Ezekiel 3:19

**19"Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die **in his iniquity

Ezekiel 18:13

13… He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death…"

Ezekiel 18:23

23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

God never says He shall surely live to anyone who is not righteous in His sight, to a person who has not been justified by His grace. Therefore, when we have a verse like:

Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

God will never call a person “righteous” if they have not been justified by His grace and he would definitely not tell that person he shall surely live - a phrase only used in reference to the genuinely righteous and the repentant sinner - if that person is not pleasing in His sight and has not genuinely repented of his sins. That would contradict His express words. These passages are pretty clear and it contradict Calvinism. No “word” gymnastics can obscure the obvious.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

…nobody can be truly saved without this effectual grace and He that begins to work will complete it. If one is being sanctified - that have been perfected forever…

But the completion of God’s work does not end in glorification for all those who are justified:

Romans 14:15, 20

15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.
20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

Compare that with 1 Corinthians 8:9-10

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Is Paul lying when he says a person can destroy the work of God and cause a weak brother for whom Christ died to perish? If this were not possible, why would Saint Paul say this?

1 Timothy 3:6

**6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. **

So a Christian can never become conceited? Or is Saint Paul also lying in this case as well?

To be continued…

 

[mikeledes]

There are too many verses that contradict what you say Linkowski. You pointed out Hebrews 10:4

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Which is talking about the eternal efficacy of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross. In other words, one Sacrifice was enough to accomplish salvation. And yet we also find a verse like

Hebrews 10:29

29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

A person can be set apart (i.e. sanctified) for a specific purpose, but this is not the same thing as being sanctified by the blood of Christ. Only a genuinely justified person can experience that. We also have Hebrews 6:

4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance

Please explain how a person can be renewed again to a repentance they never had? Also, why would one want to renew a person to fake repentance? Also, all the verses you quote that talk about partaking (i.e. “partakers of Christ”) you intepret literally, namely, a real experiential particpation. And yet in Hebrews 6, you redefine the word in a way that fits your theology. Only genuine Christians can be partakers of the Holy Spirit. In addition, the word “taste” does not mean what you seem to imply. The word “taste” in the Bible is often used to mean “experience”. For example,

Hebrews 2:9

**…so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone **

So do you mean to say that Jesus did not truly experience death?

Let’s also take the example of King Saul. King Saul received the Holy Spirit and experienced a change of heart caused by God:

1 Samuel 10:6-9

Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man. 7 And let it be, when these signs come to you, that you do as the occasion demands; for God is with you. 8 You shall go down before me to Gilgal; and surely I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings and make sacrifices of peace offerings. Seven days you shall wait, till I come to you and show you what you should do.”
9 So it was, when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, that God gave him another heart; and all those signs came to pass that day.

And yet we read that God departed from Saul after he disobeyed:

1 Samuel 16:14

14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the LORD troubled him.

1 Samuel 18:12

12 Now Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with him, but had departed from Saul.

God can grant mercy and give the Holy Spirit, but He can also take it away. That’s why after David grievously sinned (i.e. the Bathsheba incident), he pleaded:

Psalm 51:11

11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Mikeldes: who do you think is closer to the truth about predestination of the elect:

The Molinists, the Thomists, or is the truuth somewhere in between.

I personally believe if you had a scale and Molinism was 0 and Thomism was 100 that the truth would be at 75.

What do you think?

 

[mikeledes]

Mikeldes: who do you think is closer to the truth about predestination of the elect:

The Molinists, the Thomists, or is the truuth somewhere in between.

I personally believe if you had a scale and Molinism was 0 and Thomism was 100 that the truth would be at 75.

What do you think?

I’m still undecided on this point. There are days that I lean more towards Molinism and other days that I lean more towards Molinism.

God Bless,
Michael