Posts tagged ‘Ken Keathley’

June 12th, 2012

How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian

by Max Andrews

A few years ago Ken Keathley, Professor of Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, presented a paper at the SBC’s Building Bridges Conference.  Keathley is a Molinist and the title of his paper [on election] was “How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian.”  This paper was the primary content in the chapter on election in his book Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach. There is an audio version of his presentation but all the links I found online were broken.  Be sure to download the draft of the paper in the link above and read through it.  He outlines a very robust model of election and reprobation. (As a Molinist I, of course, affirm much of what he argues.)  Nonetheless, you cannot deny that he is being biblical and consistent in his model of election.

I had a review of Salvation and Sovereignty published in the Midwestern Journal of Theology you can read.  Concerning Keathley’s chapter on election, his paper, this is what I had to say:

Keathley’s understanding of sovereign election, which he calls “consistent infralapsarianism,” follows from his understanding of overcoming grace.  Under this view, God elects all individuals who would freely cease to resist his saving grace.  God will so arrange the world, via strong and weak actualizations, to bring about a person’s experiences and circumstances in which they would freely refrain from rejecting him. 

June 8th, 2012

A Review of Salvation and Sovereignty (Journal Publication)

by Max Andrews

I did a review of Ken Keathley’s Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010) in the Midwestern Journal of Theology 9 no. 2 (Fall 2010) issue.  Below is the first paragraph of the review and a link to download the whole PDF version (with appropriate copyright information).

Molinism seems to be a mere drop in the bucket of theological thought with little attention in Church history.  Ken Keathley’s Salvation and Sovereignty surely brings hope of resurgence to the little known school of thought.  With an exemplary effort to reconcile some of the most difficult theological doctrines.  Keathley demonstrates amazing consistency in his pursuit for a Biblical understanding of salvation and divine sovereignty.  Just as the Calvinist has his TULIP so does the Molinist have his ROSES.  The acronym may be understood as “R” for radical depravity, “O” for overcoming grace, “S” for sovereign election, “E” for eternal life, and “S” for singular redemption.