People will do gymnastics to try and fit there own ideas in the Bible because there trusting there flesh over the word of God thank you dr white for sharing the truth so clearly
your first sentence described this video to a T... not sure how you could possibly write that and listen to one word of James White, considering he's an Olympian when it comes to mental gymnastics.
This one hits hard! I was a full blown Molinist before I was a Calvinist and one of the issues I had with Craigs view points of things was this idea that human philosophy is such a lynch pin that God cannot exist in such a way that would put him beyond our philosophical understanding. In other words, if you can’t put God in a box, then he can’t be possible. What James said about the epistemological remark by Craig was what lead me away from Molinism. This idea that middle knowledge has to determine what God does in order for him to be absolved from wrong doing in actuating a world where sin exists. Which, as James stated, throws out every verse about how all things are from him, to him and through him. Because clearly, middle knowledge can’t be, it just has to be true in order to fit God in our philosophical box.
Question. I'm not a molinist, but in response to the grounding objection, could God himself not be his own delimiting factor? Could we not say that God is limiting himself in his creative options because he values the free choice of free creatures? Why must it be that the delimiting factor is external to God? Would love to hear a response to this, if possible. Thanks!
There is only God. There is nothing else. God then creates. The question is what and why Where does the Bible address these questions? In various places and it always answers the question in a non Molinist way. It always tells us what God did in a God is absolute sovereign way. Can God limit himself? No. God cannot be limited. He is, by nature, without limit in power and knowledge, etc etc. But primarily the issue is one of how a person is saved. If the person is saved by works then God is the empowerer of men's decisions but if the person is saved by grace then God is the Saviour whose power is used solely for His purposes.
@@aaronroutte834 You don't understand the difference between limiting God and His showing mercy? If you think God was limited in Christ then you have a very poor understanding of Christ.
@@Phill0old Isn’t God also by nature, limited by holiness? God cannot sin. God cannot lie or bow before false idols. Or rather, no one is saying it is not within his power to do so, but it is because of his holy nature that God will not and cannot do as such. Is God also not limited by logic? If logic is grounded in God, then by nature, God cannot do the logically impossible. God cannot make a married bachelor or a square circle. He cannot make 1 + 1 = 2. Similarly, can the truth value of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom not be a limiting factor based on the nature of free will? By choosing to create free creatures, can God not be limited by a logical constraint inherent to creating free creatures?
@@kennylee6499 God is not limited by anything other than Himself so calling it Him limited is an odd use of the idea. Logic only exists and is true because God has made it so. It isn't something external to Him that means He can't do something that He desires. So when we say God cannot lie we don't mean the same thing when we say cannot about created things.
1. Misunderstanding Middle Knowledge: James White claims that Molinism limits God’s freedom by relying on middle knowledge, suggesting that God’s decrees are based on what humans would do. Molinism teaches that God knows all possible outcomes (middle knowledge) and chooses to create a world where His purposes are fulfilled without overriding human freedom (1 Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 11:21-23). This means God’s sovereignty includes His knowledge of how free creatures will act. 2. Feasibility and God’s Sovereignty: White implies that Molinism prioritizes human actions over God’s glory. In contrast, Molinists assert that God selects the best feasible world to achieve His divine purposes, balancing human freedom and divine glory. This aligns with biblical teachings that God’s ultimate plans are fulfilled through human actions (Genesis 50:20, Acts 2:23). 3. God as Author of Sin: White argues that Molinism does not absolve God from being the author of sin. Molinism maintains that humans are responsible for their sinful actions (James 1:13-14). God permits these actions but does not cause them, using them for a greater good without being morally responsible for the sin itself (Romans 8:28). 4. Grounding Objection: The grounding objection questions the basis of counterfactual truths. Molinists argue that these truths are grounded in God’s omniscience. God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do is part of His perfect understanding (Psalm 139:1-4). This does not limit God’s sovereignty but reflects His comprehensive foreknowledge. 5. Philosophical and Scriptural Basis: White claims Molinism is philosophical and not derived from Scripture. However, Molinists find their views consistent with biblical teachings on God’s foreknowledge and human freedom (1 Samuel 23:11-12, Matthew 26:24-25). Molinism uses philosophy to articulate a biblical understanding of these concepts. 6. Human Freedom: White criticizes Molinism for offering a superficial view of freedom. Molinism holds that true freedom involves acting according to one’s will without coercion. This view respects human responsibility and aligns with biblical examples of human choices impacting God’s plans (Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15). In summary, Molinism seeks to harmonize God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and divine foreknowledge. It emphasizes that God, in His omniscience, chooses the best possible world where His purposes are accomplished through genuinely free human actions. This view is supported by various scriptural passages and seeks to maintain both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
@@jalapeno.tabasco In Molinism, God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do (known as “middle knowledge”) doesn’t cause or determine the creature’s choices. Rather, God knows what free choices creatures would make in any given circumstance without determining those choices. The fallacy here is assuming that foreknowledge implies causation or necessity. Just because God knows what a person will freely choose doesn’t mean the choice isn’t genuinely free. It’s possible for God, an omniscient being, to know the outcome of a free decision without forcing that decision to occur.
@@jalapeno.tabasco The idea is that just because God knows what you’re going to choose doesn’t mean He’s making you choose it. Molinism says God knows everything you would do in any situation, but you’re still the one making the choice. Think of it like a friend who knows you so well that they can predict what you’ll order at a restaurant. Their knowledge doesn’t mean you didn’t freely choose your meal-it just means they knew what you would decide. In the same way, God’s knowledge of your choices doesn’t take away your freedom to make them.
@@jalapeno.tabasco Molinism doesn’t say that God is guessing or predicting like a human-it says that God has perfect and certain knowledge of all possible choices you could make, as well as the choices you will actually make. This is known as “middle knowledge.” To clarify, God’s knowledge isn’t based on observing or learning; He doesn’t gain knowledge over time. Instead, God knows all possible outcomes and all actual outcomes because He is outside of time and knows everything that could happen and will happen in any situation. This means God’s knowledge doesn’t take away your freedom-it’s simply that He knows your free choices perfectly.
While I absolutely believe God causes/ordains/determines some things. I don’t believe He causes everything to happen. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built high places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind." Also, Joshua 24:15 has Joshua saying, "CHOOSE you this day whom you will serve." What does the Calvinist say sin is? The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark. Not doing God's will. How can there be sin if God is CAUSING everything to happen? What is sin if EVERYTHING that happens, ONLY happens because GOD CAUSES it to happen? Also, how can there be obedience if EVERTHING ONLY happens because AGAIN God causes all to happen, even "obedience" to God's commands? God is His Absolute sovereignty chooses to give man enough free will to respond yes or no to God's admonition to choose life over death; choose Christ.
I don't see how anyone is any freer or less determined under Molinism than Calvinism. On Molinism, God decrees to create a specific "possible world', thereby determining every event that will ever occur in it according to what God infallibly knows will occur in it before he creates. God's omniscient knowledge of everything that will ever occur in any possible world he actualizes does not determine those events - but it does indicate that those events ARE DETERMINED and CAN/WILL NOT be other than he knew they would be BEFORE he created that world. As on Calvinism, all creatures destinies are irrevocably fixed by God's decree.
The nuance is that determination stems from the creature's free will itself and not God imposing his Will over the creature's. The decisions under the circumstances were yours and yours alone. This determination upholds free will because all the choices are with the creature, all except which world God wished to actualize but having a problem with that would mean thinking creatures have a right to choose which World they will live in and that has absolutely no basis on anything. Freely choosing WITHIN God's choice of actualized world is the extent of the privilege of our free will.
@@josealzaibar5274_"The nuance is that determination stems from the creature's free will itself and not God imposing his Will over the creature's. The decisions under the circumstances were yours and yours alone."_ Well... no. It's God and the potential me in the potential universe that are making all the decisions for me. I don't actually get a choice once God decrees the particular potential universe to actualize. It honestly strikes me as far more fatalistic than the strawman versions of Calvinism. And if we go to confessional versions of Reformed Theology where we have God establishing human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains (per WCF 3.1), it seems like Calvinism gives actual humans free will whereas Molinism says they do what God and potential humans co-created them to do.
I lean toward Calvinism but this video makes me think that White doesn't understand Molinism, which is something that WLC was basically pointing out in the debate. Also White doesn't come across as a charitable person, he uses a mocking tone aimed at other believers.
@@Phill0old Yes, and if a debater can't steel man or at least have a basic grasp of the opposing argument then it is difficult for observers to ascertain which side is true. So while I agree that ad hominem is never helpful, I think you missed the point of my comment.
There were some thoughtful points, but I do have to say I find it interesting that at 7:09-7:29 Dr. White, while declaring that the way he thinks of Molinism would deny true free will, seems to agree that his view produces the same result in that regard, while also saying that he still thinks we have a freewill. The fact that many agree on seems to have been tacitly acknowledged, Calvinism denies free will.
@@kylecityy The first straw man is that God can't save someone. Given the will of men, there are some who *won't* accept God regardless of situation. Now, you might think that's far fetched, but let's look at how Satan came about. He was a HIGHLY regarded angel, the top of the hierarchy, some people go as far as to say God's favorite. He still rebelled. Do you really think it's impossible that *man* might not do the same? Pretty much everything from there was derived from that point. I understand many of the foundations for the doctrines of Calvinism, but the logic for it makes no sense. You have to ignore so much of scripture to think that choice is not available to us.
@mackenziecarter6460 you sound to be affirming total depravity which james also believes in. Not too sure their would be disagreement among you two there. Infact i think James would agree and go further, noting all men are tainted with sin and can not escape darkness from their own righteousness, rather thats why the incarnation and atonement is so special. Calvinism isnt that choice does not exist entirely, its compatibillism.
@kylecityy Calvinism absolutely assumes no choice, that's unconditional election. Total depravity has an entirely different meaning when you add the two together. We *are* filthy with sin, but we can choose to accept or reject God's call. As Paul states in Romans (summarized) "Do not be prideful . Just as you were grafted on, you can be removed." The entire implication is that choice and haughtiness can cause one to be removed.
For those new to this topic, or thinking little of philosophy, or think it's "less than", I'd recommend a lecture on youtube by Richard Howe "Theology needs philosophy". Don't worry, it's not a molinist, there's no hidden agenda, it's just helpful in understanding the proper place of philosophy in exegesis and theology.
I agree, they go hand in hand. The question for the Molinist is whether they are using scripture to understand philosophy or the other way around. They are definitely guilty of "enlightened" thinking. This lead to liberal theology in every case.
Bible disagrees with that statement. “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8 “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did NOT KNOW GOD THROUGH WISDOM, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks SEEK WISDOM, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,” 1 Corinthians 1:20-23
Perhaps I am wrong or dumb and I’m fine with that, but having listened to the objection, I have a question: Why is it that the truth of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom NOT being under God’s control mean that it must be wrong? Are there not many things outside of God’s control that God is limited by? For example, God cannot sin. He cannot be evil or lie or bow to false idols. These are limitations that stem from his nature as a holy God. Can it not be said that the truth value of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom are limitations that stem from Libertarian Free Will and logic? In fact, did God create logic? I think most people will say that logic is grounded in God’s nature. God cannot do the logically impossible. That is a limitation that stems from that nature. Thus, when God chooses to create free agents, then inherent to that decision comes the limitation that these free agents, if truly “free” as in libertarian free will, will make decisions of their own volition and with no compulsion by God. This isn’t to say the limitation itself is on a higher plane of existence that constricts God, but simply by nature of logic, these limitations must exist inherent to free will. Now denying that God would/did create truly free creatures is fine, but I don’t see how the mere existence of limitations - which themselves exist due to God’s logical nature - is contrary to any biblical scripture regarding God?
It's not contradictory. James White's entire argument hinges on his refusal to acknowledge the possibility that God would choose to give creatures any amount of real freedom. Because, in his mind, God must be completely "free", God cannot be free to limit his freedom. The really, really, stupid thing about White's opinion is that Molinism and Calvinism don't have to contradict. You can affirm both points-of-view, and Molinism saves you from the really serious problem in Calvinism. JW's determinism eliminates man's moral responsibility and makes God the author of evil. He uses compatibilism and words like "creaturely freedom" to confuse and befuddle himself in order to avoid the obvious conclusion. If I were inclined to believe in any of the five points of Calvinism, then I would have to be a Molinist. I don't think I can ever be convinced of TULIP because it's full of contradictions, both within itself and all throughout scripture, but if I could be convinced I would have to be a Molinist, since it's the only way to preserve man's responsibility for sin in light of God's decree.
@@josephbrandenburg4373You are wrong. James does not believe God authors evil, nor does He believe man does not have responsibility for sin. This is a tired strawman that has been repeatedly debunked and is all the molinist has to try and establish himself. Molinism tries to be an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist because Scripture is clear about God’s sovereignty as it relates to man’s agency. Man can never be free in the libertarian sense. It is literally impossible.
@@dogescout5868 "Man can never be free in the libertarian sense" "God is not the author of evil" Then explain how this isn't a contradiction? I don't think it's even true that James White denies that God causes all the evil that ever happened, he just blames man for it, though man did not cause it... but even if that were the case, it's no different than claiming to be able to draw a circle with 4 even, right-angled sides. I know that Calvinists never trace the responsibility for evil back to God, but they nevertheless ascribe to him complete deterministic control over every event. That's obviously a contradiction.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 You would have to define your view of libertarian free will so we are on the same page, and then demonstrate to me how it is possible via God’s creative decree seeing how He makes everyone one of us as we are as unique individuals preprogrammed with desires and wants specific to the individual. Also, please define evil.
@@dogescout5868 I don't think I need to go any further here. If you confess that we're preprogrammed with desires, then you've already admitted that God programmed us to do evil, in the same way that a terrorist programs a b0mb to go off near a school. It doesn't matter what kind of syntactic sugar you use; no amount of clever semantic game can ever make that right or good.
Thank you Dr White for this clear, concise and logical explanation. You're so right, there nothing is in Word of God that would suggest Molinism. It's a man-made philosophy.
@@dylanmilks If Calvinists can create 'natural' and 'free' knowledge, than others can add a third category, i.e. middle-knowledge. I think there is no distincttion and to create unbiblical categories to address human objections are a man-made distraction..
Another misrepresentation around 8:20. James says molinism just kicks the can down the road regarding God putting man in situations knowing he will sin. Mol and Cal are the same in that man just follows his evil desires, says James. But that just kicks the can down the road for Cal. Who put those evil desires in us? God did, under Calvinism, which puts the causal origin of sin upon God. It's simply man's proclivity, under Molinism.
[1 Corinthians 2:7-8 NKJV] "[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden (SECRET) [wisdom] which God ordained (DECREED) before the ages for our glory, [8] ***which none of the rulers of this age knew***; ***for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory***." This passage indicates the nature and causal strength of God's determination of the actions of his free creatures. It reveals that all that is necessary for creatures to overthrow God's decree and divine determination of their actions is knowledge of God's secret decree touching those actions. Therefore, (1) divine determinism is the softest of soft determinism, making the creature the most responsible for his own actions, and (2) we now know why God's secret decree MUST BE secret.
God seeks a loving relationship with us, in much the same way that the Persons of God love one another. But, true love is a free and uncoerced act. Therefore, we must have free will in order to enter into a truly loving relationship with Him. The relationship of God to us is repeatedly in Scripture likened to a loving relationship between a father and his children. It's all about love, for God is love. So, we see that mankind must have free will. But, it is also abundantly clear that God is sovereign. So, any adequate explanation must account for both God's sovereignty and man's free will. Molinism beautifully does this. So, how does God have knowledge about what any agent God could actualize would freely choose in any circumstance that God may place him or her in? I agree with Dr. Craig and adopt a conceptual model of divine cognition. God can “imagine”, if you will, or at least conceive of, what they would freely do, because as God said to Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Scripture seems to imply a free choice when it says, “19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).
If there are an infinite number of possible people and an infinite number of positions to put them in to make decisions (what they "would" do, or middle knowledge), then the idea that middle knowledge is a priori true to God's decree is utterly meaningless, because in that case God has an infinite number of choices to "allow" to exist, and God isn't even limited by whatever "subjunctive conditionals" are supposed to exist before his decree. Therefore, for molinism to be meaningful at all, the molinist has to maintain that there are a finite number of people and situations, which is counterintuitive and arbitrary.
This business of the "grounding" (@13:00) is what made me leery of modernism the first time I heard dr. Craig explain it. God repeatedly intervenes in the Affairs of man to change things every now and then. Why is He suddenly incapable of changing things that are not possible in any possible world?
I recently read that the grounding problem can be solved by placing soul creation would it be, Inside God. It still seems passive. There's a chance of freewill then in contrast to God being proactive with C.C Fs . However the grounding problem still exists if molinists presume the former catagory as the basis of their theology.God Has to pre determine everything. All C.C.Fs in that case. He doesn't ' discover' things inside of him like he's acted upon, he invents, he creates from nothing .
I really appreciate so much of what Dr. White brings to the table, and I think he is a very genuine brother. But I will say that when he discusses things from a philosophical point of view, he sets up a lot of false dichotomies that he doesn't seem to see, which can make listening to his lectures on topics like this, frustrating.
@@D-meist Such as... 1) If God didn’t decree it to happen, then God could not know it before hand 2) If God didn't decree something to take place, then God could have no purpose in that event taking place Not verbatim, but both dichotomies that Dr. White expressed here and in many other lectures.
@@BlueWambat In regards to the first one, you're saying that 1) there are events that take place outside of the decree of God and 2) God knows about these events. In regards to the 2nd one, you're saying that although there are events that take place outside of God's decree, God still has a purpose for these events. Do I have a correct understanding?
That's an incorrect statement. WLC did address that objection by saying that the full council of His will includes middle knowledge of how free creatures WOULD act. WLC view is consistent within Molinistic framework. God could, logically, take into consideration His overall will in additional to His permissive will. For example, God overall will is that we should all freely choose to do good (i.e a parent want their children to freely clean their room) so He permit us to do evil when we freely choose not to do good (i.e a parent permit their children to leave their room messy). Both situation are His will. So in the case of Ephesians 1, it is within the full council of His will to includes creaturely freedom.
I do not know how other Molinists would respond, but as a Molinist myself, I believe that God actualized the best of all possible worlds _(à la_ Leibniz's psychophysical parallelism), that is to say, the world in which the _most_ amount of people are saved. That is the "delimiting factor" in God's middle-knowledge-informed creative decree. God did not "balance" between the most amount of people being saved and the amount of evil in the world; He took into account _only_ the amount of people who would accept Christ as Savior, and any other aspects are irrelevant to Him. The so-called "fatal flaw" of Molinism, _.i.e._ that God is limited by the choices people make in possible worlds, is not actually a fatal flaw at all. God earnestly desires all people to respond to the well-meant offer of the Gospel (2 Peter 3:9), but He will not violate mankind's free will in order to make them do so. The only "limit" on God's creative power is His own mercy, grace, love, and compassion, which all manifest as His desire to see all men saved. Also, the truth of subjunctive conditionals is _not_ independent of God's will. The knowledge _belongs_ to Him; it exists in His divine mind, and thus it is a product of His essence. As for the concept of trans-world damnation, I know William Lane Craig entertains the idea, but I personally reject it. I find it hard to believe that a person would reject Christ in an infinite amount of possible worlds. That just does not seem tenable from a scriptural and philosophical standpoint. I also disagree with Craig's assertion that some things are naturally true and do not require a truthmaker. God _is_ truth and logic, so all truths and logic emanates from Him; He _is_ the divine truthmaker.
Total strawman. It has nothing to do with subjecting God to man's free will, rather it has to do with making a claim that based upon God's revealed character in Scripture, we don't believe he created human beings in such a way that they cannot choose to place faith in Christ, then turn around and eternally condemn them for the choice he made it impossible for them to make in the first place. We believe that God desires all to be saved, but will not force anyone to choose him or reject him because he values communion with free beings, as opposed to marionettes that he micromanages.
@@DrDemolition97 because that's not what we believe, you intentionally slander our position to make it sound bad and its not even accurate anyways my comment must have struck a nerve judging from your emotionally charged response you didn't back anything you said with Scripture, just your own feelings and opinions of how you think God should do things
Love this. Heard the debate with Stratton and his answer was the same to this fatal flaw. They have no answer for this fatal flaw. Their system presupposes that truth cannot be created. This is completely unbiblical, and I agree is nothing less than paganism.
All Molinism really is a system of theology to understand predestination and free will. It is not a doctrine of Salvation like Calvinism and Arminianism are. Where it gets off from its Biblical foundation is the concept of Middle Knowledge. I think the proponents have watched or read to many Marvel, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies/books.
@@joshbeard9809 Is Molinism something that tries to explain the evil in the world or something? For me personally, Calvinism would be far better if they'd just let God be God. Meaning, if one believes in God as the Holy Bible describes God, then one has to conclude God knows all and can do all except lie, and it has always been this way and will always be this way. Humans may not know the answers to evil, but God does and could stop it if he wanted, but for some reason or another God allows evil and Satan to exist and doesn't seem to care whether or not humans understand and/or question. So, let him be God. That's not good enough for Calvinist, they have to make God a lesser God to answer why so much evil in the world?
It can be in the thoughts of God, or in the nature of God. Another example could be the law of non condradiciton. "Its not biblical" is a super weak argument. The trinity is only biblical with some degree of combinatory talent as well. Doesnt mean its not true. Most theologians have managed to justify their believes "biblically". Otherwise, there would only be one reasonable nomination.
This dude is so prideful it’s hard to watch. Calling Dr. Craig a mere philosopher that doesn’t believe the Bible is Gods Word is arrogant and malicious. He should spend less of his time making straw man arguments of other Christian leaders and realize some people that disagree with him aren’t denying the truth of scripture or believing pagan teachings. Is he that confident his interpretation of scripture is 100% correct in every area to allow him to treat Bill Craig like that? I wonder what a modern Pharisee would look like?
Yup he is very pretentious and he doesn't seem to realize it.. not very Christian behavior. What good is all of your philosophizing if you can't even behave like a proper follower of Jesus?
While I don't think the Transworld Damnation theory (I don't think Molina held to that belief himself) is a good argument it seems like James phrased that section wrong. Maybe I am wrong about what the Molinist camp believes, but it isn't a situation where "God couldn't save them" but rather that the person who isn't saved in any world simply would never repent and believe in any circumstance. God could save them, but in their wickedness, they freely resist him every time. It at least seems consistent in that God's passive wrath is fully active in letting them choose their wickedness. However, I know even in saying that it presupposes a type of free will that is controversial in this comment section, and is almost offensive for Calvinists to even think about (not a passive-aggressive jab). In a light-hearted manner, I do think it is funny that James White argues against Molinism considering his exhaustive determinism view that would probably hold that Molinists have been predetermined to be Molinists by God.
_"Maybe I am wrong about what the Molinist camp believes, but it isn't a situation where "God couldn't save them" but rather that the person who isn't saved in any world simply would never repent and believe in any circumstance. God could save them, but in their wickedness, they freely resist him every time. It at least seems consistent in that God's passive wrath is fully active in letting them choose their wickedness."_ I think that works better in a more Open Theist situation where God doesn't know the future and so is doing the best with what he created. In any form of Classic Theism, God knows all there is to know and can do all that is possible to do, so there is some degree of causal connection to God's creation decree and what actual humans do. If God didn't like the outcome, he could have done otherwise. In Molinism as I understand it, God's knows what potential humans would do in potential universes, but in choosing which universe to actually instantiate, he is rendering certain the outcome he foreknew through his middle knowledge. In that sense, Molinism seem more fatalistic than Calvinism once we are talking about realized people and not potential people acting independently from God in potential universes. So there is a sense that the person might not have ever accepted God in any universe, and there may be people who would accept God in a universe God didn't create, but God chose to make the one where they didn't repent. _"However, I know even in saying that it presupposes a type of free will that is controversial in this comment section, and is almost offensive for Calvinists to even think about (not a passive-aggressive jab)."_ Sure, it strikes me as outright weird to only allow freedom for potential humans and then put actualized on the exhaustively deterministic rail that God, co-creating with the potential humans, have set them on. I don't think that is free will in a meaningful sense. I think the historic Reformed affirmation of free will makes far more sense. _"In a light-hearted manner, I do think it is funny that James White argues against Molinism considering his exhaustive determinism view that would probably hold that Molinists have been predetermined to be Molinists by God."_ I don't know what you mean. It sounds like you are talking about the sort of Calvinism Leighton Flowers teaches, not the confessional Reformed Baptist Calvinism White teaches or the Reformed Theology found in statements of belief like the Westminster Confession or Three Forms of Unity. White holds to the London Baptist Confession, and chapter 9 goes over the Reformed Baptist position of human free will, and chapters 3 and 5 speak of how that interacts with God's decree and providence, respectively. In both of those latter chapters, God's actions are said to establish and uphold human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes. So where in Molinism, potential humans act in ways outside of God's authority and God can only choose which universe he wants to create from a pre-selected catalogue, in Calvinism, God makes this universe and ordains all that comes to pass in such a way that enables human free will.
6:20 "It's always about numbers of salvation. It's always based upon man..... Because it's not derived from Scripture." 2 Pet. 3:9, Isaiah 55:1, Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Tim. 2:3, among a plethora of other references, show that it's GOD'S desire for the highest salvific outcome, and he desires ALL to be saved. It's everywhere in Scripture. Saying that salvific outcome is not part of God's divine plan or will is just a blatant misrepresentation of what Scripture teaches. Come on, James. Do better.
The 4 philosophical objections to Molinism (Adams' Grounding objection, Hasker's Bring About objection, Lewis' Might objection and Adams and Kenny's Not True Fast Enough objection) are frankly quite weak and have already been responded to.
@@SaltyApologist Molinism is biblically viable. Scripture affirms human freedom + God's providence and foreknowledge. There seems to be evidence for counterfactuals (CFs) in divine reasoning (1 Sam 23:6-10; Pro 4:11; Matt 11:23). Of course it cannot be proved that CFs were known to God prior to his creative decree or that libertarian free will is true. But nor can its opposite. Rather, in the same way the Trinity is inferred from the logical coalescence of seemingly contradictory propositions, so Molinism seems justified.
This boils down to Dr White does not believe God has the capacity or maybe ability to know in the way the molinist is suggesting. This is display at about 11:43 with his explication of how complex man is. I wonder if he realizes how weak his picture of God is. Should also be pointed out that Dr. White continues to switch between logically and chronologically prior without knowing. This make him look foolish and inadequately equips to debate this topic.
You got it wrong. What White has been saying is that God could do that but it is molinism that reduces God to requiring to do that and that is not what God says of himself in the Bible. Of course any reasonable reformed theologian would agree God could "compute" an infinite number of possible worlds. However, they reject he would need to do such a thing in the first place. While it is a theoretical possibility, it's far from being compatible with the Bible.
The only message of special revelation from God that is “God breathed” are the Scriptures as told us by God through the apostle Paul. WLC’s middle knowledge and subjunctives conditionals is contrary to what Scripture clearly reveals. It is man-made pagan philosophy which the Holy Spirit has a great deal to say about through Paul in his letters to the Corinthians and Colossians.
From 12:37min on the truth of Subjunctive Conditionals “ . . . constraining his [God’s] freedom to act . . . “ : this is the same kind of ‘constraint’ that God may have when wanting to decree a three-sided rectangle, i.e willing the logically and metaphysically impossible. In my view, this is not a constraint upon God, just as it is not a constraint upon God that He cannot lie. In both cases the nature of the essence in question delimit what they can do, e.g. God to lie and three sided rectangles to exist.
God could have created a three sided rectangle, if He defined a rectangle as a three sided shape. You are taking our definition of a rectangle and using it as a starting premise as if it existed outside of God’s decree which would constrain God to not be able to make it. And this is Dr. White’s point. Where does this restraint come from if it does not come from God?
@@dogescout5868 Greetings. It makes me chuckle to type this, -but- I think we may need to define what you mean by ‘define’ to move this conversation further. In my comment above, I am not intending the term ‘rectangle’. Kind regards.
@@Z__K217 for something to have meaning, it must be defined. He who creates, defines because he is the one who designs. To define something is to give it an objective identity based on pre-determinate factors. Everything that is defined comports to the reality that God has created it in, according to the predefined laws He has established. We define a rectangle as a four sided shape, but God could have easily made the universe such that we defined (by evolution of language) a rectangle as a three sided shape, which is why I said it would be wrong to take a rectangle now and read it back into creation as if the rectangle existed prior to God’s creative decree.
I totally disagree but is that what we are supposed to be doing? Tearing others apart? I think the objective must always be to speak the truth in love. Not tear someone apart.
Middle knowledge sounds right (or right-ish) to me. I think Calvinists hate any concept of human freedom as if our freedom limits God’s freedom rather than revealing it. Real freedom as a concept has real consequences. The Bible just doesn’t answer every question about these concepts. It certainly doesn’t transparently imply middle knowledge’s falsity. (Not without A LOT of debateable “interpretation.”) Omnipotence does not imply God can do “anything,” only that he can do anything that can be done. God cannot will a situation that involves a free creature being created without actually having that creature be really free. This implies the reality of subjunctive conditionals (middle knowledge) present in God’s knowledge prior to his creating any actual situation. Also, is White an occasionalist? Sound like…
Freedom presupposes independence. But everything about who are (your likes, dislikes, sex, height, weight, bone density, eye color, talents) has been decreed by God who made you. That was White’s criticism of the idea of essence. Freedom = independence. All things are held together by God, sustained by His power. None of us are independent beings. We are all dependent on God, including our wills. Molinism seems to assume that there are things that exist beyond God that God has to interact with to know. “God knows what person A would do in this situation!” Yes, but how does He know? How does that person exist to begin with? God must make them according to His design. Nothing escapes the sovereignty of God, and Molinism is simply a botched, unbiblical attempt to solve a problem that already has an answer.
_"I think Calvinists hate any concept of human freedom as if our freedom limits God’s freedom rather than revealing it."_ I think anti-Calvinists would do well to stop arguing against made up definitions of "Calvinism" and actually present arguments based on their own confessions. Calvinists "hate" any concept of human freedom so much, that..... ...the Westminster Confession affirms human freedom in chapter 9 and says God establishes human freedom and the contingency of second causes by what he ordains in chapter 3 and that he upholds human freedom in chapter 5. _"This implies the reality of subjunctive conditionals (middle knowledge)..."_ subjunctive conditionals does not require middle knowledge through. What if that was just a part of God's natural knowledge? Not something God learns about through middle knowledge, but a knowledge he just naturally has as the knower of all things?
I found it comical in the debate when WLC said, “I always start with the Bible [when it comes to debate]” and he literally started his debate with White with The synopsis of ‘A Christmas Carol’ to substantiate his molinism.
Was that not just meant to be an analogy to help show what molonism is, and not a basis for it? Agree or disagree with him, I think we should represent what he was trying to say a little more graciously.
This misunderstood what Craig wad saying. His claim is that the bible is his starting place for his "work", by this he meant philosophy/theology. In addition, he believes that his view is consistent with scripture, but I think he would affirm that scripture alone is insufficient to determine which view of foreknowledge is true.
Is there any similarities between the truth value of subjective conditionals of human freedom that Craig is espousing, and the truth value of time as RT Mullins talks about? Mullins seems to talk about time as being uncreated but also eternally present with God. He denies though that time is independent of God m, but that it flows from God as a divine attribute. Would Craig say The subjective conditional truth flows from God, or is independent of God?
Dr. Craig's argument about God authoring sin if He doesn't have middle knowledge must be true because He authors and comes up with everything by Himself without Middle Knowledge (i.e. foreknowledge, before the decree). There are no other actors in play and so no other authors for the decree but God. But I also think that without Middle Knowledge, God does not have free will to "choose" the Elect in any real sense of the word "choose". I still continue to stress that Calvinism makes more sense on a Molinistic framework as to how God formulates the Decree because it gives us a way to explain how Compatibilism is true (i.e. *HOW* divine determinism and human free will are compatible). Without the Molinistic explanation, the Calvinist has a mystery as to how God doesn't author evil. Why fight against this explanation then? It's better than anything you have.
I'm not sure how the Molinist gets to claim Calvinism makes God the author of sin and then turn around and pretend like they don't have to answer that challenge for themselves. God literally makes potential murderers into actual murderers on Molinism when he could just as well have instantiated a different universe or refrained from instantiating a universe at all.
@@oracleoftroy The question is whether God permits or causes sin. Under Molinism, he permits it. Under Calvinism, he causes it. Perhaps you could say that, being the first cause of all, God is causing sin under Molinism. That's wrong, though, because Molinism is not deterministic. Things could go another way... but they won't, and God knows it. For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to either theory. Calvinism makes Satan redundant, and Molinism tries to answer too many unknowable questions.
@@oracleoftroyAccording to WCF 3.1, God freely and unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass. If that is true, then the rest of WCF 3.1 cannot be true in that God is not the author of sin and mankind has free will. If God decrees everything, then even sin is decreed by God, which is not consistent with scripture. If God decrees everything, then mankind does not have free will as they can do nothing but what God decreed for them to do. Calvinism contradicts itself.
@@AppalachiaTN Only if you ignore how WCF and ordinary English defines "ordains" and replace it with something else. The same section is quite clear: human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes is established by what God ordains, thus why man, not God, is the author of their sin. "Ordains" isn't a statement of exhaustive determinism, but of God's governance as King of kings and Lord of lords. Interestingly, Molinism doesn't say anything differently in this regard. God still ordains whatsoever comes to pass, he just learns it through middle knowledge. Realized humans are still acting within the decree of God and their potential versions in potential universes set out for them.
@@oracleoftroy ordain means “to order or decree,” so not sure how that means something less than exhaustive determinism. The “contingency of second causes” negates the initial statement that God ordains everything.
Is what Dr. White saying in this video implying that molonists would not be saved? Also, I enjoy these debates but I’ve been having a hard time understanding what the purpose is. If both groups are saved isn’t that enough.
2:04 false dichotomy. it ALSO includes GODs desire to do ALL of those things! It is not constrained by CCFs if they are infinite possibilities of an infinite God with infinite power. God can create ANY combination of events to occur with any combination of persons with different truly free choices in different situations.
So God desires X but cannot have X because? What God desires was what He desired before, during and after creation. Now if God merely chose this world because of what we would do then what decides what God does is never what God desires but wait a minute He made us. If God made us and so we, in this or any other possible world, are what He made then either in this world, or some other worlds God was either not capable or willing to make it as good as He could make it.
That's often a response of someone who disagrees, but its not a thoughtful or honest response. If you are capable, you should explain why it is not a good representation.
Great video. The only reason people don't believe in "truthmaking maximalism" founded in God is because they want room to "make up things" for themselves. Romans 1:19-23: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Just watched the debate and I must say, it was terrifying. Craig was debating as if he was debating an athiest professor. He was coming strictly from a philosophical point of view and using "fancy" words as if it were meant to impress. The verse struck me "professing to be wise they became fools". What was most terrifying is that he is supposed to be THE christian apologist for the modern day, and while he claims Sola Scriptura, his worldview and arguements proved otherwise. I'm ok with arminianism, I really am. Most arminians are not really arminians, they just dont understand the fundamentals of their belief or the calvinist belief, so they just hild onto tradition. But Craig should at least have a basic understanding of the fundamental beliefs of reformed faith. And he either doesn't, or the god of his image is more important than him taking the time to study the basics. He proved in the debate he doesn't understand calvinism, or his hatred of God's true sovereignty has hardened his own heart to the truth. I aure hope the latter isnt the case. His presuppositions are philosophy of the human mind and will and are completely theoretical in nature. Dr. White really pressed and got him to admit a lot of things I'll bet Craig wished he didnt reveal about himself.
It's funny, when I finished the debate, my initial impression was that White didn't do a good job. He could have gone way deeper into the problem of evil and how Calvinism answers it. Instead he gave brief answers and didn't really unpack them for the audience. But the more I reflected on it, I realized White did an amazing job. The discussion was only around 1 hour once the ads and intro/outro fluff is removed. That's as much time as some debates allot for opening statements. There is no way there would be enough time to really engage the issue from all sides. And looking over people's complaints about things White "didn't answer," I realized he did address the major issues people wanted addressed rather efficiently, if briefly. Two key moments stood out for me. Craig framed his position in terms of the classic primary/second cause distinction, and then tried to claim that Reformed Theology teaches that God is the second cause (or immediate cause) of sin. White simply read from the historic Reformed Confessions (WCF 3.1), which frames the Reformed answer in the exact same way Craig just did. That was a devastating blow to Craig. It showed that he did little to no research into what the Reformed position actually is and was completely unprepared for a serious discussion. And it isn't like this was just Jame's pet theory in a brand new book that WLC didn't have time to read. These are centuries old confessions that WLC should have been familiar with if he studied Christianity at all, let alone has a Ph.D in theology. What was he supposed to do then? Keep pushing his false narrative and look uninformed or deceptive? Attack the actual Reformed position, and thus undermine his own framing of the issue? He couldn't respond or push his argument anymore and had to back away from further attack. That led to the next key moment. White used that to push hard on Molinism and show numerous flaws in the system: that philosophy, not the Bible, is Craig's ultimate authority; that rather than Molina being the great theologian Craig had asserted before, his motivation might have been to undermine the Reformation rather than affirm Biblical truth, etc. And the biggest of all, White got Craig to the point where all Craig could retort is that White isn't allowed to object that way. It was apparently an objection so well known to Craig that he knew the name, yet he couldn't answer it. I think you are right; Craig is too used to debating Atheists. He doesn't debate Christians, let alone Reformed believers who know their Bible inside and out. I don't think he's ever been challenged that way at all given how completely his argument broke down.
@@oracleoftroy how is it a devastating blow to Craig if the reformed position does make God the cause of sin? That seems to make the reformed position unacceptable to any scripturally minded and moral person.
@@stephenglasse9756 Right? "Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."
@@stephenglasse9756 Because if the primary / second cause distinction makes God the author of sin for White, it makes God the author of sin for Craig. Craig has to concede he makes God the author of sin for his argument against Calvinism to stick. WLC is too good a philosopher to engage in special pleading like that.
This guy reminds me of Ken Han. I don’t get what the need is to be so extreme. Why is he making Calvinism and necessary position in order to receive salvation? And every time he says with such confidence that you wouldn’t get molism from the Bible, it just sounds so wrong and, to be honest, makes him seem blinded in a way. I started with the Bible and I believe that the Bible was teaching molism. Ironically, could it be that he is guilty of the very flaw that he’s accusing the molest of? Could it be that he’s so heavily indoctrinated into Calvinism that it has actually formed his interpretation of the Bible and actually created inside him illusion that his view is correct superior to others.? He just comes of as puffed up and hypocritical. And, common, stop stabbing at people’s salvation over inside issues
I should not have posted earlier without listening to the whole video because it’s much worse than I thought. Dr. White’s rant about Truthmaking maximalism and the rant afterword demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the subject matter.
What are your qualifications, in Hebrew or Green. why in life we never challenge a Doctor when he is speaking about a certain sickness -? We only find this kind of stupidness in theology . people who have no education in theology . speak out against theologians.
Haha trying to Understand Gods will puts him in a Box just saying Also I am pretty sure God Glorifies himself through his creation and Divine Will. Im reminded about the story of Hezikiah constantly. God tells him he is going to die. Hezikiah prays to God to spare him, God sends isaiah back in there to to tell him he will live 15 more years after he had already decreed he would die in 3 days. No one has God's will figured out because there is much he has not revealed to us. We dont even know how he put Jesus into Mary, but yet we know its true. One more thing Jesus is not the total Truth, for he does not know the Hour or the place in which the rapture begins. Gods will is much more complex than we as humans will ever understand. You can ponder all you want but you will never truthfully and fully understand. So the grounds to cast judgements when you do not have the Truth, that belongs to God alone, is a bit ridiculous.
If you were fair in explaining Molinism- then I’m still yet to find anyone (or doctrine) that can explain God’s sovereignty without simultaneously making contradictions of his Word. *subscribed*
God restrains evil. Hearts are hardened when God removes those restrains and leaves people to their own devices. All humans have free will. And all humans freely choose to act upon what desire most (Edwards Freedom of the Will is brilliant on this). Apart from God initiating the regeneration of the heart, all men are in rebellion from God. We freely choose anything but him. Nobody has contrary will or arbitrary will, those are made up versions of free will that humanists and philosophers have invented. Reformed theology is the only theology that has accurately described the nature of man, their free will to choose that nature and the Sovereignty of God to do whatever he wants to his glory. Salvation is 100% the act of God and all of human history functions on the divine decrees of God
JW & calvinism makes God author of sin & send people to hell because that is His will. What a God, so loving & full of justice. Blessing thats not what we see in reality of the God of the bible.
In your world do people not go to hell? Because if they do then do you think that this happened in spite of God's best efforts? What a helpless god you serve.
So in your view God made people He knew were going to go to hell because He made them to be who they were and put them in situations that would lead them to make choices to reject Him and go to hell anyways. Molinists 1 Calvinists 0 I guess?
@@dogescout5868 rejecting God is by the freewill of the people same with choosing God. God gives provision to people to believe in Him & folllow Him, and human has freewill to respond to that provision. Knowing things doesn't make you cause it.
@@dogescout5868 You don’t realize, I think, you have less ground here to stand than a molinist. Calvinism asserts God created men already damned, to commit acts of evil he determined them to commit so as they couldn’t have literally done otherwise, then God damns them forever. This is much more of a problem than Molinists, whom see God creates a man who is damned already by his own unbelief, and does so to use him in bringing about the edification and salvation of those who would believe; there is no feasible world that individual could freely receive grace. The point you’re trying to make is a much larger problem in Calvinism. I wonder, has God predetermined you to to respond to me, so as you robotically do so? 😅
8:13 It is shocking that Dr. White doesn't see that it is Calvinism that has the burden of proof on this point. If we take Calvinism to be true, then we ought to ask why does God harden people's hearts to begin with? Why can't he just make them do what he wants them to do? On Calvinism why is the hardening of hearts necessary? We are taught from the Bible that is necessary (Romans 9) and Molinism professes that this is due to the fact that people have free wills which necessarily run at odds with God's own will when left to their own devices. Let me attempt to state my point another way/ Why not only create elect people if God's pleasure and will is that all creation be reconciled and submit to His Glory? Anyone who is intellectually honest must see that there are clear limitations on God. I suspect that my Calvinist brothers and sisters think these limitations somehow diminish God. They don't if you understand that God is a limit unto Himself. For example, God cannot lie because He is perfectly Holy and righteous. That fact limits God's own actions such that everything God does must fall in line with this attribute. If one understands this simple fact, then you will soon see that God is limited by His own nature even with regards to how he can save mankind. God will save a person and He will do so without lying, cheating, murdering etc... After all we are told that the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable offence. Why is that? God even uses such limitations to His advantage, i.e. making covenants that prohibit Him from annihilating mankind. God promised to preserve Abraham and David because, for His own namesake, He cannot tell a lie and therefore would be bound to save mankind come what may. This is what makes the "Good news" so "Good". It's why we can hope because we can rest assured that God doesn't break His promises. Also, consider the following passage from James 1: 12-14 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Clearly this shows that it is a person's own desires that lures them away. On Calvinism, who authored those desires? If you say God then you are guilty of the very thing James is warning about. You are accusing God for leading you to sin. Paul makes the same point in Romans 1. Specifically in verses 18, 26, 28 and 32 Paul repeatedly explains that people's hearts are hardened because they reject God. He doesn't make the argument that God hardens people's hearts so that they may reject Him. It's not arbitrary. Molinism simply explains how God could pass such a judgement on people before they've even been born by stating that God knows what would do in every situation. It's not that people are capable of Good and God is simply guiding them to it, rather it's that people are consistently evil but God can use even their evil ways to bring about an outcome that pleases Him.
_"It is shocking that Dr. White doesn't see that it is Calvinism that has the burden of proof on this point"_ On the point about the Molinist system referenced at that timestamp? Why does White have the burden of proof to prove the Molinist system? White only has a burden to prove his own assertions. Was it the wrong timestamp? _"why does God harden people's hearts to begin with?"_ To execute his decree. _" Why can't he just make them do what he wants them to do?"_ He is, through the hardening. _"On Calvinism why is the hardening of hearts necessary?"_ I'm not sure Reformed Theology claims it is necessary that God does it, just that God does it. _"We are taught from the Bible that is necessary (Romans 9)..."_ I think you are _ a word here. :) That hardening is necessary? I think we see that God does it, I don't see where it says God does it necessarily. _"...and Molinism professes that this is due to the fact that people have free wills which necessarily run at odds with God's own will when left to their own devices."_ Yes. Total Depravity. I think some Molinists call it Radical Depravity, but it is the same concept. Romans 1 gives a good description of hardening, when God removes his hand from sinful man, we don't exercise our free will to choose to do that which is good unto salvation, instead we choose to double down on our sin, and so become even more hardened in sin. _"Why not only create elect people if God's pleasure and will is that all creation be reconciled and submit to His Glory?"_ If that was God's desire, yeah, he could and should. But as the Bible states, God desires to show his mercy as well as his justice. You can't show either to people who haven't violated God's law. You can't show justice if you pardon everyone. And you can't show mercy if you only ever execute on the righteous judgement the condemned fully deserve. _"Anyone who is intellectually honest must see that there are clear limitations on God."_ Such as? _"I suspect that my Calvinist brothers and sisters think these limitations somehow diminish God."_ It depends on what you mean. That "God cannot tell a lie" isn't a limitation. A lying God would be a much more limited God than a God who is truth. But a God who sovereignly gives up his throne and crowns man king over God is a very limited God. This isn't the sort of claim that has a blanket answer. Each independent claim alleged to limit God needs its own verdict, thus why I ask for specific claims. _"Also, consider the following passage from James 1: 12-14"_ Are you claiming Reformed theology asserts temptations come from God? If so, you have the burden of proof. E.g. the Westminster confession speaks of Satan and the World tempting, or God leaving for a season and thus the christian is vulnerable to temptation, but never once claims that God tempts. If you can prove this claim, do so, but I suspect you have been gaslit by anti-Calvinists. _"On Calvinism, who authored those desires?"_ Man authors his sinful desires. _"If you say God then you are guilty of the very thing James is warning about."_ If you think we say God, you are as ignorant as WLC was in the discussion when he thought we claimed God is the second cause of sin. To be honest, it doesn't seem like you are all that familiar with the Reformed position, but are familiar with what others say about the Reformed position. I think reading primary sources is a good thing, and I hate to burden people with tons of reading, so I recommend you read the historic Reformed Confessions, like the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity. I'm a big fan of the Westminster Confession: it has an accessible topical arrangement, gives a good overview of all the major doctrines Reformed Christianity professes, and is freely available. It's not too hefty either, you could read it in an afternoon, yet still manages to say a lot succinctly (unlike me).
@@oracleoftroy @oracleoftroy Thank you for you questions and your time. I will break up my responses into 5 comments for easier reading. Lets tackle each of your points then. 1. "On the point about the Molinist system referenced at that timestamp? Why does White have the burden of proof to prove the Molinist system? White only has a burden to prove his own assertions. Was it the wrong timestamp?" Ah, Dr. White did make an assertion. He masks it by stating it in a rhetorical question towards Molimism. The assertion made by Dr. White is that Calvinism better explains why God hardens people's hearts. That is his assertion. The timestamp (perhaps start from 8:07) shows him posing this question to Molinism which his second assertion, that Molinism doesn't have an answer to this question. My point was that it is actually the other way around. Molinism does have an explanation for why God hardens people's hearts that is logically coherent and in line with scripture. This is not the case with Calvinism. The bible teaches us that God hardens people's hearts because they reject Him, see Romans 1:18-32. On Molinism, this rejection is accounted for as people retain creaturely freedoms. On Calvinism this is not accounted for and is thus logically incoherent which needs defending, i.e Burden of Proof. Jesus tells us clearly in Matthew 15 that evil is created in men's own hearts. James 1 tells us the same. On Calvinism, where does evil originate from? It seems to me that Molinism has a clear and biblical explanation here where as Calvinism doesn't.
@@oracleoftroy 2. Your next points I will group together. You answered, _"To execute his decree."_ as to why God hardens people's hearts to begin with... and _"He is, through the hardening."_ as to why God can't he JUST make them do what he wants them to do. We both agree that it's to execute His decree. The difference however is that God has a logically consistent explanation for this on Molinism, whereas there isn't one given on Calvinism. On Molinism, creaturely freedom is a factor and this accounts for why God does things one way vs another. On Calvinism, this is not explained just to say that it is. Then regarding why God can't JUST make them do... the word JUST should be emphasized here. God isn't JUST making them do what he wants if he is doing something that requires multiple other factors. If He did JUST do it, they would JUST do what He did, no hardening required.
@@oracleoftroy 3. Regarding the Romans 9 passage, first your quote then an expansion of the scripture in question. You said: "That hardening is necessary? I think we see that God does it, I don't see where it says God does it necessarily." Now to quote Romans 9: "14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Romans 9:14-18 Emphasis on 16-18. The phrase, "for this very purpose" tells the reader why God did what He did. God's own nature is what necessitates the actions He takes. Allow me to elaborate. God is by nature merciful. Remember, on Molinism, creatures maintain libertarian creaturely freedom and again, Jesus tells us that evil is born in the hearts of men with James 1 reiterating this. Taking this into account, God wants to communicate to humans that salvation is an act of Mercy on God's part from start to finish. It is God's own pleasure that necessitates the steps taken to communicate this to humans. If this were not the case, there wouldn't be a need to provide a reason for God's actions, after all He does whatever He pleases. God is Himself reasonable and that is why He acts in a way that is reasonable to the mind... or to put it plainly, in a way that a being capable of reason can follow. Whomsoever God want's to harden is completely His right and choice. But the fact that He has to harden people's hearts is necessitated by His own pleasure in contrast to man's disobedient will. Again, God is free to choose who He hardens or shows mercy to, but the fact that he is pleased to show His mercy in this way makes it necessary for Him to harden people's hearts. God want's to rescue people, but people think they can be saved through their own effort. Where did this disposition come from on Calvinism? You yourself make this point when you say, _"You can't show justice if you pardon everyone. And you can't show mercy if you only ever execute on the righteous judgement the condemned fully deserve."_ On Calvinism, why can't you do contrary to what you just described? On Molinism, this is because creatures retain freedom of the will.
@@oracleoftroy 4. Regarding the limitations on God, I think this is the core of the issues we are having and where Calvinism and Molinism really are at odds. You say, _"It depends on what you mean. That "God cannot tell a lie" isn't a limitation. A lying God would be a much more limited God than a God who is truth. But a God who sovereignly gives up his throne and crowns man king over God is a very limited God."_ Your statement contradicts itself. Firstly, are you saying that "God cannot tell a lie" is not a limitation? If so what are your proofs for this? Secondly, you disprove your initial premise because you do show limitations on God. If God CANNOT lie, then God is limited to only the truth. This doesn't diminish God it only elevates Him. But it is clear that God has limitations and those limitations are a result of His own nature for example, the scriptures even teach us *if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself. 2 Timothy 2:13* God uses this very fact to protect the Human race. For example, in Isaiah 48:9 the Lord says *"For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to destroy you completely."* We have seen clearly in Romans 9 that God is choosing to do things a specific way so that He may be glorified. Well, He is limiting Himself when He does so and says just that. *"I hold it back from you".* God restrains Himself. This is why I say God is a limit unto Himself. It is not as though the fact that Humans have creaturely freedom makes Humans in charge of God. You presented a strawman there. After all, He could have chosen not to create us. No, On Molinism, God is still sovereign even with creatures that have true free will. That free will is not able to triumph over God's decrees. Middle knowledge only explains how God chooses which instruments are pleasing and suitable for His purposes. So when God knows that the people of Tyre and Sidon are an appropriate choice to express His wrath, He chooses to punish them even though He knows that if He had given them the miracles of Jesus' day they would've repented. He is not the author of their evil, He just uses the very evil He knew they would create to display His mercy. On Calvinism, this is not explained only to say that God does whatever He pleases. On Molinism, God knows what they WOULD have done X and chooses decree as He pleases knowing the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. 5. I'll treat these last points together. I am not saying (and neither is Dr. W.L. Craig) that Reformed theology explicitly asserts temptations come from God I am saying that Calvinism and it's proponents implicitly assert that God is the author of evil. Plainly, the logical conclusion of reformed theology is that God is the author of evil. Here is a parallel, Marian Catholics claim not to pray to Mary and it is even expressly prohibited in their doctrine. Never the less, their practice and the implications of their beliefs and actions contradicts their claims that they do not pray to Mary. On Calvinism it is implied that God is the author of evil. I know the reformed position is in lock step with Molinism regarding God not being the author of sin, I have read the WCF. However, Calvinism doesn't offer an explanation how it is the case that God is not the author of evil on Calvinism. This is a fact. It only states that He isn't whilst it's doctrines suggest that He is. I posed my question regarding James 1 to any individual that claims God is the author of sin as a result of their Calvinistic position. To those who don't I commend them but maintain that Calvinism offers no explanation for how God is not implicated as the author of sin. Only to state that He isn't. On Molinism, we are encouraged by Paul's words in Romans 1:19-20, "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Middle Knowledge would be an example of God's divine nature and eternal power that also explains how God is not the author of evil while maintaining total control of creatures with free wills. I have given the Molinistic explanation. What is your explanation from the Reformed position? Can you offer an explanation for how it is that violence is not offered to the will of the creatures as described in the Westminster Confession III.1? Did I miss something or am I right to say that there is no explanation how this is so? It's funny that you assume my unfamiliarity with the reformed position. I attend a Reformed Baptist Church. A 1689 confessing church at that. 90% of my Christian peer group are reformed and a majority of my own beliefs are in lock step with reformed theology. I attend 2 weekly cell groups that for the past 3 years have been studying the WCF and 1689 Baptist Confession on a weekly basis. I take issue with Reformed theology on a very specific point which is that is is woefully casual regarding a position that appears to accuse God of being the author of evil. I do not claim to be an authority on the topic but simply believe it is important for every Christian to sincerely search their own beliefs against God's word as the Bereans did. The questions I have posed here are the very questions I ask in my groups and church. But my issue is what is authority on who God says He is? Is it the confessions or the scriptures? These confessions are useful but not inerrant or infallible. The only text that holds that honor is scripture itself. So if the confessions seem incomplete or allude to something scripture strictly forbids then we should rightfully scrutinize them. I know you believe this because you hold the same position towards Molinism. But given what we have seen, on this specific point, which of the two offers a biblical explanation that reconciles the apparent discrepancies presented? I maintain, Calvinism offers no explanation.
I think the Molinistic perspective attempts to interpret the Bible in a way where God is given sovereignty and also man is created with libertarian freedoms which can bring him accounts for responsibility of accepting the provision of God, I think with Calvinism there is no feasible worlds like you said, which seems like God created humans basically meant for condemnation but isn’t that also the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible too? Seems there is flaws within both parties really…
Was waiting for James to use Bill's example in truthmaker maximalism. "Baal does not exist." Who or what makes that true? Does God make that statement true? No, simply the lack of Baal existing makes that true. Is the truth of some things not existing being "made" to be true by God? Of course not. But that means there are "truths" that are not grounded in anything.
"there are people who God could not save in any world which he could create" That is wrong, in Molinism it would be that to save the person that will not have faith in this world other people would not be saved instead. In total - in any other world than this one there would be less people who believe the Good News, which is why God made the world the way it is rn.
~8:00 you “defended” the idea that God, on your view of Calvinism, that God restrains evil. As a theological determinist, explain how God restrains evil. On determinism God does not restrain it, he determines that it occurs. Let this sink in… you are a theological determinist which is a philosophical not a biblical position. You are too bold and are outside of your philosophical depth and should be embarrassed but like a person with bad breath… I predict this video will come down out of embarrassment. Calvinism is a solid system but not when you add theological determinism.
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 ~52:30 into the video… Craig says to James White, “that’s because you’re a determinist James!” To which James White shakes his head north and south in agreement and says yes or yep… Something like that😎 it was in the Unbelievable video with the full debate.
God's NATURAL Knowledge: God's pre-creative knowledge of Himself (as Glorious in every way), and God's knowledge of all things _possible_. God's DECISIONAL DECREE: God chooses to bring Himself glory by demonstrating His wrath against sinners, and His Mercy towards other sinners who don't deserve it. God's FREE Knowledge: God's knowledge of all things that will _actually_ be, in accordance with His Pre-Creative Decree to Glorify His Justice AND His Mercy. "Middle Knowledge" supposedly comes between God's Natural Knowledge and His Free Knowledge, so that even the Decree is preceded by it. Thus, proponents of Middle Knowledge MUST assert (if they are honest) that, "God's Free Knowledge (His, "Omni-Prescience") is DEPENDENT upon the events that would occur in time, and the choices creatures would make". William Lane Craig has said so, EXPLICITLY! In Molinism, an ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE of God, namely, His Omni-Presience (exhaustive, infallible foreknoledge) is DEPENDENT upon the creation! In Molinism, God's knowledge is NOT independent, but is DEPENDENT! (cf. my video, "Molinism Rejected" where Dr. William Lane Craig AND Pastor Mike Winger BOTH say that God's Knowledge is DEPENDENT). That's the heresy that needs to be defeated here! *Soli Deo Gloria*
Who does everything is impossible for man just born of women to grasp the term possible. I AM is a mystery you can't believe by looking outside of yourself.
A very strange and incoherent understanding of Molinism because he places different precepts that don't exist about Man. We Molinists respect subjective conditionals because it's all we have as human beings. I love how Calvinists have insights into what God knows. God says leave JUDGEMENT to me. "This is not a Biblical concept" makes him deservedly open to ridicule. Evil will never DEMONSTRATE the glory of God. If Molinism is Pagan then Calvinists are New Age in their views of God's Decree.
@@drummersagainstitk Isn’t God’s response to evil (righteous judgment) a reflection of His Holy nature? And is He not glorified in the destruction of evil?
I find this very sad. I loved your early debates. RC Sproul and you convinced me Calvanism is unbiblical. I can answer most questions you say you don't understand. I can also ground molenism with scripture even though I am not an expert in the system. Please Dr white in light of what I have seen you do, please try harder.
@@malvokaquila6768 The Lord has revealed that from everlasting to everlasting, He is God. To go beyond that is to go beyond scripture and I try not to do that.
@@dannymcmullan9375 right just like Dr White you don't understand what's being discussed. It's quite simple, God is a neccessary being with qualities. It's impossible read "ridiculous" to assert that God had to create the "truth" of qualities he already had. Dr Whites "fatal" flaw in Molinism is just a failing of his to understand what he's trying to assert. If you want you can say he's begging the question. Aslo in his talk with Dr Craig he failed to defend Calvanism, because it's not true. It suffers from a fatal flaw. God is the author of sin and lies, and all the good stuff too. It's mostly correct as a systematic, but properly condemned by the reformers, reformed theology, and the text of scripture.
@@malvokaquila6768 Actually we know exactly what's being discussed. We simply choose to stay within what God has revealed in scripture about Himself instead of relying on human reasoning and philosophy.
Romans 11: 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Thats not outside man, asleep you are till?
Dr white. It all sounds 100% convincing. Totally the Word of God. I would just want to understand what even Luther could not wrap his mind around- why does the Eucharist work? You sin, for instance, you feel you let darkness inside of you. Nothing helps: prayer, reading the Scripture, talking to believers. You go to confession and the Eucharist( I am Russian orthodox)- the darkness gets expelled. You feel immediately the disease has stopped, the mind gets help, gets brighter. How do you explain that? And I am sinning. I get in and out of the theoria numerous times a year. Cause I only starting to realize that YES to the Kingdom of Heaven is No to every other input or influence. It’s an offence to the world. And I wasn’t ready for that when I had my Isaiah 6 experience. And God still gives me time and chances to drag my full body and mind into the Light, casting all that seduces aside. And sometimes I fall so pitifully low- Eucharist lifts up.
Hello, I'm not Dr. White, but I can add my two cents on this if you'd like. I live in Utah, the Mormon capital of the world. Your description of feelings after taking the eucharist sounds alot like the Mormon's description of how they feel when they 'pray to God on whether the Book of Mormon is true and if Joseph Smith was a true prophet'. Fundamentally we must start with God's word in Jeremiah 17:9 that "our heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it". We can't trust ourselves. The New testament answers the begged question, "how can we know truth at all?". It is through God's word (1 John 4:1, John 17:17, Acts 17:11). So, it is my understanding that our arguments for or beliefs about something should never be based on our feelings or personal observations, but should be drawn from God's word. Remember that Jesus tells us that His followers will be "sanctified in truth; [God's] word is truth" (John 17:17). This our beliefs ultimately should be rooted in God's word, not traditions or feelings. Sure they may play a part, but they are ultimately subservient to scripture.
What would be a better answer to the problem of evil? Remember, Craig gave the same answer as the Calvinist confessions by resolving it with primary and secondary causation, so molinism is out. And really, that answer is one the church has settled on for nearly 2000 years, so orthodox Christianity is out. So it would be interesting to see what the alternative is, assuming you aren't just a scoffers and actually willing to present a positive case.
Guys the main issue is this forget whether you are a Calvinist, Molonist, provisionist or Arminian. If you’ve repented and come under the Lordship of Christ you receive sonship and become a reflection of Christ to all of mankind.. That’s the issue you probably won’t get to heaven one day and God will say well done my good and faithful Calvinist and it certainally doesn’t make a difference when we are active members of Gods Kingdom
I am a Molinist but I reject Transworld Damnation. I believe that God can, through His Middle Knowledge, actualize a world wherein all men freely choose to accept His grace and get saved. But God didn't do that. Why? So that His justice may be displayed through His creation. So I believe that this is the order of salvation: 1. Election: Before God has actualized the world, He has elected, unconditionally, based on His sovereign will alone and for His glory, a portion of the human race into eternal life; so that His grace may be made manifest through His creation. Likewise, He has also elected, unconditionally, based on His sovereign will alone and for His glory, a portion of the human race into eternal death; so that His justice may be made manifest through His creation. 2. Foreknowledge: After God has elected some for salvation and others for damnation, He surveys every single possible world and He foresees one possible world wherein all of those whom He has elected for salvation would freely choose to accept His grace and would be saved, and wherein all of those whom He has elected for damnation would freely choose to reject His grace and would be damned. 3. Actualization: God that brings the possible world that He has foreknown; wherein the elect are saved and the non-elect are damned, from potency to act.
Mr James White don't deceive me with your monergistic view of salvation. I am from a banana republic but can't fool me with your twisted view of the Bible.
Ok I just did my morning devotional and this was something that reminded me of Dr. White...dont take this as an insult...its not intended that way...anyway thought Id share because I am guilty of this (and I assume your youtube followers probably can relate, anyway here goes: "#RedLetterChallenge Following Jesus first is a combination of being with Jesus and doing the things He asks. If I asked my son to clean his room and he came back with any of the following responses a few hours later, I think we would all agree he missed my point. “Hey Dad, I memorized what you said. I can say ‘Go clean your room,’ in Greek: ‘Pao Katharos sas domatio’. My friends and I are going to gather together every week and study what it would look like if I went and cleaned my room.” The Word was meant to be manifested into reality. Otherwise its just mental masterbation. In short..."Don't just talk about it, BE about it"
@@KIEFFNERCLAN I dont know the man. I just read in the devotional about "I can say go clean your room" in greek...and he came to mind. He has learned and forgetten more than I will ever have time to read. My critique is more about the amount of life he has dedicated to the cause (at what cost did that come) and sadly at the end of the day he is no closer to God than any other person who spent a majority of their time preaching rather than doing. Mental masterbation for the sake of satisfying ones own ego. In short...how about go out and paint someones fence or take action instead....I see more fruits from those folks than I do anyone else. I am the worst of the worst and a hyprocite. So i understand the irony of myself saying this. Just my opinion.
A critique of myself. David say less. Tempted to delete my comment because I realize I sound like a fool. Anyways carry on with your studies.... Im hitting the gym and then playing with my kids later. God bless
@@DavidicServant Hey there. I think the problem with your comment is that you've fallen into the trap of the online world. Most of us only see Dr. White's videos here, so we see the tremendous amount of knowledge he has been gifted with and is able to teach us. But having followed him for a number of years now, I don't think your critique of him is accurate. He, along with his congregation, do make tremendous strides to put their faith into action. Yes, studies without action are useless. But action without knowing what you're doing is also useless. I'll also add, preaching is not merely standing up and speaking. Preaching, when understood correctly, IS putting one's faith into action. Preaching IS doing. Not everyone is gifted with it, but those who are gifted with it must fulfil their calling. I understand your comment probably wasn't meant to be malicious, but I do think it was based on an incorrect assumption, and I hope you'll take this in the intention it was meant. God bless :)
"There are people who God could not save in any world in which he could create." Why does Dr. White continue to lie about what Molonism claims? WLC even addresses that in the debate. Shameful, but not surprising from Dr. White.
But molinism puts human free-will as top priority over God’s sovereign will? The big problem with molinism and the idea of middle of knowledge is that it’s no where in the Bible, no where. You have to eisegete that into the Bible and presuppose that human reason is supreme authority over God’s revelation. Hence why WLC always starts with trying to reason people into theism at first. Where did he get that from the Bible? What person from scripture did that? If you see Paul’s and Peter’s apologetics they always immediately talk about the gospel and bring their testimony. Molinism attacks the sufficiency of Scripture and is man-centered period.
Isn't freewill a form of omicenence, outside of gods control. Is there not a grounding problem here? And isn't it also true about randomness . This might, just might, pertain to consciousness, out side of God.Pantheism has to be true in that case doesn't it? The grounding issue you raised, seems unassailable. As U can tell I don't know much about philosophy , however, the dis, maximal truth making is not philosophically true, seems like a non sququitor coming out of left field. What is the philosophical concensus on this anyway. Or would that be the way it's employed by dr.White . On a mostly subjective basis, molinism just seems to me to be, I don't quite know, just not on.dr. Ws anti philosophy stance seems to be on target. It's just all so clumsy.
Getting in front of the debate release. Great damage control in poisoning the well by setting the frame. People should watch the debate first then listen for the cleanup afterward on both sides, assuming it is truth we are after and not post hoc rationalizationiIng.
Yeah, I've noticed several Molinists commenting about this to get in front of the debate release. They must not have very much confidence in WLC to hold his own. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.
People will do gymnastics to try and fit there own ideas in the Bible because there trusting there flesh over the word of God thank you dr white for sharing the truth so clearly
your first sentence described this video to a T... not sure how you could possibly write that and listen to one word of James White, considering he's an Olympian when it comes to mental gymnastics.
This one hits hard! I was a full blown Molinist before I was a Calvinist and one of the issues I had with Craigs view points of things was this idea that human philosophy is such a lynch pin that God cannot exist in such a way that would put him beyond our philosophical understanding. In other words, if you can’t put God in a box, then he can’t be possible. What James said about the epistemological remark by Craig was what lead me away from Molinism. This idea that middle knowledge has to determine what God does in order for him to be absolved from wrong doing in actuating a world where sin exists. Which, as James stated, throws out every verse about how all things are from him, to him and through him. Because clearly, middle knowledge can’t be, it just has to be true in order to fit God in our philosophical box.
I don’t think you understand middle knowledge
@@Papasquatch73I don’t think you understood his critique
Question. I'm not a molinist, but in response to the grounding objection, could God himself not be his own delimiting factor? Could we not say that God is limiting himself in his creative options because he values the free choice of free creatures? Why must it be that the delimiting factor is external to God? Would love to hear a response to this, if possible. Thanks!
There is only God. There is nothing else. God then creates. The question is what and why
Where does the Bible address these questions? In various places and it always answers the question in a non Molinist way. It always tells us what God did in a God is absolute sovereign way.
Can God limit himself? No. God cannot be limited. He is, by nature, without limit in power and knowledge, etc etc.
But primarily the issue is one of how a person is saved. If the person is saved by works then God is the empowerer of men's decisions but if the person is saved by grace then God is the Saviour whose power is used solely for His purposes.
@@Phill0old " Can God limit himself? No" How do then describe the incarnation and Paul's description in Phillipians?
@@aaronroutte834 You don't understand the difference between limiting God and His showing mercy? If you think God was limited in Christ then you have a very poor understanding of Christ.
@@Phill0old Isn’t God also by nature, limited by holiness? God cannot sin. God cannot lie or bow before false idols. Or rather, no one is saying it is not within his power to do so, but it is because of his holy nature that God will not and cannot do as such.
Is God also not limited by logic? If logic is grounded in God, then by nature, God cannot do the logically impossible. God cannot make a married bachelor or a square circle. He cannot make 1 + 1 = 2.
Similarly, can the truth value of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom not be a limiting factor based on the nature of free will? By choosing to create free creatures, can God not be limited by a logical constraint inherent to creating free creatures?
@@kennylee6499 God is not limited by anything other than Himself so calling it Him limited is an odd use of the idea. Logic only exists and is true because God has made it so. It isn't something external to Him that means He can't do something that He desires. So when we say God cannot lie we don't mean the same thing when we say cannot about created things.
1. Misunderstanding Middle Knowledge:
James White claims that Molinism limits God’s freedom by relying on middle knowledge, suggesting that God’s decrees are based on what humans would do.
Molinism teaches that God knows all possible outcomes (middle knowledge) and chooses to create a world where His purposes are fulfilled without overriding human freedom (1 Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 11:21-23). This means God’s sovereignty includes His knowledge of how free creatures will act.
2. Feasibility and God’s Sovereignty:
White implies that Molinism prioritizes human actions over God’s glory. In contrast, Molinists assert that God selects the best feasible world to achieve His divine purposes, balancing human freedom and divine glory. This aligns with biblical teachings that God’s ultimate plans are fulfilled through human actions (Genesis 50:20, Acts 2:23).
3. God as Author of Sin:
White argues that Molinism does not absolve God from being the author of sin. Molinism maintains that humans are responsible for their sinful actions (James 1:13-14). God permits these actions but does not cause them, using them for a greater good without being morally responsible for the sin itself (Romans 8:28).
4. Grounding Objection:
The grounding objection questions the basis of counterfactual truths. Molinists argue that these truths are grounded in God’s omniscience. God’s knowledge of what free creatures would do is part of His perfect understanding (Psalm 139:1-4). This does not limit God’s sovereignty but reflects His comprehensive foreknowledge.
5. Philosophical and Scriptural Basis:
White claims Molinism is philosophical and not derived from Scripture. However, Molinists find their views consistent with biblical teachings on God’s foreknowledge and human freedom (1 Samuel 23:11-12, Matthew 26:24-25). Molinism uses philosophy to articulate a biblical understanding of these concepts.
6. Human Freedom:
White criticizes Molinism for offering a superficial view of freedom. Molinism holds that true freedom involves acting according to one’s will without coercion. This view respects human responsibility and aligns with biblical examples of human choices impacting God’s plans (Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15).
In summary, Molinism seeks to harmonize God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and divine foreknowledge. It emphasizes that God, in His omniscience, chooses the best possible world where His purposes are accomplished through genuinely free human actions. This view is supported by various scriptural passages and seeks to maintain both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
if God knows everything a free creature would do, they aren't free...
@@jalapeno.tabasco
In Molinism, God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do (known as “middle knowledge”) doesn’t cause or determine the creature’s choices. Rather, God knows what free choices creatures would make in any given circumstance without determining those choices.
The fallacy here is assuming that foreknowledge implies causation or necessity. Just because God knows what a person will freely choose doesn’t mean the choice isn’t genuinely free. It’s possible for God, an omniscient being, to know the outcome of a free decision without forcing that decision to occur.
@@jalapeno.tabasco The idea is that just because God knows what you’re going to choose doesn’t mean He’s making you choose it.
Molinism says God knows everything you would do in any situation, but you’re still the one making the choice.
Think of it like a friend who knows you so well that they can predict what you’ll order at a restaurant. Their knowledge doesn’t mean you didn’t freely choose your meal-it just means they knew what you would decide. In the same way, God’s knowledge of your choices doesn’t take away your freedom to make them.
@@SincerelyUnconscious >>Think of it like a friend who knows you so well that they can predict what you’ll order at a restaurant
@@jalapeno.tabasco
Molinism doesn’t say that God is guessing or predicting like a human-it says that God has perfect and certain knowledge of all possible choices you could make, as well as the choices you will actually make. This is known as “middle knowledge.”
To clarify, God’s knowledge isn’t based on observing or learning; He doesn’t gain knowledge over time. Instead, God knows all possible outcomes and all actual outcomes because He is outside of time and knows everything that could happen and will happen in any situation. This means God’s knowledge doesn’t take away your freedom-it’s simply that He knows your free choices perfectly.
While I absolutely believe God causes/ordains/determines some things. I don’t believe He causes everything to happen. In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, "People built high places to sacrifice their children (in fire) to foreign gods, and He (God) says, "I did NOT COMMAND this, nor did it enter my mind."
Also, Joshua 24:15 has Joshua saying, "CHOOSE you this day whom you will serve."
What does the Calvinist say sin is? The Biblical definition of sin is missing the mark. Not doing God's will. How can there be sin if God is CAUSING everything to happen? What is sin if EVERYTHING that happens, ONLY happens because GOD CAUSES it to happen? Also, how can there be obedience if EVERTHING ONLY happens because AGAIN God causes all to happen, even "obedience" to God's commands?
God is His Absolute sovereignty chooses to give man enough free will to respond yes or no to God's admonition to choose life over death; choose Christ.
I don't see how anyone is any freer or less determined under Molinism than Calvinism. On Molinism, God decrees to create a specific "possible world', thereby determining every event that will ever occur in it according to what God infallibly knows will occur in it before he creates. God's omniscient knowledge of everything that will ever occur in any possible world he actualizes does not determine those events - but it does indicate that those events ARE DETERMINED and CAN/WILL NOT be other than he knew they would be BEFORE he created that world. As on Calvinism, all creatures destinies are irrevocably fixed by God's decree.
The nuance is that determination stems from the creature's free will itself and not God imposing his Will over the creature's. The decisions under the circumstances were yours and yours alone. This determination upholds free will because all the choices are with the creature, all except which world God wished to actualize but having a problem with that would mean thinking creatures have a right to choose which World they will live in and that has absolutely no basis on anything. Freely choosing WITHIN God's choice of actualized world is the extent of the privilege of our free will.
@@josealzaibar5274_"The nuance is that determination stems from the creature's free will itself and not God imposing his Will over the creature's. The decisions under the circumstances were yours and yours alone."_
Well... no. It's God and the potential me in the potential universe that are making all the decisions for me. I don't actually get a choice once God decrees the particular potential universe to actualize.
It honestly strikes me as far more fatalistic than the strawman versions of Calvinism. And if we go to confessional versions of Reformed Theology where we have God establishing human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes by what he ordains (per WCF 3.1), it seems like Calvinism gives actual humans free will whereas Molinism says they do what God and potential humans co-created them to do.
Molinism is compatible with Calvinism as you essentially pointed out.
I lean toward Calvinism but this video makes me think that White doesn't understand Molinism, which is something that WLC was basically pointing out in the debate. Also White doesn't come across as a charitable person, he uses a mocking tone aimed at other believers.
..mocking tone…telling the flaws of an argument or belief is not mocking ,it’s trying to help the other side.
The question is whether Molinism is true. Deal always with the arguments and not the people who make them.
@@Phill0old Yes, and if a debater can't steel man or at least have a basic grasp of the opposing argument then it is difficult for observers to ascertain which side is true. So while I agree that ad hominem is never helpful, I think you missed the point of my comment.
@@carlosbrown6208 There was no ad hom.
@@Phill0old Good. That makes me wonder why you made your comment in the first place?
There were some thoughtful points, but I do have to say I find it interesting that at 7:09-7:29 Dr. White, while declaring that the way he thinks of Molinism would deny true free will, seems to agree that his view produces the same result in that regard, while also saying that he still thinks we have a freewill.
The fact that many agree on seems to have been tacitly acknowledged, Calvinism denies free will.
I'm not a Molinist and by far not a Calvinists yet the straw man set up by Dr.White is common.
What was the strawman
@@kylecityythere isn’t one. It’s just man centered theology doesn’t have a response
@@kylecityy The first straw man is that God can't save someone. Given the will of men, there are some who *won't* accept God regardless of situation. Now, you might think that's far fetched, but let's look at how Satan came about. He was a HIGHLY regarded angel, the top of the hierarchy, some people go as far as to say God's favorite. He still rebelled. Do you really think it's impossible that *man* might not do the same? Pretty much everything from there was derived from that point. I understand many of the foundations for the doctrines of Calvinism, but the logic for it makes no sense. You have to ignore so much of scripture to think that choice is not available to us.
@mackenziecarter6460 you sound to be affirming total depravity which james also believes in. Not too sure their would be disagreement among you two there. Infact i think James would agree and go further, noting all men are tainted with sin and can not escape darkness from their own righteousness, rather thats why the incarnation and atonement is so special. Calvinism isnt that choice does not exist entirely, its compatibillism.
@kylecityy Calvinism absolutely assumes no choice, that's unconditional election. Total depravity has an entirely different meaning when you add the two together. We *are* filthy with sin, but we can choose to accept or reject God's call. As Paul states in Romans (summarized) "Do not be prideful . Just as you were grafted on, you can be removed." The entire implication is that choice and haughtiness can cause one to be removed.
The coolest chalkboard ever
I see we watch the same videos.
@@reformedpilgrim gotta tighten up every now and then
For those new to this topic, or thinking little of philosophy, or think it's "less than", I'd recommend a lecture on youtube by Richard Howe "Theology needs philosophy". Don't worry, it's not a molinist, there's no hidden agenda, it's just helpful in understanding the proper place of philosophy in exegesis and theology.
Yes
I agree, they go hand in hand. The question for the Molinist is whether they are using scripture to understand philosophy or the other way around. They are definitely guilty of "enlightened" thinking. This lead to liberal theology in every case.
@@ministryoftruth1451 I'm guessing you didn't watch the video, or if you did, it hasn't fully sunk in.
@@RobotMowerTricks You shouldn't guess. It's an ignorant and dishonest way to interact.
Bible disagrees with that statement.
“See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Colossians 2:8
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did NOT KNOW GOD THROUGH WISDOM, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks SEEK WISDOM, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,”
1 Corinthians 1:20-23
W.L.C makes me work on my sanctification every time I see and or hear him. Just does.
Perhaps I am wrong or dumb and I’m fine with that, but having listened to the objection, I have a question: Why is it that the truth of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom NOT being under God’s control mean that it must be wrong? Are there not many things outside of God’s control that God is limited by?
For example, God cannot sin. He cannot be evil or lie or bow to false idols. These are limitations that stem from his nature as a holy God. Can it not be said that the truth value of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom are limitations that stem from Libertarian Free Will and logic?
In fact, did God create logic? I think most people will say that logic is grounded in God’s nature. God cannot do the logically impossible. That is a limitation that stems from that nature. Thus, when God chooses to create free agents, then inherent to that decision comes the limitation that these free agents, if truly “free” as in libertarian free will, will make decisions of their own volition and with no compulsion by God. This isn’t to say the limitation itself is on a higher plane of existence that constricts God, but simply by nature of logic, these limitations must exist inherent to free will.
Now denying that God would/did create truly free creatures is fine, but I don’t see how the mere existence of limitations - which themselves exist due to God’s logical nature - is contrary to any biblical scripture regarding God?
It's not contradictory. James White's entire argument hinges on his refusal to acknowledge the possibility that God would choose to give creatures any amount of real freedom. Because, in his mind, God must be completely "free", God cannot be free to limit his freedom.
The really, really, stupid thing about White's opinion is that Molinism and Calvinism don't have to contradict. You can affirm both points-of-view, and Molinism saves you from the really serious problem in Calvinism. JW's determinism eliminates man's moral responsibility and makes God the author of evil. He uses compatibilism and words like "creaturely freedom" to confuse and befuddle himself in order to avoid the obvious conclusion.
If I were inclined to believe in any of the five points of Calvinism, then I would have to be a Molinist. I don't think I can ever be convinced of TULIP because it's full of contradictions, both within itself and all throughout scripture, but if I could be convinced I would have to be a Molinist, since it's the only way to preserve man's responsibility for sin in light of God's decree.
@@josephbrandenburg4373You are wrong. James does not believe God authors evil, nor does He believe man does not have responsibility for sin. This is a tired strawman that has been repeatedly debunked and is all the molinist has to try and establish himself.
Molinism tries to be an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist because Scripture is clear about God’s sovereignty as it relates to man’s agency.
Man can never be free in the libertarian sense. It is literally impossible.
@@dogescout5868 "Man can never be free in the libertarian sense"
"God is not the author of evil"
Then explain how this isn't a contradiction? I don't think it's even true that James White denies that God causes all the evil that ever happened, he just blames man for it, though man did not cause it... but even if that were the case, it's no different than claiming to be able to draw a circle with 4 even, right-angled sides.
I know that Calvinists never trace the responsibility for evil back to God, but they nevertheless ascribe to him complete deterministic control over every event. That's obviously a contradiction.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 You would have to define your view of libertarian free will so we are on the same page, and then demonstrate to me how it is possible via God’s creative decree seeing how He makes everyone one of us as we are as unique individuals preprogrammed with desires and wants specific to the individual.
Also, please define evil.
@@dogescout5868 I don't think I need to go any further here. If you confess that we're preprogrammed with desires, then you've already admitted that God programmed us to do evil, in the same way that a terrorist programs a b0mb to go off near a school. It doesn't matter what kind of syntactic sugar you use; no amount of clever semantic game can ever make that right or good.
Thank you Dr White for this clear, concise and logical explanation. You're so right, there nothing is in Word of God that would suggest Molinism. It's a man-made philosophy.
Ok Original Original Gangster Troll.
God's will that none should perish, them why some people will perish?
God contradict Himself.
See Joseph story.
Wrong. The Reformers created the categories of God's natural and free knowledge so the Molinist group just added one more.
@@jessetoler8171 can you provide some scriptural references that would seem to suggest Molinism?
@@dylanmilks If Calvinists can create 'natural' and 'free' knowledge, than others can add a third category, i.e. middle-knowledge. I think there is no distincttion and to create unbiblical categories to address human objections are a man-made distraction..
Another misrepresentation around 8:20. James says molinism just kicks the can down the road regarding God putting man in situations knowing he will sin. Mol and Cal are the same in that man just follows his evil desires, says James. But that just kicks the can down the road for Cal. Who put those evil desires in us? God did, under Calvinism, which puts the causal origin of sin upon God. It's simply man's proclivity, under Molinism.
yo ive wanted a james white william lane craig debate for a while now. are there any others or is this the only one?
i have only seen William and White on one debate in youtube and Dr. White gets destroyed..
@@SquishMebro William lane craig brought up Christmas Carol while White talked about scripture
[1 Corinthians 2:7-8 NKJV] "[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden (SECRET) [wisdom] which God ordained (DECREED) before the ages for our glory, [8] ***which none of the rulers of this age knew***; ***for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory***."
This passage indicates the nature and causal strength of God's determination of the actions of his free creatures. It reveals that all that is necessary for creatures to overthrow God's decree and divine determination of their actions is knowledge of God's secret decree touching those actions. Therefore, (1) divine determinism is the softest of soft determinism, making the creature the most responsible for his own actions, and (2) we now know why God's secret decree MUST BE secret.
Nail on the head! Amen and amen! Has the debate been posted somewhere? I'd love to watch it.
It’s on unbelievable
God seeks a loving relationship with us, in much the same way that the Persons of God love one another. But, true love is a free and uncoerced act. Therefore, we must have free will in order to enter into a truly loving relationship with Him. The relationship of God to us is repeatedly in Scripture likened to a loving relationship between a father and his children. It's all about love, for God is love. So, we see that mankind must have free will. But, it is also abundantly clear that God is sovereign. So, any adequate explanation must account for both God's sovereignty and man's free will. Molinism beautifully does this. So, how does God have knowledge about what any agent God could actualize would freely choose in any circumstance that God may place him or her in? I agree with Dr. Craig and adopt a conceptual model of divine cognition. God can “imagine”, if you will, or at least conceive of, what they would freely do, because as God said to Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). Scripture seems to imply a free choice when it says, “19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20).
If there are an infinite number of possible people and an infinite number of positions to put them in to make decisions (what they "would" do, or middle knowledge), then the idea that middle knowledge is a priori true to God's decree is utterly meaningless, because in that case God has an infinite number of choices to "allow" to exist, and God isn't even limited by whatever "subjunctive conditionals" are supposed to exist before his decree. Therefore, for molinism to be meaningful at all, the molinist has to maintain that there are a finite number of people and situations, which is counterintuitive and arbitrary.
This business of the "grounding" (@13:00) is what made me leery of modernism the first time I heard dr. Craig explain it. God repeatedly intervenes in the Affairs of man to change things every now and then. Why is He suddenly incapable of changing things that are not possible in any possible world?
I recently read that the grounding problem can be solved by placing soul creation would it be, Inside God. It still seems passive. There's a chance of freewill then in contrast to God being proactive with C.C Fs . However the grounding problem still exists if molinists presume the former catagory as the basis of their theology.God Has to pre determine everything. All C.C.Fs in that case. He doesn't ' discover' things inside of him like he's acted upon, he invents, he creates from nothing .
I really appreciate so much of what Dr. White brings to the table, and I think he is a very genuine brother. But I will say that when he discusses things from a philosophical point of view, he sets up a lot of false dichotomies that he doesn't seem to see, which can make listening to his lectures on topics like this, frustrating.
Actually he is spot on.
Such as?
@@D-meist Such as...
1) If God didn’t decree it to happen, then God could not know it before hand
2) If God didn't decree something to take place, then God could have no purpose in that event taking place
Not verbatim, but both dichotomies that Dr. White expressed here and in many other lectures.
@@BlueWambat In regards to the first one, you're saying that 1) there are events that take place outside of the decree of God and 2) God knows about these events.
In regards to the 2nd one, you're saying that although there are events that take place outside of God's decree, God still has a purpose for these events.
Do I have a correct understanding?
@@BlueWambat Dr. White is correct about both. The scripture is very clear about that.
Bill Craig, when asked how he would explain Ephesians 1:11, did not respond.
That's an incorrect statement. WLC did address that objection by saying that the full council of His will includes middle knowledge of how free creatures WOULD act. WLC view is consistent within Molinistic framework. God could, logically, take into consideration His overall will in additional to His permissive will. For example, God overall will is that we should all freely choose to do good (i.e a parent want their children to freely clean their room) so He permit us to do evil when we freely choose not to do good (i.e a parent permit their children to leave their room messy). Both situation are His will.
So in the case of Ephesians 1, it is within the full council of His will to includes creaturely freedom.
👏👏 Spot on. I can't wait for this debate to drop.
What yt channel is the debate ?
@@biggs1524 Unbelievable is the UA-cam channel name
Brilliant! Thank you sir!
I do not know how other Molinists would respond, but as a Molinist myself, I believe that God actualized the best of all possible worlds _(à la_ Leibniz's psychophysical parallelism), that is to say, the world in which the _most_ amount of people are saved. That is the "delimiting factor" in God's middle-knowledge-informed creative decree. God did not "balance" between the most amount of people being saved and the amount of evil in the world; He took into account _only_ the amount of people who would accept Christ as Savior, and any other aspects are irrelevant to Him.
The so-called "fatal flaw" of Molinism, _.i.e._ that God is limited by the choices people make in possible worlds, is not actually a fatal flaw at all. God earnestly desires all people to respond to the well-meant offer of the Gospel (2 Peter 3:9), but He will not violate mankind's free will in order to make them do so. The only "limit" on God's creative power is His own mercy, grace, love, and compassion, which all manifest as His desire to see all men saved. Also, the truth of subjunctive conditionals is _not_ independent of God's will. The knowledge _belongs_ to Him; it exists in His divine mind, and thus it is a product of His essence.
As for the concept of trans-world damnation, I know William Lane Craig entertains the idea, but I personally reject it. I find it hard to believe that a person would reject Christ in an infinite amount of possible worlds. That just does not seem tenable from a scriptural and philosophical standpoint. I also disagree with Craig's assertion that some things are naturally true and do not require a truthmaker. God _is_ truth and logic, so all truths and logic emanates from Him; He _is_ the divine truthmaker.
Lots will do anything to deny the sovereignty of God, and salvation is for His Glory.
Was it a debate or a discussion?
all these anti Calvinist systems always try to elevate human free will and put God under subjection to it...
Yep. That’s always the problem. It’s the love affair with human autonomy. It’s what caused the fall to start
Total strawman. It has nothing to do with subjecting God to man's free will, rather it has to do with making a claim that based upon God's revealed character in Scripture, we don't believe he created human beings in such a way that they cannot choose to place faith in Christ, then turn around and eternally condemn them for the choice he made it impossible for them to make in the first place. We believe that God desires all to be saved, but will not force anyone to choose him or reject him because he values communion with free beings, as opposed to marionettes that he micromanages.
@@DrDemolition97 im the one strawmanning? ok hypocrite
@@tomtemple69 explain how it's a strawman 🤷
@@DrDemolition97 because that's not what we believe, you intentionally slander our position to make it sound bad and its not even accurate anyways
my comment must have struck a nerve judging from your emotionally charged response
you didn't back anything you said with Scripture, just your own feelings and opinions of how you think God should do things
Love this. Heard the debate with Stratton and his answer was the same to this fatal flaw. They have no answer for this fatal flaw. Their system presupposes that truth cannot be created. This is completely unbiblical, and I agree is nothing less than paganism.
All Molinism really is a system of theology to understand predestination and free will. It is not a doctrine of Salvation like Calvinism and Arminianism are. Where it gets off from its Biblical foundation is the concept of Middle Knowledge. I think the proponents have watched or read to many Marvel, Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies/books.
@@joshbeard9809
Is Molinism something that tries to explain the evil in the world or something? For me personally, Calvinism would be far better if they'd just let God be God. Meaning, if one believes in God as the Holy Bible describes God, then one has to conclude God knows all and can do all except lie, and it has always been this way and will always be this way. Humans may not know the answers to evil, but God does and could stop it if he wanted, but for some reason or another God allows evil and Satan to exist and doesn't seem to care whether or not humans understand and/or question. So, let him be God.
That's not good enough for Calvinist, they have to make God a lesser God to answer why so much evil in the world?
Is not Christ truth itself? Is it the case, then, that in Christ does not dwell the fullness of truth?
I’m with you 100% my friend, nothing exists outside of God.
Mic drop...
It can be in the thoughts of God, or in the nature of God. Another example could be the law of non condradiciton.
"Its not biblical" is a super weak argument. The trinity is only biblical with some degree of combinatory talent as well. Doesnt mean its not true. Most theologians have managed to justify their believes "biblically". Otherwise, there would only be one reasonable nomination.
This dude is so prideful it’s hard to watch. Calling Dr. Craig a mere philosopher that doesn’t believe the Bible is Gods Word is arrogant and malicious. He should spend less of his time making straw man arguments of other Christian leaders and realize some people that disagree with him aren’t denying the truth of scripture or believing pagan teachings. Is he that confident his interpretation of scripture is 100% correct in every area to allow him to treat Bill Craig like that? I wonder what a modern Pharisee would look like?
It's especially ironic considering the Gnostic origin of his worldview. His response to Ken Wilson's book is the funniest.
Yup he is very pretentious and he doesn't seem to realize it.. not very Christian behavior. What good is all of your philosophizing if you can't even behave like a proper follower of Jesus?
Re: Truth making maximalism: "That's why you start with the Bible and not philosophy!"
Exactly!!!!!
James White, have you read Jen Jensen's Grounding Objection dissertation? It seems like a prerequisite before a teaching like this.
Lovely jeans james white 👖
@Caleb Marquez 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
While I don't think the Transworld Damnation theory (I don't think Molina held to that belief himself) is a good argument it seems like James phrased that section wrong. Maybe I am wrong about what the Molinist camp believes, but it isn't a situation where "God couldn't save them" but rather that the person who isn't saved in any world simply would never repent and believe in any circumstance. God could save them, but in their wickedness, they freely resist him every time. It at least seems consistent in that God's passive wrath is fully active in letting them choose their wickedness.
However, I know even in saying that it presupposes a type of free will that is controversial in this comment section, and is almost offensive for Calvinists to even think about (not a passive-aggressive jab). In a light-hearted manner, I do think it is funny that James White argues against Molinism considering his exhaustive determinism view that would probably hold that Molinists have been predetermined to be Molinists by God.
_"Maybe I am wrong about what the Molinist camp believes, but it isn't a situation where "God couldn't save them" but rather that the person who isn't saved in any world simply would never repent and believe in any circumstance. God could save them, but in their wickedness, they freely resist him every time. It at least seems consistent in that God's passive wrath is fully active in letting them choose their wickedness."_
I think that works better in a more Open Theist situation where God doesn't know the future and so is doing the best with what he created. In any form of Classic Theism, God knows all there is to know and can do all that is possible to do, so there is some degree of causal connection to God's creation decree and what actual humans do. If God didn't like the outcome, he could have done otherwise.
In Molinism as I understand it, God's knows what potential humans would do in potential universes, but in choosing which universe to actually instantiate, he is rendering certain the outcome he foreknew through his middle knowledge. In that sense, Molinism seem more fatalistic than Calvinism once we are talking about realized people and not potential people acting independently from God in potential universes. So there is a sense that the person might not have ever accepted God in any universe, and there may be people who would accept God in a universe God didn't create, but God chose to make the one where they didn't repent.
_"However, I know even in saying that it presupposes a type of free will that is controversial in this comment section, and is almost offensive for Calvinists to even think about (not a passive-aggressive jab)."_
Sure, it strikes me as outright weird to only allow freedom for potential humans and then put actualized on the exhaustively deterministic rail that God, co-creating with the potential humans, have set them on. I don't think that is free will in a meaningful sense. I think the historic Reformed affirmation of free will makes far more sense.
_"In a light-hearted manner, I do think it is funny that James White argues against Molinism considering his exhaustive determinism view that would probably hold that Molinists have been predetermined to be Molinists by God."_
I don't know what you mean. It sounds like you are talking about the sort of Calvinism Leighton Flowers teaches, not the confessional Reformed Baptist Calvinism White teaches or the Reformed Theology found in statements of belief like the Westminster Confession or Three Forms of Unity.
White holds to the London Baptist Confession, and chapter 9 goes over the Reformed Baptist position of human free will, and chapters 3 and 5 speak of how that interacts with God's decree and providence, respectively. In both of those latter chapters, God's actions are said to establish and uphold human freedom and the liberty and contingency of second causes.
So where in Molinism, potential humans act in ways outside of God's authority and God can only choose which universe he wants to create from a pre-selected catalogue, in Calvinism, God makes this universe and ordains all that comes to pass in such a way that enables human free will.
Exited for the debate!
6:20 "It's always about numbers of salvation. It's always based upon man..... Because it's not derived from Scripture."
2 Pet. 3:9, Isaiah 55:1, Ezekiel 33:11, 1 Tim. 2:3, among a plethora of other references, show that it's GOD'S desire for the highest salvific outcome, and he desires ALL to be saved. It's everywhere in Scripture. Saying that salvific outcome is not part of God's divine plan or will is just a blatant misrepresentation of what Scripture teaches. Come on, James. Do better.
The 4 philosophical objections to Molinism (Adams' Grounding objection, Hasker's Bring About objection, Lewis' Might objection and Adams and Kenny's Not True Fast Enough objection) are frankly quite weak and have already been responded to.
Molinism isn’t biblical. That objection cannot be dealt with. It’s not a Christian worldview, it’s human philosophy
@@SaltyApologist Molinism is biblically viable. Scripture affirms human freedom + God's providence and foreknowledge. There seems to be evidence for counterfactuals (CFs) in divine reasoning (1 Sam 23:6-10; Pro 4:11; Matt 11:23). Of course it cannot be proved that CFs were known to God prior to his creative decree or that libertarian free will is true. But nor can its opposite. Rather, in the same way the Trinity is inferred from the logical coalescence of seemingly contradictory propositions, so Molinism seems justified.
This boils down to Dr White does not believe God has the capacity or maybe ability to know in the way the molinist is suggesting. This is display at about 11:43 with his explication of how complex man is. I wonder if he realizes how weak his picture of God is. Should also be pointed out that Dr. White continues to switch between logically and chronologically prior without knowing. This make him look foolish and inadequately equips to debate this topic.
Agree mate, It's being frustrating for some time now.
You got it wrong. What White has been saying is that God could do that but it is molinism that reduces God to requiring to do that and that is not what God says of himself in the Bible.
Of course any reasonable reformed theologian would agree God could "compute" an infinite number of possible worlds. However, they reject he would need to do such a thing in the first place. While it is a theoretical possibility, it's far from being compatible with the Bible.
But I agree that his argumentation about possible humans is off. However it does not hurt his main and more important points.
The only message of special revelation from God that is “God breathed” are the Scriptures as told us by God through the apostle Paul. WLC’s middle knowledge and subjunctives conditionals is contrary to what Scripture clearly reveals. It is man-made pagan philosophy which the Holy Spirit has a great deal to say about through Paul in his letters to the Corinthians and Colossians.
@@KIEFFNERCLAN so God doesn't know everything that could occur?
Amen Bro White!
Dr. White thank you for dismissing this errant, paganistic worldview.
Pagonistic worldview? What the fuck are you talking about?
@@thomasthellamas9886 Keyboard warrior. Try asking the right way.
@@dogescout5868 brother, look at your PFP. In no possible world are you to be taken seriously while I am a “keyboard warrior”.
@@thomasthellamas9886 Really? The profile picture is what you're going after? Sure...
@@dogescout5868 Well, when I tried to ask about the other strange bit about paganism you deflected.
From 12:37min on the truth of Subjunctive Conditionals “ . . . constraining his [God’s] freedom to act . . . “ : this is the same kind of ‘constraint’ that God may have when wanting to decree a three-sided rectangle, i.e willing the logically and metaphysically impossible. In my view, this is not a constraint upon God, just as it is not a constraint upon God that He cannot lie. In both cases the nature of the essence in question delimit what they can do, e.g. God to lie and three sided rectangles to exist.
God could have created a three sided rectangle, if He defined a rectangle as a three sided shape. You are taking our definition of a rectangle and using it as a starting premise as if it existed outside of God’s decree which would constrain God to not be able to make it. And this is Dr. White’s point. Where does this restraint come from if it does not come from God?
@@dogescout5868 Greetings. It makes me chuckle to type this, -but- I think we may need to define what you mean by ‘define’ to move this conversation further. In my comment above, I am not intending the term ‘rectangle’. Kind regards.
@@Z__K217 for something to have meaning, it must be defined. He who creates, defines because he is the one who designs.
To define something is to give it an objective identity based on pre-determinate factors. Everything that is defined comports to the reality that God has created it in, according to the predefined laws He has established. We define a rectangle as a four sided shape, but God could have easily made the universe such that we defined (by evolution of language) a rectangle as a three sided shape, which is why I said it would be wrong to take a rectangle now and read it back into creation as if the rectangle existed prior to God’s creative decree.
@@dogescout5868 Kind regards. This is still a confusion of langue and concept for object. Best to you in Christ.
just go watch the debate, Dr. Craig tears White apart
I totally disagree but is that what we are supposed to be doing? Tearing others apart? I think the objective must always be to speak the truth in love. Not tear someone apart.
everyone thinks their guy wins the debate. Ive seen it too and I thought White unraveld Craig completely
Middle knowledge sounds right (or right-ish) to me. I think Calvinists hate any concept of human freedom as if our freedom limits God’s freedom rather than revealing it. Real freedom as a concept has real consequences. The Bible just doesn’t answer every question about these concepts. It certainly doesn’t transparently imply middle knowledge’s falsity. (Not without A LOT of debateable “interpretation.”) Omnipotence does not imply God can do “anything,” only that he can do anything that can be done. God cannot will a situation that involves a free creature being created without actually having that creature be really free. This implies the reality of subjunctive conditionals (middle knowledge) present in God’s knowledge prior to his creating any actual situation.
Also, is White an occasionalist? Sound like…
Calvinists hate doctrine that is contrary to the Bible.
Freedom presupposes independence. But everything about who are (your likes, dislikes, sex, height, weight, bone density, eye color, talents) has been decreed by God who made you. That was White’s criticism of the idea of essence.
Freedom = independence. All things are held together by God, sustained by His power. None of us are independent beings. We are all dependent on God, including our wills.
Molinism seems to assume that there are things that exist beyond God that God has to interact with to know. “God knows what person A would do in this situation!” Yes, but how does He know? How does that person exist to begin with? God must make them according to His design. Nothing escapes the sovereignty of God, and Molinism is simply a botched, unbiblical attempt to solve a problem that already has an answer.
They can't even get John 3:16 right. There is no hope for them.
_"I think Calvinists hate any concept of human freedom as if our freedom limits God’s freedom rather than revealing it."_
I think anti-Calvinists would do well to stop arguing against made up definitions of "Calvinism" and actually present arguments based on their own confessions. Calvinists "hate" any concept of human freedom so much, that.....
...the Westminster Confession affirms human freedom in chapter 9 and says God establishes human freedom and the contingency of second causes by what he ordains in chapter 3 and that he upholds human freedom in chapter 5.
_"This implies the reality of subjunctive conditionals (middle knowledge)..."_
subjunctive conditionals does not require middle knowledge through. What if that was just a part of God's natural knowledge? Not something God learns about through middle knowledge, but a knowledge he just naturally has as the knower of all things?
Calvinism= God’s will, Molinism=God’s “would”
I found it comical in the debate when WLC said, “I always start with the Bible [when it comes to debate]” and he literally started his debate with White with The synopsis of ‘A Christmas Carol’ to substantiate his molinism.
Was that not just meant to be an analogy to help show what molonism is, and not a basis for it? Agree or disagree with him, I think we should represent what he was trying to say a little more graciously.
This misunderstood what Craig wad saying. His claim is that the bible is his starting place for his "work", by this he meant philosophy/theology. In addition, he believes that his view is consistent with scripture, but I think he would affirm that scripture alone is insufficient to determine which view of foreknowledge is true.
Is there any similarities between the truth value of subjective conditionals of human freedom that Craig is espousing, and the truth value of time as RT Mullins talks about? Mullins seems to talk about time as being uncreated but also eternally present with God. He denies though that time is independent of God m, but that it flows from God as a divine attribute. Would Craig say The subjective conditional truth flows from God, or is independent of God?
Tell me you do not know how to lose without telling me you don’t know how to lose….
Wha?
Dr. Craig's argument about God authoring sin if He doesn't have middle knowledge must be true because He authors and comes up with everything by Himself without Middle Knowledge (i.e. foreknowledge, before the decree). There are no other actors in play and so no other authors for the decree but God.
But I also think that without Middle Knowledge, God does not have free will to "choose" the Elect in any real sense of the word "choose".
I still continue to stress that Calvinism makes more sense on a Molinistic framework as to how God formulates the Decree because it gives us a way to explain how Compatibilism is true (i.e. *HOW* divine determinism and human free will are compatible). Without the Molinistic explanation, the Calvinist has a mystery as to how God doesn't author evil. Why fight against this explanation then? It's better than anything you have.
I'm not sure how the Molinist gets to claim Calvinism makes God the author of sin and then turn around and pretend like they don't have to answer that challenge for themselves. God literally makes potential murderers into actual murderers on Molinism when he could just as well have instantiated a different universe or refrained from instantiating a universe at all.
@@oracleoftroy The question is whether God permits or causes sin. Under Molinism, he permits it. Under Calvinism, he causes it.
Perhaps you could say that, being the first cause of all, God is causing sin under Molinism. That's wrong, though, because Molinism is not deterministic. Things could go another way... but they won't, and God knows it.
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to either theory. Calvinism makes Satan redundant, and Molinism tries to answer too many unknowable questions.
@@oracleoftroyAccording to WCF 3.1, God freely and unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass. If that is true, then the rest of WCF 3.1 cannot be true in that God is not the author of sin and mankind has free will. If God decrees everything, then even sin is decreed by God, which is not consistent with scripture. If God decrees everything, then mankind does not have free will as they can do nothing but what God decreed for them to do. Calvinism contradicts itself.
@@AppalachiaTN Only if you ignore how WCF and ordinary English defines "ordains" and replace it with something else. The same section is quite clear: human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes is established by what God ordains, thus why man, not God, is the author of their sin. "Ordains" isn't a statement of exhaustive determinism, but of God's governance as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Interestingly, Molinism doesn't say anything differently in this regard. God still ordains whatsoever comes to pass, he just learns it through middle knowledge. Realized humans are still acting within the decree of God and their potential versions in potential universes set out for them.
@@oracleoftroy ordain means “to order or decree,” so not sure how that means something less than exhaustive determinism. The “contingency of second causes” negates the initial statement that God ordains everything.
Praise God for you Dr. White. Truth Making Maximalism is pagan. God is sovereign over all things. Period
Is what Dr. White saying in this video implying that molonists would not be saved? Also, I enjoy these debates but I’ve been having a hard time understanding what the purpose is. If both groups are saved isn’t that enough.
2:04 false dichotomy. it ALSO includes GODs desire to do ALL of those things! It is not constrained by CCFs if they are infinite possibilities of an infinite God with infinite power. God can create ANY combination of events to occur with any combination of persons with different truly free choices in different situations.
So God desires X but cannot have X because? What God desires was what He desired before, during and after creation.
Now if God merely chose this world because of what we would do then what decides what God does is never what God desires but wait a minute He made us. If God made us and so we, in this or any other possible world, are what He made then either in this world, or some other worlds God was either not capable or willing to make it as good as He could make it.
Amen.
This is so terribly misconstrued and a poor representation. Though, I love this man as a Christian.
Hmmm..thought he was spot on.
That's often a response of someone who disagrees, but its not a thoughtful or honest response. If you are capable, you should explain why it is not a good representation.
Great video. The only reason people don't believe in "truthmaking maximalism" founded in God is because they want room to "make up things" for themselves.
Romans 1:19-23: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Just watched the debate and I must say, it was terrifying. Craig was debating as if he was debating an athiest professor. He was coming strictly from a philosophical point of view and using "fancy" words as if it were meant to impress. The verse struck me "professing to be wise they became fools".
What was most terrifying is that he is supposed to be THE christian apologist for the modern day, and while he claims Sola Scriptura, his worldview and arguements proved otherwise. I'm ok with arminianism, I really am. Most arminians are not really arminians, they just dont understand the fundamentals of their belief or the calvinist belief, so they just hild onto tradition. But Craig should at least have a basic understanding of the fundamental beliefs of reformed faith. And he either doesn't, or the god of his image is more important than him taking the time to study the basics. He proved in the debate he doesn't understand calvinism, or his hatred of God's true sovereignty has hardened his own heart to the truth. I aure hope the latter isnt the case. His presuppositions are philosophy of the human mind and will and are completely theoretical in nature. Dr. White really pressed and got him to admit a lot of things I'll bet Craig wished he didnt reveal about himself.
It's funny, when I finished the debate, my initial impression was that White didn't do a good job. He could have gone way deeper into the problem of evil and how Calvinism answers it. Instead he gave brief answers and didn't really unpack them for the audience.
But the more I reflected on it, I realized White did an amazing job. The discussion was only around 1 hour once the ads and intro/outro fluff is removed. That's as much time as some debates allot for opening statements. There is no way there would be enough time to really engage the issue from all sides. And looking over people's complaints about things White "didn't answer," I realized he did address the major issues people wanted addressed rather efficiently, if briefly.
Two key moments stood out for me. Craig framed his position in terms of the classic primary/second cause distinction, and then tried to claim that Reformed Theology teaches that God is the second cause (or immediate cause) of sin. White simply read from the historic Reformed Confessions (WCF 3.1), which frames the Reformed answer in the exact same way Craig just did.
That was a devastating blow to Craig. It showed that he did little to no research into what the Reformed position actually is and was completely unprepared for a serious discussion. And it isn't like this was just Jame's pet theory in a brand new book that WLC didn't have time to read. These are centuries old confessions that WLC should have been familiar with if he studied Christianity at all, let alone has a Ph.D in theology.
What was he supposed to do then? Keep pushing his false narrative and look uninformed or deceptive? Attack the actual Reformed position, and thus undermine his own framing of the issue? He couldn't respond or push his argument anymore and had to back away from further attack.
That led to the next key moment. White used that to push hard on Molinism and show numerous flaws in the system: that philosophy, not the Bible, is Craig's ultimate authority; that rather than Molina being the great theologian Craig had asserted before, his motivation might have been to undermine the Reformation rather than affirm Biblical truth, etc. And the biggest of all, White got Craig to the point where all Craig could retort is that White isn't allowed to object that way. It was apparently an objection so well known to Craig that he knew the name, yet he couldn't answer it.
I think you are right; Craig is too used to debating Atheists. He doesn't debate Christians, let alone Reformed believers who know their Bible inside and out. I don't think he's ever been challenged that way at all given how completely his argument broke down.
@@oracleoftroy how is it a devastating blow to Craig if the reformed position does make God the cause of sin? That seems to make the reformed position unacceptable to any scripturally minded and moral person.
@@stephenglasse9756 Right?
"Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."
@@stephenglasse9756 Because if the primary / second cause distinction makes God the author of sin for White, it makes God the author of sin for Craig. Craig has to concede he makes God the author of sin for his argument against Calvinism to stick. WLC is too good a philosopher to engage in special pleading like that.
This guy reminds me of Ken Han. I don’t get what the need is to be so extreme. Why is he making Calvinism and necessary position in order to receive salvation? And every time he says with such confidence that you wouldn’t get molism from the Bible, it just sounds so wrong and, to be honest, makes him seem blinded in a way. I started with the Bible and I believe that the Bible was teaching molism.
Ironically, could it be that he is guilty of the very flaw that he’s accusing the molest of? Could it be that he’s so heavily indoctrinated into Calvinism that it has actually formed his interpretation of the Bible and actually created inside him illusion that his view is correct superior to others.? He just comes of as puffed up and hypocritical. And, common, stop stabbing at people’s salvation over inside issues
I should not have posted earlier without listening to the whole video because it’s much worse than I thought. Dr. White’s rant about Truthmaking maximalism and the rant afterword demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the subject matter.
What are your qualifications, in Hebrew or Green. why in life we never challenge a Doctor when he is speaking about a certain sickness -?
We only find this kind of stupidness in theology . people who have no education in theology . speak out against theologians.
Haha trying to Understand Gods will puts him in a Box just saying
Also I am pretty sure God Glorifies himself through his creation and Divine Will. Im reminded about the story of Hezikiah constantly. God tells him he is going to die. Hezikiah prays to God to spare him, God sends isaiah back in there to to tell him he will live 15 more years after he had already decreed he would die in 3 days. No one has God's will figured out because there is much he has not revealed to us. We dont even know how he put Jesus into Mary, but yet we know its true.
One more thing Jesus is not the total Truth, for he does not know the Hour or the place in which the rapture begins. Gods will is much more complex than we as humans will ever understand. You can ponder all you want but you will never truthfully and fully understand. So the grounds to cast judgements when you do not have the Truth, that belongs to God alone, is a bit ridiculous.
If you were fair in explaining Molinism- then I’m still yet to find anyone (or doctrine) that can explain God’s sovereignty without simultaneously making contradictions of his Word. *subscribed*
Craig debates from human philosophy, white debates from biblical authority. Not even close who truly was speaking from Gods truth
God restrains evil. Hearts are hardened when God removes those restrains and leaves people to their own devices. All humans have free will. And all humans freely choose to act upon what desire most (Edwards Freedom of the Will is brilliant on this). Apart from God initiating the regeneration of the heart, all men are in rebellion from God. We freely choose anything but him. Nobody has contrary will or arbitrary will, those are made up versions of free will that humanists and philosophers have invented. Reformed theology is the only theology that has accurately described the nature of man, their free will to choose that nature and the Sovereignty of God to do whatever he wants to his glory. Salvation is 100% the act of God and all of human history functions on the divine decrees of God
JW & calvinism makes God author of sin & send people to hell because that is His will.
What a God, so loving & full of justice.
Blessing thats not what we see in reality of the God of the bible.
In your world do people not go to hell? Because if they do then do you think that this happened in spite of God's best efforts? What a helpless god you serve.
So in your view God made people He knew were going to go to hell because He made them to be who they were and put them in situations that would lead them to make choices to reject Him and go to hell anyways.
Molinists 1 Calvinists 0 I guess?
@@dogescout5868 rejecting God is by the freewill of the people same with choosing God.
God gives provision to people to believe in Him & folllow Him, and human has freewill to respond to that provision.
Knowing things doesn't make you cause it.
@@daddada2984 You missed my entire point.
@@dogescout5868 You don’t realize, I think, you have less ground here to stand than a molinist. Calvinism asserts God created men already damned, to commit acts of evil he determined them to commit so as they couldn’t have literally done otherwise, then God damns them forever. This is much more of a problem than Molinists, whom see God creates a man who is damned already by his own unbelief, and does so to use him in bringing about the edification and salvation of those who would believe; there is no feasible world that individual could freely receive grace. The point you’re trying to make is a much larger problem in Calvinism.
I wonder, has God predetermined you to to respond to me, so as you robotically do so? 😅
8:13 It is shocking that Dr. White doesn't see that it is Calvinism that has the burden of proof on this point. If we take Calvinism to be true, then we ought to ask why does God harden people's hearts to begin with? Why can't he just make them do what he wants them to do? On Calvinism why is the hardening of hearts necessary? We are taught from the Bible that is necessary (Romans 9) and Molinism professes that this is due to the fact that people have free wills which necessarily run at odds with God's own will when left to their own devices.
Let me attempt to state my point another way/ Why not only create elect people if God's pleasure and will is that all creation be reconciled and submit to His Glory? Anyone who is intellectually honest must see that there are clear limitations on God. I suspect that my Calvinist brothers and sisters think these limitations somehow diminish God. They don't if you understand that God is a limit unto Himself. For example, God cannot lie because He is perfectly Holy and righteous. That fact limits God's own actions such that everything God does must fall in line with this attribute. If one understands this simple fact, then you will soon see that God is limited by His own nature even with regards to how he can save mankind. God will save a person and He will do so without lying, cheating, murdering etc... After all we are told that the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable offence. Why is that? God even uses such limitations to His advantage, i.e. making covenants that prohibit Him from annihilating mankind. God promised to preserve Abraham and David because, for His own namesake, He cannot tell a lie and therefore would be bound to save mankind come what may. This is what makes the "Good news" so "Good". It's why we can hope because we can rest assured that God doesn't break His promises.
Also, consider the following passage from James 1: 12-14
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
Clearly this shows that it is a person's own desires that lures them away. On Calvinism, who authored those desires? If you say God then you are guilty of the very thing James is warning about. You are accusing God for leading you to sin. Paul makes the same point in Romans 1. Specifically in verses 18, 26, 28 and 32 Paul repeatedly explains that people's hearts are hardened because they reject God. He doesn't make the argument that God hardens people's hearts so that they may reject Him. It's not arbitrary. Molinism simply explains how God could pass such a judgement on people before they've even been born by stating that God knows what would do in every situation. It's not that people are capable of Good and God is simply guiding them to it, rather it's that people are consistently evil but God can use even their evil ways to bring about an outcome that pleases Him.
_"It is shocking that Dr. White doesn't see that it is Calvinism that has the burden of proof on this point"_
On the point about the Molinist system referenced at that timestamp? Why does White have the burden of proof to prove the Molinist system? White only has a burden to prove his own assertions. Was it the wrong timestamp?
_"why does God harden people's hearts to begin with?"_
To execute his decree.
_" Why can't he just make them do what he wants them to do?"_
He is, through the hardening.
_"On Calvinism why is the hardening of hearts necessary?"_
I'm not sure Reformed Theology claims it is necessary that God does it, just that God does it.
_"We are taught from the Bible that is necessary (Romans 9)..."_
I think you are _ a word here. :)
That hardening is necessary? I think we see that God does it, I don't see where it says God does it necessarily.
_"...and Molinism professes that this is due to the fact that people have free wills which necessarily run at odds with God's own will when left to their own devices."_
Yes. Total Depravity. I think some Molinists call it Radical Depravity, but it is the same concept. Romans 1 gives a good description of hardening, when God removes his hand from sinful man, we don't exercise our free will to choose to do that which is good unto salvation, instead we choose to double down on our sin, and so become even more hardened in sin.
_"Why not only create elect people if God's pleasure and will is that all creation be reconciled and submit to His Glory?"_
If that was God's desire, yeah, he could and should. But as the Bible states, God desires to show his mercy as well as his justice. You can't show either to people who haven't violated God's law. You can't show justice if you pardon everyone. And you can't show mercy if you only ever execute on the righteous judgement the condemned fully deserve.
_"Anyone who is intellectually honest must see that there are clear limitations on God."_
Such as?
_"I suspect that my Calvinist brothers and sisters think these limitations somehow diminish God."_
It depends on what you mean. That "God cannot tell a lie" isn't a limitation. A lying God would be a much more limited God than a God who is truth. But a God who sovereignly gives up his throne and crowns man king over God is a very limited God.
This isn't the sort of claim that has a blanket answer. Each independent claim alleged to limit God needs its own verdict, thus why I ask for specific claims.
_"Also, consider the following passage from James 1: 12-14"_
Are you claiming Reformed theology asserts temptations come from God? If so, you have the burden of proof. E.g. the Westminster confession speaks of Satan and the World tempting, or God leaving for a season and thus the christian is vulnerable to temptation, but never once claims that God tempts. If you can prove this claim, do so, but I suspect you have been gaslit by anti-Calvinists.
_"On Calvinism, who authored those desires?"_
Man authors his sinful desires.
_"If you say God then you are guilty of the very thing James is warning about."_
If you think we say God, you are as ignorant as WLC was in the discussion when he thought we claimed God is the second cause of sin.
To be honest, it doesn't seem like you are all that familiar with the Reformed position, but are familiar with what others say about the Reformed position. I think reading primary sources is a good thing, and I hate to burden people with tons of reading, so I recommend you read the historic Reformed Confessions, like the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity.
I'm a big fan of the Westminster Confession: it has an accessible topical arrangement, gives a good overview of all the major doctrines Reformed Christianity professes, and is freely available. It's not too hefty either, you could read it in an afternoon, yet still manages to say a lot succinctly (unlike me).
@@oracleoftroy @oracleoftroy Thank you for you questions and your time. I will break up my responses into 5 comments for easier reading. Lets tackle each of your points then.
1. "On the point about the Molinist system referenced at that timestamp? Why does White have the burden of proof to prove the Molinist system? White only has a burden to prove his own assertions. Was it the wrong timestamp?"
Ah, Dr. White did make an assertion. He masks it by stating it in a rhetorical question towards Molimism. The assertion made by Dr. White is that Calvinism better explains why God hardens people's hearts. That is his assertion. The timestamp (perhaps start from 8:07) shows him posing this question to Molinism which his second assertion, that Molinism doesn't have an answer to this question. My point was that it is actually the other way around. Molinism does have an explanation for why God hardens people's hearts that is logically coherent and in line with scripture. This is not the case with Calvinism. The bible teaches us that God hardens people's hearts because they reject Him, see Romans 1:18-32. On Molinism, this rejection is accounted for as people retain creaturely freedoms. On Calvinism this is not accounted for and is thus logically incoherent which needs defending, i.e Burden of Proof. Jesus tells us clearly in Matthew 15 that evil is created in men's own hearts. James 1 tells us the same. On Calvinism, where does evil originate from? It seems to me that Molinism has a clear and biblical explanation here where as Calvinism doesn't.
@@oracleoftroy 2. Your next points I will group together. You answered,
_"To execute his decree."_
as to why God hardens people's hearts to begin with... and
_"He is, through the hardening."_
as to why God can't he JUST make them do what he wants them to do.
We both agree that it's to execute His decree. The difference however is that God has a logically consistent explanation for this on Molinism, whereas there isn't one given on Calvinism. On Molinism, creaturely freedom is a factor and this accounts for why God does things one way vs another. On Calvinism, this is not explained just to say that it is. Then regarding why God can't JUST make them do... the word JUST should be emphasized here. God isn't JUST making them do what he wants if he is doing something that requires multiple other factors. If He did JUST do it, they would JUST do what He did, no hardening required.
@@oracleoftroy 3. Regarding the Romans 9 passage, first your quote then an expansion of the scripture in question. You said:
"That hardening is necessary? I think we see that God does it, I don't see where it says God does it necessarily."
Now to quote Romans 9:
"14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Romans 9:14-18
Emphasis on 16-18. The phrase, "for this very purpose" tells the reader why God did what He did. God's own nature is what necessitates the actions He takes. Allow me to elaborate. God is by nature merciful. Remember, on Molinism, creatures maintain libertarian creaturely freedom and again, Jesus tells us that evil is born in the hearts of men with James 1 reiterating this. Taking this into account, God wants to communicate to humans that salvation is an act of Mercy on God's part from start to finish. It is God's own pleasure that necessitates the steps taken to communicate this to humans. If this were not the case, there wouldn't be a need to provide a reason for God's actions, after all He does whatever He pleases. God is Himself reasonable and that is why He acts in a way that is reasonable to the mind... or to put it plainly, in a way that a being capable of reason can follow. Whomsoever God want's to harden is completely His right and choice. But the fact that He has to harden people's hearts is necessitated by His own pleasure in contrast to man's disobedient will. Again, God is free to choose who He hardens or shows mercy to, but the fact that he is pleased to show His mercy in this way makes it necessary for Him to harden people's hearts. God want's to rescue people, but people think they can be saved through their own effort. Where did this disposition come from on Calvinism? You yourself make this point when you say,
_"You can't show justice if you pardon everyone. And you can't show mercy if you only ever execute on the righteous judgement the condemned fully deserve."_
On Calvinism, why can't you do contrary to what you just described? On Molinism, this is because creatures retain freedom of the will.
@@oracleoftroy 4. Regarding the limitations on God, I think this is the core of the issues we are having and where Calvinism and Molinism really are at odds. You say,
_"It depends on what you mean. That "God cannot tell a lie" isn't a limitation. A lying God would be a much more limited God than a God who is truth. But a God who sovereignly gives up his throne and crowns man king over God is a very limited God."_
Your statement contradicts itself. Firstly, are you saying that "God cannot tell a lie" is not a limitation? If so what are your proofs for this? Secondly, you disprove your initial premise because you do show limitations on God. If God CANNOT lie, then God is limited to only the truth. This doesn't diminish God it only elevates Him. But it is clear that God has limitations and those limitations are a result of His own nature for example, the scriptures even teach us
*if we are faithless,
he remains faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.
2 Timothy 2:13*
God uses this very fact to protect the Human race. For example, in Isaiah 48:9 the Lord says
*"For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath;
for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
so as not to destroy you completely."*
We have seen clearly in Romans 9 that God is choosing to do things a specific way so that He may be glorified. Well, He is limiting Himself when He does so and says just that. *"I hold it back from you".* God restrains Himself. This is why I say God is a limit unto Himself. It is not as though the fact that Humans have creaturely freedom makes Humans in charge of God. You presented a strawman there. After all, He could have chosen not to create us. No, On Molinism, God is still sovereign even with creatures that have true free will. That free will is not able to triumph over God's decrees. Middle knowledge only explains how God chooses which instruments are pleasing and suitable for His purposes. So when God knows that the people of Tyre and Sidon are an appropriate choice to express His wrath, He chooses to punish them even though He knows that if He had given them the miracles of Jesus' day they would've repented. He is not the author of their evil, He just uses the very evil He knew they would create to display His mercy. On Calvinism, this is not explained only to say that God does whatever He pleases. On Molinism, God knows what they WOULD have done X and chooses decree as He pleases knowing the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
5. I'll treat these last points together. I am not saying (and neither is Dr. W.L. Craig) that Reformed theology explicitly asserts temptations come from God I am saying that Calvinism and it's proponents implicitly assert that God is the author of evil. Plainly, the logical conclusion of reformed theology is that God is the author of evil. Here is a parallel, Marian Catholics claim not to pray to Mary and it is even expressly prohibited in their doctrine. Never the less, their practice and the implications of their beliefs and actions contradicts their claims that they do not pray to Mary. On Calvinism it is implied that God is the author of evil. I know the reformed position is in lock step with Molinism regarding God not being the author of sin, I have read the WCF. However, Calvinism doesn't offer an explanation how it is the case that God is not the author of evil on Calvinism. This is a fact. It only states that He isn't whilst it's doctrines suggest that He is. I posed my question regarding James 1 to any individual that claims God is the author of sin as a result of their Calvinistic position. To those who don't I commend them but maintain that Calvinism offers no explanation for how God is not implicated as the author of sin. Only to state that He isn't. On Molinism, we are encouraged by Paul's words in Romans 1:19-20,
"since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Middle Knowledge would be an example of God's divine nature and eternal power that also explains how God is not the author of evil while maintaining total control of creatures with free wills. I have given the Molinistic explanation. What is your explanation from the Reformed position? Can you offer an explanation for how it is that violence is not offered to the will of the creatures as described in the Westminster Confession III.1? Did I miss something or am I right to say that there is no explanation how this is so?
It's funny that you assume my unfamiliarity with the reformed position. I attend a Reformed Baptist Church. A 1689 confessing church at that. 90% of my Christian peer group are reformed and a majority of my own beliefs are in lock step with reformed theology. I attend 2 weekly cell groups that for the past 3 years have been studying the WCF and 1689 Baptist Confession on a weekly basis. I take issue with Reformed theology on a very specific point which is that is is woefully casual regarding a position that appears to accuse God of being the author of evil. I do not claim to be an authority on the topic but simply believe it is important for every Christian to sincerely search their own beliefs against God's word as the Bereans did. The questions I have posed here are the very questions I ask in my groups and church. But my issue is what is authority on who God says He is? Is it the confessions or the scriptures? These confessions are useful but not inerrant or infallible. The only text that holds that honor is scripture itself. So if the confessions seem incomplete or allude to something scripture strictly forbids then we should rightfully scrutinize them. I know you believe this because you hold the same position towards Molinism. But given what we have seen, on this specific point, which of the two offers a biblical explanation that reconciles the apparent discrepancies presented? I maintain, Calvinism offers no explanation.
After this sad display Dr. Craig can go back to ignoring Mr. White.
What is he wearing? 😂
Can God constrain Himself? Just trying to understand.
Yes he can. It's not that God can be limited by something else but he Himself can limit Himself.
I think the Molinistic perspective attempts to interpret the Bible in a way where God is given sovereignty and also man is created with libertarian freedoms which can bring him accounts for responsibility of accepting the provision of God, I think with Calvinism there is no feasible worlds like you said, which seems like God created humans basically meant for condemnation but isn’t that also the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible too? Seems there is flaws within both parties really…
Molina himself didn't hold to "transworld damnation."
Was waiting for James to use Bill's example in truthmaker maximalism. "Baal does not exist." Who or what makes that true? Does God make that statement true? No, simply the lack of Baal existing makes that true. Is the truth of some things not existing being "made" to be true by God? Of course not. But that means there are "truths" that are not grounded in anything.
Sorry, White did not dismantle anything here.
"there are people who God could not save in any world which he could create"
That is wrong, in Molinism
it would be that to save the person that will not have faith in this world other people would not be saved instead. In total - in any other world than this one there would be less people who believe the Good News, which is why God made the world the way it is rn.
~8:00 you “defended” the idea that God, on your view of Calvinism, that God restrains evil. As a theological determinist, explain how God restrains evil. On determinism God does not restrain it, he determines that it occurs. Let this sink in… you are a theological determinist which is a philosophical not a biblical position. You are too bold and are outside of your philosophical depth and should be embarrassed but like a person with bad breath… I predict this video will come down out of embarrassment.
Calvinism is a solid system but not when you add theological determinism.
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 he claimed to be a determinist in the recent discussion he had with William Lane Craig on the Unbelievable program.
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 I hope to watch it again with my son and, if I remember🥴, I will drop the reference that I was referring to.
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 ~52:30 into the video… Craig says to James White, “that’s because you’re a determinist James!” To which James White shakes his head north and south in agreement and says yes or yep… Something like that😎 it was in the Unbelievable video with the full debate.
Where is reformed theology’s theodicy without free will?
God's NATURAL Knowledge: God's pre-creative knowledge of Himself (as Glorious in every way), and God's knowledge of all things _possible_.
God's DECISIONAL DECREE: God chooses to bring Himself glory by demonstrating His wrath against sinners, and His Mercy towards other sinners who don't deserve it.
God's FREE Knowledge: God's knowledge of all things that will _actually_ be, in accordance with His Pre-Creative Decree to Glorify His Justice AND His Mercy.
"Middle Knowledge" supposedly comes between God's Natural Knowledge and His Free Knowledge, so that even the Decree is preceded by it.
Thus, proponents of Middle Knowledge MUST assert (if they are honest) that, "God's Free Knowledge (His, "Omni-Prescience") is DEPENDENT upon the events that would occur in time, and the choices creatures would make".
William Lane Craig has said so, EXPLICITLY!
In Molinism, an ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTE of God, namely, His Omni-Presience (exhaustive, infallible foreknoledge) is DEPENDENT upon the creation!
In Molinism, God's knowledge is NOT independent, but is DEPENDENT!
(cf. my video, "Molinism Rejected" where Dr. William Lane Craig AND Pastor Mike Winger BOTH say that God's Knowledge is DEPENDENT).
That's the heresy that needs to be defeated here!
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Who does everything is impossible for man just born of women to grasp the term possible. I AM is a mystery you can't believe by looking outside of yourself.
🔥🔥💯
We need a pt.2 debate…👀😎
Impossible is a thought that is not actually possible against God. Imagination is the oldest Devine Truth in all man.
I don't mean to be the Spelling Police, but - it's Divine.
A very strange and incoherent understanding of Molinism because he places different precepts that don't exist about Man. We Molinists respect subjective conditionals because it's all we have as human beings. I love how Calvinists have insights into what God knows. God says leave JUDGEMENT to me. "This is not a Biblical concept" makes him deservedly open to ridicule. Evil will never DEMONSTRATE the glory of God. If Molinism is Pagan then Calvinists are New Age in their views of God's Decree.
*Gnostic
Strange take.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 No
@@dogescout5868 Strange? No.
@@drummersagainstitk Isn’t God’s response to evil (righteous judgment) a reflection of His Holy nature? And is He not glorified in the destruction of evil?
You framed the video so we could see your pants… 🙈
I find this very sad. I loved your early debates. RC Sproul and you convinced me Calvanism is unbiblical. I can answer most questions you say you don't understand. I can also ground molenism with scripture even though I am not an expert in the system.
Please Dr white in light of what I have seen you do, please try harder.
Not sad at all. Dr. White is spot on.
@@dannymcmullan9375 do you think that God created casually the truth that he is uncreated?
@@malvokaquila6768 The Lord has revealed that from everlasting to everlasting, He is God. To go beyond that is to go beyond scripture and I try not to do that.
@@dannymcmullan9375 right just like Dr White you don't understand what's being discussed. It's quite simple, God is a neccessary being with qualities. It's impossible read "ridiculous" to assert that God had to create the "truth" of qualities he already had.
Dr Whites "fatal" flaw in Molinism is just a failing of his to understand what he's trying to assert. If you want you can say he's begging the question.
Aslo in his talk with Dr Craig he failed to defend Calvanism, because it's not true. It suffers from a fatal flaw. God is the author of sin and lies, and all the good stuff too. It's mostly correct as a systematic, but properly condemned by the reformers, reformed theology, and the text of scripture.
@@malvokaquila6768 Actually we know exactly what's being discussed. We simply choose to stay within what God has revealed in scripture about Himself instead of relying on human reasoning and philosophy.
Does he think God makes the law of noncontradiction true?
Romans 11: 32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Thats not outside man, asleep you are till?
Dr white. It all sounds 100% convincing.
Totally the Word of God.
I would just want to understand what even Luther could not wrap his mind around- why does the Eucharist work?
You sin, for instance, you feel you let darkness inside of you. Nothing helps: prayer, reading the Scripture, talking to believers. You go to confession and the Eucharist( I am Russian orthodox)- the darkness gets expelled. You feel immediately the disease has stopped, the mind gets help, gets brighter.
How do you explain that?
And I am sinning. I get in and out of the theoria numerous times a year. Cause I only starting to realize that YES to the Kingdom of Heaven is No to every other input or influence. It’s an offence to the world. And I wasn’t ready for that when I had my Isaiah 6 experience.
And God still gives me time and chances to drag my full body and mind into the Light, casting all that seduces aside.
And sometimes I fall so pitifully low- Eucharist lifts up.
Hello, I'm not Dr. White, but I can add my two cents on this if you'd like. I live in Utah, the Mormon capital of the world. Your description of feelings after taking the eucharist sounds alot like the Mormon's description of how they feel when they 'pray to God on whether the Book of Mormon is true and if Joseph Smith was a true prophet'.
Fundamentally we must start with God's word in Jeremiah 17:9 that "our heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it". We can't trust ourselves. The New testament answers the begged question, "how can we know truth at all?". It is through God's word (1 John 4:1, John 17:17, Acts 17:11). So, it is my understanding that our arguments for or beliefs about something should never be based on our feelings or personal observations, but should be drawn from God's word. Remember that Jesus tells us that His followers will be "sanctified in truth; [God's] word is truth" (John 17:17). This our beliefs ultimately should be rooted in God's word, not traditions or feelings. Sure they may play a part, but they are ultimately subservient to scripture.
Calvinism has a very fatal flaw: it makes God the author of evil. Because of this, it is blasphemy and false.
Calvinism aside, how is God authoring evil a fatal flaw for theology?
What would be a better answer to the problem of evil?
Remember, Craig gave the same answer as the Calvinist confessions by resolving it with primary and secondary causation, so molinism is out. And really, that answer is one the church has settled on for nearly 2000 years, so orthodox Christianity is out. So it would be interesting to see what the alternative is, assuming you aren't just a scoffers and actually willing to present a positive case.
Guys the main issue is this forget whether you are a Calvinist, Molonist, provisionist or Arminian. If you’ve repented and come under the Lordship of Christ you receive sonship and become a reflection of Christ to all of mankind.. That’s the issue you probably won’t get to heaven one day and God will say well done my good and faithful Calvinist and it certainally doesn’t make a difference when we are active members of Gods Kingdom
Amen. Just less jump cuts please :)
If you want less jump cuts, watch the original not the highlight version
@@D-meist My apologies, I had no idea there was a longer version.
I am a Molinist but I reject Transworld Damnation. I believe that God can, through His Middle Knowledge, actualize a world wherein all men freely choose to accept His grace and get saved. But God didn't do that. Why? So that His justice may be displayed through His creation. So I believe that this is the order of salvation:
1. Election: Before God has actualized the world, He has elected, unconditionally, based on His sovereign will alone and for His glory, a portion of the human race into eternal life; so that His grace may be made manifest through His creation. Likewise, He has also elected, unconditionally, based on His sovereign will alone and for His glory, a portion of the human race into eternal death; so that His justice may be made manifest through His creation.
2. Foreknowledge: After God has elected some for salvation and others for damnation, He surveys every single possible world and He foresees one possible world wherein all of those whom He has elected for salvation would freely choose to accept His grace and would be saved, and wherein all of those whom He has elected for damnation would freely choose to reject His grace and would be damned.
3. Actualization: God that brings the possible world that He has foreknown; wherein the elect are saved and the non-elect are damned, from potency to act.
Mr James White don't deceive me with your monergistic view of salvation. I am from a banana republic but can't fool me with your twisted view of the Bible.
Theology leads to philosophy
Theology is a branch of philosophy, as are all other branches of knowledge.
Huh?
Unfortunately rather than a spirit of love for Dr. Craig and Christians that hold this view this seems petty and argumentative.
Ok I just did my morning devotional and this was something that reminded me of Dr. White...dont take this as an insult...its not intended that way...anyway thought Id share because I am guilty of this (and I assume your youtube followers probably can relate, anyway here goes:
"#RedLetterChallenge
Following Jesus first is a combination of being with Jesus and doing the things He asks.
If I asked my son to clean his room and he came back with any of the following responses a few hours later, I think we would all agree he missed my point.
“Hey Dad, I memorized what you said. I can say ‘Go clean your room,’ in Greek: ‘Pao Katharos sas domatio’. My friends and I are going to gather together every week and study what it would look like if I went and cleaned my room.”
The Word was meant to be manifested into reality. Otherwise its just mental masterbation.
In short..."Don't just talk about it, BE about it"
Yes. Jesus says in the great commission to "teach to obey" all that he commanded.
Where is Dr. White not being about it? What did Jesus command his disciples to do ar the end of Matthew 28?
@@KIEFFNERCLAN I dont know the man. I just read in the devotional about "I can say go clean your room" in greek...and he came to mind. He has learned and forgetten more than I will ever have time to read. My critique is more about the amount of life he has dedicated to the cause (at what cost did that come) and sadly at the end of the day he is no closer to God than any other person who spent a majority of their time preaching rather than doing.
Mental masterbation for the sake of satisfying ones own ego.
In short...how about go out and paint someones fence or take action instead....I see more fruits from those folks than I do anyone else.
I am the worst of the worst and a hyprocite. So i understand the irony of myself saying this.
Just my opinion.
A critique of myself. David say less. Tempted to delete my comment because I realize I sound like a fool.
Anyways carry on with your studies....
Im hitting the gym and then playing with my kids later. God bless
@@DavidicServant Hey there. I think the problem with your comment is that you've fallen into the trap of the online world. Most of us only see Dr. White's videos here, so we see the tremendous amount of knowledge he has been gifted with and is able to teach us.
But having followed him for a number of years now, I don't think your critique of him is accurate. He, along with his congregation, do make tremendous strides to put their faith into action. Yes, studies without action are useless. But action without knowing what you're doing is also useless.
I'll also add, preaching is not merely standing up and speaking. Preaching, when understood correctly, IS putting one's faith into action. Preaching IS doing. Not everyone is gifted with it, but those who are gifted with it must fulfil their calling.
I understand your comment probably wasn't meant to be malicious, but I do think it was based on an incorrect assumption, and I hope you'll take this in the intention it was meant. God bless :)
"There are people who God could not save in any world in which he could create." Why does Dr. White continue to lie about what Molonism claims? WLC even addresses that in the debate. Shameful, but not surprising from Dr. White.
But molinism puts human free-will as top priority over God’s sovereign will? The big problem with molinism and the idea of middle of knowledge is that it’s no where in the Bible, no where. You have to eisegete that into the Bible and presuppose that human reason is supreme authority over God’s revelation. Hence why WLC always starts with trying to reason people into theism at first. Where did he get that from the Bible? What person from scripture did that? If you see Paul’s and Peter’s apologetics they always immediately talk about the gospel and bring their testimony. Molinism attacks the sufficiency of Scripture and is man-centered period.
Isn't freewill a form of omicenence, outside of gods control. Is there not a grounding problem here? And isn't it also true about randomness . This might, just might, pertain to consciousness, out side of God.Pantheism has to be true in that case doesn't it? The grounding issue you raised, seems unassailable. As U can tell I don't know much about philosophy , however, the dis, maximal truth making is not philosophically true, seems like a non sququitor coming out of left field. What is the philosophical concensus on this anyway. Or would that be the way it's employed by dr.White . On a mostly subjective basis, molinism just seems to me to be, I don't quite know, just not on.dr. Ws anti philosophy stance seems to be on target. It's just all so clumsy.
Whatever you think glorifies God more is the truth
Getting in front of the debate release. Great damage control in poisoning the well by setting the frame. People should watch the debate first then listen for the cleanup afterward on both sides, assuming it is truth we are after and not post hoc rationalizationiIng.
Yeah, I've noticed several Molinists commenting about this to get in front of the debate release. They must not have very much confidence in WLC to hold his own. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.