If Calvanism is true then all religious beliefs including atheism is decreed by God. Thus on Calvanism God makes people believe lies. Also you could preach the Gospel or throw banana peels while saying the Russian national anthem, it has the exact same effect on the reprobate.
@@malvokaquila6768 there is a distinction between God causing something and him sovereignly ordaining it. In one, he is the causative agent, and in the other he is not, rather he is the governing agent. Just as he ordained that sin occur, he did not cause it, yet he governs it.
I've been an Arminian, a Calvinist, and a Molinist. I've gone through all three forms of soteriology. It has been quite an interesting journey. I have respect for certain aspects of Arminianism and some doctrines of Calvinism, but I find Molinism to be the most biblically and logically coherent.
@@tomtemple69 for Calvanism the answer is nowhere. It's not in any text anywhere anywhen. For molinism it's in every single story roughly. The entire claim is God know what would have happened under different circumstances. For example when David asked God if the people would turn him over to Saul, and God said that "they will". Well that didn't happen because david didn't wait for saul to come down. Thus God foreknew what would have happened, but didn't happen. Case closed.
@@malvokaquila6768 God was answering Davids question because He can see the hearts of men like jonah and ninevah IF they do not repent, they WILL perish
I find this take more intriguing. It still feels like the blind spot is: if our free choices are known, how are they free? If a simulation has infinite possibilities that are all known and certain paths are avoided or cut off by the programmer in real time, is it freedom but only to a degree allowed by the programmer? My solve for this is that we don't have truly 'free' will; we have many choices but not infinite choices; we can do this or that but we can't teleport, or time travel or fly, etc. Our will is bound by actual limitations physically but also metaphysically. When I first became a Christian, I noticed all the predestination, foreknowledge, and election talk in the Bible that I didn't recall from church and was quickly swayed toward Calvinism. I have over time noticed how Calvinism blunts the thought processes of practicality (even if from an improper understanding: 'if I did this, I was meant to.' Thus to repent and believe is an act of God that we are responsible for not doing). ALSO, I've noticed counterfactuals in the Bible, particularly in God's thought process; IF the Israelites are led by another path and see war, they MAY turn back to Egypt. I have yet to hear a good Calvinist or hard predestination take to explain this. My current thoughts are that it is a paradox of BOTH free will AND predestination that we cannot understand to the degree that even David said "...I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me." I have an impression of how it might work, but seeing God is sovereign in scripture seems pretty clear so I will pray and hope and have faith in God's total power but I must act and respond to the world and life as though there is some degree of freedom and the Bible indicates that too. It's not like the elect have an 'E' on their back, so I wonder if knowing there is truth in both is as far as we should or even can go?
"free will" does not mean unrestrained to do whatever. It just means "not forced", and able to pick between available options. God can coerce, cajole, entreat, and plead, without forcing people to do things. Also foreknowledge is not causal, according to scripture. In the text God foreknows things that do not happen. God can foreknow and work through the free actions of humans to achieve his goals. Hell I can do this, so God should be infinitely better at it.
@@malvokaquila6768 so God chose to create a universe where, say, you chose to eat eggs this morning INSTEAD of a universe where you (or some other person 99.99999999% identical to you if you prefer) chose cereal instead?
I wish that more people would distinguish between Calvinism and people who affirm exhaustive divine determinism, they are not the same. While the majority of Calvinists affirm exhaustive divine determinism and compatibilist free will there is nothing wrong with a Calvinist affirming middle knowledge and libertarian free will. As Craig himself has argued elsewhere affirming middle knowledge seems to be the best way to make sense of the Westminster Confession when it states "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." As a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist I really wish everyone would start to make a distinction here, not all Calvinists are divine determinists.
But the next paragraph rules out Molinism. “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.”
@@billboardman8747 Seems like a bunch of vain philosophy predicated upon human understanding versus realizing we can never begin to understand the Lord. His foolishness is greater than our wisdom. Calvinism makes a mockery of who God is and his character is assassinated by their idolatry of Calvin.
Interesting observations! Am I correct to assume that by libertarian free will you mean the ability to make real choices that have real consequences? Personally I don't like the term free will. Our choices are influenced by thousands or perhaps millions of influences, so in actuality it is not completely free, only God's will is free.
Romans 10:9: If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Calvinism: If God causes you to declare and God causes you to believe you will be saved (although God already saved you before the world began making the cross of Christ and this verse irrelevant.)
@@Justas399 You probably read ESV. The greek is apo if I remember correctly, which is incorrectly translated in the ESV as before, it actually means "from", not before. This is an ESV blunder.
@@Justas399 You skipped over Eph 1:1, and all the times Eph 1 says "in Him". Because Elect = believers, predestined to adoption. The benefits are predestined, not who will believe.
What about the passage is hard for you? The passage doesn't define the word "predestined" for you. Whether it talks about predestination in the sense of God's foreknowledge about salvation of these peoples or about predestination in calvinistic sense of them never having free will to decline it is up to the rest of the Scriptures to tell you. And holistic reading of Scripture tells you plainly it can't be the latter, because it describes saved people falling away from God many times like the story of umrepentant debter and even people acting against God's salvific will for them, like Jesus's lamet over peoples of Jerusalem.
Acts 13:48 states, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." In Molinism, this verse can be understood in the following way: Molinists believe that God has middle knowledge, which includes knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. According to Molinism, God uses this middle knowledge to choose which possible world to actualize, a world in which his purposes are achieved and people have the opportunity to freely choose him. In Acts 13:48, the phrase "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" can be understood as referring to those who, in the actual world, would freely choose to believe in response to the preaching of the gospel. According to Molinism, God knows with certainty which people would choose to believe in this situation, and thus he appoints them to eternal life by actualizing the world in which they freely choose to believe. Therefore, Acts 13:48 can be understood as an affirmation of God's sovereignty and control over all things, while also affirming the genuine freedom and responsibility of human beings. In Molinism, God brings about his purposes through the free choices of his creatures, and those who believe do so freely in response to God's grace.
In Molinism, foreknowledge does not “necessitate” how creatures act. I wish WLC would get more into how important the word “necessitate” is in this debate.
I need help Any molinist here? I have a question, Does molinism assume that people are who they would be in every possible world? … I’m under the impression that part of what makes us who we are is the world we are in… if so doesn’t it mean that God saw it fit to choose a world on the basis that he could accomplish his purpose and not on who we “actually” are?.. Another question… Does molinism assume that God cannot accomplish his purposes in certain worlds? It seems to me that there isn’t a possible world where God can’t accomplish his purposes, that would undermine his sovereignty in my opinion… Another question… What would be the extent of God’s foreknowledge of peoples freewill, is there potential to have extreme molinism to the point that it becomes deism? @Drcraigvideos
Regarding your first question, Molinism does not assume that people are who they would be in every possible world. Rather, Molinists believe that God has middle knowledge, which includes knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. This means that God knows how people would act if they were in different circumstances or different worlds, and he uses this knowledge to actualize the world in which his purposes are achieved and people have the opportunity to freely choose him. Regarding your second question, Molinism does not assume that God cannot accomplish his purposes in certain worlds. In fact, Molinists believe that God is sovereign over all possible worlds and that he can achieve his purposes in any of them. The idea of middle knowledge is precisely what allows God to achieve his purposes while respecting the free will of his creatures. Regarding your third question, Molinists believe that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and includes knowledge of all possible worlds and all possible actions of free creatures in those worlds. However, this does not mean that Molinism leads to deism. Molinists affirm that God is actively involved in the world and that he brings about his purposes through the free choices of his creatures. Molinists also affirm that God's providence is not deterministic, meaning that God allows his creatures to have genuine freedom and responsibility.
@@Indowaindowa I think you contradicted yourself between your first and second answer… in your first reply you stated, God uses middle knowledge to “actualize the world in which his purposes are achieved” Then in the second response you stated that he can accomplish his purpose in any world. If that’s the case doesn’t “choosing” a world on that basis become redundant?, unless he is not sovereign enough to accomplish his purpose in some possible worlds. Am I following? Thanks for replying btw
Can you flesh that out a little more? What kind of freedom do you think we experience and that Calvinism teaches which distinguishes it from Molinism? - RF Admin
God's will alone is totally free and sovereign. Psalm 33 says he frustrates plans of both people and nations so that his own purposes will be established. There is no middle knowledge, only the decree of a sovereign God who is working ALL things after the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11). He declares the end from the beginning and promises to accomplish all his good pleasure (Isaiah 46:10-12), so he doesn't either now in the present or previously in the past have to choose between which world(s) to create. The difference between Molinism and Calvinism is that one is taught in scripture and the other isn't. Did Jonah get to resist God's will? Did Paul when he was blinded and knocked off his horse? We have a will which God gave us. We are held responsible for our own actions. Grace affects our wills as God sees fit both to save and then to preserve us. I think God allows us freedom, but not freedom to resist his ultimate plans. This is how I understand what scripture teaches.
People are free to live according to our fallen, sinful nature. We can’t hear the gospel unless the Holy Spirit breaks our sin hardened hearts in order to hear it. That is why Jesus taught in parables. Give thanks to God as he enables you.
is this the same argument? I find Molinism to be a bit hard to wrap the mind around, so I usually say this: 1. God exists outside of time. He knows the end from the beginning. 2. Because 1 is true, God knows all the choices everyone who ever existed made, before they made them. He had this knowledge the moment he created the universe. 3. Just because God knows what someone will choose freely, does not in any way mean that God forced them to do it. 4. There are certain events that God has pre-ordained to happen, which are written in the Bible, and nothing can stop those events from happening. So free will choices cannot in any way prevent any of those events from happening. That is the only limitation on free will if you want to see it like that. I don't know how that squares with what you believe, but it's what I believe.
Perhaps libertarian free will was annihilated at the fall, and compatibilist free will was then the case. That is, before the fall, angelic and human beings had libertarian freedom and so had the ability to act contrary to their good, unfallen natures. After the fall, they could act only according to their natures in compatibilist freedom, in the case of angels fallen or unfallen and in the case of humans fallen or fallen-and-redeemed, the latter implying an ability to act according to either of the two (old or new) natures until glorification at which time redeemed humans, like God and angels now, will have the ability to act only according to their one nature.
How could it be justified that we should be held responsible for what God has determined we would do? Calvinism would be unjust, it would be outside of God's nature. God cannot be unjust.
I find little problem with molinism. My point is how God knows which particular response a free person would choose in a particular circumstances given the free person could choose from among various responses to that particular circumstances? For example if I am in a particular circumstances and I have various options of responses then how God knows which response a person choose from among various options of responses?
Translation: "How would God know in advance what a person would freely choose?" Let me ask you this: how is it that God is all powerful? If you can't answer that question then are you somehow rationally justified in suggesting therefore God isn't all powerful? I'd say the answer would obviously be "no". So what you're asking is essentially "How is God all knowing? How does he know the future?" I don't think it's even remotely necessary to know how this is the case to know that it is, in fact, the case. That doesn't stop us from taking a crack at it though. You're only considering things from your own perspective from which you're limited by time, which itself is an aspect of nature. God created nature which means God created time. God Himself is timeless. Just as he isn't made of matter or is confined to only exist within space, He Himself is not shackled by time as we are. Existing apart from time, it makes sense, at least to me, that He would know the future just as He knows every detail about every spec of matter within the universe.
Some people seem to have a gut reaction that God can’t know the future if freewill is allowed. I’m not sure there is a logical reason why that would be true. Perhaps there is something about nature way beyond our ability to understand that God is able to do this. Or as many have suggested and I used to hold he just peaked at the ending so he knows all the answers as they unfold. Is God so great that he can do these things? As long as they are not logical impossibilities perhaps he can.
That's a good question. Molinists believe that God has middle knowledge, which is the knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. This means that God knows, with certainty, what a person would freely choose in any given situation, even if that person has multiple options to choose from. Molinists typically explain this by positing that God's middle knowledge includes knowledge of what a person would do in different counterfactual scenarios, which are hypothetical situations that could have occurred but did not actually occur. According to this view, God knows not only what a person would choose in the actual world, but also what that person would choose if the circumstances were different. For example, if you have multiple options of response in a particular situation, God would know what you would choose in each of those options, even if you never actually choose any of them. Molinists believe that God uses this knowledge to actualize the world in which his purposes are achieved and people have the opportunity to freely choose him.
@ only facts and logic this is a question that most parents can answer. As a parent, you know your children so well, that you know how they would act in almost any circumstance. For instance, you told your children that they are not allowed any cookies before meals. A jar with cookies is on the table while you are outside, mowing the lawn. Child A passes by and you just know that they will swipe a cookie, while perhaps child B, when they pass by, might take a good look at the jar, but out of respect for you, they will wait until after lunch and only then they will ask for a cookie. If we, as limited creatures can know these things about our children, is it surprising that the All-Knowing God knows exactly how each and every one of us will act in any possible situation?
This view must necessarily reject that God is the universal cause of goodness, thus rejecting His universal causality and thus His simplicity, and this is no surprise from Craig who rejects simplicity
//This view must necessarily reject that God is the universal cause of goodness, thus rejecting His universal causality and thus His simplicity, and this is no surprise from Craig who rejects simplicity// First, Dr. Craig's view is that God is the locus or ground of goodness by his nature, not by his causality. If it were by causality, then God himself would not be good unless he caused goodness, which entails that he is not necessarily good. Second, it's unclear why you think there's a necessary connection between causality and Thomistic simplicity (which is the type of simplicity that Dr. Craig rejects). Perhaps you can elaborate. - RF Admin
@drcraigvideos This misunderstands. God is the universal cause of goodness because He alone possesses goodness per se, and all other things only have goodness per accidens, just as all other things only possess being by participation in their acts of existence where in God alone is existence not had by participation but is had per se. To use other language you may be more familiar with, He is the primary cause of all goodness, and while we can be causes of goodness in our own right with respect to our secondary causality, our secondary causality is only in virtue of participation in the causality granted by the primary cause, hence the possession of goodness by creatures is per accidens. If our moral actions are logically prior to creation, and we "predestine ourselves," then we could see how molinism provides for a theodicy insofar as God isnt the cause of sin in an individual, but on this model it entails the same in the other direction, that obviously God is not the cause of our goodness either, which again violates the primary/secondary causal relation between creator and creature, violating His fundamentality and essentially makes him another being among beings in the landscape of beings, which like I said is no surprise since craig already explicitly does that anyway in his metaphysics of God.
They are both the same. Someone who is of a molonist mindset is more calvanist than a calvinist in that all has been predetermined beforehand and the multitude of choices is the illusion of have a choice at all. Evil is just 'good' that isn't 'good yet'. It [evil] is a 'refining fire'... that can never be extinguished and will always serve it's purpose.
This is a strange comment, since Molinism affirms that God incorporates genuinely free choices into his providential planning of history. Why do you think they are illusory? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos - you can have an unlimited amount of choices, if God has already determined what the results of those choices are, you can choose all you want - but the road you're on ultimately leads to one place - exactly where God expects you to be... as if you actually had a choice.
@@ChrisMusante This is a very confused comment. You admit that, on this model, God can incorporate free choices into his meticulous planning of history and that, therefore, we can choose. But then you say "as if you actually had a choice," implying that choosing what God knew beforehand and planned for us to choose implies that we're not really choosing. So, which is it? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos - Well, if all the choices have already been designed, you still have the choice but God is not surprised and is thus in sovereign 'control'.
When I found out about Calvinism's belief and that some of the Bible verse mentioned about predestined, my faith was shaken. It took my friends some help and pray to get me back on the track. I will never accept Calvinism's belief. God would be an evil one if He knew I was destined to go to hell but I asked to accept Jesus Christ as my savior and that this was all for naught. That my choice and decision has no bear on my end destiny... that I want to be saved, serve God, and so much... only to have me still go into the hell. No, Calvinism is a fake religious. God is too love to let this happen. Yes, God is omniscient and He know where we will ended up at but it's still ultimately our choice. And love let people make their own decision.
Well, it still affrims that if you truly put your faith in Jesus, and accept Him, that you will never fall away. Calvinism just says that God is in control of whether he lifts the veil of sin, and that none of us can make the choice to be better. It's only through God's grace that any of us are saved. We can't choose our salvation in other words, since that is against what is said in the scriptures.
Molina arrived at middle knowledge because of data provided by Scripture that Scripture itself doesn't attempt to synthesize or reconcile. It's the same with the doctrine of the Trinity. We are given various puzzle pieces and much of theology (especially analytic theology) is working out how those pieces might fit together. - RF Admin
@@Justas399 Again, it's an inference from the data, not a proof. There are several points of data which seem best explained by middle knowledge. Scripture affirms both God's sovereignty over all of creation and history, as well as human responsibility and freedom (eg 1 Cor 10:13). In order for God to be sovereign over history, there mustn't be anything for which he has not providentially planned - down to the movement of the smallest particle. And this includes creatures' free choices. But if God doesn't have middle knowledge, then he cannot plan for creatures' free choices in advance of creation. Therefore, it follows that if God is sovereign and has providentially planned for creatures' free choices, he must have middle knowledge. - RF Admin
@@Justas399 Scripture also doesn't teach the laws of logic or calculus or quantum physics or music theory. Are we justified in rejecting those things because they aren't explicitly taught in Scripture? - RF Admin
I’m glad I was determined to believe Calvinism is false and unbiblical. I wonder how I would really feel if I wasn’t determined to feel,think and act a certain way. Even my wondering is determined isn’t it? I guess I would never know anything if Calvinism is true.
A year ago I would've characterized it the same way until after reading the other side a bit, i've realized not every Calvinist affirms Exhaustive divine determinism. So it wouldn't be accurate to conflate calvinism with determinism (at least not necessarily so)
If you aren’t deterministic you aren’t really a Calvinist. WLC is accurate that this is the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty. It can’t be anything else.
@@jason1carnley No, it’s not. There’s nothing inherent to Calvinism that should make you a determinist. The fact that so many Calvinists happen to be determinists is not proof that you can’t reject exhaustive divine determinism and be a Calvinist. There are so many well respected Calvinists who already do that. Stop setting up false dichotomies.
@@leonardu6094 I literally don’t know how you arrive at this conclusion. Even Calvinists high priest, James White acknowledges that it’s a deterministic view of God.
Predestination will intervene, and force the will, if necessary. Foreknowledge, is God knowing what you will do, and intervening if you have a Predestination, even against your will. Moses, didn't want to be chosen.
and just because he sees what we choose, doesn't mean he forced us to choose. But there's also an element of there being certain events that are preordained to happen, which are written in the bible. Like the end times. Those cannot be prevented by free will
From whom did God LEARN what as yet non-existent creatures WOULD DO under all circumstances, Dr. Craig? The non-existent creatures who existed only in His imagination and could do nothing He didn't first imagine them doing? #TheOpenTheismHeresy
Learn? That's a straw man. God simply KNOWS what free creatures would freely decide to do. In trying to create a contradiction where none exists, you're trying to suggest that God Himself is somehow subject to time; that's unknowingly pretty blasphemous on your part. Time is an aspect of nature, and God created nature. Just as God is not subject to nature, therefore He is not somehow shackled by the concept of time.
@@LawlessNate Then from who or what did God's knowledge of true counterfactuals come? There were only two possible sources of that knowledge, God's Natural Knowledge of Himself and everything ***HE*** could do, or His Free Knowledge of what He ***HAS*** done. For Middel Knowledge to come before His decree, it would have to be resident in His knowledge of Himself and what ***HE*** could do (Natural Knowledge). This means that Middle Knowledge is about what ***GOD***, not creatures themselves, could do in DETERMINING the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Therefore, Creatures determine nothing God hasn't first determined they will determine. 👈#ThereforeCalvinism #MolinismFail
@@arthur6157 Your entire commend could have been summed up as the position "If God knows our will in advance then therefore He determines it." That is a philosophically bankrupt position. God knowing what we do with our genuine, libertarian free will doesn't make Him determine our will any more than a cop doing a sting operation doesn't determine the will of criminals who take the bait. Even the fact that God knows in advance what we will and would otherwise do doesn't somehow negate our libertarian free will. Even the fact that God plans the course of history knowing what we will do doesn't negate true libertarian free will. I think one difference in the philosophical and theological out workings between Calvinism and Provisionism is that Calvinists assume that God completely controls everything about our wills and therefore there is no other way things could have been, whereas Provisionists assume, I think correctly, that God has bestowed us with genuine libertarian free will and He uses his influence in our lives to give us a fair shot at using our libertarian free will to either accept or reject Him. You can try to read scripture with the presumption of determinism, but I think a truly exegetical study of scripture, of all scripture, clearly lends itself to the Provisionist perspective of libertarian free will. I think the Calvinist, if he's being honest with himself, must, in order to maintain his Calvinism, presume that the authors of scripture, not God who inspired it but the men who put pen to paper, assumed libertarian free will and that God inspired them to write scripture in such a way that you could somehow read between the lines to see determinism. That would be a very lofty theological framework to try and maintain, but without it I think the Calvinist perspective crumbles. Really, I think it falls apart regardless, but I don't see how a Calvinist can be truly exegetical about scripture, especially scripture outside of soteriological debates like this, without mentally switching back to assuming, likely unconsciously, libertarian free will.
I think WLC is accurate it’s all about God’s sovereignty causing an absolutely determined outcome from the beginning. There is no true freewill in Calvinism
This is a type of fallacy where the person always accuses the other party of not understanding their position, no matter what. I see this in just about every conversation on Calvinism. If someone points out a flaw, regardless of what it is, they must not really understand Calvinism. In many cases, the person doesn't even bother showing "how" Calvinism has been misunderstood (for example, your comment here). Considering WLC is one of the top philosophers in the world (and arguably the top Christian philosopher alive today), and one of his main focuses of interest has been sovereignty, I think he understands Calvinism just fine, lol.
Dude this is literally not even a meme at this point. "You don't understand Calvinism" strikes again! How many times you people gonna say it? I guess only the elite elect can understand.
There is no Free Will in Molinism. In Molinism, what we do in the actual or created World does not inform God what we would do. Rather, what we do in the imaginary possible World in God’s mind prior to Creation informs God what we would do. This is why we have no free will in the actual or created world. Once God creates the World of His choice, everything MUST happen as God knew it and saw it in His mind prior to creation. Therefore, God determines what an actual or created Person does by creating a Possible World. Once that World is created, every Person MUST do what God knew they would do. Molinism is just as deterministic as Calvinism is.
Small problem. John 3:16, puts the kaibash on Calvinism, with the word, "whosoever ". On top of that, there are too many warnings in the Bible for us to NOT have free will. Determinism has no need of warnings. It's not my fault, my will is to be at the right hand of God?
"Once God creates the World of His choice, everything MUST happen as God knew it and saw it in His mind prior to creation." This comes back to the age old problem of, "if God knows what I'm going to do, then how can it be free?" However, this misunderstands what free will is. For any action a free creature performs, the cause of that free action is the agent themselves, and not an outside power. That's where libertarianism is different from determinism. On libertarianism, all you need is that the action is determined by the agent. So, if God knows the agent will cause action X, the agent is still the cause of X, even though God knows it before X occurs. God knowing it does not cause it, nor is God's knowledge a causal power. In fact, knowledge, in and of itself, cannot cause anything. Molinism does include free will, because the definition of libertarian free will still applies to the actions of free agents.
Everything "Must" happen yes. But you are not correctly judging God's eternal knowledge in comparison to time and actualization. Saying "must happen" seems subtly misleading. A simple way to think about it is like a "backwards causation." Creatures "alter" God's eternal knowledge. Yes, you read that right. It seems it has to be put this woodenly to get the point across. Or think about it this way. An infinity of worlds literally exist in God's mind. I am in there. And in a different world, I am doing a different thing. God knows this, and every variation. I am like a free agent inside the infinity of God's mind, doing things. So once God actualizes one of these worlds, it is just me being me in a particular version. It doesn't matter if he knows everything that will happen, I am the source of why he knew it from eternity.
@TheMirabillis The Bible demonstrates free will. I give no credence to the therums, including the trinity, Armenian, pentecostal, Sunday keepers, etc. I've been Sola scriptura, after the honeymoon.
But where does this middle knowledge come from? Subjunctive conditionals cannot delimited an omnipotent God. That's not real sovereignty. Molinism is nothing more than philosophical eisegesis, which presupposes an autonomous will not found in scripture. If you read Daniel 4 and the results of what Nebuchadnezzar came to after his "reason" came to him you would not make such a statement as this I'll be honest.
@Mark L "δεσπότης" or "despotes" in the lemma, meaning having the characteristic sovereign is, in fact, a noun. However, it acts as a descriptor in this case as well in the "vocative" use of the word. This is the most used form of grammar for the word translated to "sovereign" in the Bible. It appears over 2/3rds of the time. You are going surface deep without taking into account the full grammar of the word. If you apply English grammar rules to Greek, then you're bound to get the meaning wrong.
@@newreformationapologetics4953 again it’s used as a title or a noun. Just because God is defined as sovereign does not mean that he controls or determines all things.
@@MarkNOTW Daniel 4:34-35 (ESV): 34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?”
@@newreformationapologetics4953 Sorry man, that doesn't prove Calvinism. Don't mean to dogpile on you, but unfortunately you are the one engaging in eisegesis. On Molinism, God does what he pleases and NONE can stay his hand. Nothing or no one can challenge him. I agree with every jot and tittle of those verses, literally. Here's something for you to consider: What if God, is humble enough to acquiesce to creatures? Can you think of an example in Scripture where God did something for the sake of creatures? Or creatures actions made God act a certain way? Does that prove he isn't omnipotent to you?
0:56 “It's been rightly said that on Molinism, it's up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves” someone make that make sense.
What about it doesn't make sense? It's pretty simple. God doesn't choose for you, nor he is forcing you to do anything. You are a free agent. God only knows what you will do, because he knows everything, but even if he allows it, you may act against God's will at any time you choose. What is up to us are the choices. Wgat is up to God was THE choice to allow it all to happen by creating you, even though he knew what you'll do with your freedom.
@@mitromney No, it clearly says it is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined; meaning it's obviously God’s choice or decision. If that's wrong, then it is not up to God. It can't be both. To further confuse things then it says it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves. If it's up to God, then it isn't up to us; if it's up to us, then it isn't up to us; that's simple. It is really just a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering or saying anything really. I can take this to mean that we are predestined and it is up to God if we realize it or not, it's really just Calvinism with extra, more complicated steps.
@@ameribeaner simply put, it means that God decides which world to actualize but it's up to us whether we respond to God's grace in the world he has actualized. And as a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist I could be happy with you saying it's just Calvinism with extra steps, except that I'm pretty sure that when you say Calvinism you mean divine determinism and Molina's doctrine of predestination is entirely different from divine determinism. Knowledge does not stand in causal relationships to what people do, God's actualizing a world where he infallibly knew what free creatures would freely do is entirely different from God creating a world where he causally determines everything that comes to pass.
@@PresbyterianPaladin Yes, when I said Calvinism with extra steps, I meant divine determinism. But in response to the “middle knowledge,” that's entirely heretical for Christianity. The Gospel authors knew God had direct control of everything because that was the default understanding of the gods at that time. And Him simply being an infinite, timeless being negates the possibility of Him having middle knowledge. What gets confusing is His direct will and His permissive will, and how He knows and animates everything yet still gives us choices.
@@mitromney The problem is that at least under a libertarian definition of free will, there is no "what you WOULD do", only "what you COULD do". To say that you could infallibly predict what a person would do in any given situation is implicitly assuming that determinism is true.
All I know is that Calvinism is not true but if it is, I was determined to never believe that Calvinism is true.
Bingo. Which also means that our heavenly father has caused us to believe something that is not true.
@@MarkNOTW caused or ordained?
unless you change your mind,
If Calvanism is true then all religious beliefs including atheism is decreed by God. Thus on Calvanism God makes people believe lies.
Also you could preach the Gospel or throw banana peels while saying the Russian national anthem, it has the exact same effect on the reprobate.
@@malvokaquila6768 there is a distinction between God causing something and him sovereignly ordaining it. In one, he is the causative agent, and in the other he is not, rather he is the governing agent. Just as he ordained that sin occur, he did not cause it, yet he governs it.
I've been an Arminian, a Calvinist, and a Molinist. I've gone through all three forms of soteriology. It has been quite an interesting journey. I have respect for certain aspects of Arminianism and some doctrines of Calvinism, but I find Molinism to be the most biblically and logically coherent.
Bill Craig has no Scriptures to support His claim in favor of Molinism, a Roman Catholic theology!
Point of information Molism is not contradictory to either forms of Calvanism listed above.
It's sounds nice but where is the biblical evidence ?
@@tomtemple69 for Calvanism the answer is nowhere. It's not in any text anywhere anywhen.
For molinism it's in every single story roughly. The entire claim is God know what would have happened under different circumstances. For example when David asked God if the people would turn him over to Saul, and God said that "they will". Well that didn't happen because david didn't wait for saul to come down. Thus God foreknew what would have happened, but didn't happen.
Case closed.
@@malvokaquila6768 God was answering Davids question because He can see the hearts of men
like jonah and ninevah
IF they do not repent, they WILL perish
I find this take more intriguing. It still feels like the blind spot is: if our free choices are known, how are they free? If a simulation has infinite possibilities that are all known and certain paths are avoided or cut off by the programmer in real time, is it freedom but only to a degree allowed by the programmer?
My solve for this is that we don't have truly 'free' will; we have many choices but not infinite choices; we can do this or that but we can't teleport, or time travel or fly, etc. Our will is bound by actual limitations physically but also metaphysically.
When I first became a Christian, I noticed all the predestination, foreknowledge, and election talk in the Bible that I didn't recall from church and was quickly swayed toward Calvinism. I have over time noticed how Calvinism blunts the thought processes of practicality (even if from an improper understanding: 'if I did this, I was meant to.' Thus to repent and believe is an act of God that we are responsible for not doing).
ALSO, I've noticed counterfactuals in the Bible, particularly in God's thought process; IF the Israelites are led by another path and see war, they MAY turn back to Egypt. I have yet to hear a good Calvinist or hard predestination take to explain this.
My current thoughts are that it is a paradox of BOTH free will AND predestination that we cannot understand to the degree that even David said "...I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me." I have an impression of how it might work, but seeing God is sovereign in scripture seems pretty clear so I will pray and hope and have faith in God's total power but I must act and respond to the world and life as though there is some degree of freedom and the Bible indicates that too. It's not like the elect have an 'E' on their back, so I wonder if knowing there is truth in both is as far as we should or even can go?
You're sounding mighty a lot like Charles Spurgeon there sir.
"free will" does not mean unrestrained to do whatever. It just means "not forced", and able to pick between available options.
God can coerce, cajole, entreat, and plead, without forcing people to do things.
Also foreknowledge is not causal, according to scripture. In the text God foreknows things that do not happen. God can foreknow and work through the free actions of humans to achieve his goals. Hell I can do this, so God should be infinitely better at it.
@@malvokaquila6768 Did God choose which universe to create?
@@fanghur yes.
@@malvokaquila6768 so God chose to create a universe where, say, you chose to eat eggs this morning INSTEAD of a universe where you (or some other person 99.99999999% identical to you if you prefer) chose cereal instead?
Great stuff! Thank you!
I wish that more people would distinguish between Calvinism and people who affirm exhaustive divine determinism, they are not the same. While the majority of Calvinists affirm exhaustive divine determinism and compatibilist free will there is nothing wrong with a Calvinist affirming middle knowledge and libertarian free will. As Craig himself has argued elsewhere affirming middle knowledge seems to be the best way to make sense of the Westminster Confession when it states "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
As a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist I really wish everyone would start to make a distinction here, not all Calvinists are divine determinists.
Oh there definitely has been people who have distinguished that.
Yes, that's an important distinction. Well said. - RF Admin
But the next paragraph rules out Molinism.
“Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.”
@@billboardman8747 Seems like a bunch of vain philosophy predicated upon human understanding versus realizing we can never begin to understand the Lord. His foolishness is greater than our wisdom. Calvinism makes a mockery of who God is and his character is assassinated by their idolatry of Calvin.
Interesting observations! Am I correct to assume that by libertarian free will you mean the ability to make real choices that have real consequences? Personally I don't like the term free will. Our choices are influenced by thousands or perhaps millions of influences, so in actuality it is not completely free, only God's will is free.
Are the any differences between Provisionism and Molinism?
Romans 10:9: If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Calvinism: If God causes you to declare and God causes you to believe you will be saved (although God already saved you before the world began making the cross of Christ and this verse irrelevant.)
God elects before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). The elect is saved when he puts his faith in Christ. John 3:16
@@Justas399 You probably read ESV. The greek is apo if I remember correctly, which is incorrectly translated in the ESV as before, it actually means "from", not before. This is an ESV blunder.
@@Justas399 elected to walk the path, not predestined to walk it til the end.
@@escapegulag4317 The elect are going to be saved. see Ephesians 1:7 and Philippians 1:6
@@Justas399 You skipped over Eph 1:1, and all the times Eph 1 says "in Him". Because Elect = believers, predestined to adoption. The benefits are predestined, not who will believe.
Please help understand Acts 13:48 according to Molinism
What about the passage is hard for you? The passage doesn't define the word "predestined" for you. Whether it talks about predestination in the sense of God's foreknowledge about salvation of these peoples or about predestination in calvinistic sense of them never having free will to decline it is up to the rest of the Scriptures to tell you. And holistic reading of Scripture tells you plainly it can't be the latter, because it describes saved people falling away from God many times like the story of umrepentant debter and even people acting against God's salvific will for them, like Jesus's lamet over peoples of Jerusalem.
Acts 13:48 states, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
In Molinism, this verse can be understood in the following way:
Molinists believe that God has middle knowledge, which includes knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. According to Molinism, God uses this middle knowledge to choose which possible world to actualize, a world in which his purposes are achieved and people have the opportunity to freely choose him.
In Acts 13:48, the phrase "as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" can be understood as referring to those who, in the actual world, would freely choose to believe in response to the preaching of the gospel. According to Molinism, God knows with certainty which people would choose to believe in this situation, and thus he appoints them to eternal life by actualizing the world in which they freely choose to believe.
Therefore, Acts 13:48 can be understood as an affirmation of God's sovereignty and control over all things, while also affirming the genuine freedom and responsibility of human beings. In Molinism, God brings about his purposes through the free choices of his creatures, and those who believe do so freely in response to God's grace.
@@Indowaindowa Thanks a lot
Molinism makes sense.
In Molinism, foreknowledge does not “necessitate” how creatures act. I wish WLC would get more into how important the word “necessitate” is in this debate.
Well obviously this is a very short summary and he has gone into much detail in his writings… people usually confuse certainty with necessity
I need help Any molinist here? I have a question,
Does molinism assume that people are who they would be in every possible world? … I’m under the impression that part of what makes us who we are is the world we are in… if so doesn’t it mean that God saw it fit to choose a world on the basis that he could accomplish his purpose and not on who we “actually” are?..
Another question…
Does molinism assume that God cannot accomplish his purposes in certain worlds? It seems to me that there isn’t a possible world where God can’t accomplish his purposes, that would undermine his sovereignty in my opinion…
Another question…
What would be the extent of God’s foreknowledge of peoples freewill, is there potential to have extreme molinism to the point that it becomes deism?
@Drcraigvideos
Regarding your first question, Molinism does not assume that people are who they would be in every possible world. Rather, Molinists believe that God has middle knowledge, which includes knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. This means that God knows how people would act if they were in different circumstances or different worlds, and he uses this knowledge to actualize the world in which his purposes are achieved and people have the opportunity to freely choose him.
Regarding your second question, Molinism does not assume that God cannot accomplish his purposes in certain worlds. In fact, Molinists believe that God is sovereign over all possible worlds and that he can achieve his purposes in any of them. The idea of middle knowledge is precisely what allows God to achieve his purposes while respecting the free will of his creatures.
Regarding your third question, Molinists believe that God's foreknowledge is exhaustive and includes knowledge of all possible worlds and all possible actions of free creatures in those worlds. However, this does not mean that Molinism leads to deism. Molinists affirm that God is actively involved in the world and that he brings about his purposes through the free choices of his creatures. Molinists also affirm that God's providence is not deterministic, meaning that God allows his creatures to have genuine freedom and responsibility.
@@Indowaindowa I think you contradicted yourself between your first and second answer… in your first reply you stated, God uses middle knowledge to “actualize the world in which his purposes are achieved”
Then in the second response you stated that he can accomplish his purpose in any world. If that’s the case doesn’t “choosing” a world on that basis become redundant?, unless he is not sovereign enough to accomplish his purpose in some possible worlds.
Am I following? Thanks for replying btw
your first question is a good one. The second contradicts itself
@@kepler7007 how?
The Calvinist and Molinest agree on predestination, it is just the mechanism that they differ on.
And yet the kind of freedom that we experience as human beings is the kind of freedom that Calvinism teaches we have.
Can you flesh that out a little more? What kind of freedom do you think we experience and that Calvinism teaches which distinguishes it from Molinism? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos It is fleshed out in "freedom of the will" by Jonathan Edwards. If you have read it please tell me what he says is our freedom.
God's will alone is totally free and sovereign. Psalm 33 says he frustrates plans of both people and nations so that his own purposes will be established. There is no middle knowledge, only the decree of a sovereign God who is working ALL things after the counsel of his will (Eph 1:11). He declares the end from the beginning and promises to accomplish all his good pleasure (Isaiah 46:10-12), so he doesn't either now in the present or previously in the past have to choose between which world(s) to create. The difference between Molinism and Calvinism is that one is taught in scripture and the other isn't.
Did Jonah get to resist God's will? Did Paul when he was blinded and knocked off his horse? We have a will which God gave us. We are held responsible for our own actions. Grace affects our wills as God sees fit both to save and then to preserve us. I think God allows us freedom, but not freedom to resist his ultimate plans. This is how I understand what scripture teaches.
People are free to live according to our fallen, sinful nature. We can’t hear the gospel unless the Holy Spirit breaks our sin hardened hearts in order to hear it. That is why Jesus taught in parables. Give thanks to God as he enables you.
is this the same argument? I find Molinism to be a bit hard to wrap the mind around, so I usually say this:
1. God exists outside of time. He knows the end from the beginning.
2. Because 1 is true, God knows all the choices everyone who ever existed made, before they made them. He had this knowledge the moment he created the universe.
3. Just because God knows what someone will choose freely, does not in any way mean that God forced them to do it.
4. There are certain events that God has pre-ordained to happen, which are written in the Bible, and nothing can stop those events from happening. So free will choices cannot in any way prevent any of those events from happening. That is the only limitation on free will if you want to see it like that.
I don't know how that squares with what you believe, but it's what I believe.
Perhaps libertarian free will was annihilated at the fall, and compatibilist free will was then the case. That is, before the fall, angelic and human beings had libertarian freedom and so had the ability to act contrary to their good, unfallen natures. After the fall, they could act only according to their natures in compatibilist freedom, in the case of angels fallen or unfallen and in the case of humans fallen or fallen-and-redeemed, the latter implying an ability to act according to either of the two (old or new) natures until glorification at which time redeemed humans, like God and angels now, will have the ability to act only according to their one nature.
How could it be justified that we should be held responsible for what God has determined we would do?
Calvinism would be unjust, it would be outside of God's nature. God cannot be unjust.
I find little problem with molinism. My point is how God knows which particular response a free person would choose in a particular circumstances given the free person could choose from among various responses to that particular circumstances? For example if I am in a particular circumstances and I have various options of responses then how God knows which response a person choose from among various options of responses?
Translation: "How would God know in advance what a person would freely choose?"
Let me ask you this: how is it that God is all powerful? If you can't answer that question then are you somehow rationally justified in suggesting therefore God isn't all powerful? I'd say the answer would obviously be "no".
So what you're asking is essentially "How is God all knowing? How does he know the future?" I don't think it's even remotely necessary to know how this is the case to know that it is, in fact, the case.
That doesn't stop us from taking a crack at it though. You're only considering things from your own perspective from which you're limited by time, which itself is an aspect of nature. God created nature which means God created time. God Himself is timeless. Just as he isn't made of matter or is confined to only exist within space, He Himself is not shackled by time as we are. Existing apart from time, it makes sense, at least to me, that He would know the future just as He knows every detail about every spec of matter within the universe.
Some people seem to have a gut reaction that God can’t know the future if freewill is allowed. I’m not sure there is a logical reason why that would be true. Perhaps there is something about nature way beyond our ability to understand that God is able to do this. Or as many have suggested and I used to hold he just peaked at the ending so he knows all the answers as they unfold. Is God so great that he can do these things? As long as they are not logical impossibilities perhaps he can.
That's a good question. Molinists believe that God has middle knowledge, which is the knowledge of what any free creature would do in any possible circumstance. This means that God knows, with certainty, what a person would freely choose in any given situation, even if that person has multiple options to choose from.
Molinists typically explain this by positing that God's middle knowledge includes knowledge of what a person would do in different counterfactual scenarios, which are hypothetical situations that could have occurred but did not actually occur. According to this view, God knows not only what a person would choose in the actual world, but also what that person would choose if the circumstances were different.
For example, if you have multiple options of response in a particular situation, God would know what you would choose in each of those options, even if you never actually choose any of them. Molinists believe that God uses this knowledge to actualize the world in which his purposes are achieved and people have the opportunity to freely choose him.
@@Indowaindowa That's a perfect explanation.
@ only facts and logic this is a question that most parents can answer. As a parent, you know your children so well, that you know how they would act in almost any circumstance. For instance, you told your children that they are not allowed any cookies before meals. A jar with cookies is on the table while you are outside, mowing the lawn. Child A passes by and you just know that they will swipe a cookie, while perhaps child B, when they pass by, might take a good look at the jar, but out of respect for you, they will wait until after lunch and only then they will ask for a cookie.
If we, as limited creatures can know these things about our children, is it surprising that the All-Knowing God knows exactly how each and every one of us will act in any possible situation?
This view must necessarily reject that God is the universal cause of goodness, thus rejecting His universal causality and thus His simplicity, and this is no surprise from Craig who rejects simplicity
//This view must necessarily reject that God is the universal cause of goodness, thus rejecting His universal causality and thus His simplicity, and this is no surprise from Craig who rejects simplicity//
First, Dr. Craig's view is that God is the locus or ground of goodness by his nature, not by his causality. If it were by causality, then God himself would not be good unless he caused goodness, which entails that he is not necessarily good.
Second, it's unclear why you think there's a necessary connection between causality and Thomistic simplicity (which is the type of simplicity that Dr. Craig rejects). Perhaps you can elaborate. - RF Admin
@drcraigvideos This misunderstands. God is the universal cause of goodness because He alone possesses goodness per se, and all other things only have goodness per accidens, just as all other things only possess being by participation in their acts of existence where in God alone is existence not had by participation but is had per se. To use other language you may be more familiar with, He is the primary cause of all goodness, and while we can be causes of goodness in our own right with respect to our secondary causality, our secondary causality is only in virtue of participation in the causality granted by the primary cause, hence the possession of goodness by creatures is per accidens.
If our moral actions are logically prior to creation, and we "predestine ourselves," then we could see how molinism provides for a theodicy insofar as God isnt the cause of sin in an individual, but on this model it entails the same in the other direction, that obviously God is not the cause of our goodness either, which again violates the primary/secondary causal relation between creator and creature, violating His fundamentality and essentially makes him another being among beings in the landscape of beings, which like I said is no surprise since craig already explicitly does that anyway in his metaphysics of God.
They are both the same. Someone who is of a molonist mindset is more calvanist than a calvinist in that all has been predetermined beforehand and the multitude of choices is the illusion of have a choice at all. Evil is just 'good' that isn't 'good yet'. It [evil] is a 'refining fire'... that can never be extinguished and will always serve it's purpose.
This is a strange comment, since Molinism affirms that God incorporates genuinely free choices into his providential planning of history. Why do you think they are illusory? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos - you can have an unlimited amount of choices, if God has already determined what the results of those choices are, you can choose all you want - but the road you're on ultimately leads to one place - exactly where God expects you to be... as if you actually had a choice.
@@ChrisMusante This is a very confused comment. You admit that, on this model, God can incorporate free choices into his meticulous planning of history and that, therefore, we can choose. But then you say "as if you actually had a choice," implying that choosing what God knew beforehand and planned for us to choose implies that we're not really choosing. So, which is it? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos - Well, if all the choices have already been designed, you still have the choice but God is not surprised and is thus in sovereign 'control'.
When I found out about Calvinism's belief and that some of the Bible verse mentioned about predestined, my faith was shaken. It took my friends some help and pray to get me back on the track. I will never accept Calvinism's belief. God would be an evil one if He knew I was destined to go to hell but I asked to accept Jesus Christ as my savior and that this was all for naught. That my choice and decision has no bear on my end destiny... that I want to be saved, serve God, and so much... only to have me still go into the hell. No, Calvinism is a fake religious. God is too love to let this happen. Yes, God is omniscient and He know where we will ended up at but it's still ultimately our choice. And love let people make their own decision.
Well, it still affrims that if you truly put your faith in Jesus, and accept Him, that you will never fall away. Calvinism just says that God is in control of whether he lifts the veil of sin, and that none of us can make the choice to be better. It's only through God's grace that any of us are saved. We can't choose our salvation in other words, since that is against what is said in the scriptures.
Ok. Where is the proof for this? Who taught this kind of philosophy in the Scriptures?
Molina arrived at middle knowledge because of data provided by Scripture that Scripture itself doesn't attempt to synthesize or reconcile. It's the same with the doctrine of the Trinity. We are given various puzzle pieces and much of theology (especially analytic theology) is working out how those pieces might fit together. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos What data from the Scriptures proves Molinism? What specific verses proves it?
@@Justas399 Again, it's an inference from the data, not a proof. There are several points of data which seem best explained by middle knowledge. Scripture affirms both God's sovereignty over all of creation and history, as well as human responsibility and freedom (eg 1 Cor 10:13). In order for God to be sovereign over history, there mustn't be anything for which he has not providentially planned - down to the movement of the smallest particle. And this includes creatures' free choices. But if God doesn't have middle knowledge, then he cannot plan for creatures' free choices in advance of creation. Therefore, it follows that if God is sovereign and has providentially planned for creatures' free choices, he must have middle knowledge. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos ok. So it’s just philosophical speculations with no basis in Scripture. Christ, nor His apostles nor any prophets taught such ideas.
@@Justas399 Scripture also doesn't teach the laws of logic or calculus or quantum physics or music theory. Are we justified in rejecting those things because they aren't explicitly taught in Scripture? - RF Admin
I’m glad I was determined to believe Calvinism is false and unbiblical.
I wonder how I would really feel if I wasn’t determined to feel,think and act a certain way.
Even my wondering is determined isn’t it? I guess I would never know anything if Calvinism is true.
God sovereignly decreed that that guy would get out of his truck and scratch his butt on camera... lol
Calvinism vs Molinism? Why not just call it Determinism vs Indeterminism ?
A year ago I would've characterized it the same way until after reading the other side a bit, i've realized not every Calvinist affirms Exhaustive divine determinism. So it wouldn't be accurate to conflate calvinism with determinism (at least not necessarily so)
If you aren’t deterministic you aren’t really a Calvinist. WLC is accurate that this is the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty. It can’t be anything else.
@@jason1carnley No, it’s not. There’s nothing inherent to Calvinism that should make you a determinist. The fact that so many Calvinists happen to be determinists is not proof that you can’t reject exhaustive divine determinism and be a Calvinist. There are so many well respected Calvinists who already do that. Stop setting up false dichotomies.
@@leonardu6094 I literally don’t know how you arrive at this conclusion. Even Calvinists high priest, James White acknowledges that it’s a deterministic view of God.
@@leonardu6094 So there's Calvinists who believe in free will? What
It's always hilarious to me when people tell everyone what God knows or thinks.
Predestination will intervene, and force the will, if necessary. Foreknowledge, is God knowing what you will do, and intervening if you have a Predestination, even against your will. Moses, didn't want to be chosen.
Neither. God is outside of time so He's already seen our choices and actions.
and just because he sees what we choose, doesn't mean he forced us to choose. But there's also an element of there being certain events that are preordained to happen, which are written in the bible. Like the end times. Those cannot be prevented by free will
From whom did God LEARN what as yet non-existent creatures WOULD DO under all circumstances, Dr. Craig? The non-existent creatures who existed only in His imagination and could do nothing He didn't first imagine them doing? #TheOpenTheismHeresy
Learn? That's a straw man. God simply KNOWS what free creatures would freely decide to do.
In trying to create a contradiction where none exists, you're trying to suggest that God Himself is somehow subject to time; that's unknowingly pretty blasphemous on your part. Time is an aspect of nature, and God created nature. Just as God is not subject to nature, therefore He is not somehow shackled by the concept of time.
@@LawlessNate Then from who or what did God's knowledge of true counterfactuals come? There were only two possible sources of that knowledge, God's Natural Knowledge of Himself and everything ***HE*** could do, or His Free Knowledge of what He ***HAS*** done. For Middel Knowledge to come before His decree, it would have to be resident in His knowledge of Himself and what ***HE*** could do (Natural Knowledge). This means that Middle Knowledge is about what ***GOD***, not creatures themselves, could do in DETERMINING the counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. Therefore, Creatures determine nothing God hasn't first determined they will determine. 👈#ThereforeCalvinism #MolinismFail
@@arthur6157 Your entire commend could have been summed up as the position "If God knows our will in advance then therefore He determines it."
That is a philosophically bankrupt position. God knowing what we do with our genuine, libertarian free will doesn't make Him determine our will any more than a cop doing a sting operation doesn't determine the will of criminals who take the bait.
Even the fact that God knows in advance what we will and would otherwise do doesn't somehow negate our libertarian free will. Even the fact that God plans the course of history knowing what we will do doesn't negate true libertarian free will.
I think one difference in the philosophical and theological out workings between Calvinism and Provisionism is that Calvinists assume that God completely controls everything about our wills and therefore there is no other way things could have been, whereas Provisionists assume, I think correctly, that God has bestowed us with genuine libertarian free will and He uses his influence in our lives to give us a fair shot at using our libertarian free will to either accept or reject Him.
You can try to read scripture with the presumption of determinism, but I think a truly exegetical study of scripture, of all scripture, clearly lends itself to the Provisionist perspective of libertarian free will. I think the Calvinist, if he's being honest with himself, must, in order to maintain his Calvinism, presume that the authors of scripture, not God who inspired it but the men who put pen to paper, assumed libertarian free will and that God inspired them to write scripture in such a way that you could somehow read between the lines to see determinism. That would be a very lofty theological framework to try and maintain, but without it I think the Calvinist perspective crumbles. Really, I think it falls apart regardless, but I don't see how a Calvinist can be truly exegetical about scripture, especially scripture outside of soteriological debates like this, without mentally switching back to assuming, likely unconsciously, libertarian free will.
One day, WLC will understand reformed theology aright. We'll wait for that day.
I think WLC is accurate it’s all about God’s sovereignty causing an absolutely determined outcome from the beginning. There is no true freewill in Calvinism
We wait for the day when Calvinists agree on what they believe.
This is a type of fallacy where the person always accuses the other party of not understanding their position, no matter what. I see this in just about every conversation on Calvinism. If someone points out a flaw, regardless of what it is, they must not really understand Calvinism. In many cases, the person doesn't even bother showing "how" Calvinism has been misunderstood (for example, your comment here). Considering WLC is one of the top philosophers in the world (and arguably the top Christian philosopher alive today), and one of his main focuses of interest has been sovereignty, I think he understands Calvinism just fine, lol.
Dude this is literally not even a meme at this point. "You don't understand Calvinism" strikes again! How many times you people gonna say it? I guess only the elite elect can understand.
@@jason1carnley Where is Molinism taught in the Bible?
There is no Free Will in Molinism.
In Molinism, what we do in the actual or created World does not inform God what we would do. Rather, what we do in the imaginary possible World in God’s mind prior to Creation informs God what we would do.
This is why we have no free will in the actual or created world. Once God creates the World of His choice, everything MUST happen as God knew it and saw it in His mind prior to creation.
Therefore, God determines what an actual or created Person does by creating a Possible World. Once that World is created, every Person MUST do what God knew they would do.
Molinism is just as deterministic as Calvinism is.
Small problem. John 3:16, puts the kaibash on Calvinism, with the word, "whosoever ".
On top of that, there are too many warnings in the Bible for us to NOT have free will. Determinism has no need of warnings. It's not my fault, my will is to be at the right hand of God?
@@eltonron1558 If you believe in free will, then you should reject Molinism and Calvinism.
"Once God creates the World of His choice, everything MUST happen as God knew it and saw it in His mind prior to creation."
This comes back to the age old problem of, "if God knows what I'm going to do, then how can it be free?" However, this misunderstands what free will is. For any action a free creature performs, the cause of that free action is the agent themselves, and not an outside power. That's where libertarianism is different from determinism. On libertarianism, all you need is that the action is determined by the agent. So, if God knows the agent will cause action X, the agent is still the cause of X, even though God knows it before X occurs. God knowing it does not cause it, nor is God's knowledge a causal power. In fact, knowledge, in and of itself, cannot cause anything. Molinism does include free will, because the definition of libertarian free will still applies to the actions of free agents.
Everything "Must" happen yes. But you are not correctly judging God's eternal knowledge in comparison to time and actualization. Saying "must happen" seems subtly misleading. A simple way to think about it is like a "backwards causation." Creatures "alter" God's eternal knowledge. Yes, you read that right. It seems it has to be put this woodenly to get the point across.
Or think about it this way. An infinity of worlds literally exist in God's mind. I am in there. And in a different world, I am doing a different thing. God knows this, and every variation. I am like a free agent inside the infinity of God's mind, doing things. So once God actualizes one of these worlds, it is just me being me in a particular version. It doesn't matter if he knows everything that will happen, I am the source of why he knew it from eternity.
@TheMirabillis The Bible demonstrates free will. I give no credence to the therums, including the trinity, Armenian, pentecostal, Sunday keepers, etc. I've been Sola scriptura, after the honeymoon.
Un Biblical and baloney
But where does this middle knowledge come from? Subjunctive conditionals cannot delimited an omnipotent God. That's not real sovereignty. Molinism is nothing more than philosophical eisegesis, which presupposes an autonomous will not found in scripture. If you read Daniel 4 and the results of what Nebuchadnezzar came to after his "reason" came to him you would not make such a statement as this I'll be honest.
The problem is, you’ve turned the word sovereign into a verb, and in fact, it’s a noun or a title.
@Mark L "δεσπότης" or "despotes" in the lemma, meaning having the characteristic sovereign is, in fact, a noun. However, it acts as a descriptor in this case as well in the "vocative" use of the word. This is the most used form of grammar for the word translated to "sovereign" in the Bible. It appears over 2/3rds of the time. You are going surface deep without taking into account the full grammar of the word. If you apply English grammar rules to Greek, then you're bound to get the meaning wrong.
@@newreformationapologetics4953 again it’s used as a title or a noun. Just because God is defined as sovereign does not mean that he controls or determines all things.
@@MarkNOTW Daniel 4:34-35 (ESV): 34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever,
for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
and he does according to his will among the host of heaven
and among the inhabitants of the earth;
and none can stay his hand
or say to him, “What have you done?”
@@newreformationapologetics4953 Sorry man, that doesn't prove Calvinism. Don't mean to dogpile on you, but unfortunately you are the one engaging in eisegesis.
On Molinism, God does what he pleases and NONE can stay his hand. Nothing or no one can challenge him. I agree with every jot and tittle of those verses, literally.
Here's something for you to consider: What if God, is humble enough to acquiesce to creatures? Can you think of an example in Scripture where God did something for the sake of creatures? Or creatures actions made God act a certain way? Does that prove he isn't omnipotent to you?
On Molinism, God chooses a world where the maximum number of people are saved. But he does not care about any individual in one world or another.
Once he decided to create he loves all of his actual creatures. Even Esau.
0:56 “It's been rightly said that on Molinism, it's up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves” someone make that make sense.
What about it doesn't make sense? It's pretty simple. God doesn't choose for you, nor he is forcing you to do anything. You are a free agent. God only knows what you will do, because he knows everything, but even if he allows it, you may act against God's will at any time you choose. What is up to us are the choices. Wgat is up to God was THE choice to allow it all to happen by creating you, even though he knew what you'll do with your freedom.
@@mitromney No, it clearly says it is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined; meaning it's obviously God’s choice or decision. If that's wrong, then it is not up to God. It can't be both. To further confuse things then it says it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves. If it's up to God, then it isn't up to us; if it's up to us, then it isn't up to us; that's simple.
It is really just a bunch of nonsense to avoid answering or saying anything really. I can take this to mean that we are predestined and it is up to God if we realize it or not, it's really just Calvinism with extra, more complicated steps.
@@ameribeaner simply put, it means that God decides which world to actualize but it's up to us whether we respond to God's grace in the world he has actualized.
And as a middle knowledge affirming Calvinist I could be happy with you saying it's just Calvinism with extra steps, except that I'm pretty sure that when you say Calvinism you mean divine determinism and Molina's doctrine of predestination is entirely different from divine determinism. Knowledge does not stand in causal relationships to what people do, God's actualizing a world where he infallibly knew what free creatures would freely do is entirely different from God creating a world where he causally determines everything that comes to pass.
@@PresbyterianPaladin Yes, when I said Calvinism with extra steps, I meant divine determinism. But in response to the “middle knowledge,” that's entirely heretical for Christianity. The Gospel authors knew God had direct control of everything because that was the default understanding of the gods at that time. And Him simply being an infinite, timeless being negates the possibility of Him having middle knowledge. What gets confusing is His direct will and His permissive will, and how He knows and animates everything yet still gives us choices.
@@mitromney The problem is that at least under a libertarian definition of free will, there is no "what you WOULD do", only "what you COULD do". To say that you could infallibly predict what a person would do in any given situation is implicitly assuming that determinism is true.