This was a really good show! I really appreciated the historical overview of philosophical building blocks. Unfortunately when you put it that way, it makes JW sound so much more like a propagandist. For me, I don't understand the high respect JW gets. When it comes to engaging with other Christians with Calvinism, he simply isn't intellectually honest. It's bad guys... it is really bad. I know so many who find him convincing, when all he is doing is using voice inflection to restate his claims, while doing nothing but a parade of logical fallacies. I am so glad you guys have the patience to coolly (in that yall look cool as well unemotionally) address JW.
When you have already decided on a worldview, and your stance is "This is absolutely %💯 true, and nothing will change my mind", it would be so incredibly easy to respect and honor and believe JW. It's awful. This happens many times outside of theology, and I would be scared to death to see the stats on how many people hold someone similar in the same regard, in and out of theology...
@@bayesianhulk although James White isn’t a good representative of the Reformed Tradition regarding these issues, it’s quite amazing that you would actually imply that Wilson and Flowers are anything more than absolute jokes
@@ThaNewDealer723 Bingo. I'm much more impressed when someone respects their opponents rather than the guy who just confirms everything they already believe.
It’s clear from scripture, that all men were created to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ! They must accept the free gift with their free will! Now, You have made things so clear, that I’m going to have to learn how to explain the basics of philosophy to those who hold to TULIP. As an ex Roman Catholic, and now a Provisionist, thank you and looking forward to your debate with James White
How can it be clear that all people were created to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ when the vast majority of human history occurred before Jesus Christ was born and of those who have lived after he was born huge numbers of them never hear the gospel? Quote from Luther: I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: ‘If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.’ . . . If the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help? The universally acknowledged founder of the reformation condemned the Calvinist understanding of soteriology. He calls it vicious and says it does away with Jesus Christ. Does that sound like he supported Calvinism to you? I think you need to do some research before making claims like "all reformed people historically have had Calvinist soteriology". That's blatantly false.
Amazing video. I am so glad to see someone who actually understands the origins of the debate and where all this comes from. This program was very insightful.
great show i always love listening to Ryan Mullins even though I'm a calvinist and a classical theist though listening to this I always thought that theological determinism was a philosophical model that makes the best sense of the biblical data Calvinist often make a critique of molinism by saying it's "too philosophical" and taking "man's word over God's word" but I've always taken that objection to mean that it's a philosophical model that doesn't make the best sense of the biblical data because most calvinists will say that libertarian freedom is a concept that is not taught in scripture and is instead assumed over the text and if you do that then molinism makes the best sense of combining libertarian free will and determinism that is of course assuming libertarian free will is a biblical concept
Greeting Jack. Exegetically, how does one see that a compatibilist reading of duty commands and culpability better fits selected portions of Scripture? Kind regards.
Awesome video! I wanted to respond to the guy who suggested that Craig condemned Open Theism as heretical. He has never condemned Open Theism as such. He said that he believes the view necessarily leads to depreciating God, which is where I believe the commentor got his assumption, but that’s the worst Craig has ever said (and it was, I think, over a decade ago). It’s no different than a critique that Calvinism leads to God being the author of Evil. Nothing Craig said implied heresy
This ‘episode’ deserves much greater circulation. I would encourage Mullins to publish his critique. The reliance upon Scotian moments alone should be widespread fact about Calvinism.
@@FreethinkingMinistries 2x agreed ! My only critique of RT Mullins comes under the alleged scriptural underdetermination of Middle Knowledge. In my view, this is not the case. Greetings from one who was walked out of Calvinism though exegesis and not Philosophy.
Just found out that “bodge” and “botch” are the same thing. Learning something new every day! Haha Also, these videos are very edifying. Thanks Tim and Ryan 👌
Molina? What about Genesis 4? God tells Cain that he _can_ do what is right, concerning the sacrifice, and asks, would you not be accepted? (implying that he would be accepted). _"But if not,_ know that sin lieth at the door", suggesting sin crouching like a lion, waiting to destroy him. So God says there are two possible outcomes, repent or not repent, and that each possiblity will have certain outcomes. Because God cannot lie, both of those possibilities were truly possible, even though God knows what the actual outcome will be. At this point, someone knocks me on the head and calls me stupid.
I can't find anything online about this paper on Molinism that shows the history of it ore-Molina. Can you spell out the doctor's name for us and maybe link us to the paper, if there is such a link and you happen to have it?
God is absolutely timeless. Jude 1:25, "To the only God--our Savior--through Jesus Christ--our Lord--be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, *before all time* and now and forever. Amen."
The history of omniscience starting around 16:30 was worth the whole video. Now I see why talking to Calvinists leads to a disagreement about the difference in knowledge and causality.
At 7:57 regarding sovereignty... To begin with, no definition of Biblical themes or topics are valid if they do not contain or reference scripture. Jonathan Edwards once noted that, "the sovereignty of God is His absolute, independent right of disposing of all of His creatures according to His own pleasure.” And that is in alignment with scripture (Psalm 103:19, 115:3, 135:6, Ephesians 1:11, etc.), and I don't think that anyone who claims to hold to scripture would deny that. Now, just because God has the RIGHT of disposing of all of His creatures according to His own pleasure, that doesn’t necessarily mean that He DOES so. To answer that question, we need to dive deeper into the scriptures to see precisely how God rules, and what we see in scripture is the meticulous providence of God, that is, that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Acts 17:28 - “…in Him we live and move and exist.” Daniel 5:23 - But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified. Proverbs 20:24 - "Man’s steps are ordained by Yahweh ." The word translated here as “ordained,” in the Septuagint is the word ευθυνω, which speaks of how the helmsman of a ship guides and directs the ship in the direction he wants it to go. Jeremiah 10:23 - I know, O Yahweh, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps. Job 12:10 - In whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind Psalm 139:16 - …in Your book were written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them
Given that the Bible repeatedly indicates sometimes God does *not* get what He wants (e.g. Genesis 6:6; Jeremiah 7:31; Matthew 23:37...), the idea that He always does is not Biblical nor can it be what the Bible means by "sovereignty". On the other hand, the guarantee that Yahweh will ultimately get His overall purposes for creation (which is how Mullins defined "sovereignty") is indeed taught (e.g. Isaiah 55:11). As for meticulous providence, let me first address the Scriptures you cited, and then I want to present a few that seem absolutely irreconcilable with that doctrine: Acts 17:28 can be true if we just minimally need Him in order to continue living and moving and existing. It doesn't follow that He chooses our every move. Daniel 5:23 again just indicates that our life and ways are in His hand. He could snuff us out or cease sustaining us at any time. It doesn't follow that our actions are by His choice. Proverbs 20:24 in Hebrew doesn't even have a word for "ordaining" or anything of the sort. I know you're referencing the Septuagint, but I don't see much force in grounding a theological position on a word in a Greek translation which has no counterpart in the wording of the original text. Jeremiah 10:23 -- I completely agree that it isn't in us to direct our steps. We ought to look to God. Job 12:10 -- Same as Acts and Daniel. Psalm 139:16.... That's not the natural sense of the Hebrew text; but I'll spot you that and just point out that Molinists also think all our days were known ahead of time and written in the book from before the world. At best, these passages are consistent with meticulous providence, but they do not *teach* it. On the contrary, the Bible does explicitly teach *against* it in various places. I'll just give a few examples by category: Passages that indicate God does not ordain evil choices of humans: Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; James 1:13-15. Passages that teach that God *wants* everyone to turn back, so that He can forgive and bless them: Ezekiel 18:23&32 as well as 33:11; Acts 17:30 Passages that describe God in the position, not of the Ordainer of all choices, but as one literally *begging* us to choose better: Romans 10:21 (which is a quote from Isaiah 65:2); Isaiah 48:18. There are even passages that indicate that God does not know ahead of time all of our choices (like Genesis 22:12; Genesis 18:20, 21; Psalm 14:2
@@Mentat1231 You said: *"Given that the Bible repeatedly indicates sometimes God does not get what He wants..."* Are you asserting that man can thwart the purpose of God? That some things are not according to the counsel of His will? That some things are not from Him? Could it be that you are conflating God's will of decree with His preference? You seem to be reading the scriptures through the lens of a narrative sir, and they don't mean what you are trying to make them mean. You said: *"There are even passages that indicate that God does not know ahead of time all of our choices"* Then I'm not so certain that you are worshipping Yahweh. You said: *"since you believe God to be omniscient about future events."* Ah, so you're an open theist then, not a Christian. OK, that explains the lens you are looking through then. You said: *"God presents Himself as someone who begs and pleads with His creations and hopes that they will do right so that He can bless them."* So your god is not working all things after the counsel of his own will, and not all things are from him, to him, and through him, and man can indeed thwart his will. Your god seems to be no more than a glorified man.
@@lawrencestanley8989 1) I'm not an open theist. Though I am open to it. 2) I am a Christian, and I gave Scriptural passages to substantiate each of the points I made. Did you read them? 3) The distinction of decree and what He actually wills is not Scriptural. Theologians came up with that, and does it not strike you as somewhat duplicitous on God's part? In any case, I carefully left off the many examples that contain decrees and only used examples where He states clearly how He feels and what He actually wants. Again, and I mean no disrespect by this at all, genuinely, but did you read the passages?
@@Mentat1231 I did read your post, several times, and you seem to be overlaying a narrative on the scriptures and reading them through it; they are not saying what you think they are saying. Again, a god that can have his purpose thwarted is not the God of scripture. A god who is ignorant of anything in creation is not the God of scripture. Have you read the entirety of the Bible? It helps to see everything as one cohesive unit, not merely as a number of proof texts to support a narrative.
@@lawrencestanley8989 I have read it many times, but may I ask you: If it turned out that the Bible's full and consistent portrait that it paints of God did not match up to your standard (e.g. if He can want something and not get it, though certainly not with regard to His overall purpose), what would you do? Abandon the Bible? Or revise your standards to meet His? It seems to me that you may be in a situation similar to Jonah's...
Hum. "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge" Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me....Then Job answered the Lord and said: Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further....Then Job answered the Lord and said: I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know....I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Yep, I'd say that the response of Job applies in the wild weeds of endless theological debate. But, carry on, some people are interested.
Hi Tim can you discuss next time about the view of simple foreknowledge against Molinism. I hope you could do that just like what you did in Calvinism. More power!
This is a great discussion. What wrecks Molinism and simple foreknowledge for me is that, it seems to me that the only way Gid could have such knowledge of the future were if a) He determined it or b) a b-theory of time is true. Since I reject b theiry and determinism, I'm left with open theism.
Not knowing HOW God is omniscient is not a good reason to reject it. I know some Christians who think that since they cannot figure out HOW God created a physical universe from nothing -- ex nihilo -- that we must conclude that physical reality does not actually exist (i.e., that physical reality is illusory -- like the Matrix). I think that's a huge mistake. We don't need to know the "how." Similarly, we don't need to know the HOW God has access to all knowledge. It might be counterintuitive, but it is not logically incoherent. Many things about the God revealed in Scripture are counterintuitive, but never logically incoherent.
@@FreethinkingMinistries It seems to me that for a thing to be known, it has to actually be out there to be known. If the future is out there to be known, that's b-theory. Moreover, I find open thiesm to be far more consistent with the scriptures.
@@delbert372 Firstly, I don't think that's what that scripture is talking about. 2ndly, if time is a 'done deal' for God, that is b-theory (all of tine exists simultaneously before God, but we just experience it as passing. Meaning that the rape victim is eternally being raped in some quadrant of spacetime).
Greetings. Knowledge of a fact and knowledge of what explains the structure of the fact (such that the fact is known) are two different phenomena. To hold explanation in judgement upon a fact’s existence its to undercut many, if not all, mysteries in Scripture. At present, we have very little rational access in to the explanation of many Biblical mysteries, e.g. the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, the Atonement, God’s perfection and the freedom of God’s will, etc.
1st question is great. I think some versions of Molinism are very deterministic. I think Tim's defense of Mere Molinism is good and I can affirm that view I think it comports well with scripture. But I'm not sure the Dr. Craig version of Molinism is as easily pulled from the text. It seems like Calvinism with extra steps. It requires too much speculation about possible worlds and transworld damnation and the optimization of souls saved. I love Dr. Craig, and he could be right....but it's just too far of a departure from what we have revealed in God's Word. (This is how I feel about most of our atonement models as well)
Dr. Kurt Jaros of Veracity Hill. Kurt’s paper has not yet been published. However, he presented it to a room full of philosophers and theologians at the ETS conference in TX last month (I was in attendance). His paper will be published in the future.
I find it strange that God's sovereignty in this video is not defined by God's revelation of who he is in the bible but is defined by man's philosophical thoughts on who God is. Sola scriptura is definitely one of the divides between molinism and calvinism
Kerry, the Bible is under-determinative regarding exactly how sovereignty is defined. Thus, theologians and philosophers survey the whole of scripture to infer the best explanation as to how sovereignty should be defined. If we hope to be reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) then we will seek to avoid begging the question in our definition.
DW: Considering the fact that Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinist version of divine sovereignty) logically entails divine deception of the believer - your position destroys itself.
@@dw6528 Explain what you mean by "divine deception of the believer." Is Isaiah 63:17 where the prophet ascribes to God the ultimate causality for Israel’s wandering into sin an example of this "divine deception?"
@@lawrencestanley8989 Sure! This applies to Calvinism - because Calvinism is predicated on Exhaustive Divine Determinism. Lets say James White's reading of scripture resolves that [X] is TRUE. And John Piper's reading of that scripture resolves that [X] is FALSE. And it is also the case that both of them perceive their reading as TRUE We have 3 conditions 1) JW is correct - JP is wrong 2) JP is correct - JW is wrong 3) Both JW and JP are wrong. According to the doctrine of decrees - JW's perception was determined by factors outside of his control - by an infallible decree - and he could not DO OTHERWISE than have the perception he had. Same thing for JP. Now back to our 3 conditions: 1) It was infallibly decreed that JW be correct and JP be divinely deceived. 2) It was infallibly decreed that JP be correct and JW be divinely deceived 3) it was infallibly decreed that both of them be divinely deceived. But notice the most critical fact of all - is that neither of them are permitted to discern whether their perception is TRUE or FALSE.
@@dw6528 But scripture is full of accounts where God ordains the facts and circumstances of men's lives, as well as the mutable nature of their wills so that they succumb to error and disbelief (1 Kings 22:22, Judges 9:23, 1 Samuel 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, Romans 1:28, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12), and also that they willingly sin against God (Genesis 45:8, 50:20, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, Isaiah 63:17, 64:7). Scripture also shows where He reveals Himself to some, while hiding Himself from and blinding others. Even in scripture, those who were of the faith were not all on the same level of understanding; Peter had to be publicly corrected by Paul for instance. We may not always understand the "why's" of God's dealings with men, but we at least can point out that God does control men's understanding by what He chooses to reveal or hide from individuals. Do you deny this?
Well, I've got a degree in architecture, I know nothing of philosophy, and I ain't the sharpest crayon in the knife drawer, but here's what the scriptures say... In both John 1:14, 17 and John 14:6 it is said of Jesus that He IS the truth, and Ephesians 4:21 declares that “truth is in Jesus.” John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13 speak of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of truth;” 1 John 5:6 declares that “the Spirit is the truth,” and Isaiah 65:16 declares Him to be “the God of truth.” But this does not mean that He merely aligns Himself with truth as men do in Exodus 18:21, as if truth were some external standard with which He must align, and we know this because, as we have already seen, the scriptures declare that Yahweh IS the truth. We see in John 17:17 that the word of Yahweh is truth, that is, the intangible, sanctifying, essence of Yahweh is truth, and that this truth became flesh. Elsewhere we see that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36), that is to say, Yahweh is the source, sustainer, and the rightful end of “all things” (see also 1 Corinthians 8:6, 15:28, Ephesians 1:23, 4:6, Hebrews 2:10). Therefore any truth, if it is truth at all, has its grounding in Him who IS the truth (cf. Psalm 31:5), and any assertion to the contrary that a particular truth is outside of Him (such as subjunctive conditionals) is simply false according to the word of Yahweh. According to scripture, no aspect of creation (no truth about creation) can exist outside of the Creator and His eternal decree (cf. Ephesians 1:11, 3:11). So, when the scriptures speak about truth, it makes the core belief of Molinism impossible; "Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away, blessed be the name of Yahweh" (Job 1:21).
I resonate with your crayon work. I wonder if Jesus ‘being the truth’, means he is the source and the ‘blueprint’ which all purported truth must agree with. So, source and standard.
@@Z__K217 Yep. Seems on point to me. Which makes me wonder why anyone who has studied the scriptures can fall for something that depends upon truth existing without any grounding and outside of God's control...
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thanks Lawrence. I am relishing how those in this thread with more Scripture in their veins, resonate with Middle Knowledge and are comfortable with the mystery of ‘how’ the Triune God of Scripture knows such things. Best to you.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Greetings Lawrence. I was actually persuaded of the God of Scripture possessing Middle Knowledge via Scripture. If we look at how many divine attributes are culled from the different genres of Scripture, e.g. God’s omnipotence, etc., it appears to me so can instances of Him possessing foreknowledge of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom be gleaned - thus, Middle Knowledge. Consider: 1 Samuel 23. God tells David some of his enemies’ subjunctive conditionals. Specifically, which cities they would catch David, if David were to go there. Jeremiah 38:17-18: Subjunctive conditionals for Zedekiah’s possible surrender to Babylon. Matthew 11:20-24 Scripture reveals some of Tye, Sidon and Sodom’s subjunctive conditionals of their human freedom. Namely, that if the wonders performed in Capernaum and Bethsaida were performed in Tire, Sidon and Sodom, then Tire, Sidon and Sodom would have repented. 1 Corinthians 2:8 God foreknew the subjunctive conditionals of the rulers of this age. Namely, if they had known they were crucifying the Lord of Glory, that they would not have. Psalm 139 describes how the God of Scripture knows many of our subjunctive conditionals of creaturely freedom, e.g. words, choices in travels, our ‘days’ all written in His book, etc.. Then consider, that Scripture reveals that God has knowledge of persons before they were created, i.e. often ‘before the foundation of the world’, etc. Jeremiah 1:5. God says of Jeremiah, that before Jeremiah was in the womb, God knew him. Isiah 49:1-6. Isiah writes that before he was born the Lord called him. Psalm 139:16. The psalmist writes that before they came to be, all the days of his life were written down by God in His book. 1 Peter 1:20. In section of Scripture, Christ is clearly stated to have been known by God before the foundation of the world. A special individual albeit, but an individual person nonetheless who was known before they came into existence. Then there is knowledge of individuals before their existence in the Order of Salvation. Ephesians 1:3-4 The order of salvation for individuals here begins with them ‘in love’ being chosen. Unless love is bereft of knowledge, then with the Romans 8:28-30, what is loved is connected to what God knows. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 Again, to be chosen before the beginning of the world reasonably implies we were known before the beginning of the world (as blueprints). Romans 8:28-30 The order of salvation begins here with Foreknowledge of individuals. 1 Peter 1:2 The Order of Salvation here also begins with knowledge of God of pre-created individuals. Revelation 13:8 Names written in the Book of Life, before the foundation fo the world.
It seems quite interesting that throughout these videos (including Leighton Flowers’ bad ones), objections seem to be made against “Calvinism”. Regardless of how bad I would say the arguments made in these videos are, it should still be understood that many of the things being objected to are not ultimately distinctive of the Reformed Tradition, but are often found as part of a broader tradition, of which, even the Thomists (as Papists yes) would fall under, for we would agree with them on these issues as much as they admittedly hate to agree with Dr. White. Overall, it’s either ignorance, or at worst dishonesty to not include these facts of history in these discussions (or video titles), neither of which are virtues.
//Regardless of how bad I would say the arguments made in these videos are, it should still be understood that many of the things being objected to are not ultimately distinctive of the Reformed Tradition...// As one who practices Reformed Theology, I agree! I am Reformed but not Calvinist. I am Reformed but oppose EDD.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Hi, so I think there was some confusion on your end about my comment. At first I thought it may have been my mistake, but it seems that I used the word “distinctive” correctly, for it means to be a characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others. However, by your statement it seems that you interpreted my words to mean that not all Reformed individuals believe in [what you guys call] EDD. I also take issue with your claim that you are “one who practices Reformed Theology” and that you are “Reformed but not Calvinist”. I myself enjoy to tell people that I prefer the term Reformed, for not all Calvinists themselves are actually Reformed, but all Reformed individuals, historically, are “Calvinist” in their soteriology and so I’m a bit confused as to why you would make this statement, being that it’s incoherent on a historial level, unless you would want to argue that Arminius (who I’m sure you don’t agree with everything on) was Reformed, thereby broadening the scope of what it means to be Reformed beyond confessional boundaries. If so, I would love to discuss that as well as I take issue with that perspective that some share. Nonetheless, I think it should be noted that the actual point I was making is that not only those in the Reformed Tradition affirm these things you guys object to. Who I had in mind were the Thomists, who are certainly not Reformed in that they are Roman Catholics who take issue with Molinism and agree with us on these issues, as seen in the historical arguments made between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and then if you wanna add some fun to it, consider the Jansenists.
@@edwinnunez7538 // . . . by your statement it seems that you interpreted my words to mean that not all Reformed individuals believe in [what you guys call] EDD.// This is true. I reference multiple reformed theologians (and 5-point Calvinists) in my book who reject EDD. //I also take issue with your claim that you are “one who practices Reformed Theology” and that you are “Reformed but not Calvinist”. I myself enjoy to tell people that I prefer the term Reformed, for not all Calvinists themselves are actually Reformed, but all Reformed individuals, historically, are “Calvinist” in their soteriology and so I’m a bit confused as to why you would make this statement, being that it’s incoherent on a historial level, unless you would want to argue that Arminius (who I’m sure you don’t agree with everything on) was Reformed, thereby broadening the scope of what it means to be Reformed beyond confessional boundaries.// I do consider Arminius to be a Reformed theologian. He was a Reformer who died in good standing with the Reformers. I write more about this in a new book that hit Amazon on Christmas day. I encourage you to check it out: www.amazon.com/Human-Freedom-Divine-Knowledge-Molinism/dp/166671786X/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Mere+Molinism&qid=1640792287&sr=8-2 I also got a PhD in theology from a Reformed university. I literally have a "reformed card." It's pretty big and framed on my wall. ;-)
@@FreethinkingMinistries I will certainly check it out, although I don’t believe there will be anything new in the nature of your argumentation for the position that Arminius was Reformed. I would say, however, that Richard Muller has done an excellent job in proving just the opposite. I was also intrigued by your statement that you reference multiple individuals (both Reformed and “5 point Calvinists”) who reject EDD [as you guys call it]. I’ll have to check that out, but I have a feeling that these individuals you might cite are not at all articulating what you think they are, but instead that they are speaking in terms that go beyond the Post-Enlightenment categories of “Libertarianism”, “Compatiblism”, “Hard Determinism”, and “Soft Determinism”, something I would applaud and much exhort modern Calvinists to do if they want to be faithful to the Historic view regarding the Divine Will and Human Agency/Choice. Nonetheless that is solely an assumption I am making, and will have to read your work in order to examine the veracity of my predictions.
@@edwinnunez7538 Where do you get the idea that all Reformed individuals are Calvinist in their soteriology? Considering the father of the reformation is Martin Luther and Luther was not Calvinist in his soteriology, that is a baffling claim you made.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment (which haven't happened yet) would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined with no free will? That would be such a cruel and unjust God. Predestination makes God a Machiavellian: the end justifies the means, no matter how devious or unjust!
"Never look down on someone because of their youth. I think the apostle Paul said that." I wonder if he has Elisha in mind after he commanded bears to ravage youths when he said that.
I don't see why truthmaker maximalism has to he linked to some thing in the presenr and can't include past choices and events Why was Abe Lincoln president? Because he made a choice to run for president. All choices and events could be traced back to God's choice to create . I do see a problem with the grounding issue. Let's take the example of Bob. Bob sees a slice of chocolate cake. He could freely choose to eat it, with the reason that it tasted good, or freely choose not to, with the reason that he wants to be healthy. Now, according to Mollinism, Bob's choice isn't determined by anything outside of Bob and he could truly go either way. Yet, somehow God can determine that a universe obtains where Bob will cerrainly make one choice or the other. This seems to me to be a logical cobtradiction. If Bob is truly free, God can't determine which universe it will be; we'll only know once Bob makes the choice. If God can determine which universe it will be, that's determinism.
Yes, Calvinism is dangerous on a variety of levels.For starters, it represents God's justice as fundamentally retriburive rather thsn restorative, which likely has has shaped much of our legal system in the westm Moreover, It paints a very ugly and unappealing picture of God who is both the author of evil and then punishes people for the evil He determines.. It makes believers doubt their salvation. It's a soul crushing hope stealing picture of God that doesn't resemble Jesus.
@@PaDutchRunner There are a lot of ways. For starters, it could have simply been pragmatic; cleansing the world of evil. Retribution is about causing suffering for suffering's sake. However, I think 1st Peter gives us a big more than that. It tells us that Christ preached to those souls. Sin corrupts our human nature. Each sinful choice makes future sinful choices easier. So, another possible answer is that God was hitting a pause button on these people's lives so that they wouldn't corrupt their natures any further and could still respond positively when Jesus offered them the healing which He had accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection.
Hi Daniel, I’m sorry but these statements just aren’t true. You say that the Gospel “paints a very ugly and unappealing picture of God who is both the author of evil and….”. Despite it being blasphemous, it’s just nonsense on a historic and a philosophical level. I’m sure that at least you would recognize that distinctions are made in these discussions and have been made historically to respond to this accusation, but to simply dismiss them is a real shame. You then go on to slander Christ by saying that his Gospel “makes believers doubt their salvation” which is just something that no one sees on a practical level (although that merely anecdotal).
@@edwinnunez7538 Firstly, I didn't say 'the gospel' I said 'Calvinism'. Secondly, I'm aware of the attempts to defend God's character on Calvinism, and they're stupid. Take the idea of secondary causes for example. It's like saying that because I hired a hit man (a secondary cause) to murder my wife, I'm innocent. Anyone who is thinking objectively about it could see how stupid of an idea that is. Thirdly, it does indeed make people doubt their salvation. You're only saved if you're one of the elect. You can only know that you're one of the elect if you endure until the end. You can't know if you'll endure until the end, so you can't know that you're one of the elect. This has been a problem for Calvinists for ages. And this opens up an even worse problem for God's character on Calvinism which is that there are believers who appear to be genuine and then fall away. This can only mean that God deceived them into thinking that He had granted them faith, when He in fact had not. If God was willing to deceive them, how do you know He's not deceiving you right now? You don't.
What's "very ugly and unappealing" about God being "the author of evil" and the one "who punishes people for the evil He determines?" Never mind the fact that the devil and his demons are creatures God Himself made as righteous angels but however later assigned to them their kingdom of darkness in the heavenly realms when they "did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged." (Jude 6 NLT).
This was a really good show! I really appreciated the historical overview of philosophical building blocks. Unfortunately when you put it that way, it makes JW sound so much more like a propagandist. For me, I don't understand the high respect JW gets. When it comes to engaging with other Christians with Calvinism, he simply isn't intellectually honest. It's bad guys... it is really bad. I know so many who find him convincing, when all he is doing is using voice inflection to restate his claims, while doing nothing but a parade of logical fallacies. I am so glad you guys have the patience to coolly (in that yall look cool as well unemotionally) address JW.
This became clear to me during his exchanges with Leighton Flowers and Ken Wilson.
When you have already decided on a worldview, and your stance is "This is absolutely %💯 true, and nothing will change my mind", it would be so incredibly easy to respect and honor and believe JW. It's awful. This happens many times outside of theology, and I would be scared to death to see the stats on how many people hold someone similar in the same regard, in and out of theology...
@@bayesianhulk although James White isn’t a good representative of the Reformed Tradition regarding these issues, it’s quite amazing that you would actually imply that Wilson and Flowers are anything more than absolute jokes
@@ThaNewDealer723 Bingo.
I'm much more impressed when someone respects their opponents rather than the guy who just confirms everything they already believe.
21:40 Gersonides Open Theist
56:27 Molinism & Presentism
1:10:27 Mullins' DS papers
1:16:46 bookmark
It’s clear from scripture, that all men were created to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ! They must accept the free gift with their free will! Now, You have made things so clear, that I’m going to have to learn how to explain the basics of philosophy to those who hold to TULIP. As an ex Roman Catholic, and now a Provisionist, thank you and looking forward to your debate with James White
How can it be clear that all people were created to have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ when the vast majority of human history occurred before Jesus Christ was born and of those who have lived after he was born huge numbers of them never hear the gospel?
Quote from Luther: I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: ‘If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.’ . . .
If the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help?
The universally acknowledged founder of the reformation condemned the Calvinist understanding of soteriology. He calls it vicious and says it does away with Jesus Christ. Does that sound like he supported Calvinism to you? I think you need to do some research before making claims like "all reformed people historically have had Calvinist soteriology". That's blatantly false.
Oh man everything Dr Mullins said was so insanely spot on!
Awesome, productive conversation! You'll have to bring Ryan back on views of time before creation. Great stuff!
Amazing video. I am so glad to see someone who actually understands the origins of the debate and where all this comes from. This program was very insightful.
Thanks for the conversation. Very interesting. I agree with Ryan on both his "fallacies" and refutation of them. note, I am a Calvinist. Blessings.
great show
i always love listening to Ryan Mullins even though I'm a calvinist and a classical theist
though listening to this I always thought that theological determinism was a philosophical model that makes the best sense of the biblical data
Calvinist often make a critique of molinism by saying it's "too philosophical" and taking "man's word over God's word"
but I've always taken that objection to mean that it's a philosophical model that doesn't make the best sense of the biblical data
because most calvinists will say that libertarian freedom is a concept that is not taught in scripture and is instead assumed over the text
and if you do that then molinism makes the best sense of combining libertarian free will and determinism
that is of course assuming libertarian free will is a biblical concept
Greeting Jack. Exegetically, how does one see that a compatibilist reading of duty commands and culpability better fits selected portions of Scripture? Kind regards.
7:20 Oh my gosh this is so true! Glad I have a term for this now!
Thank you Tim! Wonderfully done! Especially your Christlike manner and always with a gracious smile! You make it fun! :-]
Awesome video! I wanted to respond to the guy who suggested that Craig condemned Open Theism as heretical. He has never condemned Open Theism as such. He said that he believes the view necessarily leads to depreciating God, which is where I believe the commentor got his assumption, but that’s the worst Craig has ever said (and it was, I think, over a decade ago). It’s no different than a critique that Calvinism leads to God being the author of Evil. Nothing Craig said implied heresy
This ‘episode’ deserves much greater circulation. I would encourage Mullins to publish his critique. The reliance upon Scotian moments alone should be widespread fact about Calvinism.
Thank you! Please help to circulate this video. I agree with you that Ryan should publish this critique.
@@FreethinkingMinistries 2x agreed ! My only critique of RT Mullins comes under the alleged scriptural underdetermination of Middle Knowledge. In my view, this is not the case. Greetings from one who was walked out of Calvinism though exegesis and not Philosophy.
@@Z__K217 I'd love to hear more about your story!
@@FreethinkingMinistries Happily. If I may, I will submit a message in your website. Kind regards.
Just found out that “bodge” and “botch” are the same thing. Learning something new every day! Haha
Also, these videos are very edifying. Thanks Tim and Ryan 👌
Molina? What about Genesis 4? God tells Cain that he _can_ do what is right, concerning the sacrifice, and asks, would you not be accepted? (implying that he would be accepted). _"But if not,_ know that sin lieth at the door", suggesting sin crouching like a lion, waiting to destroy him. So God says there are two possible outcomes, repent or not repent, and that each possiblity will have certain outcomes. Because God cannot lie, both of those possibilities were truly possible, even though God knows what the actual outcome will be. At this point, someone knocks me on the head and calls me stupid.
Brilliant eye on Scripture. Thank you.
Exactly right! Cain & Abel are an excellent example of a converts between God and man being utter nonsense on Calvinism.
This was good and understandable even on a ley level. Good job Dr. Mullins
I can't find anything online about this paper on Molinism that shows the history of it ore-Molina. Can you spell out the doctor's name for us and maybe link us to the paper, if there is such a link and you happen to have it?
3:37 Christian theology, philosophy, and heavy metal- the 3 best things 🤘
God is absolutely timeless. Jude 1:25, "To the only God--our Savior--through Jesus Christ--our Lord--be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, *before all time* and now and forever. Amen."
The history of omniscience starting around 16:30 was worth the whole video. Now I see why talking to Calvinists leads to a disagreement about the difference in knowledge and causality.
Excellent point!!
At 7:57 regarding sovereignty... To begin with, no definition of Biblical themes or topics are valid if they do not contain or reference scripture. Jonathan Edwards once noted that, "the sovereignty of God is His absolute, independent right of disposing of all of His creatures according to His own pleasure.” And that is in alignment with scripture (Psalm 103:19, 115:3, 135:6, Ephesians 1:11, etc.), and I don't think that anyone who claims to hold to scripture would deny that.
Now, just because God has the RIGHT of disposing of all of His creatures according to His own pleasure, that doesn’t necessarily mean that He DOES so. To answer that question, we need to dive deeper into the scriptures to see precisely how God rules, and what we see in scripture is the meticulous providence of God, that is, that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass.
Acts 17:28 - “…in Him we live and move and exist.”
Daniel 5:23 - But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and all your ways, you have not glorified.
Proverbs 20:24 - "Man’s steps are ordained by Yahweh
." The word translated here as “ordained,” in the Septuagint is the word ευθυνω, which speaks of how the helmsman of a ship guides and directs the ship in the direction he wants it to go.
Jeremiah 10:23 - I know, O Yahweh, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.
Job 12:10 - In whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind
Psalm 139:16 - …in Your book were written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them
Given that the Bible repeatedly indicates sometimes God does *not* get what He wants (e.g. Genesis 6:6; Jeremiah 7:31; Matthew 23:37...), the idea that He always does is not Biblical nor can it be what the Bible means by "sovereignty". On the other hand, the guarantee that Yahweh will ultimately get His overall purposes for creation (which is how Mullins defined "sovereignty") is indeed taught (e.g. Isaiah 55:11).
As for meticulous providence, let me first address the Scriptures you cited, and then I want to present a few that seem absolutely irreconcilable with that doctrine:
Acts 17:28 can be true if we just minimally need Him in order to continue living and moving and existing. It doesn't follow that He chooses our every move.
Daniel 5:23 again just indicates that our life and ways are in His hand. He could snuff us out or cease sustaining us at any time. It doesn't follow that our actions are by His choice.
Proverbs 20:24 in Hebrew doesn't even have a word for "ordaining" or anything of the sort. I know you're referencing the Septuagint, but I don't see much force in grounding a theological position on a word in a Greek translation which has no counterpart in the wording of the original text.
Jeremiah 10:23 -- I completely agree that it isn't in us to direct our steps. We ought to look to God.
Job 12:10 -- Same as Acts and Daniel.
Psalm 139:16.... That's not the natural sense of the Hebrew text; but I'll spot you that and just point out that Molinists also think all our days were known ahead of time and written in the book from before the world.
At best, these passages are consistent with meticulous providence, but they do not *teach* it. On the contrary, the Bible does explicitly teach *against* it in various places. I'll just give a few examples by category:
Passages that indicate God does not ordain evil choices of humans: Deuteronomy 32:4, 5; James 1:13-15.
Passages that teach that God *wants* everyone to turn back, so that He can forgive and bless them: Ezekiel 18:23&32 as well as 33:11; Acts 17:30
Passages that describe God in the position, not of the Ordainer of all choices, but as one literally *begging* us to choose better: Romans 10:21 (which is a quote from Isaiah 65:2); Isaiah 48:18.
There are even passages that indicate that God does not know ahead of time all of our choices (like Genesis 22:12; Genesis 18:20, 21; Psalm 14:2
@@Mentat1231
You said: *"Given that the Bible repeatedly indicates sometimes God does not get what He wants..."*
Are you asserting that man can thwart the purpose of God? That some things are not according to the counsel of His will? That some things are not from Him? Could it be that you are conflating God's will of decree with His preference? You seem to be reading the scriptures through the lens of a narrative sir, and they don't mean what you are trying to make them mean.
You said: *"There are even passages that indicate that God does not know ahead of time all of our choices"*
Then I'm not so certain that you are worshipping Yahweh.
You said: *"since you believe God to be omniscient about future events."*
Ah, so you're an open theist then, not a Christian. OK, that explains the lens you are looking through then.
You said: *"God presents Himself as someone who begs and pleads with His creations and hopes that they will do right so that He can bless them."*
So your god is not working all things after the counsel of his own will, and not all things are from him, to him, and through him, and man can indeed thwart his will. Your god seems to be no more than a glorified man.
@@lawrencestanley8989
1) I'm not an open theist. Though I am open to it.
2) I am a Christian, and I gave Scriptural passages to substantiate each of the points I made. Did you read them?
3) The distinction of decree and what He actually wills is not Scriptural. Theologians came up with that, and does it not strike you as somewhat duplicitous on God's part? In any case, I carefully left off the many examples that contain decrees and only used examples where He states clearly how He feels and what He actually wants. Again, and I mean no disrespect by this at all, genuinely, but did you read the passages?
@@Mentat1231
I did read your post, several times, and you seem to be overlaying a narrative on the scriptures and reading them through it; they are not saying what you think they are saying. Again, a god that can have his purpose thwarted is not the God of scripture. A god who is ignorant of anything in creation is not the God of scripture. Have you read the entirety of the Bible? It helps to see everything as one cohesive unit, not merely as a number of proof texts to support a narrative.
@@lawrencestanley8989
I have read it many times, but may I ask you: If it turned out that the Bible's full and consistent portrait that it paints of God did not match up to your standard (e.g. if He can want something and not get it, though certainly not with regard to His overall purpose), what would you do? Abandon the Bible? Or revise your standards to meet His? It seems to me that you may be in a situation similar to Jonah's...
"Before Abraham was, I am."--Jesus
Interesting video. I'd really like to know how chance fits into any theological construct.
Hum. "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge" Dress for action like a man; I will question you, and you make it known to me....Then Job answered the Lord and said: Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but I will proceed no further....Then Job answered the Lord and said: I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge? Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know....I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." Yep, I'd say that the response of Job applies in the wild weeds of endless theological debate. But, carry on, some people are interested.
Hi Tim can you discuss next time about the view of simple foreknowledge against Molinism. I hope you could do that just like what you did in Calvinism. More power!
This is a great discussion. What wrecks Molinism and simple foreknowledge for me is that, it seems to me that the only way Gid could have such knowledge of the future were if a) He determined it or b) a b-theory of time is true. Since I reject b theiry and determinism, I'm left with open theism.
Not knowing HOW God is omniscient is not a good reason to reject it. I know some Christians who think that since they cannot figure out HOW God created a physical universe from nothing -- ex nihilo -- that we must conclude that physical reality does not actually exist (i.e., that physical reality is illusory -- like the Matrix). I think that's a huge mistake. We don't need to know the "how."
Similarly, we don't need to know the HOW God has access to all knowledge. It might be counterintuitive, but it is not logically incoherent. Many things about the God revealed in Scripture are counterintuitive, but never logically incoherent.
God is not in time "waiting", it's a done deal from God's perspective... "Those He justified, them He also glorified"...past tense.
@@FreethinkingMinistries It seems to me that for a thing to be known, it has to actually be out there to be known. If the future is out there to be known, that's b-theory. Moreover, I find open thiesm to be far more consistent with the scriptures.
@@delbert372 Firstly, I don't think that's what that scripture is talking about. 2ndly, if time is a 'done deal' for God, that is b-theory (all of tine exists simultaneously before God, but we just experience it as passing. Meaning that the rape victim is eternally being raped in some quadrant of spacetime).
Greetings. Knowledge of a fact and knowledge of what explains the structure of the fact (such that the fact is known) are two different phenomena. To hold explanation in judgement upon a fact’s existence its to undercut many, if not all, mysteries in Scripture. At present, we have very little rational access in to the explanation of many Biblical mysteries, e.g. the Hypostatic Union, the Trinity, the Atonement, God’s perfection and the freedom of God’s will, etc.
Good job reading your notes man
1:17:11 hmmm. But Ryan OT’s would never say this… so how is it dangerous?
1st question is great. I think some versions of Molinism are very deterministic. I think Tim's defense of Mere Molinism is good and I can affirm that view I think it comports well with scripture. But I'm not sure the Dr. Craig version of Molinism is as easily pulled from the text. It seems like Calvinism with extra steps. It requires too much speculation about possible worlds and transworld damnation and the optimization of souls saved. I love Dr. Craig, and he could be right....but it's just too far of a departure from what we have revealed in God's Word. (This is how I feel about most of our atonement models as well)
When is Ryan going to spell out Mullinism
I imagine he'll spell it differently.
Who was that doctor he mentioned at about 12 minutes who presented a paper on divine middle knowledge?? I can't find anything about it on Google.
Dr. Kurt Jaros of Veracity Hill. Kurt’s paper has not yet been published. However, he presented it to a room full of philosophers and theologians at the ETS conference in TX last month (I was in attendance). His paper will be published in the future.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Ahhh,, thank you, I'll have to remember to keep an eye out for that, it sounded really interesting.
Dr. Seuss.
Great interview, thanks!
Ryan:* explaining logical moments*
Me: and that's why I'm an open thiest.
Some Calvinists are Molinists so how does that work if one is arguing Calviniism vs. Molinism?
I find it strange that God's sovereignty in this video is not defined by God's revelation of who he is in the bible but is defined by man's philosophical thoughts on who God is. Sola scriptura is definitely one of the divides between molinism and calvinism
Kerry, the Bible is under-determinative regarding exactly how sovereignty is defined. Thus, theologians and philosophers survey the whole of scripture to infer the best explanation as to how sovereignty should be defined. If we hope to be reasonable (Isaiah 1:18) then we will seek to avoid begging the question in our definition.
DW: Considering the fact that Exhaustive Divine Determinism (aka Calvinist version of divine sovereignty) logically entails divine deception of the believer - your position destroys itself.
@@dw6528
Explain what you mean by "divine deception of the believer."
Is Isaiah 63:17 where the prophet ascribes to God the ultimate causality for Israel’s wandering into sin an example of this "divine deception?"
@@lawrencestanley8989 Sure! This applies to Calvinism - because Calvinism is predicated on Exhaustive Divine Determinism.
Lets say James White's reading of scripture resolves that [X] is TRUE. And John Piper's reading of that scripture resolves that [X] is FALSE.
And it is also the case that both of them perceive their reading as TRUE
We have 3 conditions
1) JW is correct - JP is wrong
2) JP is correct - JW is wrong
3) Both JW and JP are wrong.
According to the doctrine of decrees - JW's perception was determined by factors outside of his control - by an infallible decree - and he could not DO OTHERWISE than have the perception he had.
Same thing for JP.
Now back to our 3 conditions:
1) It was infallibly decreed that JW be correct and JP be divinely deceived.
2) It was infallibly decreed that JP be correct and JW be divinely deceived
3) it was infallibly decreed that both of them be divinely deceived.
But notice the most critical fact of all - is that neither of them are permitted to discern whether their perception is TRUE or FALSE.
@@dw6528
But scripture is full of accounts where God ordains the facts and circumstances of men's lives, as well as the mutable nature of their wills so that they succumb to error and disbelief (1 Kings 22:22, Judges 9:23, 1 Samuel 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, Romans 1:28, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12), and also that they willingly sin against God (Genesis 45:8, 50:20, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, Isaiah 63:17, 64:7). Scripture also shows where He reveals Himself to some, while hiding Himself from and blinding others. Even in scripture, those who were of the faith were not all on the same level of understanding; Peter had to be publicly corrected by Paul for instance.
We may not always understand the "why's" of God's dealings with men, but we at least can point out that God does control men's understanding by what He chooses to reveal or hide from individuals. Do you deny this?
Well, I've got a degree in architecture, I know nothing of philosophy, and I ain't the sharpest crayon in the knife drawer, but here's what the scriptures say...
In both John 1:14, 17 and John 14:6 it is said of Jesus that He IS the truth, and Ephesians 4:21 declares that “truth is in Jesus.” John 14:17, 15:26, and 16:13 speak of the Holy Spirit as the “Spirit of truth;” 1 John 5:6 declares that “the Spirit is the truth,” and Isaiah 65:16 declares Him to be “the God of truth.” But this does not mean that He merely aligns Himself with truth as men do in Exodus 18:21, as if truth were some external standard with which He must align, and we know this because, as we have already seen, the scriptures declare that Yahweh IS the truth. We see in John 17:17 that the word of Yahweh is truth, that is, the intangible, sanctifying, essence of Yahweh is truth, and that this truth became flesh. Elsewhere we see that “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36), that is to say, Yahweh is the source, sustainer, and the rightful end of “all things” (see also 1 Corinthians 8:6, 15:28, Ephesians 1:23, 4:6, Hebrews 2:10).
Therefore any truth, if it is truth at all, has its grounding in Him who IS the truth (cf. Psalm 31:5), and any assertion to the contrary that a particular truth is outside of Him (such as subjunctive conditionals) is simply false according to the word of Yahweh. According to scripture, no aspect of creation (no truth about creation) can exist outside of the Creator and His eternal decree (cf. Ephesians 1:11, 3:11).
So, when the scriptures speak about truth, it makes the core belief of Molinism impossible; "Yahweh gave and Yahweh has taken away, blessed be the name of Yahweh" (Job 1:21).
I resonate with your crayon work. I wonder if Jesus ‘being the truth’, means he is the source and the ‘blueprint’ which all purported truth must agree with. So, source and standard.
@@Z__K217
Yep. Seems on point to me. Which makes me wonder why anyone who has studied the scriptures can fall for something that depends upon truth existing without any grounding and outside of God's control...
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thanks Lawrence. I am relishing how those in this thread with more Scripture in their veins, resonate with Middle Knowledge and are comfortable with the mystery of ‘how’ the Triune God of Scripture knows such things. Best to you.
@@Z__K217
As long as we stay within the bounds of scripture, we will not be prone to err. That is why Molinism fails.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Greetings Lawrence. I was actually persuaded of the God of Scripture possessing Middle Knowledge via Scripture. If we look at how many divine attributes are culled from the different genres of Scripture, e.g. God’s omnipotence, etc., it appears to me so can instances of Him possessing foreknowledge of subjunctive conditionals of human freedom be gleaned - thus, Middle Knowledge. Consider:
1 Samuel 23. God tells David some of his enemies’ subjunctive conditionals. Specifically, which cities they would catch David, if David were to go there.
Jeremiah 38:17-18: Subjunctive conditionals for Zedekiah’s possible surrender to Babylon.
Matthew 11:20-24 Scripture reveals some of Tye, Sidon and Sodom’s subjunctive conditionals of their human freedom. Namely, that if the wonders performed in Capernaum and Bethsaida were performed in Tire, Sidon and Sodom, then Tire, Sidon and Sodom would have repented.
1 Corinthians 2:8 God foreknew the subjunctive conditionals of the rulers of this age. Namely, if they had known they were crucifying the Lord of Glory, that they would not have.
Psalm 139 describes how the God of Scripture knows many of our subjunctive conditionals of creaturely freedom, e.g. words, choices in travels, our ‘days’ all written in His book, etc..
Then consider, that Scripture reveals that God has knowledge of persons before they were created, i.e. often ‘before the foundation of the world’, etc.
Jeremiah 1:5. God says of Jeremiah, that before Jeremiah was in the womb, God knew him.
Isiah 49:1-6. Isiah writes that before he was born the Lord called him.
Psalm 139:16. The psalmist writes that before they came to be, all the days of his life were written down by God in His book.
1 Peter 1:20. In section of Scripture, Christ is clearly stated to have been known by God before the foundation of the world. A special individual albeit, but an individual person nonetheless who was known before they came into existence.
Then there is knowledge of individuals before their existence in the Order of Salvation.
Ephesians 1:3-4 The order of salvation for individuals here begins with them ‘in love’ being chosen. Unless love is bereft of knowledge, then with the Romans 8:28-30, what is loved is connected to what God knows.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 Again, to be chosen before the beginning of the world reasonably implies we were known before the beginning of the world (as blueprints).
Romans 8:28-30 The order of salvation begins here with Foreknowledge of individuals.
1 Peter 1:2 The Order of Salvation here also begins with knowledge of God of pre-created individuals.
Revelation 13:8 Names written in the Book of Life, before the foundation fo the world.
It seems quite interesting that throughout these videos (including Leighton Flowers’ bad ones), objections seem to be made against “Calvinism”. Regardless of how bad I would say the arguments made in these videos are, it should still be understood that many of the things being objected to are not ultimately distinctive of the Reformed Tradition, but are often found as part of a broader tradition, of which, even the Thomists (as Papists yes) would fall under, for we would agree with them on these issues as much as they admittedly hate to agree with Dr. White. Overall, it’s either ignorance, or at worst dishonesty to not include these facts of history in these discussions (or video titles), neither of which are virtues.
//Regardless of how bad I would say the arguments made in these videos are, it should still be understood that many of the things being objected to are not ultimately distinctive of the Reformed Tradition...//
As one who practices Reformed Theology, I agree! I am Reformed but not Calvinist. I am Reformed but oppose EDD.
@@FreethinkingMinistries Hi, so I think there was some confusion on your end about my comment. At first I thought it may have been my mistake, but it seems that I used the word “distinctive” correctly, for it means to be a characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.
However, by your statement it seems that you interpreted my words to mean that not all Reformed individuals believe in [what you guys call] EDD. I also take issue with your claim that you are “one who practices Reformed Theology” and that you are “Reformed but not Calvinist”. I myself enjoy to tell people that I prefer the term Reformed, for not all Calvinists themselves are actually Reformed, but all Reformed individuals, historically, are “Calvinist” in their soteriology and so I’m a bit confused as to why you would make this statement, being that it’s incoherent on a historial level, unless you would want to argue that Arminius (who I’m sure you don’t agree with everything on) was Reformed, thereby broadening the scope of what it means to be Reformed beyond confessional boundaries. If so, I would love to discuss that as well as I take issue with that perspective that some share.
Nonetheless, I think it should be noted that the actual point I was making is that not only those in the Reformed Tradition affirm these things you guys object to. Who I had in mind were the Thomists, who are certainly not Reformed in that they are Roman Catholics who take issue with Molinism and agree with us on these issues, as seen in the historical arguments made between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, and then if you wanna add some fun to it, consider the Jansenists.
@@edwinnunez7538 // . . . by your statement it seems that you interpreted my words to mean that not all Reformed individuals believe in [what you guys call] EDD.//
This is true. I reference multiple reformed theologians (and 5-point Calvinists) in my book who reject EDD.
//I also take issue with your claim that you are “one who practices Reformed Theology” and that you are “Reformed but not Calvinist”. I myself enjoy to tell people that I prefer the term Reformed, for not all Calvinists themselves are actually Reformed, but all Reformed individuals, historically, are “Calvinist” in their soteriology and so I’m a bit confused as to why you would make this statement, being that it’s incoherent on a historial level, unless you would want to argue that Arminius (who I’m sure you don’t agree with everything on) was Reformed, thereby broadening the scope of what it means to be Reformed beyond confessional boundaries.//
I do consider Arminius to be a Reformed theologian. He was a Reformer who died in good standing with the Reformers. I write more about this in a new book that hit Amazon on Christmas day. I encourage you to check it out:
www.amazon.com/Human-Freedom-Divine-Knowledge-Molinism/dp/166671786X/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Mere+Molinism&qid=1640792287&sr=8-2
I also got a PhD in theology from a Reformed university. I literally have a "reformed card." It's pretty big and framed on my wall. ;-)
@@FreethinkingMinistries I will certainly check it out, although I don’t believe there will be anything new in the nature of your argumentation for the position that Arminius was Reformed. I would say, however, that Richard Muller has done an excellent job in proving just the opposite. I was also intrigued by your statement that you reference multiple individuals (both Reformed and “5 point Calvinists”) who reject EDD [as you guys call it]. I’ll have to check that out, but I have a feeling that these individuals you might cite are not at all articulating what you think they are, but instead that they are speaking in terms that go beyond the Post-Enlightenment categories of “Libertarianism”, “Compatiblism”, “Hard Determinism”, and “Soft Determinism”, something I would applaud and much exhort modern Calvinists to do if they want to be faithful to the Historic view regarding the Divine Will and Human Agency/Choice. Nonetheless that is solely an assumption I am making, and will have to read your work in order to examine the veracity of my predictions.
@@edwinnunez7538 Where do you get the idea that all Reformed individuals are Calvinist in their soteriology? Considering the father of the reformation is Martin Luther and Luther was not Calvinist in his soteriology, that is a baffling claim you made.
If "No free will to choose" were true then the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment (which haven't happened yet) would be a joke. Think on these things:. how could souls be judged and held responsible if their actions had been predestined with no free will? That would be such a cruel and unjust God. Predestination makes God a Machiavellian: the end justifies the means, no matter how devious or unjust!
Exactly why Calvinism is false
Tim Stratton! Hope you are doing well, my friend.
I miss you, brother! It's so good to see the last Apolojedi is still alive! ;-)
Gregory of Nyssa? You need to go to someone earlier like Augustine…Oops, Gregory died before Augustine even converted, never mind. 🙃
"Never look down on someone because of their youth. I think the apostle Paul said that."
I wonder if he has Elisha in mind after he commanded bears to ravage youths when he said that.
That’s a cute atheist trope devoid of any exegesis or historical analysis of the text.
@@lucashondros3418 what's there to exegete? lol
12:50 LOLLLL
Calvinists will never accept molinism strictly on the basis that Molina was a Jesuit lol
I don't see why truthmaker maximalism has to he linked to some thing in the presenr and can't include past choices and events Why was Abe Lincoln president? Because he made a choice to run for president. All choices and events could be traced back to God's choice to create .
I do see a problem with the grounding issue. Let's take the example of Bob. Bob sees a slice of chocolate cake. He could freely choose to eat it, with the reason that it tasted good, or freely choose not to, with the reason that he wants to be healthy. Now, according to Mollinism, Bob's choice isn't determined by anything outside of Bob and he could truly go either way. Yet, somehow God can determine that a universe obtains where Bob will cerrainly make one choice or the other. This seems to me to be a logical cobtradiction. If Bob is truly free, God can't determine which universe it will be; we'll only know once Bob makes the choice. If God can determine which universe it will be, that's determinism.
Augustine
Yes, Calvinism is dangerous on a variety of levels.For starters, it represents God's justice as fundamentally retriburive rather thsn restorative, which likely has has shaped much of our legal system in the westm Moreover, It paints a very ugly and unappealing picture of God who is both the author of evil and then punishes people for the evil He determines.. It makes believers doubt their salvation. It's a soul crushing hope stealing picture of God that doesn't resemble Jesus.
How do you justify God’s actions with regard to Noah’s flood if you deny retributive justice? Plenty of other examples in Scripture as well.
@@PaDutchRunner There are a lot of ways. For starters, it could have simply been pragmatic; cleansing the world of evil. Retribution is about causing suffering for suffering's sake.
However, I think 1st Peter gives us a big more than that. It tells us that Christ preached to those souls. Sin corrupts our human nature. Each sinful choice makes future sinful choices easier. So, another possible answer is that God was hitting a pause button on these people's lives so that they wouldn't corrupt their natures any further and could still respond positively when Jesus offered them the healing which He had accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection.
Hi Daniel,
I’m sorry but these statements just aren’t true. You say that the Gospel “paints a very ugly and unappealing picture of God who is both the author of evil and….”. Despite it being blasphemous, it’s just nonsense on a historic and a philosophical level. I’m sure that at least you would recognize that distinctions are made in these discussions and have been made historically to respond to this accusation, but to simply dismiss them is a real shame. You then go on to slander Christ by saying that his Gospel “makes believers doubt their salvation” which is just something that no one sees on a practical level (although that merely anecdotal).
@@edwinnunez7538 Firstly, I didn't say 'the gospel' I said 'Calvinism'.
Secondly, I'm aware of the attempts to defend God's character on Calvinism, and they're stupid. Take the idea of secondary causes for example. It's like saying that because I hired a hit man (a secondary cause) to murder my wife, I'm innocent. Anyone who is thinking objectively about it could see how stupid of an idea that is.
Thirdly, it does indeed make people doubt their salvation. You're only saved if you're one of the elect. You can only know that you're one of the elect if you endure until the end. You can't know if you'll endure until the end, so you can't know that you're one of the elect. This has been a problem for Calvinists for ages. And this opens up an even worse problem for God's character on Calvinism which is that there are believers who appear to be genuine and then fall away. This can only mean that God deceived them into thinking that He had granted them faith, when He in fact had not. If God was willing to deceive them, how do you know He's not deceiving you right now? You don't.
What's "very ugly and unappealing" about God being "the author of evil" and the one "who punishes people for the evil He determines?" Never mind the fact that the devil and his demons are creatures God Himself made as righteous angels but however later assigned to them their kingdom of darkness in the heavenly realms when they "did not stay within the limits of authority God gave them but left the place where they belonged." (Jude 6 NLT).
LOL. Methinks someone flunked church history and exegesis 101. This view of church history is embarrassingly bad.