51:06 -- *"The self vanishes, the "I" disappears ..."* Yes!! This is *exactly* what I calculated & why I departed Calvinism. I thought to myself, *"If true, I have no agency, no spirit, no soul. I'm just an involuntary recipient, much like a pebble in a river, guided by the forces of nature."*
For sure. I would argue that if Calvinism were true, nothing would matter. I mean we would all be puppets, and God can do what He wants, but our thoughts and feelings wouldn't even be our own, ultimately, under calvinism. Kinda the same end point as an atheist's worldview.
@@christian_gamer_guy6447 yep, not only that, but God would also be the author of evil and sin. Which is 100% unbiblical and if that is not considered an "essential" for Biblical Christianity, I don't know what is. Who God is and his attributes of love, justice and impartiality are completely destroyed in Calvinism, which is why I 100% believe it is not Christianity, as it clearly worships another god.
@@SerendipitousProvidence If God were the author of sin he would be absolutely culpable of it, but He is not the author of sin, man is. God created man with free will and it's man that sins, not God. Jesus is fully God and fully man and he never sinned. He paid for our sins. Not sure if that was your question.
@@SerendipitousProvidence Jesus is God incarnated, He is the Word of God, He is the Son of God. It's not a contradiction. God is one divine being who contains in Himself three separate persons. Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The trinity is not a concept I can explain in a comment but it's absolutely a biblical concept. Read John 1. God bless!
Our fight is not against flesh and blood. However; false doctrine should be taken seriously especially if its trying to influence and become a major part of the church.
Mmm. Yes. Paul is not saying That we don’t have human enemies... he struggled with a silversmith and a copper smith and called out some false teachers by name... he was just saying that our true enemy behind it all isn’t merely mortal men.
I really struggled with E.D.D. (or as I call it "Theo Deterministic Nihilism") about 2 years ago. I ultimately rejected it due to it's inability to answer the problem of Evil without; 1. Blaspheming the character of YHWH. or 2. Answering Euthyphro's dilemma in favor of the second option.
I watched his debate with Dr. James White, and I found it incredibly bizzare. White never responded to Craig's inquiry of God being the author of evil. Dr. White consistently presumed his stance was only from the text, seemingly not understanding that his position was crafted over a long period of time. He almost went as far as to say Isaiah was a Calvinist....it was simply bizzare.
bruce mercer Blameless & Shameless God has determined the obedient to Heaven and rebels to Hell. The question becomes contrary to our nature in flesh does His decision to save us contrary to our flesh? God makes the way. Also we are not just flesh. God breathed life is our internal sounding board. Even a sociopath can see truth.
@@rosstemple7617 meaning what? we are ALL disobedient. until regeneration we are children of wrath so until then all are hell bound as children of Adam. BUT God....
Excellent discussion! 😉👍 Leighton has come up with a new word - a combination of concise and succinct - conscinct! 🤣 Interestingly, I've never had a problem with God's omniscience because I've always understood God to be eternal and outside of time, and so He can know the future because He is already there. The past, present, and future are all in His present. He knows exactly how everything will work out because He's not bound by time and not stuck in the present. He can flip through all of human history - past and future - like a magazine. 😉
No no, this has philosophical problems. God's exist eternal before creation and exist temporarily after creation. Not that God is limited now, that's just to say His relationship in time is successional.
As soon as I heard the word “Omnibenevolent” in the syllogism I was like “Nope nope nope nope nope. Calvinists do NOT believe in omnibenevolence. Some of them admit it, some do not, but omnibenevolence MUST go out the window on Calvinism. We already know they do not believe in omnibenevolence even without a lengthy syllogism.” I was not familiar with Tim Stratton before this interview, but I do agree with him and he seems like a smart guy. He’s also right about James White being uncharitable, which is a habitual problem with Dr. White unfortunately, as I really like him on other topics.
People hold Piper up to this high standard.... and now his doctrine of "Final Salvation".... teaches that the only way you'll know if you're one of the elect is about self-reflection and fruit examination of one's life... it leads to nothing but doubt and doubting the goodness of God... I can't stand John Piper
First of all, thank you very much Drs. Flowers and Stratton for this extraordinary talk about Molinismo. I really like the idea of God’s middle knowledge; I think it's an interesting idea and opens up a range of questions that can be answered with good rational explanations starting from there. It is at least much more exciting than Calvinism. However, my problems with Molinism are basically the following: 1) The way it is stated God decided to actualize our universe. It is just too similar to how we, human beings with limited knowledge, solve optimization problems in science. And, to tell you the truth, I fear we may be making ourselves an “image” of God from the image of who we are. The approach closely resembles an optimization methodology or what is done in mathematical/computational modeling. If God had to make an evaluation of “what-if” scenarios to select the world he wanted to actualize, it implies He does not know “instantaneously” prior (i.e., just right before) what would happen, if he simply decided not to do such simulations. 2) I think the idea of exhaustive predestination (I’m more in favor of Dr. Flowers’ definition of the term “predestination”) is as deterministic as EDD. The only difference is that Dr. Stratton assumes “exhaustive predestination” is synergistic - both God and free agents determine what will happen, but in the actual world exhaustive predestination is still a form of determinism. In other words, the exercise of free will would occur in the simulation (in God’s mind), but not in the real world. I am not freely deciding now, in this world, because I am determined to the decision God evaluated I would freely decide in His mind. 3) If God actualized our universe in the way explained by Molinism, then God’s love we enjoy today would not be really spontaneous. It would be spontaneous in the simulation God made in His mind of the scenario He later actualized, but not in the actual world. So, how can God’s love be actually spontaneous in this world? As I said before, I like the idea of middle knowledge, and I believe God must have it, but I don’t know if I am missing something, but these are my doubts. Thanks both of you once again.
1. The first objection is responding to an anthropomorphizing of God. I don't think the intent is to say God had to take his time and decide. God instantly knew all counterfactuals and the ones he wanted and actualized that all in one.
2. No, God isn't determining it, he is rendering it certain. Think about it this way. If you know that, if you kissed your best friend he/she (opposite sex 😂😉) would kiss you back, then choosing to do so doesn't mean you determined that s/he would. S/he still has the legitimate freedom NOT to kiss you back, they didn't lose the freedom. As Tim once said on a podcast with Alisa Childers, if he proposed to his wife three weeks in she would have said no, two months she would have said no. But he took his time and when he DID propose she said YES, however she COULD have said no. See, it's the could/would aspect. She retains the true ability to say no, however she wouldn't say no.
3. God's love is not spontaneous, but it is personal. I don't know why this is an objection here. God has chosen to love a certain group of people, his elect who he chose knowing they would choose Him. That's the Molinist perspective. The Bible repeatedly says God has foreknown (known in advance) and loved us prior to us ever loving Him. So no it is not really spontaneous at all. However it is not less, but actually MORE beautiful
Molinism seems to be a version of soft determinism extended to salvation in which God doesn't force people to choose either to believe in Christ or not, but rather God manipulates them into choosing exactly the way God has chosen for them. How does that make God any less responsible for their ultimate fate? Does God know the answer to every hypothetical question? God "can" answer every hypothetical question but the answer might not be what you think. His answer might be, "That is an invalid question for the circumstances you outlined in your question will never happen." I believe C.S. Lewis said, "Hypothetical questions do not present real problems and do not have real answers." A young trophy wife marries a rich old man and she wants him dead so she can have all his money. He falls asleep in his recliner so she places his gun beside him on the end table. She calls her young lover and invites him over knowing he will find this scene and choose to shoot and kill the old man. Assuming he in fact does that, the wife is just as guilty of murder as her young lover. Molinism and soft determinism portrays God playing the role of the trophy wife, manipulating humans into evil choices he wants them to make. If that is true, then God is just as guilty.
“But rather God manipulates them into choosing what he has chosen for them.” False Not sure where you got this idea from this video. Perhaps you can provide a quote or time stamp. Men have libertarian free will on molinism! No compatiblism or soft-determinism whatsoever. How God gets the world that he wants is by examining before the foundations of the world a near-infinite number of scenarios of how free creatures would act if put in certain circumstances. If they act in such a way that that doesn’t accomplish God’s plan then he doesn’t actualize that plan. In all cases God is examining future knowledge of CCF (free human choices). When he actualizes a world then the things he knows about the future of that world will come to pass! But not because he controlled human will and determines their actions! His knowledge of what someone will freely do in know way has causal powers. Fatalism is false after all. As to your analogy, it is equally false. God’s knowledge is not univocal with God controlling a person’s choices as he does in all versions of Calvinism. In fact the reverse of the above is true in the sense that we cause God’s knowledge on molinism. Although temporally posterior (on a time-line we act after God knows what we will do), from a logical perspective we are causally prior to God’s knowledge) When Peter denies Christ God knew this fact before the foundation of the world. But if Peter had chosen to affirm Christ God would have known that before the foundation of the world. Peter is the agent in this transaction, God is an on-looker. Remember on all views of Calvinism humans have no agency whatsoever in accepting Christ or confessing Christ as lord. The commands to do these things make no sense on Calvinism. There is only one agent in these soteriological motif passages! It’s God. The rest must be some kind of kabuki theatre.
First; thank you for making a thoughtful comment as opposed to the snippets of anger more commonly seen in this type of forum. Second; I apologize if I have mischaracterized your impression of Molinism. My comment included the words "seems to..." I was characterizing my impression of Molinism and not just from this video, but also from a brief study of the writings of Luis de Molina himself. Perhaps I did not express my impression in the best way. Upon further study I still see a philosophy attempting to have it both ways, claiming that God "actualizes" the world unfolding exactly the way he wants it to, every event exactly they way he wants, but still claiming that he has given humans the free will to make their own choices. I give Molina credit for being very creative in his attempt to have it both ways but I still do not believe that is possible.
@ubergenie6041 For me, the rock of shipwreck is in the idea of "nature". If God creates you with an evil nature, you are "free" to choose all the evil options compatible with your nature. At the end of the day, then, this model still has God deliberately designing people to go to hell when God could have done differently. This does not absolve God of final responsibility for human suffering.
Dr. Stratton should do serious sounding video spoofing "the God of the bible is evil" videos and title it "Is Dr. Strange the Most Evil Super Villian in the MCU?"
@@JonathanGrandt Nope. Open teaches that God doesn't know some things until after the event. However, God knows all things. And what I said is compatible with molinism
Bingo. If foreknowledge = predestination, that commits the fallacy of modal logic; namely, that because God knows something, that it necessarily happens. This is flawed. We could chronologically choose differently, but then logically God would have known that we choose otherwise.
To me Molinism just sounds like a much more convoluted form of Calvinism. My issue is not with Him having foreknowledge (knowing what we will do) which I definitely believe He has, or even middle knowledge, in the sense that He knows what I’d most likely do in any given circumstance (since He knows me even better than I do) and using that to achieve His good purposes (like I would with my children for example), my problem is with the “possible worlds” scenario. If God premeditatedly thought of different worlds and possibilities before creating this one, and only actuated a world in which people in some given circumstances will respond the way He wants them too (even without causing them to), He is effectually predetermining who will be saved and who won’t, because freedom would just be an illusion since He chose to create this particular world and rejected the other worlds, so He would ultimately be the author of evil and sin because, given many options, He would have predetermined to create the world in which Adam and Eve sinned. And since we know that God is not the author of sin we cannot postulate that He premeditatedly created the world where they would sin. I personally don’t think that God picked and chose one specific world, because the only way that all this is not just a big game, is that if God just created one world (without considering other possible worlds) and gave us all free will, period. Because if you make God to be someone who picks and chooses between different possible worlds in order to accomplish his purposes, you definitely end up in determinism (albeit a more disguised and convoluted one compared to Calvinism), and you’d also grossly underestimate God’s power as well as taint His intentions. God is not like a big computer that spews out the best possible scenario just to win some sort of game, God created us out of love and in order to have a relationship with us and He made us in His image and our life is immeasurably valuable to Him, and He is so powerful that He can create just one world and still achieve His ultimate purpose. Or it would all really sound like cheating, wouldn’t it?
Well, if God chooses a world in which creatures have some libertarian freedom (in which God does not know which free counterfactuals will become true until the decision is upon the agent), that also ends with all his plan fulfilled regardless of those choices, would that be determinism?
@@kirin347 I believe God knows absolutely everything, past present, and future, at all times. He dwells in Eternity, like the Bible says, so He interacts with us, who are completely free, at any given time because He lives in another dimension, a much higher one in both space and time. His purposes will be accomplished. But He only conceived one world, this one, and we are 100% free agents. But He is surely infinitely more powerful and knowledgeable than we are, so He can definitely outplay all of us at any time if He wants something accomplished, but He won't interfere with our free will.
@@kirin347 And I do not think we understand determinism in the same way. God desires all to be saved but not all will be saved because of free will, many will reject Him and He won't force anyone to love Him. His final purpose is to defeat evil and have a place where those who are in it truly and sincerely love Him and each other and where there is no more evil. And He will accomplish that purpose without interfering with our free will.
Same problem here as mentioned around 26:00 mark. In doing apologetics with athiests at university, I wound up having to defend libertarian freewill with Christians instead. Long story how that came to be, but true and disheartening nontheless. Probably God's will for me, it really got me back into studying God's word.
I’ve experienced the same thing. I’m trying to minister to an atheist and some pride filled novice jumps in and starts arguing with me. I unfortunately have to defend an atheist against some religious ideology. Then I’ve lost focus. It’s like they want to keep them atheist so their ideology is right. Just one bad fruit of which there’s many within Calvinism.
The way I explain the omniscient or eternal now view of God, is God is outside of His creation and not bound in any way by His creation, and that includes time.
Melanchthon 34:00 is an unusual wrench in the Reformed system. Dr. Flowers brings up another unusual and forgotten voice of reform, the Anabaptist scholar Balthasar Hubmaier, 35:20.
Hello Leighton. I’ve listen to many of your discussions and I really appreciate you having your guest on. I’ve always been somewhat confused because I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying except for what happens at conversion. It’s like you talk past many Calvinists.
Unclear. In what way? Since Leighton regularly either quotes Calvinists in context or plays a video of Calvinist pastors what is the specific claim that is being made regarding Salvation that is “talking past” (AKA attacking a straw man)? Remember that TULIP is to the non-Calvinist an extension to the absurd of otherwise true biblical claims regarding salvation. Or perhaps you attend a Calvinist church where the pastor misrepresents Calvinism. I been in several that fit this description, blending views in ways that make for round squares and married bachelors
@@ubergenie6041 no. It’s not like I’m ignorant of the doctrines of Grace. I had it up in apologetics ministry for John MacArthur in the late 80s and was kicked out of the church for being a five point Calvinist at the time. Later on to find out that the whole church ended up embracing what I got kicked out for. I found this out 10 years later. So I know the subject matter very well. My take on all of this stems from a misunderstanding of what we would call the, “ordo salutis”. The order of salvation. Do you ever pray to God that he intervenes on behalf of some of those who you are sharing the gospel with? If you do, then you’re expecting God not to just providentially bring about certain events in that person‘s life, You being one of them, but what you’re asking of the Lord is that he would make a heart change in that person. So there is a point in time that the conversion of the soul happens which then will open the eyes of that individual to see the kingdom of God and to believe in faith which leads to justification which leads to salvation. So when you pray for God‘s intervention, you pray as a Calvinist though you fight against the thought set anything such as that could ever take place. In this way, I believe Leighton often times talks past the Calvinist. I am myself do not believe that he ever was a staunch Calvinist. With that being said, I also believe that many Calvinists talk passed Leighton. Nobody’s willing to listen. Just listen and hear the other person. That’s the problem within the body today. Especially on these platforms. Everybody’s trying to pontificate how their right and how others are wrong. Myself, I try to bring the body together because that’s what Christ would want. Not that doctrine is not important but despite our differences we should be as the Berean’s who search the Scriptures to see whether or not these things are true IN UNITY.
I have thought of the fact that the mere possibility that God can create creatures with libertarian freedom implies that God has middle knowledge. It's a good argument against the grounding objection. Another thing I have considered is the common criticism of White that God cannot change the subjunctive conditionals, and says this challenges omnipotence. Well... The fact is God cannot change why subjunctive conditionals, be it in middle knowledge or otherwise. Say you take a real event, like creation, and form it into a conditional statement "if God decrees the universe shall exist, the universe will exist." This is a subjunctive conditional which must be true because it happened in the past. Now ask yourself, can God change the truth value of that subjunctive conditional? Well no... Because if you don't change the condition the result can't be different. God can't make this decree and not have a universe come out of it. So middle knowledge isn't special in this way, God cannot change the truth value of any subjunctive conditionals.
Open Theism does *not* contradict God's omniscience -- whether Open Theism is true or not (I'm making no claim here because I don't know their claims). OT only violates a *bad* understanding of omniscience. That's because God knows everything that is TRUE. God knows everything that has ever happened because it DID happen, and He was there. God knows everything that is happening now because it is IS happening, and He is there. The future is not true -- it does not and has never existed. God can know with perfect knowledge *His* *plans* for the future, because He is in active control of them. He won't stop until He reaches the destination that He has chosen. And since God is eternal, He is not on a strict timetable. He literally has all the time in the world. God can also adapt His plan to the circumstances caused by the free actions of His creatures and still reach that destination. For example, God commanded Israel to enter the Promised Land and occupy it. They refused. That didn't destroy God's plan; He just took them on a forty-year detour. He still got what He wanted because He is in active control. God is driving the bus of history. Determinism is nearly Deism, implying that God set everything in motion so that everything unfolded as he decided beforehand so that He could be a passive observer. God's knowledge of the future is not a prediction.
I am not a Calvinist, but I see a significant flaw of Molinism. Although is true that Molinism (as explained by Luis de Molina) contents that God doesn't MOVE THE WILL of the individual, it stills has a strong view of election, and this election is very deterministic, or as a noted theologian calls it, is a form of "determinism by circumstances". But the main problem is that, just as Fr. MaCabe said, "Molinism has the distinct honor of frustrating both divine sovereignity AND human freedom". Why? Because according to Molinism, God's middle knowledge knows how you will choose in ANY give situation, and thus God puts you in a position so that you will choose the way you are choosing. And although you think you have libertarian free will because theoretically you could have done otherwise, you will choose what God anticipated through middle knowledge. Going to the example of Dr. Flowers in min 5, regarding the candy bar and the coca-cola, or the red bible or the blue bible, according to molinism you will choose "freely", but God knows beforehand how are you going to choose given those two choices. So, he creates (i.e., actualizes) the sort of world in which you will end up choosing the color he knows you will choose. That's why this is election by circumstances, and even though you think you are "free" in reality the outcome is predetermined (just as in the opposite model) Is then Calvinism the option? Certainly not. I would suggest people to study Aquinas and his view on Predestination, which affirms that God moves the will (Molinism denies that) but at the same time rejects Calvinistic double predestination. Another suggestion is to avoid the views of Dr Ken Wilson, that says that God chooses us because he foresees the good use that we do of the grace he grants us. That is very problematic and wildly heretical, so try to avoid that option.
That’s why we should not say we have free will, but free choices. God put before us the right and wrong answer. Applying God’s word to our lives makes the right choices easier to choose. And the adverse is true. But we are not like the world without hope. God is an ever present help in time of danger. Don’t make the mistake that God is at the end of time looking backwards. He’s outside of time now. God is also effectual. He’s our Father giving us our good. Not as the world determines good, cars money and stuff to fulfill all our pleasures, but what brings us into the alignment with Christ. Persecution, rejections and agony are the crucible that refines us.
This is why I hold an Arminius theology. I believe God gives us a choice: he gives two paths to choose from and if we choose. He knows our destiny if we choose salvation and he also knows our destiny if we choose to live our lives without him. Ultimately, it’s our own choice. We can always switch paths at any given time, depending on our own will (God’s path- born again VS not saved). We can also lose our salvation if we decide to depart from God’s path but we can come back if we chose to repent and put our trust in God. For many, they die before taking the decision to come back to God and end up in hell.
I am new to these discussions. I find lacking in them the following thought, under what circumstances does God desire to be loved. Does He actually want us to see Him as He is and there live Him, or does He want to shape us in some way to love Him even if that shaping might go against our freedom to choose without His interference? There is a difference between being led in a way that we have choice and being led in a way where we have no choice.
It seems to me that the idea of God creating the specfic world whereby, in that world, he knows every action that his creation "will" do under a set of circumstances and then actually creating only that world so as to get his plan accomplished is merely stacking the deck against any other outcome and smells of pre-creation determinism. I don't doubt, for one moment, that God could tell us of every possible choice that his creation "may" choose (prior to creation) or read our hearts to understand what we "will" choose (during our actual living) given any set of circumstances in this world but I don't think he forces that choice upon us pre-creation, nor during the exercise of our will. I also don't think he creates a very specific world whereby his plan is guaranteed (or forced) to succeed but rather he works, just like other humans, to get his plan accomplished without adversely affecting human choices in a way that would nullify the integrity of his final judgment. I disagree with Calvin's TULIP viewpoint. God ends up decreeing evil. I mostly agree with Craig, but not the choosing of a specific world whereby everything can only go his way.. I think there is a multitude of world's God could make, but decided in the "1" world he did make which allows relative human freewill and allows God to also be a participant without tainting future justice. In scripture, its reported that God wants all men to be saved and that he calls all men and whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, etc, yet he created a world where this desire shall not be fulfilled and he knows that. God gave the Hebrews exiting from Egypt a set of Ten Commandments and many other requirements so they'd be acceptable to him and obedient to his will, but instead of forcing his will (by determinism) we see God made a creation (the world) whereby his will can be ignored and not accepted among his creation. Regardless of his immediate will not being done, he acts throughout history and through each generation to accomplish his final will, the salvation of those who actually call on him and his other purposes.
You guys R Way above my pay grade so I might be a self recipient of the Dunning Kruger effect I think. certainly if your position is in the majority. You, Tim, assume from your presuppositions thatGod has pre knowledge of free beings. Why bother with molinism then?. IF it works, and I don’t see how it could, it’s merely a feather in your cap.
Can someone please post any scriptures he used in this talk to support molinism? I don’t think he used any scripture to support his claims unless I’m mistaken. I’m sure he has some I just found it curious none was used in this specific talk by him to support his beliefs. I’m assuming 1 SAMUEL 23:9-13 would be a main passage for molinists?
People try to overthink this. They ignore the fact that people can out out of character. It isn't just the thief deciding to rob the liquor store or to rob the gas station; it is also the thief deciding to rob the store or *not* to rob to store. He's on the right track about libertarian free will being the ability to choose within available choices, but he goes too far to say that people will *always* make those choices *only* according to their character. We choose from the possible options, not only from the possible options that match our character. A slave can rebel. A slave to sin can rebel against his own sinful nature and choose God -- especially if he believes that he can gain advantage by it. Calvinists believe that a sinner can't *want* eternal life in paradise with a loving God. How stupid. Determinism tries to put God in a small box, as if God can't handle making decisions on the fly. God needs a detailed script, but human beings don't. What a low view of God to suppose that human beings are more capable that God. They think God is so weak that a human being making a choice could unravel all of God's plans. How pathetic. And this gets to the main problem of Calvinism. Instead of being conformed to the image of God, they want to make God conform to the image of man. They say that God is good, but describe Him as evil. They say that God is truth, but they describe Him as a liar. The say that God is omnipotent, but describe Him as incompetent. They say that God is sovereign, but describe Him as restricted. They don't understand what free will means. They make assumptions about God's nature that the Bible never tells us, and then draw conclusions that are only supportable if their assumptions are true.
Jer 19:5 "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind-" So, since the acts never entered into the mind of God, did he decree them? If so, then God's decree include at least one event that he did not know would happen.
Leighton is often accused of hilarious mispronunciations but consider this. He says "coniferous lion" because were it a DECIDuous lion, it would have libertarian freedom!
My early experience with Stratton was exhilarating. He seemed to be the best defender of Christian free will I had ever heard. But the more i listen to him, the clearer it becomes that he is just a Calvinist in sheep's clothing. Huge disappointment!
If god knows what you will do in all counterfactuals, and is the creator of the universe, how is libertarian free will possible? In situation X, you choose to do Y. Either god didn't know what you would choose to do, in which case there's a least one counterfactual that he was unaware of, or he did know what you would choose to do in which case you couldn't possibly have done anything else, so in what sense is it a choice? If I press 2+2 on my calculator, I know what result it will give me, it's silly to say that it 'chose' to respond 4 because the nature that man programmed it with forces it to 'choose' 4. Maybe you want to say that in situation X you might choose Y, M, or S, and that god knows that these are the only options that you can make but not which one you will choose. But it that case (1) he doesn't actually have foreknowledge anymore than I know I have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 4 on a fair die or (2) there is some RNG determining which of the three you will choose so you don't have libertarian free will. Someone straighten me out, I feel like the Michael Scott they're the same picture meme.
"EDD" as you call it is philosophically indistinguishable from pantheism. It's closer to Allan Watts then Bible. But in my Calvinist Baptist church I've never heard such a thing. I've heard that God puts choices before us and we hear the gospel and how we respond to the gospel determines where we spend eternity. And that if we put faith in Christ It's because the Holy Spirit regenerated us from our spiritually dead state and caused us to put faith in Him. So we are saved by grace through faith alone in the finished substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. And the "predestination" is God's point of view and our response of faith is our point of view so freewill and predestination are two sides of the same coin. The explanation of this is given as "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts"
I've never heard of Molinism, but it just sounds like what I've always called Calvinism. Spurgeon was as Calvinist as they come and begged and pleaded with people to follow God. Why would you beg someone who has no free will to respond? That sounds stupid.
If God does not possess knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom (what someone would do freely under circumstances, X), then the only way for him to have exhaustive foreknowledge would be if he determined all future events logically prior to creation. Therefore, either God lacks exhaustive foreknowledge prior to creation (OT), or your left with determinism (if you reject molinism). If you go this route, you can't rationally affirm this conclusion because your choice is causally determined.
Carson does a great job here. I’ll add that the only additional option regarding God’s omniscience is open theism. Since Arminianism, and molinism drop out with White’s presupposition of the grounding objection AND Exhaustive Divine Determinism destroys the ability for one to reason (God determines what one claims is true, rather than an inductive, deductive or abductive rational process) therefore open theism is the only view left to rationally affirm given White’s argument. The argument is valid but is not meant to be an affirmation of open theism. It rather highlight how incoherent White’s argument is, and to expose White fans to yet more evidence that he is faking his erudition.
The idea of molinism was first introduced by a Jesuit, that should be concerning. I believe God knows counterfactuals. But I don't hold to molinism. I think we can affirm middle knowledge without the baggage of molinism. But it's not a dividing point.
Well it actually makes sense of verses like Acts 13:48 where it says some were appointed to salvation and many others. God absolutely knew who would believe by his grace in that instance and placed them there in order that they would be saved. That way predestination is actually really predestination, yet the choice to believe was free.
If I say , I’ll give you freedom to do whatever you want in my farm if you work hard on it and make it fruitful and you end up spoiling it , I’ll regret giving it to you and take it back ,
Christian: Could an omnipotent God create creatures in His image with free will? James White: Absolutely not! Christian: Why not? James White: Because I said so, and I'm greater than God! He isn't allowed to do anything other than what I say!
lol well said. They just dont like the consequences of free will. The consequence is that we are truly responsible for our choices. Choose God and you go to him, reject God and you get separated from him
Around 1:05ish that counter summary was funny. It is true that human rationalism cannot truly exist something the Enlightenment thinkers moved to quash... Shows how infantile holding to a form of Calvinism really is. Reminds me of militant Islam and Insha'Allah
Bible says Gods knows the end before it begins, I don’t see why is that so hard for people to understand, if you knew exactly what the enemy was going to do , you will baje the perfect plan 🤷🏻♂️
albusai Baje? God is ever present NOW. He’s also effectual. You make the mistake that God is in the future looking backwards. God is a ever help in time of danger.
@@rosstemple7617 the claim was God KNOWS the future, NOT “IS IN” the future as your reply suggests. If you recognize that misreading you can remove your strawman attack as it seems that God can be ever-present and have knowledge of the future simultaneously.
Calvinist apply linear attributes to an ever present God. So here’s how this works in their mind. God knows the end from the beginning so He is at the end of time looking backwards. And we are stuck on rails till the end of time. Part of the problem with this thinking is God is ever present at all times. Second God is stuck in His predetermined will on who to be merciful and provide grace as wel. Again this speaks against God’s ever presents. I refer to this as the box that Calvinist put God in. In this line of thinking they don’t realize that they are denying God’s glory.
Been interacting with Calvinists since the late 1970s and never come across the “End of time looking back view,” or “God’s stuck in His own predestination” inferences. God know the future because he is the only agent on Calvinism. Please provide a link to some scholar that holds the views you represented above. Thx.
The God breathed words are absolutly clear concerning the ability to choose to follow after God's will or run contrary to it, see Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, 32:35 for one INDISPUTABLE example for refuting Calvinism. The Jews did something that NEVER ENTERED GOD'S MIND.
From what I've heard it's kind of up to individual interpretation. Although on the face I think the Bible does point to eternal security which are evidenced by the fact that faith produces good works after salvation.
One needs definitions here. Romans 8 certainly demonstrates the idea that nothing can separate you from the love of God. However, we have texts throughout Paul’s writings encouraging people to persevere in the faith! Molinism and Arminianism weaken total depravity (T) to requiring conviction and revelation of the HS but human maintains their free will to reject the HS (blasphemy of the HS). Likewise the perseverance of the saints (P) is a function of continuing to believe and confess Jesus as Lord on molinism or Arminianism. No marionettes on strings with Arminianism or molinism.
Molinism and Calvinism are both proven false by the fact that GOD [1] changes HIS mind and [2] makes decisions based upon HIS interactions with people.
41:00. It sounds like the 11 point syllogism actually boils down simply to Omni-Benevolence vs. Irresistible grace. So, does this become circular? For Omni-Benevolence to mean or imply equal opportunity for belief is a non-Calvinist assumption. Whereas Calvinists distinguish between God's universal common grace love toward those He passes over in their unbelief and His special familial love for those He actively regenerates to saving faith. So, even though I'm inclined to embrace the benefits provided by Molinism, I can't see how this "Omni argument" is actually persuasive. Rather, it seems simply to clarify where the dividing line remains.
T Last sure simplicity has its truth that even children can understand. Don’t confuse this multiverse hypothesis with free choices. Free will and free choices are not the same thing. God is for us not against us, unless we choose to fulfill our flesh instead of becoming like Christ. It is that simple
Let’s say that God “saw” into the future and catalogued all that Tim was going to do 7 days after Tim did this program. God then tells Tim that he is going to commit a heinous sin 7 days from after the program. How is this not determinism? What If Tim tells God that he does not want to commit a heinous sin 7 days from now? No amount of prayer or begging will change what happens seven days from now. It could be said that seven days from now he will willingly want to commit the sin. But how does this differ from those who deny libertarian freedom? The facts are identical in both views. Calvanists would say that God ordained this eternal facticity and the Molinist would say that the future unavoidable acts that Tim will do are nevertheless acts he will freely carry out. The distinction makes no difference. Calvanists insists the future is determined while Molinists insists it is not. But the eternal facticity is the same on both accounts. This is the scenario that “knowing” the future as facts creates.
This looks that way to us because we live out our lives in time.. i.e, we experience life moment to moment. So, our knowledge and experience is time dependent. This is not true of God. Gods knowledge transcends time. So when we are comparing human choices to divine foreknowledge, we are comparing things that exist in different planes/levels. Think of it this way. Suppose, you had a camera which showed you what would happen 20 years into the future. In such a situation, you could make decisions and see their impact 20 years later, and know this would happen for sure without determining anything. This is the difference between knowledge and determinism.. As per the bible, God has foreknowledge.
"Could God create..."? That's very key question. I've used it as an opener with Christians and Jews who.deny the deity of Messiah in this way: The question is not could God come to earth as a man; the question is did he?
Natural knowledge, middle knowledge, free knowledge...no knowledge. Professing to be wise, they became fools. I agree with many of this guy's conclusions, but he's unnecessarily complicating the truth. It takes him hours to decide what ordinary people can understand in a few seconds.
I believe that God could only make "1" possible creation that has unlimited freedom for salvation and any other type of creation would be unnecessarily limiting. This unlimited salvation choice creation is the world we live in. Out of all the possible worlds God could make, he thought up the only "1" world, thereby discarding the untold trillions (or more) of possible worlds that don't work. A world where God desires all people to be saved and allows sufficiently free will to choose but knows due to evil, not all people will make the choice to seek him. Evil should not be defined strictly as humanly bad things but rather more of choices and actions that God himself would not/could not choose due to his holiness. Anything outside the will of God for man is evil. Evil is like darkness, it's the absence of light. God allows the expression of evil but is not dependent on it to accomplish his purposes. Evil does serve a unique role in that it automatically separates the sheep from the goats and condemns itself and its bearer as being outside the will of God in view of future judgment. I see God as a personality similar to human personalities in that, he has a will and a purpose and can actively work through civilizations to bring his purposes into being without violating the "relative" free will of his created beings. No being has absolute free will, not even angels. Everyone is affected by the world they find themselves in and by the beings they come into contact with. Only God can exercise absolute unaffected unfettered free will, but he seems to allow himself, at times, to "relative" free will. He can still move people to action, similar to humans moving other humans to action, without removing their exercise of freewill, nor tainting the cause of their judgment. Any logical mistakes above are entirely my own but this is what I've gleaned by and through scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit over 44 years, without any significant church teaching. I'd say I'm a eclectic mix of Arminism and Molinism. I'm open to intelligent and honest rebuttal.
Molinism: Prior to the Creation of the World, God knew for certain that if He were to create Johnny J, then Johnny J would reject Him and go to Hell. God still goes ahead and creates Johnny J, and by that one act - the act of creating Johnny J - God has doomed Johnny J to Hell. God’s act of creating Johnny J is the creation of a Non Elect person. Molinism is just another version of Calvinism. God is still creating Elect and Non Elect.
One caveat being that this is different from Calvinism because God actually gives the person Johnny J free will and presents him with the Gospel and enough evidence needed to make a free decision. Johnny J chooses for himself that he will reject it. Johnny is responsible because he is able to respond. God knowing that Johnny would reject doesn't mean God made Johnny reject
This is a problem for Arminianism also. God created a world full of humans and He knew that many would reject Him and go to hell.. Still God went ahead with creation. This is a result of God's omniscience. Only open theists can believe that God didn't know who would choose or reject Him before the act of creation.
@@yodasoja2011 Johnny is not able to respond and become a Christian, so that, He actually is a Christian. The reason, is that ….. 1. God would have a different World than the World He decided to create and did Create. The World He decided to create was one where Johnny rejects Him and goes to Hell. 2. God would have got it wrong in His knowledge [ regarding Johnny ] which He had prior to the creation of the World. God truly believed that Johnny would reject Him and go to hell. But Johnny is now saved and going to Heaven. But…. God can never be wrong. Thus: Johnny cannot get saved and become a Christian, so that, He actually is a Christian. Once God actualizes or creates His chosen Possible World, then everything in that World has to play out exactly as He has seen it in His mind prior to the creation of the World. It is deterministic. There is no free will to change anything.
1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist. 2- If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist. 3- If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist. 4- Rationality and knowledge exist. 5- Therefore, libertarian free will exists. 6- Therefore, the soul exists. 7- Therefore, naturalism is false. 8- The best explanation for the existence of the soul and/or libertarian free will is God. On point 2. Why is it the case that if an immaterial soul doesn't exist liberterian free will doesn't? Why does there need to be an immaterial part of a human for them to make liberterian free choices?
You're right in my estimation. An immaterial soul is not required to exist for LFW to be true. But something beyond the "whirring" and "popping" of mere material needs to be taking place for an entity to possess LFW.
I think that the argument would be that since all material is bound by the laws of physics, any purely material being's mind would therefore only function according to those laws, with each subatomic particle travelling only along its predetermined path. It would necessarily follow that any type of ability to choose would be illusory, because every decision is simply a set of particle motions, all of which are (theoretically) perfectly predictable.
